Archive: Opinions

How ironic.  Our town wants to reduce our tax rate by a whopping 33%.  But doing so is now endangered by the sham of a 2% property tax levy cap law that New York State is imposing.  So this stupid law that in reality does NOT cap our taxes at 2% not only doesn't cap them but may force town officials to give taxpayers a smaller break than they want to and can afford to.

Only in New York State!  I have ranted about this before: that the people in Albany who brought us high taxes, billions in deficits, and unsustainable mandates have the gall to tell small municipalities how to spend their money.  Municipalities that are a lot more responsible and productive than the state government is, and that, by the way, want to do what is best for the particular people who live in them, not some idealized version of what officials want people to want.

The issues that may lower our town tax break are these:

First, next year's tax levy will set the base level that the 2% cap is calculated from.  So if the town gives too much back to the taxpayers now they won't be able to adjust five years down the road if there is a severe bump in the economy, for instance.

Second, the State is including special districts in the cap.  Just to be clear, special districts pay fees for services, and technically it is not a tax even though it shows up on our tax bills.  Only the people in the district pay those fees, and they are not part of the town budget.  What they are is managed by the town.

Sure, I don't think those fees should go up a lot every year -- look how much Bolton point has been raising water rates these two years because of poor capital planning.  Or no capital planning.  But lumping those fees in with taxes doesn't make any sense to me.

Our town officials have been having lively discussions about the budget and what cuts the town can sustain.  Based on the notion that expenses will rise by 2% per year some council members calculated the Town could afford a 44% tax rate reduction next year, with fund balances still being able to grow and all town departments funded.  Last week other council members insisted it was too much and the number dropped to a 33% reduction.

That is still a huge reduction, evidently 100% sustainable over the next several years.  Even if you calculate 3% or 4% growth in costs, the town can afford to reduce the tax rate by a substantial chunk.

But again, because of state meddling, responsible towns that are trying to do the right thing are mandated not to.  Lansing couldn't have this good news about its tax rate, not even for a week.  The State taketh and the State taketh away.  (Isn't there supposed to be a giveth in there somewhere?  And I'm not talking about welfare!)

We'll see what the final numbers look like early next month.  Maybe I'm skawking too soon.  Next week the Town Board will have had time to update their calculations based on this new information.  If I jumped the gun, it's because I, like my fellow New Yorkers, am raw from the constant battering of taxes and a miserable record in Albany that has done nothing but stress people who live in this state, especially the ones who haven't bailed and moved elsewhere.

v7i41