Let's Talk Taxes

While at the polls on Election Day it was pointed out to me that I had given up my Republican credentials because I was supporting the two, “tax and spend liberal” candidates for the At-Large seats on City Council. It was the “tax and spend” comment, to which I have also been associated, that I would like to comment on.

I’ve never felt comfortable with the current party mantra of, “No New Taxes.” It’s a negative statement that provides no vision/direction or solutions to the problems we face. On the other hand I remembers the days (and some will say they are still here) when the only solution to a problem was to throw more tax dollars at it—with little result.

There are those who point to the fact that we have the lowest tax rate among cities in Virginia, and in the region, as justification for increasing taxes. This approach does not take into consideration that there are those in our community, regardless of the current tax rate, where any increase becomes a burden. It also does not recognize that the reasons for taxation are limited. Any consideration of raising taxes should be based on meeting needs, return on investment, and/or for stated goals that have community support.

I have come to the conclusion that the issue is not how much we are taxed but rather on what tax dollars are spent on and outcomes. People expect a certain level of service and understand the cost associated with them. And if the proper use of tax dollars result in positive outcomes that expenditure could translate not only in a better quality of life but could also result in increased revenues thereby reducing the need to raise taxes.

At the local level all taxes dollars collected go back into the community through services—water/sewer, trash pick-up, etc.; and infrastructure—schools, police stations, etc. These expenditures are focused on three core areas of service, public safety, public works and education. While we could discuss how dollars are spend in these areas no one would dispute that these are where our tax dollars should go.

During the last years budget discussions in the City I received more calls on the decision to stop providing trash bags than I did on the tax rate. I also received calls asking me not to raise taxes but to fully fund groups like the Regional Library. Here is where we must deal with the issue of needs vs. wants.

We must define needs and wants. We must make sure we first provide tax dollars for needed core services. Only then, and only with community support, do we consider the funding of wants. Last year there were many community organizations that provided programs and services but one had to question whether it was the role of government or the community itself to support them.

An example of investing tax dollars on outcomes can be found in how we deal with our transportation problems. Richmond seems ready to give local government more control in planning for our future transportation needs. This effort will require additional funding that will probably, at least in part, need to be raised locally.

If local governments are freed to plan and implement local road and other transportation related projects based on a set of outcomes such as congestion mitigation and reduced road trips, we not only improve our quality of life but also decreases the cost to business making them more profitable, and attracting compatible new business to the area thereby taking some of the tax burden off residents.

In the face of uncertain revenues, increased costs, reductions in state and federal funding and more unfunded mandates taking the position of “No New Taxes” flies in the face of reality. To be able to continue to provide a quality of life residents expect, and to take advantage of opportunities to invest in improvements that will in time take some of the tax burden off our residents, we must have all options on the table. Its not only about taxes its about priorities and outcomes.


P.S. --In response to Larry Gross' post regarding a breakdown of local spending I would refer readers to http://tinyurl.com/2mdtmn then click on City & County Spending and you can get this information. Thanks to Larry for providing this site on a previous post on my other site Question Everything.

ROUND II

IT’S A BEAUTIFUL DAY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD……Needless to say I am quite content with the outcome of this election. Mayor Tomzak ended up with 64% of the vote and won in all four wards. I do have to say that the early posting implying that because my newborn niece, who obviously supported Mrs. Girvan, didn’t vote we should not read too much in the Mayor’s victory, is a bit of a stretch.

While the Mayor’s victory is impressive and signals that the majority of the community supports the direction of the current Council I do believe, through their own fault, that the views of a large group of residents were not truly represented in this election.

There are those who truly have concerns about preservation, the use of incentives, taxes, and the perceived degradation of the unique character of the city. Yet instead of putting forward a candidate(s) that shared their concerns they supported a candidate(s) that were prepared to tell them what they wanted to hear up until the day after the election—and a lot of them knew it.

Speaking for myself I am prepared to keep the debate going on these issues, and where possible, address them. For those who feel that Fredericksburg “lost” as a result of this election you have only yourselves to blame.

Just A Remider--It Takes a Team Effort

Much has been claimed over the past few months regarding credit for bringing the Cal Ripken project to Fredericksburg. Below is the first article to appear in the Free Lance Star that provided the details on how Fredericksburg was chosen.

Ripken Pitches City Ball
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/112006/11302006/240465

"Ripken Jr.'s sights were turned on Fredericksburg after last spring's College World Series in Omaha, Neb. Omaha native and investing legend Warren Buffett, an avid baseball fan, knew Ripken Jr. was in town for the games, and invited him to dinner.

As they dined, the pair talked about the Ripken foundation's work with young people, and Ripken returned to Baltimore asking his staff how his organization could partner with the Buffett family on a youth-serving venture.

Ripken's publicist happened to know the sister of Fredericksburg attorney Charles Payne, who does pro-bono work for Doris Buffett, a local philanthropist who is Warren Buffett's sister.
Payne said Ripken's publicist called him one day and asked if he'd be interested in helping to set up a partnership between Fredericksburg and the Ripken foundation.

"I said, 'Are you kidding?'" Payne said yesterday. "This is a great gift, I think, having these guys here."

This is how the Ripken Foundation came to Fredericksburg. Not to detract from anyone’s participation in this effort but they are just one of many people who has brought this project forward—city staff, the Parks & Recreation Commission, the City School Board, other members of the Council (excluding yours truly) and community volunteers.

No individual can take credit for moving a project like this forward. It will take the effort of many individuals and organizations, and a willingness to work together, to make this project a success. Building team spirit, focusing on the goal, and recognizing the efforts of others is also important. Fighting for credit and photo ops will doom this project to failure.

UNBELIEVABLE!

On April 25th the Free Lance Star, in a story entitled-- Checking the Facts
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/042008/04252008/374410 laid out the inaccuracies of Mrs. Girvan’s position on Auto Chalk. Mrs. Girvan’s response—post that same inaccurate information on her web site-- Autochalk aka "Robocop" - It's about Spending Priorities
http://www.girvanformayor.com/robocopstats.htm

In addition to the multiple inaccuracies pointed out in the FLS story Mrs. Girvan goes on to ADD a few more. “This system penalizes tourists & visitors - the very customers we're trying to encourage to visit downtown.” Mrs. Girvan KNOWS, and residents should know, that first time offenders, usually tourists, ARE NOT GIVEN A TICKET. They receive a warning letter along with information pointing out where parking is located downtown.

As for revenue, even with first time tickets being waived, it has increased since Auto Chalk went into operation. In a presentation before the College Heights Civic Association LAST NIGHT, Chief Nye reported that revenues to date for tickets are UP $20,000.00 over last year!

On her website Mrs. Girvan implies that the system has been ineffective because most of the tickets issued are hand written. The reason for this has also been explained on more than one occasion to Mrs. Girvan—because it takes less time to cover downtown, parking enforcement officers have more time to check for violations around the train station and the University.

I would invite readers to read the Free Lance Star story linked above for more of the details regarding the inaccuracies of Mrs. Girvan’s statements on Auto Chalk.

Mrs. Girvan KNEW that she was putting out inaccurate information. Even after the story appeared in the Free Lance Star she continues to put out inaccurate information. What does this say about her credibility?