Top Stories
Monday, April 30, 2012
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Memphis can't afford a property tax hike » The Commercial Appeal. (Neither can Nashville)
On Tuesday morning the Mayor presents his state of Metro address at 10AM at the new Cumberland Park on the east bank of the river and that evening he presents his budget to the Metro Council. I am expecting a proposal for a property tax increase.
I have watched most of the budget hearings in which the departments go before the Mayor and make the case for their budget. While most departments say they can live without an increase, or even could survive with a 2% cut, police, fire and especially Metro Schools are asking for big increases. The ground work for a tax increase has being laid.
This article from Memphis reports that Memphis has been losing population since 2008 while surrounding counties have been growing and that Memphis tax bills are much higher than surrounding counties. The author provides this example of the tax burden of Memphis compared to the suburbs: "The owner of a $150,000 house in Memphis pays $2,703 a year in taxes. If you move about 25 miles east of Cordova to Somerville, you will pay only $806 in taxes for a house of the same value." (read more)
I suspect the same thing could be said about Nashville. I have not done the study yet, but I suspect Nashville has been losing population also and that our tax burden is considerably higher. In addition, I suspect that our population loss has been a loss among the more affluent and the middle class segment of the population. I suspect we have been losing the people we most need to keep.
The cost of taxes of course in only one factor in determining where one may chose to live. School quality and the perception of, or actual, crime rates and prevalence of gang activity are also factors. I myself would not want to live 50 miles away. I would not want to make a 50 mile round trip everyday. Hours spend in the car are not really your hours; they are part of the time devoted to making a living to my way of reasoning. Also, one should take into account the cost of gas.
I love living near downtown. I like to wait to 7:30 to decide it I want to see a show that starts at 7:30. I don't want to have to plan ahead to go grocery shopping. I like the restaurants and art crawl and events in the park and lower Broadway and being close to work so I can come home for lunch and close to my doctors and the vibrancy of the city. However, for people who are contemplating living in the Davidson County suburbs of Nashville anyway, why not move just a few miles further and save a hundred fifty dollars a month on property taxes?
In trying to sell a tax increase, the proponents will compare our tax burden to the other major Tennessee cites and other comparable sized cities in the southeast. That is not who we are competing against. We are competing against Lavergne, Ashland City and Mt Juliet for residents who are making decisions about where they want to live and businesses deciding where they want to locate. An increase in property taxes will drive people out of the county.
Top Stories
The audacity to charge a lower price
Irrational municipal laws pull wool over our eyesI am pleased to see Mr. Grant editorialize on this issue. It has been very frustrating to me that in June 2010 when the limo price fixing bill was passed that not a single council member objected. Even the outspoken self-indentified conservatives in the Council either supported the bill or allowed it to slip through unnoticed. Since that time, there has been an attempt to repeal the bill. The effort was led by Council Member Davette Blalock. Unfortunately, knowing she did not have the votes to pass it, she indefinitely deferred her bill. A head count prior to the vote indicated the vote would have been close but would have failed, so almost, but not quit half, of the Council were willing to undo the price fixing they or their predecessor had supported in the previous council.
by Richard J. Grant, The Tennessean, April 29, 2012
City laws to regulate private transportation services and to enforce price fixing are an example of unnecessary laws that lead to even worse government intrusions.
Agencies looking for reasons to exist love regulations such as the ordinance passed in Nashville two years ago that requires limousine operators to charge their customers a minimum price of $45 per trip. Now inspectors from Nashville's Metropolitan Transportation Licensing Commission (MTLC) have an excuse for running sting operations to catch those limousine operators that have the audacity to charge their customers lower prices. (link)
It is a shame that, that vote did not take place. The only member of the Council on record as opposing price-fixing is Davette Blalock. I would like to know who supports markets and free enterprise and who supports protecting the well-connected from competition. It really is that simple. I would hope that Blalock would revive her bill and force the council to take a stand.
I appreciate the Tennessean's coverage of this issue. I have reported on this issue extensively in this blog. Metro's price fixing is being challenged in Federal Court and very well may be ruled unconstitutional. To read about the court case, to read the court opinion, to read the George Will editorial on the issue, the Huffington Post coverage, see video, learn more about how the Metro Transportation Licensing Commission conspires to protect the established firms from competition and to be brought up to date on how the TLC inspectors have been impersonating police officers and harassing and intimidating those service providers with the audacity to try to compete with the well-established, well-connected transportation companies, follow this link.
Top Stories
The 20th Senatorial District candidates forum: Hall, Dickerson and Mortesen
Republican candidates for the Tennessee 20th Senatorial District took turns answering question put to them by the forum moderator Ben Cunningham at a candidate's forum this morning that took place at Swett's Cafeteria in Green Hills. The room was filled to capacity. Ben Cunningham, the moderator, is founder of the Tennessee Tax Revolt and a TEA party activist. The forum was sponsored by the Green Hills Breakfast Summit, a Republican breakfast group that regularly meets the forth Saturday of the month.
 |
| Ben Cunningham moderates |
The candidates were Steve Dickerson, a physician who has previously ran for office running as the Republican candidate challenging Senator Douglas Henry in Senatorial District 21 in 2010; David Hall, a home improvement contractor who has previously ran against Joe Haynes seeking this same office and who last year ran as the Republican challenger against Jim Cooper in the 5th Congressional District; and Rob Mortesen, a Green Hills business executive who is seeking elective office for the first time.
As one would expected there was very little philosophical difference between the candidates. They all support lower taxes, favor less intrusive government, and say their religious faith would influence their actions as a legislator. Any one of the three would make a fine state senator. There were several minor differences, however and judging them on who is best qualified and who has a better grasp of the issues, I think Steve Dickerson was the most impressive of the three.
In their opening remarks, David Hall spoke in very general terms about why he wanted to serve. Rob Mortensen spoke about his philosophy of an elected official being both a servant and a leader. Dickerson laid out a specific list of legislative objectives.
On education, Dickerson said he supports school choice and would work for an extension of vouchers, charter schools and more accountability. On taxes he said he would support the elimination of the death tax and the gift tax, which the State Legislature began the process of phasing out this year. And, he said he would support the ending of the Hall income tax.
 |
| Steve Dickerson |
On Guns in cars in parking lots
On the question of the "guns in trunks" legislation, both Dickerson and Mortensen said the law as proposed this year was imperfect and they think it was proper that the proposed bill be deferred and a solution be found that would allow guns to be kept secured in a car and respect the property rights of employers.
Mortensen, I think, got too specific when he said that maybe gun owners could take their gun to work with them and then have a place where they could check there guns. I am sure business owners would not want the responsibility of maintaining a work place armory. However, this was an off the cuff remark offered as just one possible compromise.
 |
| David Hall |
David Hall differed from the other two candidates in saying that while he recognized the conflict between 2nd Amendment rights and property rights, he nevertheless would have supported the bill that was before the legislator this year.
On drug testing of welfare recipients
Both Dickerson and Mortensen said they support testing those who are suspected of being abusers but not a blanket testing of all welfare recipients. Dickerson said blanket testing does not work, catching few drug users and is costly, costing more than it saves and has 4th amendment problems. Dickerson drew laughs when he said he would support drug testing of State Legislators.
Hall took a much more hard line approach and said he supported testing of all applicants for welfare and then random testing thereafter.
On the election of judge
Both Dickerson and Mortensen said they support a constitutional change along the lines of what is proposed that would have judges appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the legislature and then stand for retention elections. Hall said he supports the election of judges.
On Agenda 21 and use of eminent domain
None of the three sounded like a John Birch Society paranoid nuts, and they spoke in general terms about protecting property rights and curtailing abuse of eminent domain. I was relieved they handled that question the way they did.
On TnCare reform
 |
| Rob Mortensen |
Dr. Dickerson said he disagreed with David Hall. He said the indigent need a health care plan but that one of the major problems with TnCare is that recipients of TnCare have no cost associated with their consumption of health care so there is no decision making or reluctance to consume. He proposed a system of giving each TnCare recipients an allowance of $2000 a year for health care and if they did not use it all they got to keep what was left over. He said that while this may seem like a costly proposal that it would in fact save money.
He also said, one of the most costly aspects of TnCare is natal care cost due to infants who were born without adequate prenatal care. He said this cost could greatly be reduced if TnCare recipients would get prenatal care. He said he could support a program to pay women for getting prenatal care, perhaps paying them every time they kept a prenatal care appointment. Dr. Dickerson sounded like he was just getting started with more cost saving proposals when time was called.
Top Stories
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Agenda 21 spotted again: Alert number 3 (flagpole permits)
Since Representative Womick says a requirement of a flagpole permit, at no charge, to verify proper footings and wind-load design is an Agenda 21 policy, I am adding that to my list. This is getting to be a long list.
Here are other things that are considered Agenda 21 policies:
- introduction of wolves
- Actions that "enable the retrofitting of shopping malls and shopping centers into dense, walkable, mixed-use town centers"
- Fluoride and Aspartame
- outcome based education
- sustainable agriculture
- Community assets inventory
- Traffic Roundabouts
- greenways and bikeways
- conservation easements
- General Land use Plans
- Neighborhood groups
- Smart growth
- Smart Meters
- Community oriented policing
- opposition to suburban sprawl
- opposition to road expansions
- requirements that parking lots be paved
- requirements that commercial enterprises have a minimum number of parking spaces for various uses.
- the effort to regulate dietary supplements and organic foods
- Walkable Communities
- multi-use dwellings
- Buffer zones
Top Stories
Bragg takes Womick to task over Agenda 21 smear
I commented back in mid March how Republican legislator Representative Womick had offered as proof of the dangers of Agenda 21, the case of Papa’s Butts and BBQ Hot Sauce Store. This business had started out as an office of a fence construction company and the owners hobby of making hot sauce had turned the business into a different kind of business. From selling some hot sauce in the office of the fence company and then to smoking some shoulders, the location evolved into a restaurant. When the owner went to get a permit for a restaurant, he was told that due to the changing use of the property that now he would have to have a paved parking lot and a certain minimum number of parking spaces. Representative Womick said that type of regulation was an example of Agenda 21 policies.
It was upon reading this, that my skepticism of the danger of Agenda 21 took a big leap. Requiring a minimum number of parking spaces and paved parking lots for certain kinds of businesses has been standard procedures used across the nation for many, many years and predates Agenda 21. Subsequent to that story, I learned that the Board of Zoning appeal of Murfressboro granted the owner a variance. I don't know the nature of the variance or for how long, but that is the type of things BZA's do.
Now, there is more to the story. The mayor of Murfressboro has written two letters to Womick criticizing him for “misstatements” he made in the General Assembly in order to garner support for a resolution against United Nations
Agenda 21. In the first letter he criticizes "misstatement" about about city codes
enforcement and in the second letter he criticizes him for “misstatements” in a House Judiciary subcommittee meeting March 14 about Murfreesboro’s flag regulations.
Here is an excerpt from the local news paper that explains more. This excerpt starts quoting the Mayor:
“At the meeting, you began describing the event when you presented a Tennessee flag to the president of the Murfreesboro Medical Clinic (Joey Peay). You commented that after I presented it to him publicly, (he) comes to me and says, ‘Well, Rep. Womick, thank you very much for the Tennessee flag. I appreciate it, but you’re going to have to talk to the City of Murfreesboro because they won’t let me fly the Tennessee flag on my property. We’re not allowed to fly any flags. No U.S., no Tennessee, nothing.’”
The story goes on to say that the city requires a flagpole permit, at no charge, to verify proper footings and wind-load design. Read more of this story at this link: Bragg calls out Rep. Womick for remarks on House floor.
“Your comments at the committee meeting did not accurately state the city’s regulations,” Bragg wrote to Womick. “They created the impression that the city banned the display of the flag and damaged our reputation statewide as a patriotic community.”
I don't know what to say. This smearing of good people and misrepresenting of facts to make a point is reminiscent of McCarthyism, not that communist influence and infiltration of government was not a real problem at the time, but in the process of exposing and rooting out communist, hysteria was let loose and many good people were black listed and wrongly accused and communism was seen where it did not exist.
Requiring a permit to erect a flag pole may be government overreach. If a flagpole falls on someone and kills them or damages property, the judicial system and insurance claims may be sufficient to deal with it. If government was not involved in permitting flag pole construction, the private sector may be sufficient to cause people to be prudent and government may not be needed. If that is the argument, then make that argument. Don't make the Agenda 21 argument about something as simple as a requirement that one get a permit to erect a flag pole. Shame on you Representative Womick.
Top Stories
TNGOP Chairman's Statement On Today's Rallies Protesting A Fictional 'War On Women'
Tennessee Republican Party Chairman Chris Devaney released the
following statement on today’s rallies protesting a fictional ‘war on
women.’
“This is yet another political stunt by the Obama campaign and Democrat operatives. When
an incumbent President does not have a record to run on, he has to
create distractions, diversions and division – and that’s exactly what
we see with their fictional ‘war on women.’
“Tennesseans are smart enough not to be fooled by the Obama campaign’s gimmicks. They want solutions to our economic problems, not political sideshows.”
Top Stories
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
