Really Bad Property Assessment Policy
March 1, 2014
The Walrus recently learned that former Town of Somers Supervisor Mary Beth Murphy was appointed as executive director of the Westchester County Tax Commission by County Executive Rob Astorino, a fellow Republican. The job, which enjoys a six-year term, pays $132,155 a year.
Ms. Murphy told a local media outlet that she was “…very grateful for the opportunity to serve the people of Westchester, I was supervisor for 16 years, and I certainly dealt with tax issues during my tenure there. It brought exposure to multiple levels of government. “
The Westchester County Tax Commission ostensibly serves as the repository for the assessment rolls from the county’s multiple taxing jurisdictions; is tasked to provide advisory services to municipalities concerning assessments and assessment procedures; and produces an annual report to the county Board of Legislators.
Off hand, I’m thinking this person is absolutely unqualified and not fit to serve in this position. But, that is the nature of a system where officials are often elected to office based on a ‘beauty contest’ enhanced by a campaign war chest of dubious origin; then those ‘elected officials’ are free to appoint political hacks into positions which can have dramatic impact on society.
This pretty much says it all, another quote attributed to Ms. Murphy from her tenure as Supervisor in the Town of Somers: “We have a good way of reporting our tax bills, and did not see a desire for it by the constituency. The town has a very good reputation for its tax rate.”
According to what source? And on what standing?
The old “Home Rule” defense rears it’s head again. And, it was a great idea in pre-revolutionary war days. Sometime after the Civil War, Home Rule became obsolete, yet we still follow that logic in 21st century New York State?
Wondering why Westchester County has won the prize to become the highest property tax location in the U.S.? It’s entirely due to Home Rule and the incredible waste and duplication of services which result.
Most egregious? The folks in the wealthy white suburbs who are willing to pay through the nose to fund their quasi-private public schools, town and village police, etc. but who balk at the idea of providing any support at all to County taxes which in turn support social safety net services for their less fortunate neighbors.
More on: Education Funding Inequities in New York State
February 9, 2014
We have some 700 public school districts across New York State, and as Governor Cuomo pointed out recently in an interview, “It’s not about more money gets us more results. Because if that was the case, our students would be doing better than any students in the country, because we are spending more than anyone else.”
No one could successfully argue that the K-12 public education system in New York State is either (a) effective, or (b) efficient.
Designed and governed under assumptions which were likely correct in the 19th century, we continue to operate our schools as though we live in a world where the horse is the primary means of transportation; where oil lamps and candles are used for illumination after dusk; and where young people are needed early and late each day to do chores on the farm.
An article published on February 7, 2014 in The Journal News (http://www.lohud.com/article/20140207/NEWS/302070065/City-rural-schools-say-they-re-underfunded) helps to illustrate some of the complexities in state funding formulas which seem to have disparate negative impact on small city and rural school districts which are more likely to be both ‘high need’ and ‘low resource’.
Digging further into the mystery of school funding in New York State led me to the NYS Association of Small City School Districts, and the December 2013 newsletter, http://scsd.neric.org/newsletters/2013/2013%20SCSD%20Newsletter%20december%202013%20FINAL.pdf.
One of the outcomes of ‘The Campaign for Fiscal Equity’ was a promise made in 2007 by our elected officials in Albany that state funding would be adjusted to take into account both the availability of local resources and the relative “need” of students in each district.
As Governor Cuomo pointed out, we are already spending the most of any state on education, and our overall results are mediocre.
Indeed, it is not how much we are spending, but how the money gets spent. If our elected officials want to constrain education spending, they need to pass legislation which removes costs from the system. One way to accomplish that would be through school district consolidation to remove redundancies and spread fixed costs over a broader base.
Another way to accomplish holding the line on spending would be to divert aid from wealthy, high-performing districts and re-direct that aid to low-resource, under-performing districts.
When it comes to educating our young people, there really doesn’t seem to be any “starve the beast” solution on the horizon.
Let’s pay attention to this issue now, because if we don’t fix it now, it will only continue to fester and act as a drag on the economic and fiscal viability of New York State.
Zero Sum Game
January 12, 2014
Our elected officials love to make noise about ‘holding the line on taxes’ — whether at the federal, state, county or local level.
In the private sector, we know there are 2 ways to improve fiscal efficiency. One way is to increase revenues, either by selling more products or raising prices on existing products. Another is to reduce costs.
The public sector is much more complex, because of the layers of government which often overlap and have some redundancy.
One thing is clear: if the federal government cuts back on safety net services to reduce costs, the need for those services is still there. Provision of services (or some substitute) thus rolls down to the state, county or local level. In the jargon of economists, that’s known as the ‘Zero Sum Game’.
I live in the City of Mount Vernon in lower Westchester County NY.
Westchester has a very large share of residents who are among the wealthiest Americans. Some call their Westchester residence home, while others use their Westchester property as a secondary or tertiary residence. Because of these very wealthy families who own extraordinary properties, Westchester has one of the highest median property values in the United States, and is ranked 1st of the 3143 U.S. counties in order of median property taxes.
What they fail to mention is that most properties in Westchester County are taxed by 3 different entities: The County (18%); the municipality (22%); and the school district (60%).
For me and my Mount Vernon neighbors, the estates of the landed gentry might as well be on another planet.
Those of us who live in Mount Vernon are seeing the effects first hand of what happens when politics gets in the way of reality. We experienced a very contentious and hard-fought battle for the office of County Executive in the second half of 2013.
The incumbent, Rob Astorino, campaigned relentlessly on his Tea Party platform of No Tax Increases!
Despite the fact that county property taxes in Westchester typically represent less than 20% of the total property tax burden, the sound bite of No Tax Increases, combined with a consistent message that his opponent – in his role as Mayor of New Rochelle – had raised taxes on New Rochelle property owners, Mr. Astorino gained the support of a number of factions, including some elected officials, and he was re-elected.
Now, because the County has not increased taxes, it has cut funding for vital services, and guess where the vital services are most needed?
Cities like Mount Vernon, Yonkers, New Rochelle, Peekskill are left holding the bag. No funding from the County for services? City taxpayers pick up the tab in their City budget, instead of spreading the tax burden across the broader County tax base and allowing property owners in all areas to share the cost of services which tend to impact most on lower-income areas.
A recent report ranked 4 Westchester towns — including Briarcliff, Lewisboro, Irvington and Pleasantville — as some of the safest areas in New York State to live. Those folks can well afford to pay for great schools, plenty of police, etc. in part because they don’t get burdened with covering the costs of services in less affluent communities.
Here in Mount Vernon, we have an elected City Council member who was a vehement supporter of Rob Astorino in his re-election campaign, loving the promise of no tax increases. Now, the City taxpayers are facing an 8% City tax increase in order to maintain some semblance of vital services which the County will no longer provide due to budget cuts.
Our City Council member is visiting somewhere in the Twilight Zone, creating her own illusions of reality, and she has supporters who believe in her?
Let me warn you folks: Don’t drink any of her Kool Aid! And, be very careful of the messages you hear on the election trail!
The Marijuana Dilemma
September 4, 2013
Back when the Walrus was just a pup, the great George Santayana wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Another version is printed as “Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.”
However we weave the words, the concept is that we can look back at history, and use the outcomes from various actions to inform what might happen in the present should we repeat an action from the past.
It could be a military action: The outcomes from the Vietnam War could have provided a lesson to the U.S. in 2001 that invading foreign countries over ideological and/or religious principles is an absolute exercise in futility. Instead, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and now is contemplating military sanctions against Syria.
It could be an industrial action: The outcomes from the Love Canal saga in Niagara Falls, NY where the NYS Health Department proclaimed this as a “national symbol of a failure to exercise a sense of concern for future generations” could have provided a lesson to the U.S. in 2005 when the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was substantially amended.
Instead of using the mistakes of the past to inform us in the present, the federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 contains a provision that has come to be known as the “Halliburton Loophole” — an exemption that excludes gas drilling and extraction activities (popularly known as ‘fracking’) from requirements in the SDWA by making the chemicals found within fracking fluid a “trade secret” – thus exempting them from any regulatory oversight.
It could be a social action:. Prohibition – implemented in 1920 as a result of the 18th Amendment – came about from presumably well-intentioned activity championed by The Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU). They believed that banning alcohol would reduce domestic violence, child abuse, and crime.
By the time Prohibition was repealed (1933) by ratification of the 21st Amendment, it should have been clear that even an amendment to the U.S. Constitution wasn’t going to change human propensity toward relaxation and enjoyment.
Prohibition didn’t work at the basic human level, and it helped to create an off-the-grid economy which brought all of the activities of manufacture, distribution and retailing of alcoholic beverages out of the legitimate economy where it was regulated and taxed, into a shadow economy which ostensibly was controlled by organized crime and bootleggers.
Before Prohibition, the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages was regulated and taxed, providing a net positive benefit to government operations; after, the enforcement costs spiraled while revenue disappeared.
Prohibition of alcohol was repealed in 1933, yet 80 years later, we continue to make growing, distribution and consumption of marijuana a criminal activity.
As a nation, we are spending somewhere near $6 Billion annually to attempt to enforce archaic regulations pertaining to marijuana related activities.
We receive no income taxes, no sales taxes and no revenue taxes related to marijuana production, distribution or sales. There is plenty of legitimate research which shows that marijuana is less harmful. – In fact, more salubrious – than alcohol.
As a taxpayer, I say, “stop wasting my tax dollars on pointless enforcement; legalize, regulate and tax marijuana; and reduce my property and income tax burden attributable to archaic and foolish laws and regulations!”
Battle Royale: Westchester County Executive 2013
August 8, 2013
Rob Astorino – young and inexperienced – was elected to become County Executive in Westchester County NY in November 2009. He ran on a Tea Party platform — at the time (and still today), property owners in the 40+ towns, villages and cities in Westchester County were paying about the highest property taxes in the U.S. Astorino won the election on his promise to cut Westchester County property taxes.
Good news: he succeeded. He delivered what he promised. My County property taxes have decreased by almost $200 since Rob Astorino was elected!
On the other hand, my total property taxes – including City, School and County – increased by +$3,500 since Mr. Astorino was elected — an increase of over 18%.
Over the past 3 years, I have watched Westchester County cut support for safety net services and send the responsibility for providing those services downstream to the local towns, villages and cities.
That makes me very sad, because while the need for services doesn’t go away, and we can and do save $1 in taxes at the County level, only to find that our local municipal and school taxes go up by $3.
We need a County Executive who is able to see and understand the big picture, not a County Executive who has no experience other than as a silver tongued broadcast journalist. This is the 21st century, and we are in a very competitive economic environment.
We just can’t afford the distractions which come from our County leadership sparring with State or Federal government over issues like a consent decree for fair housing, or a mandate for clean water.
Noam Bramson gets it. He is a moderate, middle-of-the road leader who is able to see the big picture and make decisions based on the best interests of the majority of citizens today – and in the future — of our Westchester communities.
Let’s help Mr. Astorino return to his real strength – broadcast journalism – where he has the best chance of making a mark on the American landscape which doesn’t damage the lives of so many good people…..
Tea Party Thoughts
August 4, 2013
I’ve recently been called out as a bigoted liberal who is a ‘hater’.
I think the reason for that is that I take exception to some current Tea Party shenanigans. I try not to be a ‘hater’ but I am willing to call out when I see or hear commentary which seems to be non-productive.
Here are some Walrus thoughts:
A widely accepted view of Liberalism incorporates the political philosophy founded on ideas of liberty and equality. It is generally acknowledged that Liberals support ideas such as: free and fair elections; civil rights for all people; freedom of the press; freedom of religion; free trade; and rights of people to own and protect their private property.
The 17th century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding Liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property and according to the social contract, governments must not violate these rights.
The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights reflect that the very foundation of our country is based on Liberal principles.
The original ‘Tea Party’ – The Boston Tea Party (circa 1770) — was all about anger and resentment of British mandates on the Colonies – often summarized as an objection to “Taxation without Representation”.
Today’s Tea Party seems to claim a connection to the Boston Tea Party, though I don’t grasp their logic, or see any connection at all.
We have a governmental structure in the U.S. which allows and encourages everyone eligible to vote to get engaged in the political process and to vote. In 21st century America, there is no “Taxation without Representation”.
The basic tenets of the modern Tea Party – as I understand them – are to reduce government spending thus cutting taxes on U.S. citizens.
I’m all for that.
The only way I know of to reduce government spending is to re-engineer government.
The majority of my tax burden comes from a combination of taxes on: (1) Income (Federal and State); (2) Sales (State, County & City); and (3) Property (County, City and School District).
There are plenty of other taxes I pay which are buried in: my telephone bill(s); my utility bills(s); the gasoline I purchase; hotels I stay in; and airplanes I fly on.
Slashing spending without a plan to re-engineer government is a recipe for disaster.
Other than calls to “cut taxes, make government smaller and reduce spending” I haven’t heard or seen any sort of plan. Lots of noise, no plan? It wouldn’t fly where I work.
Fact is, the current Tea Party movement is quite similar to the Contract with America which was championed by Newt Gingrich in the 1990’s. It was all about shrinking the size of government, promoting lower taxes, and eviscerating safety net programs for disadvantaged people.
No plan, just a lot of noise.
Prior to that, we had The Moral Majority, which started in the mid 1970’s when Jerry Falwell created a national platform to raise awareness of social issues important to him and his followers.
The Moral Majority was launched and heavily supported by a coalition of conservative southern Christian right leaders, congregations and political action committees which campaigned on issues its personnel believed were important to maintaining its Christian conception of moral law, a conception they believed represented the opinions of the majority of Americans.
At its peak, the membership of the Moral Majority was in the 4 million range, with over 2 million donors. It was one of the largest conservative lobbing groups in the U.S. at its zenith. Their first key victory was the defeat of Jimmy Carter by Ronald Reagan in 1980, and they continued to have power and influence until the late ‘80’s.
Again, a lot of noise, but no plan to reduce the overall size of government.
Before that, many of our fellow Americans who identified with this ideology were members of the Ku Klux Klan, and some still are, apparently….
$30 Million per Day
May 9, 2013
My friend Jack Flood lives the good life in Vermont. Sometimes, he does get fired up about things, and he’s been known to revert to some pretty salty language when things seem to be getting way out of control.
I say all of that because it was Jack who inspired me to look into this stuff about the “Benghazi Cover-up” that we are now reading and hearing about.
Sorry, Jack, we have to start with some really boring stuff.
The fiscal year for the 2013 U.S. Government began on October 1, 2012 and will end on September 30, 2013.
Total spending approved in this budget is $3.8 Trillion, so the costs to U.S. Taxpayers of just over $5 Billion to support our 535 elected officials who serve in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is just a drop in the bucket.
This $5 Billion number is way beyond the basic costs of salaries and benefits for our elected officials. It incorporates all of the costs of support staff, office expenses and so forth – what accountants call “fully loaded costs”.
When you look at the approximately 175 days Congress is in session, that $5 Billion annual number breaks down to about $30 Million per day, still just a drop in the bucket of our full $3.8 Trillion Federal budget.
That said: It is this $5 Billion annual investment of taxpayer dollars that we rely on to put in place the checks, balances and controls which we count on to ensure our overall Federal spending is wise, efficient and effective.
Those who are elected to the House of Representatives in the U.S. must be at least 25 years old; Elected Senators must be at least 30 years of age. These folks are adults, by any definition.
Jack asked: Over the past 2 years, what has our Congress accomplished that has any value to U.S. taxpayers?
I agreed to do some research and report back to him.
Frankly, I’m nervous. I’ve watched from the sidelines over the past several years while these elected adult citizens of the U.S. seem to pursue their own petty personal political games.
Jack is particularly interested in a current situation: A Congressional investigation into the tragic attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 which resulted in the deaths of 4 American citizens.
Jack told me that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was called to testify on January 23, 2013 before the House Foreign Affairs Committee about the deadly assault in Benghazi.
At that apparently friendly, fact-finding hearing on January 23, a newly elected Senator from Wisconsin — Senator Ron Johnson – may have stepped a bit beyond the boundaries of decorum, resulting in an answer from Clinton that has been taken out of context: “What difference, at this point, does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again.”
I’m not sure about that answer. After all, wasn’t her husband almost impeached a few years back?
I plan to contact Kenneth Starr and dig a bit deeper before I agree to consider supporting Jack Flood in his quest to reduce wasteful spending by our elected officials in Washington.
Wizard of Oz & Sequestration
February 23, 2013
For the first 210 +/- years of our 2-party Democracy, we were blessed to have elected officials who were statesmen and who seemed to place the public good before their own personal agendas.
Since the birth of Americans for Tax Reform under the leadership of Grover Norquist – and subsequently the rise of ‘Tea Party’ backed candidates — we’ve witnessed a series of national dramas which seem to accomplish nothing, but waste scarce resources and divert our elected leaders from doing the job we elected them to do.
The only honest and sustainable way to reduce taxes is to re-engineer and reform government, and that requires a great deal of analysis, planning and making tough decisions.
It seems that some of our elected officials just don’t want to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work; then make the tough decisions which are supported by careful analysis and research.
We just can’t let a farmer from rural Ohio continue to hold our country hostage because of some wealthy campaign contributor(s) he is beholden to.
That’s not a Democracy: it is a ‘Wizard of Oz’ Dictatorship.
And that’s wrong, terribly wrong.
http://www.dccc.org/page/s/sequester-ja?source=fb_auto_share_sequester_ja
A Letter to Hon. John Boehner
December 28, 2012
Hon. John Boehner
Office of the Speaker
H-232 The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Boehner:
I’ve been following the saga of ‘the fiscal cliff’ since the end of summer 2012.
It was made very clear to us outside the Beltway (commonly known as citizens, voters and taxpayers) that our elected officials in Congress would take no action until after the November elections.
As disappointing as that news was, it seemed reasonable and appropriate to many of us on the outside to expect that our elected officials would do some talking behind the scenes in preparation for a call to action after the election at which time our elected officials would work together in the best interest of the overall U.S. economy — business, commerce, education and the citizens of the United States.
Now – several months later and just a few days from the ‘tipping point’ a.k.a the ‘fiscal cliff’– we seem to have a continuation of the petty, partisan and puerile drama that has come to categorize our Congress following the national elections of 2010.
November 2010 marked the point in time when a number of conservative tea party candidates were elected to the House of Representatives. The infusion of passionate but neophyte tea party representatives — all of whom signed the Grover Norquist Pledge — precipitated your election as Speaker in January 2011, which coincidently seems to mark the beginning of extreme dysfunction in our nation’s capital.
I have listened to you and some of the ‘young rascals’ who were elected in 2010 under the tea party platform.
When I listen, I hear some really great sound bites, focused almost entirely on the federal government.
There is no one I’ve met who wouldn’t like to see smaller government and reduced government spending — sweetened by the magic elixir of reduced taxes.
The real problem seems to be: Government (as we see and interact with it from outside the Beltway) includes federal, state, county, local, schools and a vast number of entities which operate in the public sector as ‘quasi-government’ agencies.
As a citizen, voter and taxpayer in the U.S., I know I pay: federal income taxes; federal excise taxes; state income taxes; state sales taxes; county property taxes; county sales taxes; city property taxes; city sales taxes; city sewer taxes; city library taxes; and property taxes levied by my local school district. I can quantify the majority of those taxes: what I can’t quantify is the amount of other government and quasi-government fees and taxes I pay daily, weekly monthly or annually: highway and bridge tolls, parking fees, hotel occupancy fees, motor vehicle fees, MTA fees, license fees, daily use fees, and park access fees, most of which are invisible to me.
You and the ‘young rascals’ have some great rhetoric: What I don’t hear from you and your tea party cabal is dialogue, discussion, research or new ideas about re-engineering our overall government in the U.S. for enhanced efficiency and longer term sustainability.
Mr. Boehner: With your intractable and rigid focus on cutting spending at the margins and continued tax breaks for the ultra-rich, I think you and your tea party followers may be threatening the very essence of the United States and our economy as a going concern.
That thought leads me to believe that you and some (or all) of your tea party cabal may be guilty of treason because your actions are diametrically opposed to the best interests of my fellow citizens, voters and taxpayer of the United States of America.
It is my hope, Mr. Boehner, that come Monday, December 31, 2012, you and your followers will move away from treason to align with the majority of American citizens, businesses and American society to ensure a rational, sensible and sustainable solution to the ‘fiscal cliff’ dilemma which currently threatens our country.
Thank you in advance for considering my opinions, and hopefully, for adjusting your posture to a more inclusive and mainstream position.
Sincerly,
The Walrus
Mount Vernon, NY 10552
Fiscal Cliff
November 29, 2012
Mr. Boehner: A large majority of us are really disappointed in you and Eric Cantor.
The majority of Americans have no allegiance to Grover Norquist and the Koch brothers.
We want to see our elected officials come to the table with open minds, seeking to do what is correct and right for our country. We don’t much care who your campaign contributors are, or what sorts of issues you are dealing with in your upcoming election campaign.
We do understand that you – as an elected member of Congress – need to run for re-election every 2 years.
That said: you accepted the position of Speaker of the House, which implies that you agreed to rise above the local issues specific to your rural & primarily agricultural district in Ohio and to function as a leader across our very diverse nation.
I think the vast majority of our fellow citizens expect you to be objective, rational and strategic in your words and your actions.
Your recent contention that “No substantive progress has been made in the talks between the White House and the House over the last two weeks” appears to be both confrontational and incendiary.
Incendiary comments certainly do not support the concept of compromise.
Mr. Boehner: As a citizen, a tax payer and voter in the U.S.A., I can’t vote for you because I don’t live in your Ohio district, but I can say that I am truly disappointed by your callous disregard for the needs, wants and desires of me and the majority of our U.S. neighbors.
walrus51 