I see the open space acquisition decisions repeatedly endorsed by voter approval as a factor in the free market, as Alex has suggested. That the land purchased, easemented (the word is in GW's dictionary) and otherwise taken off the table for development add to a quality of life allure that in turn is subject to supply and demand. For people who support open space to wring their hands about the rising property values/taxes, and how tough it is for some people to afford to live here I find to be on a continuum from naive to denial to disingenuous. Sure, it stinks to contemplate it, sucks even more to be directly affected by it, but supporting open space makes housing affordability worse. This point is lost on most of the lamenters. (thanks again, GW.)
Long-term housing "affordability" would require an equal amount of housing to a given amount of demand. By making Boulder County relatively more attractive through open space purchases we are guaranteed, by very purposeful, voter-approved design, to have less housing than would be demanded by the rest of the spectrum of humans walking the earth who may decide BoCo is THE place to live. This common sense, on the table, can't-be-any-other-way-about it policy for land use serves most those who got in the property ownership game way back when open space purchase programs got started.
It may not have been so conscious a decision, but any time we voted for more open space bonds, we were doing our part to complement the good schools, employers and other attractive variables of our communities that would create more demand for housing here than could be met.
Is it fair to renters? Define fair. This is the voter-approved system in this County, has been for decades. I believe the support for Open Space goes beyond resource protection, recreational options , etc. Support belies an intentional savvyness on the part of many officials and residents over the years to of course create a County that is, in the long run, simply a good place for property investment. Those of us who voted for open space taxes all those years we were renters - I haven't voted against one in 20 years - knew we were preserving open space but probably didn't realize we were on a path to vote ourselves right out of the County if we didn't buy soon.
On its own merits, and philosophically speaking, I believe in funding open space. Even if I still rented I would vote to tax myself to continue to acquire and maintain open space. But understanding its impact on the affordability to live here means accepting we've created a property value and rental rate/housing price monster. We did it, can't stop it, indeed we continue to vote to feed it. So lets stop pretending we don't like it's consequences - expensive land values, rents and displacement of poorer people.
To be comprehensively fair, an open space tax should have a corresponding affordable housing tax. But that just has never been part of the discussion.
Open Space maintenance deserves a forever tax. It is simply a cost of living expense here that ultimately results in equity appreciation. A forever OS tax is an investment for those fortunate enough to own.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
Dan,
You are beginning to crack the code. But not quite. I always like to have some fun with this.
First, figure all the time and tax money spent on affordable housing which tries to counteract the growth management consequences of open space purchases. Which of course in Boulder County is futile.
Secondly, your property taxes will continue to rise as will the sales tax over time as cities and counties convince voters they need more money for services.
Conservatively, I did a simple calculation for you and your new baby ( congratulations ). By the time your child is 18, you will have forgone at least $100,000 in net worth. Assuming you did not have to pay the open space sales tax and increases in 18 years, properly invested, that money would be available for college.
So when one preaches the merits of open space, etc., remember that as the money flows out of your wallet, the cost of doing so can be somewhat overwhelming. At least $100,000 for you.
I once had a meeting with a RTD director. He wanted more roof tops. I said less roof tops meant less traffic congestion and pollution, less need for buses. He said more roof tops meant more tax money for buses. Go figure.
There is always the otherside of the policy discussion. $100,000 for you, at least.
Thanks, Dan, for giving this issue some more consideration. And, Kerry, I'd say that's a pretty solid anti-open space stance, going well beyond the initial discussion of a sunset clause.
I'd be $100,000 richer a lot sooner if I didn't pay any taxes. So despite any number of questions one could ask about the black-box computation, the fact is that the basic question you ask with taxes is what you're getting for your tax dollars. Open space in Boulder County is about quality of life. That can be computed as an economic value in a lot of ways. But the bottom line is, when you know that the land bought with open space funds is going to exist as an undeveloped resource for you and your children, not to mention many other tangible and intangible benefits, the price has not prevented any of us from wanting to live here.
No, I have always supported the Open Space tax. I worked on the committee to "extend" one fo them the last time. (CELTOS). Didn't see you or Dan at that time. In fact, the slogan "Extend It" was my suggestion.
But it is important to lay all the facts on the table. There are a myriad of hidden costs in this discussion. Yet folks tend not to what to lay it all out.
Boulder County is becoming a "gated" community due to the cost of living.
What actually bridles me is as an empty nester and paying prop taxes to BVSD, our city schools need a lot of work.
Except for Peak To Peak, which BVSD has not been fond of:
PEAK TO PEAK HIGH SCHOOL #1 IN DENVER METRO-AREA
Peak to Peak High School is rated the number one high school in metro Denver by the August 2007 issue of 5280 Magazine. The magazine looked at over 30 schools from the seven Denver metro-area counties. Four BVSD public schools and one Boulder county private school placed in the top fifteen, and Peak to Peak High School was chosen as Denver's best high school based on approximately three dozen criteria. Statistics were gathered from the School Accountability Reports, websites, and directly from the schools.
"We're very proud of this achievement by our high school after only five years. This success is a tribute to the community of learners, teachers, and leaders that have worked so hard to make us what we are in such a short amount of time," said board member Don Ferguson. "Peak to Peak has focused on excellence in scholarship and character since day one."
The highly accredited college-prep K-12 charter school opened as an elementary school in 2000, and has grown to over 1300 students in grades K-12 in 2007. Peak to Peak High School offers a rigorous liberal arts curriculum including AP classes, highly acclaimed fine arts, and state championship athletics. The three graduating classes to date average a 99% graduation rate, and the eighty-one 2007 graduates were awarded over $4 million in scholarship money. Graduates have been accepted to colleges nationwide including Yale, MIT, Duke, Baylor, Oberlin, Colorado School of Mines, and Colorado College.
Empty nester, perhaps you should update your knowledge of the Lafayette schools a bit.
Peak to Peak's accolades are deserved, but they are not alone in providing quality education to families in Lafayette.
Kerry, you also have a serious problem with attribution. I was the Treasurer, the one who's name was on the paper at City Hall, for the Committee to Extend the Legacy Tax. Somehow you missed me at the two or three meetings you attended.
I could have predicted that you would say that you're actually in favor of the OS tax, but you have to slam every single one of us just to let us know what's up. I have heard that one before.
And then to come out with a "what I really meant..." statement about the school district... It really is not a service to anyone to confuse the issues like this.
There were only a couple of CELTOS meetings. Kim Andresky was the real driving force of it. I thought I attended them all.
My point is that I have never heard anyone really calculate the cost. Seems folks like to avoid the subject. But it is simply a fact that should be included to have a well rounded discussion. There is a cost of any tax. There is the actual out of pocket cost as well as the opportunity costs: housing, subsidies, increased commuting costs, delayed infrastructure repairs,etc.
One seventh of Lafayette's sales tax goes to the Open Space funds. So one impact is that the city is proposing to bond out to fix the roads. With the EDAs that have been done, the OS tax is always protected. So the tax rebates take longer to fuffill. Bloggers here slam Wal-Mart. But are happy about the OS tax revenue the new store will generate. Seems to alarm folks when that is brought up. But a full analysis should include it.
By the way, it was the neighborhoods that fought for what is now Thomas Open space, not city hall. Fortunately after they lobbied for LOSAC's support at the time, the land got saved. That story is for another time.
So here is another interesting angle to the discussion. How many sons and daughters of those in Boulder County actually will end up residing in Boulder County as adults in 20 years? Will they be able to afford it?
Yes, Kim Andresky was a driving force behind CELTOS, along with some other significant help from members of LOSAC. We did a lot of work. Thanks for minimizing.
It's fine to have an honest discussion. Maybe we can even presume to give people some credit for understanding that not everything is black and white. But why on earth do you support the open space tax, Kerry? All I hear is negatives.
Alex, I do recall your participation. I had to jog my memory and appreciate your efforts.
When I was on the high school debate team eons ago, we had to prepare both sides of the issue. We only knew which side we had to defend only when the judge told us when to start.
In a democracy, the major has a responsibility to look after the minority. All these taxes that are talked about are incremental to those that already exist. And to many, the burden of the total are such that they literally can't eat.
In Boulder County, these folks go without or have to leave, which they are doing. I met a long term resident at the barber shop who is doing just that. Also, when I go to the library the other day and see the notice that it is closed on Sundays do to budget reasons, it frosts me. Especially when this council waived $120,000 in fees for the developer of Eagles Place.
So when Dan says it benefits just those who own, there are those who own who are getting forced out of town and the county.
They deserve to be represented in any tax discussion. And don't believe for one minute the hierarchy in city hall is privately happy with the OS tax. They certainly are on record publicly against growth management.
Alex,
Funny thing, I was on CELTOS too and I remember you! I also remember Walking all of old town to put CELTOS literature on every doorstep, and finding the cheap sign maker so we could order lots of campaign signs.
I am proud of what that committee achieved considering how small it was and how limited the budget was. Quality of life has always been what Lafayette residents are about, and I think there are other ways that have not been explored to insure affordable housing.
Most people consider how much they can make in income relative to how much it costs to live somewhere. Boulder is expensive, but you also have the potential for a good income and a good increase in any investment made in this county. This doesn't help the little guy, so someone enlighten me on what has been done to balance the cost to them. I'm not certain I see so many people flee because they can't afford property here. They would just rather have 4 bedrooms, 3 baths, 2000sq ft, and a half acre, instead of less. Forget about social ammenities, schools, Open Space, and taxes, as you move north and east away from the metro sprawl, those things don't exist on the same level, as in Boulder County. If someone thinks they need to move out of Boulder County to get more out of life, IMO, they are missing out.
So 4 of BVSD schools are in the top half of the Denver Metro Schools? Sounds good to me.
There are 3 couples in our circle of friends who purchased small homes in Weld County because they simply couldn't find anything in Boulder County within their price range. So, they moved, all from Lafayette, all from rental properties, to Weld and home ownership. Another in our group is a realtor in Boulder County and tried in vain to find them something, other than a condo, they could afford.
You're correct when you state people balance things when making decisions. 3 of the 6 people work from home, so the commute was not an issue. None of them have kids, and none plan on having kids, so BVSD was not a consideration. It was simply the cost of a home.
I'm in favor of the Open Space concept, but am very unsure of it's long term unintended consequences. As an example, Open Space and it's associated cost, has driven the cost of living up in BoCo. We don't yet grasp the long term impact this will have on the area.
Since I'm here, I'm obviously willing to pay that cost. But, I've been here for nearly 20 years, my entry cost was relatively low. What's the impact on lower income and fixed income folks? Will they all have to move to Weld?
Since the recent development out east started (3 years ago? Anthem), my house value has been level. It's not quickly getting more expensive to buy in East Boco, but most definitely will, once the eastern expansion slows in a few years. Anyone can find something they can afford in East Boco, it's more of a question of wether that is good enough for them. I chose Lafayette, because I found it affordable, for Boulder County, and full of ammentities that I use (Rec Center, Library, a downtown area, etc.) You don't find these things to the East. I know I'm living in a smaller place, but I feel I have a better lifestyle here. Open Space is a big part of that, and I'm willing to pay for it.
But, Cyclo, unless you live directly adjacent to OS land, you could enjoy all the things you like about Boulder County at less cost. All you have to do is live in Anthem and cruise down the hill to Lafayette for shopping, dining, hanging out, etc.
This is one of the long term unintended consequences of OS as far as I'm concerned. Surrounding residents get to enjoy these OS lands just like those of us who paid for them. You think the people in Anthem don't enjoy the semi-rural view they get of the foothills?
How about the Boulder County residents of Erie who pay more tax but get no more benefit than the Weld County residents of the town?
Again, to stay on thread, I'm opposed to a "forever" tax on OS acquisitions because we don't understand the long term impacts.
I see your point, but it's still a better place for me in my opinion. I don't have to drive, I walk on community paths to Open Space and it's half mile walk to town, which is much more enjoyable on a Fiday evening than driving to the next town, although I do this, also. But I can't think of a time I ever thought of going up to Anthem/Vista Ridge to hang out and do anything, because at this time there is nothing to do there. The view of the mountains is grand up there.
Maybe we should talk about the unitended consequences of chosing to live in a place where people are unwilling to put even a minimal amount of money forward to provide better things for their citizens. Is there any difference here between Superior and Anthem?
I don't think you'd be surprised to learn that most people are not willing to pay extra for the things we enjoy, pay for, and sometimes take for granted. If most were, virtually every county would have an Open Space program. In fact, the opposite is true.
At least Superior residents help contribute to Boulder Open Space. Anthem residents can view it from many porches, but they don't have to pay for it.
Both Superior and Anthem have strong HOAs which replace local government in providing parks/recreation facilties. Tax, HOA fee, what's the diff?
Not surprised at all. Maybe dismayed, but not surprised. HOAs vs OS taxes... not sure where to start to list the differences. My only thought is that they are paying double, by being taxed from the County and City, and by their HOA. If the HOA actually does function as a means to Open Space. I can't think of many that provide anything other than manicured parks.
One aspect of not understanding the unintended consequences is that we don't really know that the negatives are going to turn out as severely as worst-case scenario-type thinking might lead us to believe.
Again, in my opinion, affordability of housing is not going to be a simple function of how much land we provide for cities to grow horizontally. Not even close... And the rural amenities available to those who look for a discount beyond Boulder County borders come with a degree of uncertainty (and more than a little inconvenience) if you want to really be close to the amenities Boulder County has to offer.
More power to those who like Weld County - for what it's worth, I still like Weld County a lot - but it apparently hasn't stopped people from buying the rural properties in Boulder County. I just don't think there is any entitlement for affordable housing to exist on rural acreage, and, for those that do, there is a healthy supply to the east, as well as some encumbered (e.g., conservation easement) properties within the County.
The Commissioners are looking at taking the sunset off an existing sales tax that expires in 2009. I'd be at a loss to explain how an existing sales tax has produced or could produce the enormous problems that are being mentioned above. People who live in Anthem are contributing to the sales tax to the extent that they drive into the County to go to restaurants and shop. People who live in the County can avoid the sales tax, if they choose, by going to Larkridge or Broomfield.
And, very importantly, to remove a level of abstraction that has plagued the discussion so far, the effective local tax (city plus county) is actually HIGHER in Thornton, and exactly the SAME in Broomfield, as it is in Lafayette. (Check this out at https://www.taxview.state.co.us/QueryTaxrates.aspx?selected=1.)
If we are interested in educating ourselves or the general public about the consequences of the open space tax, we need to eliminate some of the speculation. To me, it’s unwarranted to conclude that an existing sales tax is causing people to leave the County. Is it possible that rising property taxes are putting an affordability squeeze on certain segments of the population? Sure, but, number one, those ad valorem taxes are essentially permanent already and unrelated to the tax in question. Also, the increase in housing prices is relatively flat in this market compared to other markets – you can’t put up housing around D.C. fast enough, or far enough out, to keep it affordable by our standards...
Cyclo/D-B,
The folks your comments miss are many who have lived here in town who preceed the "boom" times.
They have seen their property taxes and sales taxes increase, water rates, sidewalk maintenance, storm drainage, etc. just for local and county government. Many are low to moderate income or fixed income. The double edge sword of increase prop values is that the equity increases but the affordability of increased taxes is a problem to them.
If you really want to see how people vote their dollars on taxes these days, get the precinct report from the Police Dept. bond issue.
As for HOAs, the city provides us with public safety services, public works, and plows the collateral streets (sometimes). And what any other resident gets - library, rec center, etc.
Everything else got pushed off by the city and the developers to the homeowners. We pay to keep the neighorhoods looking good. Except for the streets which the city did not inspect properly before taking ownership (the city was warned too).
Nothing in Indian Peaks would qualify as open space. And we had to fight for the Thomas Open space with Waneka Point.
Alex, you’re correct on the extent to which the negatives may play out. But, you’ll have to admit, using the same argument, the positives won’t turn out as good as people think either. Again, no good reason to make the acquisition of Open Space a forever thing.
At some point, there’ll be no more land to acquire. Perhaps the social engineers will then want to convert blighted areas to Open Space. This would further force development to go vertical, or go elsewhere.
Vertical development is all well and good, and certainly has merit. But, the market doesn’t support vertical development in the American West. I guess we could force our view of what the world should look like on the market. But, let’s officially declare free market capitalism dead before we do that.
Nearby local sales tax rates are not justification to support a forever tax. The rate alone does not indicate a quality of life index in those cities. Is the quality of life better in Thornton because they have a higher tax rate? I think not.
I’ll repeat my stance. I’m in favor of rolling the maintenance of OS into my county property taxes, but I won’t support a forever tax for acquisitions.
You are entitled to your opinion, Doktorbombay, and it definitely belongs here on the blog. For my part, I think it's necessary to refute the myth that our taxes in Boulder County are unreasonable because we all support some sort of extreme welfare state. Indeed, let's declare the free market dead before we start to pretend that people in the County don't have the will to freely act within the marketplace of choice. In a great many ways, Boulder County strikes compromises right around the same balance as the rest of the state or nation, and our local tax rate is one of them.
My rough understanding is that Erie voters are more acclamated to approving property tax measures than the rest of the County. Historically, a sales tax increase in Erie would make little difference, so that makes sense. Even though Lafayette's sales tax potential compared with other municipalities is not exactly enormous either, it is enough of a difference that dedicated sales taxes are a viable revenue source. And voters in Lafayette have accepted open space sales taxes where they have rejected open space property taxes.
So it's really a question of pragmatics. On top of the electoral problem, I'm sure we could quickly get into how property taxes versus sales taxes affect families with different incomes. Unfortunately, there is a very wide gap between the theory and the reality of how all sorts of government programs should be funded. In my opinion, when thinking about what counts for my vote when it comes to the type of compromise necessary to make almost anything happen in a democracy, Boulder County voters will get the benefit of what they (and others who spend in the County) are paying for if the sales-tax-based revenue stream continues.
Maybe the bonds and debts will be retired eventually, and maybe maintenance costs will significantly drop once restoration efforts take hold, but that's at least a generation into the future. At that point, maybe the market in the West will support vertical development, maybe one wouldn't be laughed out of the room for suggesting underground development, maybe the population and immigration will stabilize. Who knows. In the meantime, open space is not in my mind a means to any intentional social engineering end. Open space sells itself as something we want.
'Quality of Life' issues tend to hit a brick wall when they are quantified into cost and who is going to pay it. One of the major exceptions, particularly in Lafayette, is Open Space. We have over a 1,000 acres, and are the biggest owners behind Boulder and the County. I think one of the reasons is our strong open space advisory committee, which has avoided being pulled into emotional debates and focused on the prioritizing of truly valuable open space land based on objective criteria. Kudos to LOSAC!
Yes, one of the beauties of the blog is the ability to state your opinion and read differing viewpoints. Does it mean anyone's opinion is changed? Probably not. But understanding where the other views are coming from is helpful, nonetheless. Hopefully, the various views play into creating a viable middle of the road policy.
I'll repeat what I've said many times, I'm not opposed to Open Space in general terms. And the fact I stay in Boulder County, and have voted for OS funding on more than one occasion, supports this.
However, open space as a part of a growth management program still strikes me as inconsistent. Removing available land from development when surrounding counties are not doing the same is just creating more sprawl, instead of the desired vertical development.
We just don't see the sprawl because it's occurring outside our view. We do, however, have to live with it's consequences, good and bad. The good is the potential sales tax revenue from those who drive through our towns and perhaps spend money at our retailers and restaurants. The bad is the additional heavy traffic impacting our infrastructure and quality of life.
Perhaps if OS funding was put to use developing higher density, I'd be convinced to continue the tax indefinitely. But, I question whether OS proponents are also in favor of high density development. My sense is most OS proponents are just anti-growth, which is impossible to achieve.
At the city council meeting last night, a resident from the Arbordale mobile home park spoke about the increasing cost of living and its effects on the elderly living on social security. Bottomline, a few dollars of incremental cost of living a month was a major hardship for them. They struggle day to day.
I posted a editorial done as a series by the editor of the Rocky Mountain News. His thesis is that increase density has many of the same problems as sprawl. Interested reading.
In any debate about taxes and expenditures, there are "winners", "losers" and unintended consequences. Always.
I thought the comments from Arbordale Acres were very interesting. They were not about open space, they were about the City of Lafayette's decision to compel residents to pay the City for trash and recycling service. What kind of disclosure and discussion of unintended consequences occurred at the April 3 vote to put this scheme into place? (The vote was 6-1, with Councilor Cutler opposing.)
Yes, there are unintended consequences of having substantial open space, but if you want open space, you deal with the consequences.
While it's fair to guess that the vast majority of anti-growth idealogues are proponents of the open space program, it does not follow that everyone who votes to fund open space is anti-growth or an idealogue. Your votes would seem to establish as much, Doktorbombay.
I'll also say my bit one more time: Boulder County's open space programs - plural - are a good compromise because they compensate property owners for the value of their property. I understand (with a reminder during last night's Items from the Public in Lafayette) that rural preservation zoning and IGAs have made the market so narrow for sellers that there is a real sense of injustice, but the best way to push the situation in the County into an unacceptable squeeze is to take away the source of revenues to fairly compensate those land owners. If that were to happen, then those rural preservation zones would not just be a temporary, envelope-pushing measure. If the County's revenues for open space acquisition go away in 2009, it's almost a guarantee we'll see an even more radical regulatory approach to preserving agricultural land.
To me, anyone who is sympathetic to the impact that an anti-growth mentality has had on rural land owners should be very much behind asking the general public to find a way to pay for the open space program.
As a final thought, I agree that local experiments often fail because the issue they are trying to deal with is fundamentally regional or national in nature. But again, we're faced with a situation where you can exist in a morass of confusion and inaction because of the possibility of unintended consequences, or you can allow a leader among governments to emerge and hope that leadership translates into finding solutions for the unintended consequences as well.
Yes, the Arbordale discussion was about trash removal. The major issue is the cost of bags of leaves and tree trimmings to be hauled away in the fall. This was a major issue during the public hearings. So it has to be worked. But one can project they would have voted against this program and the Open Space taxes just as they voted against a property tax increase for the new Police Station (I have the figures on this.)
One can eventually settle on a pro or con position. But before making that decision, both should be explored and understood. Typically proponents of one side or the other these days try to drowned out the other side.
The cost of living in Boulder County is inflicting hardship on a lot of folks. And it will worsen over time. Having a face put on it last night was a reality check,
at least for me.
As a member of LOSAC, I appreciate Frank's kudos. Our internal debate over the Lowe's annexation showed how prioritization of parcels is taken seriously. I also agree with Doktorbombay about the need for an attendent flexibility, if not allowance and outright encouragement of densification with OS purchases. But explaining that rationale to the average voter is fraught with peril; its not a message people want to hear.
No question this would be a tough sell. I think primarily because most voters are voting on OS to protect their slice of heaven with no regards to long term consequences or effects on surrounding communities.
Most voters don't dig into the issues deep enough to explore all the impacts. Nor do those who sell these concepts lay out all the impacts when they're trying to sell their agendas.
This year both Boulder County and the City of Longmont are asking for extensions on open space sales taxes.
The county wants to borrow $40 million, to be paid back by 2029. It’s bond payments are over $20 million this year, while it’s revenue was less than $17 million in 2006. No wonder they want more money to spend!
While 65% of Boulder County land is already publicly owned and protected forever, the county has borrowed $262 million since 1994 to buy more. We will be paying off this debt until 2024. The new proposal is like taking out a 2nd mortgage so they can spend even more!
Our elected officials have been spending your money like the proverbial drunken sailor.
Sales taxes are the most regressive kind, whose burden falls hardest on the needy members of our community. We don’t need to buy more recreational land by taking food from the poor.
Anyone who says that we need to borrow money for more open space is a fanatic, who should not be trusted with public money. It’s time to cut up their credit cards and say “DON’T go in the RED to buy more GREEN”.
Fanatic? You may want to take a re-read of your comment. Sounds like you are a raving fiscal conservative fanatic. You surely have the right to say enough is enough on OS funding, but give me a break abouth robbing the needy.
I stand by my words. A rich elite, who can laugh about our sales tax burden, doesn't care when it hurts others. While the federal income tax is highly progressive (meaning the rich pay a higher percentage rate than the poor), our high local taxes nearly eliminate this effect.
Open space is not a need, but a want. Only a fool will borrow money for a want.
Would you take out a second mortgage on your home so that you could take a cruise around the world? You could name all kinds of reasons to do so: When I can afford it, I'll be too old to enjoy it. The memories will last for a lifetime. Etc. etc. But most people would consider it a foolish decision.
Boulder County spends far too much on open space, and it does hurt the poor and needy. Send our elected officials a strong message this year and refuse to pay for their open space spending spree any longer.
Everyone's entitled to their opinion here. We've covered the regressive nature of sales taxes, the imbalance in open space versus safety and human service budgets, and so forth. On this board, at least, I don't think there is the moral tone to the open space debate that exists elsewhere in the county. There are two sides with valid points. I happen to want open space, so I vote for it.
But one serious problem with what you say, Russ: Issue 1A is not borrowing.
A bond is borrowing. But since voters have approved taxes to buy open space, you can't argue that this purpose is what the tax is going to. The only real critique of open space bonding, then, is whether it is a less cost-effective way of achieving that goal than allowing the cash to accumulate. If you look at financing costs versus inflation, and factor in the value of being able to act quickly on purchasing opportunities, a bond starts to make sense.
I also very much doubt that regressive local sales taxes cancel out progressive federal taxes. But I am interested if there is some literature on this, so post away...
All a matter of perspective.
Currently, total Boulder County sales tax is 0.65%, of which 0.45% is for Open Space. Nearly 70% of County sales tax is for OS. 0.10% expires 2009, 0.25% expires 2019, and 0.10% expires 2024(0.05%of this for perpetuity).
If all were combined and voted on at one time, perhaps voters would look differently at the impact on their wallets. This almost looks intentional, doesn't it?
Issue 1A is borrowing. Let me quote from the summary:
" Issue 1A (Open Space Bond Authorization, Sales and Use Tax Extension, and Revenue Change): SHALL BOULDER COUNTY DEBT BE INCREASED UP TO $40,000,000, WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF UP TO $73,000,000 ... "
As soon as an open space tax passes, the county has been issuing "revenue bonds" backed by the projected future revenue from the tax.
The county has already borrowed as much as it can against current open space sales tax through the end of their life. Note that for $40 million of open space land, we expect to pay up to $73 million because of the interest charges on the bonds.
Here is the study that I read about the regressive nature of Colorado local sales taxes:
http://www.itepnet.org/wp2000/co%20pr.pdf
It doesn't completely offset the highly progressive effect of the federal income tax, but it does show the effect of sale tax on the poor.
Hmmm, looks like I am guilty of not looking at the details of 1A. So, yes, 1A does include borrowing, which should have occurred to me anyway, since it would be required by TABOR. In any case, the bond is more or less a foregone conclusion if the tax extension is approved, because IF you want to complete open space acquisitions in the County, the money can only be collected incrementally, while the assembly of the purchases occurs whenever the deal happens.
True that a large sum appears to be allocated for financing costs, but with all the comparisons to mortgages here, most bloggers have apparently survived the sticker shock of a truth-in-lending statement before...
The linked study is right on. Colorado's tax system is regressive. And, when you get down to the heart of it, TABOR and the Gallagher Amendment (championed by none other than a certain former BoCo politician) are two major culprits. These tax policies were installed in the Colorado Constitution by popular vote. There are good points and bad points to both, but if you want progressive tax policy in Colorado, I think it's far more helpful to look at the procedures that have made property taxes and other progressive tax structures so unpopular, rather than blaming any one tax.
What's interesting about BoCo's sales tax structure is exactly what you point out, Russ. Other counties in the Denver Metro area have comparable sales tax rates yet do not dedicate so much to open space. It seems that there is some tradeoff involved, though I'm not sure exactly what (more open space = less intense infrastructure?). Weld County has no County sales tax, for comparison, but buys no open space. Is that progressive?
The BoCo open space program involves some very expensive acqusitions, I agree. It does cost. But it is an investment that is only made once, and there is really only one opportunity to make that investment (short of freezing rural property owners and cities in a perpetual IGA, which I don't think is likely to work for legal and practical reasons). If the cost were so high that we couldn't afford it, however, voters would be reacting adversely.
I just hope 1A passes, we need continued support from the COunty to finish the open space system in the East County. But the conventional wisdom that open space always passes in Boulder County is no longer gospel from what I can tell. If the regressive nature of this entire tax structure has finally caught up with us, then the voters will say so.
I'm hopeful many will read the details of 1A and not blindly support OS for the sake of OS.
OS is not a one time purchase. The county will want these taxes to continue forever, as they've indicated recently, to pay for maintenance and upkeep.
Post a Comment