Given the recent discussion on the logic to funding municipal maintenance issues with bond funding - (I like the analogy by docktorbombay that it's like a company using long-term credit to fund payroll) I have been reading more about the County Commissioners' brainstorm to place a "forever" tax on open space on the ballot this fall. The logic is 1) as always, buying the property at today's prices is better than waiting, so lets get another pile of cash to do just that, and 2) the known maintenance costs of indefinite property ownership by the county will simply require this anyway.
Last month at the Lafayette Open Space Advisory Committee meeting I asked BCPOS Director Ron Stewart if he perceived any areas of the Dept. that would be limited in their resources. I posed this as a way to gauge how Lafayette could perceive the chances our requests for joint purchases had of success. But his response surprised me somewhat - he indicated no sense of future limitations to various programs. I expected some sense of a cap on what could be achieved, but that wasn't what I heard. Perhaps I wasn't clear - some readers of the blog were there and could challenge my take. But frankly I expected - not knowing this forever tax was being thought up - some comment on how at X level of funding there's only so much we can do.
Much like the discussions happening in Boulder, the notion of X percent of a budget absolutely going to open space while other areas are debatable underfunded, the County needs to recognize the aggregate effect of taxes. For this forever tax, it means forever open space and never something else. Open Space isn't the only thing the County wants money for; a forever tax has a bit of arrogance to it.
I'm a supporter of the County's Open Space program, and I would seriously consider a forever tax because I happen to like the issue it funds. But giving an earmark for our money forever - that just doesn't resonate. I look forward to the discussion on this.
I think on principle a forever tax is not good policy. Even when it's every ten or even 20 years, as sunset allows the discussion of performance to be brought up. The fact it is being asked for indicates at the least a sub-conscious sense of certainty that the program is and will always be "the right thing" - and that crosses over into the realm of not having accountability.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Is it fair to conclude that the reason for making open space a "forever" tax is arrogance and not just the opposite? I think one could look at tax issues since the advent of TABOR and conclude that funding a program with frequent sunsets and electoral reauthorization has created a climate where every tax burdened by this type of procedure is bound to bump up against some other major, controversial tax issue, and is at risk of annihilation just because of that.
I don't recall that TABOR requires a vote of the electorate to repeal taxes, only to create them. I do believe the financial needs for stewardship of open space are legitimate for the long-term. If the tax overproduces, is misappropriated, etc., it should be adjusted or repealed. But I don't see a mandatory referendum on piles of confusing, seemingly redundant tax issues as serving much good, honestly, in the meantime.
My first thought when I heard about this proposal was - what a great way to take control away from the people, forever.
The County hopes to take advantage of the current sentiment that Open Space is a good thing to lock us into a neverending commitment.
I, too, like the idea of vast open spaces surrounding my little slice of the earth. But, can it get more selfish than this?
By denying development on these parcels, we've helped push development farther north and east. Growth still occurs around us. But, we're happy. Again, how selfish.
There's no predicting what changes in the future may change our thinking about the cost vs. benefits of Open Space. As voters, we need to reserve the right to change funding for this if needed.
There are many things I'd like to see last forever, but no tax makes that list.
I'd suggest there are a couple of different ways to look at this.
A forever tax would allow the "forever" borrowing of future revenue to buy open space sooner. So evidently the $40,000,000 already borrowed has been committed. It would also allow by borrowing against the future to pay whatever the purchase price of demanded by the land owner now. After all, why argue about the price when one has a "forever" line of credit? (Speculation on open space property knowing the county will buy at any price.)
Or: is this a hidden approach to growth management? Buy up acre after acre of available land at any price and could developers compete? As for developers that paid the higher prices, the affordability of housing goes south in a hurry. Every land owner would know the score and hold out for the big bucks as cities are confined to their growth boundaries, stuck with infill only. (Oh, forget the budget traumas of the cities when the building and use fees approach zero. Then property tax increases start to flow.)
Or: this makes Ron Stewart's job a piece of cake. Also lines up Ben Perlman for the job when Ron retires.
The comments on this in the Camera make good reading.
Well, my point was that one doesn't need to get into the philosophy of open space to explain why no sunset would be attached to the proposed tax. There are a lot of practical concerns at work.
Why Ron Stewart would be nonchalant about budget resources I can't answer. My guess is that you don't sell the supremacy of your open space program when you come in and talk about how little it can do. The reality of the situation is that most of the current tax (into the future) has been exhausted and spent under a bond - correct me if I'm wrong - and now the Commissioners are doing things like selling off the fee title to land under conservation easements, to squeeze more buying power out of the program in the interim.
As far as the philosophy of open space goes, there was plenty of discussion on that a while ago. I believe that if you want permanent open space, far and away the best way to implement that is for conservation interests to purchase the land outright. And instead of pretending that nonprofits have limitless funding to buy land of primarily local interest, I think it is a great thing that local governments in Colorado step up and pay landowners to preserve the land.
It is simply not correct to propose that selfishness is the sole justification for why we shouldn't urbanize every last piece of land from here to kingdom come. For one, we are paying for this land by generating the tax; to me, selfishness is when we attempt to exact public open space benefits without any notion of compensating or providing some quid pro quo to the landowner. Most importantly, preserving riparian corridors, habitat, and agricultural land makes sense in the sense that, while we may have the luxury, if we choose, to live completely within an urban world, more than urban development is necessary to sustain us.
It's a given that Boulder's open space program is part of the explanation for why there is scarce affordable housing in that City. Reportedly, there is a premium for any property in Boulder County, though the value of that premium may be very little in Lafayette. But this is the law of supply and demand, isn't it? If you don't believe in free markets, there is always government intervention to "fix" the situation, but I'm surprised to hear that from you, Doktorbombay.
Finally, is it selfish for us to refuse to develop at 20 DU/acre? How about 50? There are many ways to slice the affordability problem. Open space preservation may be part of a system of trade-offs, but I'm pretty clear that it is not the thing I would change if push came to shove.
Government with unlimited funds to spend with the borrow ahead feature certainly disturbs any notion of a free market. I think we all would agree with that.
Then of course there is the issue of who manages the spending and how well he/she performs. "Forever" denotes different managers over the eternity of the program.
Since by definiton, the money that exists in the county is not infinite, there are opportunity costs to any thing. So when taxes are committed to one thing, other reasonable projects simply don't happen. Or raise in property taxes get proposed. My prop tax in MA was twice as much as here. Of course the town I lived in was incorporated in 1612 so they had over a 250 year head start of raising taxes (so much for the Boston Tea party).
As for rescinding such a tax in the future, doubtful. There was a tax put on telephones a hundred years ago to tax the rich who were the only ones to afford them at the time. Stayed for 100 years.
Like I said, speculation in open space would run rampant. There is even a theory about the Thomas Open Space that the development plans were a ruse to get the city to buy the acreage at premium prices.
Well, hopefully the Commissioners know what they're doing in terms of going to a voting public that does, apparently, have many constituents who will discriminate between a perpetual tax and a sunsetted tax.
I really don't think the lack of a sunset is so horrible in this case, though. When we - and that means you among others Kerry - looked at extending the Legacy Tax in Lafayette, we decided to make the tax 10 years instead of 5 based on dropping a restriction to use the funds for acquisition only. Somehow I don't think acquisition (based on repaying debt, if not outstanding inventory of desired land) or maintenance will be done in 2014. Should we throw this cost back into the General Fund as of that date?
The perpetual tax makes sense if you agree that the County's commitment to open space is perpetual. I have personally never believed that we were acquiring open space in Lafayette or Boulder County just to end up converting it into something else in the end.
I think it's ironic that we debate the ability to monitor the efficacy or repeal a tax that is so close to home when the biggest burden on us BY FAR as taxpayers is a government institution thousands of miles from here that is barely responsive at all. That's who you can thank for all the taxes on your phone bill.
Dan- I don't think your take is wrong on Ron's comment, but I thought the discussion and your question was centered around maintenance, trail development, and OS program funding, not land purchase. I don't have anything written down and it didn't strike me as odd, so I can't remember the exact question, but that was my take. I do remember a lot of talk about OS programs and trail development. This leads me to believe that #2 of your post is the real need for a "forever" tax. If we are bold enough to purchase properies in the name of Open Space we better be prepared to keep care of them... forever. The properties don't sunset with the taxes that purchased them.
Alex, I'm sure you have better arguments than to say just because the Feds screw us on taxes it's OK for us to get screwed locally.
Any time there is government interference in anything, the free market goes out the window. The higher cost of land in Boulder County vs surrounding counties is at least partially the fault of Open Space and it's negative impact on the balance of supply and demand.
So be it. This was a conscious decision by the residents of the county. We'll live with the consequences.
However, forever is a very long time. I can't believe there isn't more opposition to forever ceding control to any government agency, least of all Open Space. What happened to the healthy skepticism of government? Is Open Space such a noble cause they couldn't possibly be subject to fraud or misuse of funds?
Despite the problems I believe Open Space has caused in the free market, I'm not totally opposed to the concept. I think it needs to be fine tuned to be done right. For example, conceptually, I think it's wrong the County purchased OS land in another county. That's the primary reason I'm opposed to giving them a never ending checkbook.
Providing them a never ending source of funds opens the door to any number of potential problems. They should have to ask us for the money every few years, it keeps them in check.
Did I say it's okay for the taxpayer to get ripped off, ever? No.
What gets me is that a giant vacuum in D.C. puts taxpayers on pins and needles to fight against, and frequently defeat, the state and local taxes that must go to referendum. We have little to no means to effectively protest an enormous tax and spend federal culture, so we bludgeon much smaller tax burdens that have much more potential to make a difference in our day to day lives.
I do not view open space purchases as interference with the free market. Maybe the rural preservation zoning and IGAs that essentially put properties in a freeze until they can be acquired is that, but the fact that the County owns land that could otherwise be developed into cheap housing does not bother my free market sensabilities in the least. Private property is bought and sold on the open market, and if the values reflect a premium for all the open space that surrounds us, that value is assigned because of the pricing function of the market. At the correct price, there is a balance between supply and demand. So where's the problem?
If there is healthy skepticism of government, it implies that there is unhealthy skepticism as well. Open space proponents over the years have no doubt included some who approach the issue with an attitude of self-righteousness and arrogance. And if you don't like BoCo buying land in JeffCo and now Weld, then you might not even like the basic policies.
But, truly, there is too much public open space land to take care of now to say that threatening to cut off a major portion of the budget periodically is simply a measure for good health. It might be easier for me to support the exercise in periodically gauging electoral support if we weren't swamped with confusing "overload," as Dan has aptly put it, at the ballot.
Chad is correct, land does not sunset just because a tax does. I'm not passing any sort of judgment on those who feel like a sunset on open space tax is appropriate because their support will one day cease. All I know is my understanding of the open space we have in Boulder County does not make it likely that I will be among those ranks any time soon (or maybe ever).
Alex,
As a civilian, I wrote a letter to LOSAC. At the time, LOSAC was not getting information about the revenue of the two separate OS taxes and how it was being spent. The city taps into it for more than OS purchases, which it is allowed to do depending on provisions of each tax. I sent the letter to the chairwoman but it was opened at city hall. The city administrator got the letter and then convinced her NOT to distribute it to the committee. I was also told it was none of LOSAC's business. I found this out when I went to a committee meeting and they wondered what I was talking about.
It turned out that the finance department had not kept the accounting separate for each fund, a violation of the city ordinances. That was fixed.
Co-mingling OS tax revenue with General Fund money is too tempting to the city admin. Cherry picking it for payroll is just too tempting. Fortunately LOSAC today serves as a good watchdog as well. May not be so in the future.
Lastly 10 years is not "forever". The time is coming soon that the voter's committment to the OS taxes will be tested. The city can only borrow ahead for so long. At least LOSAC hasn't bonded out the money. The county certainly knows how to do it.
They say government is like sausage being mad. Having seen it made, there is no comparison. Government is a lot worse.
Just for the record, the issue that tore through LOSAC a few years ago, with your letter and one from Toby Norback, as I recall, was related to the Conservation Trust Fund.
I've also reviewed the OS spending reports, and it is true that some amount of questionable overhead leaks onto those spreadsheets from time to time.
This just points out the value of LOSAC and the importance of isolating the open space program from collateral budget issues.
Alex, thanks. I didn't remember exactly what it was. Yes, the city was using the lottery money for rec center stuff and I wanted LOSAC to know that. At the time, the published LOSAC charter said that it was to advise on budgetary issues.
I hear the 2008 proposed budget will shift a bunch of cost from the GF to the OS funds. It is legal to due that. We'll see the amounts in a few weeks.
Local voters, when given a compelling reason to increase/adjust local taxes, do so regardless of the federal tax burden. Always have, probably always will.
Unlike most federal tax/spend, voters can usually see firsthand the impact of local tax/spend.
To assume local tax iniatives fail because of noise on the ballot strikes me as blame-shifting. If your favorite initiative fails, it's most likely not because of ballot noise. Good spending programs get funded. Open Space ever been turned down in EastBoCo lately?
Alex, you and I will never agree on the supply/demand impact of open space. But, there is an impact on property taxes. Since those taxes are pegged to value, as supply is taken off the market, the remaining property will need to be taxed more. A never ending funding source for Open Space will drive other taxes up as well.
I'm ambivalent on Open Space. I'm in favor of the overall concept. But, I have concerns, primarily because we don't yet know the long term effect of such programs.
But, I don't want this to be a discussion about the merits of Open Space. The issue is the concept of a "forever" tax. The unknowns about the long term impact of OS makes me reluctant to approve of a "forever" tax.
We've all become accustomed to a "forever" tax on real property. Mill levies only go to a vote when we want to raise them. They aren't sunsetted.
I question the need for more acquisitions (we're buying outside the county because of limited available land within the county), but I understand the need for perpetual management of already acquired land.
So, I'd be open to the concept of separating OS acquisitions out, and rolling OS maintenance into my property tax burden.
Perhaps the forever maintenance tax is saleable and would confirm a community value for decades. Having acquisition broken out as a separate tax would invite a great debate over the merits and long-term impacts of open space. I bet a lot of people don't get the connection between rising property value and taxes, the lack of affordable housing and other rising COL issues relative to such land use policy decisions.
Not that knowing this would change their mind, but I think having the connection and trade-off more clear in people's mind would be reasonable. Perhaps you could couple with forever acquisition tax with a forever affordable housing fund tax - see if people are willing to pay for the whole enchilada.
Why don't we have a "give all your income to the government forever" tax? In return, we can live on food stamps and in low rent affordable housing.
Seriously, for those of you who are trying to save for the future, investigate the Rule of Seventy-Two. Then figure out what a dollar could be worth when you are 65. That dollar you bloggers are so anxious to give away forever.
Or on each payday, write a fake check to yourself for all the taxes withheld for Federal, State, FICA, etc. Multiply that by the number of paychecks you'll receive by the time you hope to retire. Then decide if you are getting your money's worth.
One other fact - today's $1 is worth 67 cents in 1987 value. Hope you don't get your savings in a savings account.
Also for those of you with young kids, especially pre-school. College costs are going up 8% a year. Compound that for 18 years and multiply by 4.
By the way, thank you. Since many of you in your working prime will be helping pay for my retirement and all the rest of the baby boomers.
Remember, democracy is the system where everyone thinks the other guy is paying for it.
Or better yet, let's all quit blogging, since we will soon have recorded in these archives every possible platitude about how the government is such an evil, corrupt system trying to take all your money.
Seriously, what's the point in taunting those of us who believe the open space tax should be perpetual? Is it so hard to stand up for something that isn't being against everything?
Dan, you may have to put a curfew on Kerry. He gets cranky after 9pm.
This the same guy who wanted to tighten the curfew on teens, and limit their driving? Same guy who proposes a Public Safety Tax in Lafayette? But, has a problem with government spending?
Exactly how does your fantasy police state work without funding?
Post a Comment