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

[Anonymous]

I know how to read and even work in an intellectual field, but the MoCo ballot is almost beyond me. Who the hell wrote the text for Question A and Question B? They are incomprehensible.

Also from a readability perspective, why does the ballot jump back and from from English to Spanish so much. Why not just have the full English passage, then the full Spanish passage? Better yet, just have an all English ballot and a separate all Spanish ballot.

Talk about voter suppression. It seems like this was intentionally designed to make people too baffled to vote.

[Anonymous]

Because the current charter limit (on which Question B is based) is very convoluted, so explaining changes to it in simple language is very complicated.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

No. The current charter limit forces the Council to lower the property tax rate every year. Then every several years they unanimously override the limit, because a continually lowering rate in a county with rising property values is not sustainable if you want good public services. Question B prohibits the Council from overriding the limit, ever, so the rate will just continue to go down. That is why Ike Leggett, Connie Morella and David Blair have joined together to oppose it. It is Tea Party idiocy.

[Anonymous]

I agree it is so complicated. I am voting against question one and for question two. I hope it’s the right choice, they are not making it easy to understand.

[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.

No. The current charter limit forces the Council to lower the property tax rate every year. Then every several years they unanimously override the limit, because a continually lowering rate in a county with rising property values is not sustainable if you want good public services. Question B prohibits the Council from overriding the limit, ever, so the rate will just continue to go down. That is why Ike Leggett, Connie Morella and David Blair have joined together to oppose it. It is Tea Party idiocy.

Right now, property assessments increase and tax rate can fluctuate up or down, but the two of them together lead to a net increase of your property tax bill every year. If you pass A, it means both assessments AND tax rate increase every year, compounding the yearly increase. It means your tax bill rises even faster than it does right now.

[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.

No. The current charter limit forces the Council to lower the property tax rate every year. Then every several years they unanimously override the limit, because a continually lowering rate in a county with rising property values is not sustainable if you want good public services. Question B prohibits the Council from overriding the limit, ever, so the rate will just continue to go down. That is why Ike Leggett, Connie Morella and David Blair have joined together to oppose it. It is Tea Party idiocy.

Right now, property assessments increase and tax rate can fluctuate up or down, but the two of them together lead to a net increase of your property tax bill every year. If you pass A, it means both assessments AND tax rate increase every year, compounding the yearly increase. It means your tax bill rises even faster than it does right now.

No. Question A explicitly says the Council cannot increase the tax rate without a unanimous vote. The rate will not increase every year. Right now the limit is more stringent (the rate is forced to go down every year) and they rarely override it.

[Anonymous]

So if you vote no to both A and B, then the system stays the way it is now, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if you vote no to both A and B, then the system stays the way it is now, right?

Yep

[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.

No. The current charter limit forces the Council to lower the property tax rate every year. Then every several years they unanimously override the limit, because a continually lowering rate in a county with rising property values is not sustainable if you want good public services. Question B prohibits the Council from overriding the limit, ever, so the rate will just continue to go down. That is why Ike Leggett, Connie Morella and David Blair have joined together to oppose it. It is Tea Party idiocy.

Right now, property assessments increase and tax rate can fluctuate up or down, but the two of them together lead to a net increase of your property tax bill every year. If you pass A, it means both assessments AND tax rate increase every year, compounding the yearly increase. It means your tax bill rises even faster than it does right now.

You're not accurately characterizing the difference between the current situation and the situation if A passes.

First of all, you're assuming the council will vote to increase property taxes beyond the caps imposed in the charter. That, by the way, requires a unanimous vote, both under the current charter, and under Question A. In either case, the council can raise property taxes as they see fit, provided they can get a unanimous vote of the council-members. So there's not really a difference if you assume the council will override the cap.

The difference is if you don't override the cap. Under the current property tax limit, on average, your property tax bill will increase roughly on par with inflation. If you pass Question A, your property tax bill will increase based on the assessed value of your home.

Since housing costs are increasing a little faster than inflation, it's probably fair to expect your property taxes to increase a little faster if Question A passes. But the difference will not be dramatic. And it's questionable that it would really have any lasting impact at all, since it's probably the case either way that the council will override the cap from time-to-time, cancelling out any differences anyway.

[Anonymous]

I agree - I think separate English and Spanish ballots would be easier to read. I also got really stuck on Questions A and B — despite doing a bit of internet research. Then I got angry. I found it difficult to understand — and I have a PhD. If the ballot questions can’t be printed in clear language, there should be at least one neutral source that explains the questions and their possible implications in clear and simple language. It was also not as easy as I thought it would be to get straightforward information on each of the candidates for the local positions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if you vote no to both A and B, then the system stays the way it is now, right?

Yep

I’m afraid not enough people will do that, so I voted for A because it is better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if you vote no to both A and B, then the system stays the way it is now, right?

Yep

I’m afraid not enough people will do that, so I voted for A because it is better.

I voted “No” to both. So there are, at least, a few of us. I agree with you, though, that A is better.

[Anonymous]

I voted no to A, B, and C. Voted yes to D.

[Anonymous]

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.