MoCo ballot - Why is the language of Q.A and Q.B so complicated?

[Anonymous]

I find the language to be very tricky. You vote for against a proposition or against against a proposition. They need to do a better job at writing this in simpler language that the general population will understand.

[Anonymous]

I'm a big believer in plain English ballot questions, which are rare. I lived in NYC when the question concerned term limits for the mayor: yes or no? The question was phrased with so many double negatives that a "no" vote meant you FAVORED term limits and a "yes" vote meant no. "Do you not approve of the ability of an office holder to not serve..." etc.

Back to MoCo:
Today, a "translation" of the ballot questions appeared on the Seventh State web site. Today's post is authored by Adam Pagnucco:

Question A: Would freeze the property tax rate but allow a unanimous vote of the council to increase it. Authored by Council Member Andrew Friedson.
See Why Progressives Should Support the Friedson Amendment.

Question B: Would remove the ability of the county council to break the current charter limit on property taxes, thereby capping property tax revenue growth at the rate of inflation. Authored by Robin Ficker.

Question C: Would add 2 district seats to the county council, thereby establishing 7 district seats and 4 at-large seats. Authored by Council Member Evan Glass.
See MoCo Could Use More County Council Districts.

Question D: Would convert the current council’s 5 district seats and 4 at-large seats to 9 district seats. Authored by Nine District for MoCo.
See Don’t Abolish the At-Large County Council Seats, Nine Kings and Queens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The current way of calculating revenue from property taxes is based on past revenue, not the tax rate. Question A is changing it so that it's based on the tax rate instead, making it more straightforward for the County Council to increase your property taxes every year (compounding). Question B seeks to limit the amount of property taxes that can increase from year to year. If the County Council can't grow the local economy more than the rate of inflation, then they shouldn't be able to increase our property taxes more than the rate of inflation either. It's confusing because Elrich and the County Council want you to think no read it, think it's a binary choice between A/B, and choose A. A means enabling the County Council to tax more, while B sets limits. B still means your taxes will be higher year after year, but it goes up at a slower rate compared to A. I like lower taxes, so I like B.

As already mentioned, this is an inaccurate summary. And pretty much no one who understands B supports B, except Robin Ficker. It will systematically decrease funding for schools and other public services over time, with no way to fix it except coming back to pass another ballot measure to overturn it. Even the Chamber of Commerce opposes B.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The current way of calculating revenue from property taxes is based on past revenue, not the tax rate. Question A is changing it so that it's based on the tax rate instead, making it more straightforward for the County Council to increase your property taxes every year (compounding). Question B seeks to limit the amount of property taxes that can increase from year to year. If the County Council can't grow the local economy more than the rate of inflation, then they shouldn't be able to increase our property taxes more than the rate of inflation either. It's confusing because Elrich and the County Council want you to think no read it, think it's a binary choice between A/B, and choose A. A means enabling the County Council to tax more, while B sets limits. B still means your taxes will be higher year after year, but it goes up at a slower rate compared to A. I like lower taxes, so I like B.

As already mentioned, this is an inaccurate summary. And pretty much no one who understands B supports B, except Robin Ficker. It will systematically decrease funding for schools and other public services over time, with no way to fix it except coming back to pass another ballot measure to overturn it. Even the Chamber of Commerce opposes B.

I voted for A and against B, but I think it is disingenuous to characterize "increasing at the rate of inflation" as systematically decreasing.

But it's still a terrible idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The current way of calculating revenue from property taxes is based on past revenue, not the tax rate. Question A is changing it so that it's based on the tax rate instead, making it more straightforward for the County Council to increase your property taxes every year (compounding). Question B seeks to limit the amount of property taxes that can increase from year to year. If the County Council can't grow the local economy more than the rate of inflation, then they shouldn't be able to increase our property taxes more than the rate of inflation either. It's confusing because Elrich and the County Council want you to think no read it, think it's a binary choice between A/B, and choose A. A means enabling the County Council to tax more, while B sets limits. B still means your taxes will be higher year after year, but it goes up at a slower rate compared to A. I like lower taxes, so I like B.

As already mentioned, this is an inaccurate summary. And pretty much no one who understands B supports B, except Robin Ficker. It will systematically decrease funding for schools and other public services over time, with no way to fix it except coming back to pass another ballot measure to overturn it. Even the Chamber of Commerce opposes B.

I voted for A and against B, but I think it is disingenuous to characterize "increasing at the rate of inflation" as systematically decreasing.

But it's still a terrible idea.

I mean, technically the budget grows, but the cost of providing public services increases faster than the standard inflation rate, so your dollars buy less and less services over time. (See i.e. here: https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/policy-basics-taxpayer-bill-of-rights-tabor)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The current way of calculating revenue from property taxes is based on past revenue, not the tax rate. Question A is changing it so that it's based on the tax rate instead, making it more straightforward for the County Council to increase your property taxes every year (compounding). Question B seeks to limit the amount of property taxes that can increase from year to year. If the County Council can't grow the local economy more than the rate of inflation, then they shouldn't be able to increase our property taxes more than the rate of inflation either. It's confusing because Elrich and the County Council want you to think no read it, think it's a binary choice between A/B, and choose A. A means enabling the County Council to tax more, while B sets limits. B still means your taxes will be higher year after year, but it goes up at a slower rate compared to A. I like lower taxes, so I like B.

As already mentioned, this is an inaccurate summary. And pretty much no one who understands B supports B, except Robin Ficker. It will systematically decrease funding for schools and other public services over time, with no way to fix it except coming back to pass another ballot measure to overturn it. Even the Chamber of Commerce opposes B.

I voted for A and against B, but I think it is disingenuous to characterize "increasing at the rate of inflation" as systematically decreasing.

But it's still a terrible idea.

I mean, technically the budget grows, but the cost of providing public services increases faster than the standard inflation rate, so your dollars buy less and less services over time. (See i.e. here: https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/policy-basics-taxpayer-bill-of-rights-tabor)

And I believe that B is even worse than TABOR (which has devastated Colorado and failed in every other state it's been tried) because it doesn't even allow adjustments for population growth. So if there's 2% inflation, but the cost of delivering public services increases 4% and there are 3% more schoolchildren in the county than last year, then yeah, technically the budget can increase 2%, but there's no way you can consider that anything other than a cut in funds and services. And then it keeps happening year after year...

[Anonymous]

I am voting for B because the council needs to better control expenses. question A gives them a green light to tax us for their mistakes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The current way of calculating revenue from property taxes is based on past revenue, not the tax rate. Question A is changing it so that it's based on the tax rate instead, making it more straightforward for the County Council to increase your property taxes every year (compounding). Question B seeks to limit the amount of property taxes that can increase from year to year. If the County Council can't grow the local economy more than the rate of inflation, then they shouldn't be able to increase our property taxes more than the rate of inflation either. It's confusing because Elrich and the County Council want you to think no read it, think it's a binary choice between A/B, and choose A. A means enabling the County Council to tax more, while B sets limits. B still means your taxes will be higher year after year, but it goes up at a slower rate compared to A. I like lower taxes, so I like B.

As already mentioned, this is an inaccurate summary. And pretty much no one who understands B supports B, except Robin Ficker. It will systematically decrease funding for schools and other public services over time, with no way to fix it except coming back to pass another ballot measure to overturn it. Even the Chamber of Commerce opposes B.

I voted for A and against B, but I think it is disingenuous to characterize "increasing at the rate of inflation" as systematically decreasing.

But it's still a terrible idea.

I mean, technically the budget grows, but the cost of providing public services increases faster than the standard inflation rate, so your dollars buy less and less services over time. (See i.e. here: https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/policy-basics-taxpayer-bill-of-rights-tabor)

Well then get those costs of public services in line with the inflation rate!!

[Anonymous]

OP is right. It's very confusing. This is by design.

B was added because the organizers got more than 10,00 signatures from registered voters in MoCo. Same with D.

The Council didn't like this, so they hurriedly added A and C to counteract those. No public comment period, no signatures. They can just add at will.

Now, if A and C have merit, why did they wait until now to add them? Why not put them on the ballot 2 years ago?

Look at motivations. I voted for B and D, and against A and C.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The current way of calculating revenue from property taxes is based on past revenue, not the tax rate. Question A is changing it so that it's based on the tax rate instead, making it more straightforward for the County Council to increase your property taxes every year (compounding). Question B seeks to limit the amount of property taxes that can increase from year to year. If the County Council can't grow the local economy more than the rate of inflation, then they shouldn't be able to increase our property taxes more than the rate of inflation either. It's confusing because Elrich and the County Council want you to think no read it, think it's a binary choice between A/B, and choose A. A means enabling the County Council to tax more, while B sets limits. B still means your taxes will be higher year after year, but it goes up at a slower rate compared to A. I like lower taxes, so I like B.

As already mentioned, this is an inaccurate summary. And pretty much no one who understands B supports B, except Robin Ficker. It will systematically decrease funding for schools and other public services over time, with no way to fix it except coming back to pass another ballot measure to overturn it. Even the Chamber of Commerce opposes B.

I voted for A and against B, but I think it is disingenuous to characterize "increasing at the rate of inflation" as systematically decreasing.

But it's still a terrible idea.

I mean, technically the budget grows, but the cost of providing public services increases faster than the standard inflation rate, so your dollars buy less and less services over time. (See i.e. here: https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/policy-basics-taxpayer-bill-of-rights-tabor)

Well then get those costs of public services in line with the inflation rate!!

I mean my rent increases more than inflation each year. The cost of buying property in the county increases by more than inflation in most years. These directly impact the county's costs and impact how far a county employee's salary goes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The current way of calculating revenue from property taxes is based on past revenue, not the tax rate. Question A is changing it so that it's based on the tax rate instead, making it more straightforward for the County Council to increase your property taxes every year (compounding). Question B seeks to limit the amount of property taxes that can increase from year to year. If the County Council can't grow the local economy more than the rate of inflation, then they shouldn't be able to increase our property taxes more than the rate of inflation either. It's confusing because Elrich and the County Council want you to think no read it, think it's a binary choice between A/B, and choose A. A means enabling the County Council to tax more, while B sets limits. B still means your taxes will be higher year after year, but it goes up at a slower rate compared to A. I like lower taxes, so I like B.

As already mentioned, this is an inaccurate summary. And pretty much no one who understands B supports B, except Robin Ficker. It will systematically decrease funding for schools and other public services over time, with no way to fix it except coming back to pass another ballot measure to overturn it. Even the Chamber of Commerce opposes B.

I voted for A and against B, but I think it is disingenuous to characterize "increasing at the rate of inflation" as systematically decreasing.

But it's still a terrible idea.

I mean, technically the budget grows, but the cost of providing public services increases faster than the standard inflation rate, so your dollars buy less and less services over time. (See i.e. here: https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/policy-basics-taxpayer-bill-of-rights-tabor)

Well then get those costs of public services in line with the inflation rate!!

How? By making deep cuts to other areas of the budget every time an unfunded education mandate comes down? Giving up on ever trying to reduce class sizes? Constantly giving county and school employee less and less in health care benefits every year (since health care costs always rise much faster than inflation)? (Great way to keep great teachers!) Never renovating or constructing new schools (something else that has cost growth faster than inflation?) Skipping any health and safety improvements due to COVID because that would be a big new cost that wasn't in the budget last year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The League of Women voters newsletter helped us figure them out to an extent. It is disappointing that many probably had no idea what they were voting for or against.

Thank you for posting this! I wish I had known about this as a resource BEFORE I voted.

[Anonymous]

I voted no on both questions.

Both are surreptitious and worded as such intently. The questions are a choice between horrible and fairly bad.

Start over kids and come back with an honest, straight forward proposal.