by admin | Oct 4, 2017 | News and Updates
For Tucson voters, seeing another tax increase on the November ballot probably doesn’t come as a shock. Yet the latest big government spending plan is especially bizarre: a ½ cent sales tax increase to fund a city-wide preschool program.
The audacity and complexity of Proposition 204 is generating opposition not just from conservatives, but liberal groups as well. The nature of the resistance is centered around the plan’s lack of accountability, transparency, and threat to other education funding priorities.
The most obvious problem with Prop 204 is that Tucson simply is not qualified to administer or manage a preschool program. Since statehood, public education has been overseen and funded through school districts and the state, not municipalities. Tucson will waste a great deal of taxpayer money developing, implementing and overseeing a new government program in a field they know nothing about and is already handled by other public entities.
The vague, ambiguous language contained in the initiative has only added to the confusion and has raised more questions than answers. According to Prop 204, a 7-person commission appointed by the City Council would be the decision makers on how the program would work. The commission would then hire and oversee a non-profit corporation to administer the program.
Critical details such as which citizens would qualify for the program, rates of reimbursement, oversight of which pre-k providers would be eligible, a sliding economic scale, etc would all be made by this unaccountable commission. Additionally, a couple of the commissioners would be early childhood education providers, raising serious questions of conflict of interest. The entire structure is long on bureaucracy and short on transparency and accountability: the City Council would oversee a commission, that would oversee a non-profit, that would oversee the pre-k program.
Proponents of Prop 204 have cited programs in Denver and San Antonio as examples of success. However, in both examples the preschool programs enacted were much smaller and included only a 1/8 cent tax increase. Tucson’s proposal is four times larger and proponents have not provided an explanation of why their program would require such a large contribution from taxpayers. Perhaps the answer lies in the complicated governance of the program, eating up efficiency and potential impact.
Even if Prop 204 wasn’t so poorly crafted, it is doubtful that Tucson can afford another large tax increase. It was only a few months ago that voters approved a ½ cent sales tax increase dedicated to road repairs and public safety equipment and facilities. If the latest increase is accepted, residents will shoulder a 50 percent increase to their sales tax within just a year!
The tax hike looks even worse when considering Tucson’s poor economic and job performance over the last decade. It was just announced that Tucson was ranked as the most distressed city in the nation, with 58.6 percent of its population living in economically distressed zip codes. Considering their dire economic situation, passing higher taxes will only make the city more unaffordable to its residents and less attractive to potential job-creators. Hopefully voters will realize the foolishness of Tucson getting into the preschool business and will reject this poorly vetted initiative.
by admin | Oct 2, 2017 | Uncategorized
Prescott is at a crossroads. Due to a crippling pension debt that has the city staring at possible bankruptcy in the next decade, the voters of Prescott will have an important decision to make in the upcoming election for Mayor.
Add in critical issues surrounding water and job crushing regulations, the decisions made by voters today will determine whether Prescott continues to grow and prosper for years to come, or begins down a path of financial and economic turmoil.
With two candidates remaining on the ballot following the August election, it is clear that Councilwoman Jean Wilcox would be the WRONG choice for Prescott Mayor.
Jean Wilcox has been a dedicated tax-and-spend politician from her first moments in office. She has publicly supported increases in the property tax, gas tax and a water tax. It’s hard to find a tax Wilcox does not want to raise.
Since being elected to Council in 2014, Wilcox has been beating the drum to raise taxes at every turn. The first tax increase she pushed for was an increase to the City’s sales tax in June of 2014. She had barely taken office but it did not take long for her to be convinced that increasing taxes was the only option for the city.
Wilcox then voted in June of 2014 to raise Prescott taxpayers’ property taxes. While casting her vote, Wilcox arrogantly stated that she was disappointed that they were “stuck” with Arizona’s voter enacted constitutional limitations on how high property taxes could go. Just two years later Wilcox voted again to raise property taxes.
After raising property taxes, Wilcox began pushing the council to increase water rates to pursue her environmentalist agenda and subsidize various crony capitalist pet projects. When it comes to municipal water service, taxpayers should have 100 percent confidence that water rates are based solely on the cost of providing the service. Water bills shouldn’t include extra taxes and fees to pay for special interest projects, which is exactly what Jean Wilcox wanted to do.
Jean Wilcox used her position on the council to work around these important protections for rate payers. Wilcox even entertained the idea that higher water fees could be cycled into select industries Jean Wilcox liked. In other words, she wanted to raise water rates in order to provide a few politically-connected commercial users with a subsidy.
What is even more telling of Jean Wilcox’s character is how she responded when voters didn’t agree with her high tax mentality. Two years ago, Councilwoman Wilcox pushed to roll a series of tax increases for open space, pension funding and street improvements into one package. The purpose of this maneuver was to increase the chances that her favored tax increase—more money for open space—would pass.
She failed in this endeavor to log roll the measures and the triple tax proposition went to the ballot as three separate proposals. After voters rejected two of the three measures, Wilcox expressed her disgust for taxpayers, stating those who did not vote for the tax were duped and that they “don’t understand that paying this tax will benefit the whole community.”
Just as startling as her support for higher taxes, Jean Wilcox has also been a staunch advocate for more gun control. At a council hearing last July, Wilcox stated that any discussions related to guns is really part of a “much bigger problem” that involves too little gun control. It is not clear what gun restrictions Wilcox would like to implement in the City of Prescott, but it is in voters best interest not to find out.
Don’t let Prescott fall into the trap of higher taxes, regulations and more gun control. Vote against Jean Wilcox for Mayor.
by admin | Sep 26, 2017 | News and Updates
Pinal County was notified yesterday by a non-profit watchdog organization that Proposition 417, the proposed $640 Million Transportation tax increase scheduled for the November election, was not lawfully drafted and will likely face litigation in court.
In their two-page letter, the Goldwater Institute outlined multiple legal issues and factual inaccuracies in the approved resolution and ballot language, and asked the county to remove the proposition from the ballot to avoid a costly lawsuit if it is approved.
Although Pinal leadership has been warned for months now about the proposition’s legal problems, advocates have blazed ahead with the election. But this newest development makes the decision for Pinal County Supervisors very clear – pull their defunct proposition or cost taxpayer’s their hard-earned money defending it in court. Money that could be used instead for county priorities – such as roads and transportation infrastructure.
The legal issues highlighted by the Goldwater Institute include:
- The ballot language clearly states retail is the only classification that will be taxed, yet the ballot pamphlet states they intend to tax other classifications as well. The language is contradictory, misinforms voters, and likely exceeds their lawful authority if the intent is for county administrators to tax classifications not approved by the Board of Supervisors.
- As crafted, the tax would not apply to purchases over $10,000, an arbitrary exemption that is not allowed under state law. Earlier this year, proponents of the transportation plan introduced legislation to give them the authority to implement a $10K cap, but the bill did not pass. Supporters of the tax hike decided to include the exemption anyway.
The letter from The Goldwater Institute can be viewed HERE. Early ballots are expected to be mailed in early October, so any decision to cancel the election on the transportation plan would need to be made in the next couple of weeks. Pinal County taxpayers should demand accountability of their elected officials and tell them to pull the plug on this illegally drafted and ill-conceived tax increase.
Pinal County residents can find the contact information for their Supervisors here: http://www.pinalcountyaz.gov/bos/Pages/Home.aspx
by admin | Sep 25, 2017 | Uncategorized
Goldwater Letter to Pinal County
by admin | Sep 14, 2017 | News and Updates
A lot has changed in the economy over the past several decades with the explosion of technology. The traditional work environment has transformed with more individuals able to stay connected and work from nearly anywhere in the world. This evolution has made it easier than ever for people to start and own businesses, and conform their work to the flexibility of their own homes.
Home-based businesses (HBB) allow millions of Americans to earn a living or supplement their wages, while accommodating realities such as raising children, managing a disability, and/or stretching their current available resources. That is why 52 percent of the over 28 million small businesses in the United States run their operations out of the convenience and comfort of a personal residence.
Many of these businesses are in our own neighborhoods. They are real estate agents, accountants, and contractors. Yet for most of these businesses, we have no idea they’re taking place in our own backyards. Ostensibly, these businesses are operating with little to no visibility to the residents around them.
Although the nature of home-based businesses has vastly changed, the regulatory environment has not.
Many cities and counties across the country still retain the same zoning ordinances and land use requirements from a half century ago. As a result, many jurisdictions promulgate a culture and regulatory environment which stifles home-based businesses.
Common restrictions include not being able to use a garage, backyard, or “accessory dwelling” unit for a HBB. Often there is a limit on the allowable square footage to be used within the home. Prohibitions on signage or seeing any customers or employees. In most jurisdictions, certain types of businesses such as salons or food-making businesses are altogether banned, or require extensive special use permits that take months and thousands of dollars to obtain. Lots of cities limit a business’s hours of operations. Many of these regulations are ambiguous, arbitrary and downright unenforceable.
After all, how is the government supposed to know if someone is using one room versus two rooms in their house for their business? How would they be able to tell if an individual is selling items on eBay or answering business emails at 1:00 AM, after the accepted “hours of operation?” The only conceivable way to consistently enforce these types of regulations is a frightening prospect indeed; with major Fourth Amendment questions and implications.
The Small Business Administration studied the issue in 2004 and determined more should be done by states and localities to eliminate burdens for HBB. They highlighted several states that have passed state-level reforms. Maryland for instance allows for a “no-impact” home occupation – eliminating licensure for thousands of businesses that pose no threat to the livability of surrounding homes. Vermont, a small-business friendly state, has statutory protections for HBB, stating a person has the “right” to operate a business out of their home. Even California has a special regulatory carve-out for home day cares; they void contractual agreements such as HOA CC&Rs that prohibit them.
Creating regulatory space for HBB is not only the right thing to do, it has immeasurable benefits. Aside from providing a flexible environment for people with a variety of needs as well as creating safer neighborhoods by having watchful daytime eyes, these fledgling businesses are the petri dish of the economy. They allow a measured approach to the risk of starting a business. If the entire country disallowed people from having a business in their garage, giants such as Amazon, Apple, Disney, Google, Harley Davidson, Microsoft, and Nike, that employ hundreds of thousands of people, might not exist.
Just like our economy and ideas about the work environment, it’s time for the states and local counties and cities to change with the times. Home based businesses are vital to the health, wealth, and happiness of millions of Americans. Government should not be stifling their efforts, but doing everything they can to allow their growth.
Recent Comments