Tax Cuts. The Houston Chronicle Editorial Board, Chron.com
(Due to the high level of "seriously?" in this editorial I am going to quote a bit more than usual, not a Fisking but certainly a review)
Mayor Annise Parker just cut Houston's property tax rate to its lowest level since 1987. Then again, it wasn't exactly her idea. City Hall was compelled by Houston's revenue cap to make the cut. The cap, which was first approved in 2004, restricts the annual growth in property tax collections to the combined rate of inflation and population growth, or 4.5 percent, whichever is lower ("Forced by cap, Houston cuts tax rate again," Page A1, Thursday). If it were up to Parker, the city would be free to keep rates where they are and collect the extra $20 million from the last budget year and $112 million from the next. After all, the city's pension obligations aren't restrained to 4.5 percent growth, and revenue should be allowed to keep up. There's also calls for the city to hire more police officers and fix routine infrastructure problems, not to mention the projected $126 million budget deficit for next year. Every week, 11 district council members sit around the City Hall horseshoe to advocate for their own individual districts, and five at-large council members argue for big picture concerns. This push and pull of interests makes it easy to find deserving, responsible ways to spend funds on necessary services. Remove the cap, and it isn't hard to guess exactly how the money will be spent on potholes, pensions and public safety.
This may, or may not be true. The fact remains however that any discussion of Houston's budget without mentioning historical excesses in the current context is silly and does a disservice to the readers. For example. It IS relatively hard to guess exactly how the money will be spent because the city has several "nice to have" initiatives that have consistently taken priority over pensions, potholes and public safety. Mayor Parker herself has spend money on parklets, green bike lanes (Just like Amsterdam!!), parks, potties, funding for the arts, bike-share, bike-paths, murals and a host of other items that are not potholes, pensions and public safety.
While it is fair to argue against the voter imposed, pillow-soft, revenue cap, it's not fair to suggest that the windfall the city would receive from its removal will instantly go to core priorities. Doing so ignores the city's recent history of throwing money at all kinds of 'nice to have' trinkets while ignoring the meat and potatoes issues of potholes, pensions and public safety. To say that the editorial board is being naïve here is probably too kind as they are some of the biggest cheerleaders for trinket governance that the Houston area has.
It gets worse when they get to the County....
As former Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector Don Sumners wrote Tuesday, Harris County is expecting a record $230 million in increased tax revenues, and will not return any of that to homeowners who have seen their property values - and taxes paid - skyrocket ("We should all share in county's windfall," Page B5, Tuesday). If the county had straightforward budget holes that had to be filled or pressing policy needs, like the city of Houston, this static tax rate would seem perfectly reasonable. However, when the Houston Chronicle editorial board met with county representatives to discuss bond votes, they couldn't provide any explicit plans for how taxpayer dollars would be spent. Instead, we heard two key goals in their spending plans. First, ensure that money is equally split between commissioner precincts. Second, provide roads for new, far-flung growth throughout the county.
If the county can't say how it will spend our money, then taxpayers should get some of it back.
Just to get this straight. The Editorial Board of the Houston Chronicle is openly advocating that Harris County give some of their tax income back to the taxpayers via refunds. That they have too much money, so much that they don't know how to spend it.
Or are they?
These sorts of rate cuts don't necessarily mean you'll pay less on your taxes. Growth in property values will likely eclipse whatever relief homeowners receive. But if the government can't justify its spending, then it has not earned the right to collect. City Hall has a portfolio of problems that could be solved by removing the revenue cap. For the county, all we see is a blank check.
Not really. Because, what the Editorial Board is really arguing for is a repeal of the voter imposed, pillow-soft revenue cap. They, and the government, view taxpayer dollars as revenue earned, not income taken from taxpayers. This is a big flaw in the thinking of many in the ruling class, specifically that they are entitled to unlimited revenue to spend as they wish. Make no mistake about it, if the City did not find itself forced to cut the property tax rate under the current revenue cap, we would not see this editorial at all. At least here, unlike in their hard news story on the item, they got it right that the average homeowner will not see a cut, only a slowdown in the increase on their tax bill.
This is not about the County having too much money, it's about the Editorial Board, and by extension the City of Houston, feeling that it doesn't have enough. I expect to see more and more of this stuff coming from the Chronicle in the run-up to the 2017 elections when a referendum on the cap can be expected to show up on the ballot. You're going to hear gloom and doom and tales not only of financial woe, but of fiscal disaster and a city spinning toward the precipice with no brakes and no money to buy them. Imagine Detroit, but without Joe Louis' fist in the town square.
My question to the Houston Chronicle Editorial Board is this:
If you're so worried about the County having too much money then why did you recommend voting FOR all four bonds they placed on the ballot?
Go ahead, think about that. I'll wait.
