COLUMN: SPLOST effort will be uphill
County and city officials are meeting later this week to discuss details of what to put on a new SPLOST that would be voted on by citizens this summer or next fall.
But at this point, SPLOST is DOA. Taxpayers are furious about how some local governments have abused SPLOST dollars and at how unresponsive local government has been in lowering property tax values in the recession.
Taxpayers can’t control much about what their governments do, but they can cut off SPLOST as a protest against government abuse.
There is a small possibility, however, that voters might support SPLOST if local government officials do the following two things:
1. First, all of the SPLOST money should remain at the county level. Not one dime of SPLOST should go to any town in Jackson County; too many have abused SPLOST money for items that did not qualify. Since that isn’t illegal in Georgia, the only recourse is for taxpayers to cut the money off as punishment for these towns’ abuse.
2. All of the next SPLOST should not only be kept at the county level, but also 100 percent of the SPLOST should be used to reduce the county’s current debt. No new projects should be initiated; no new debt should be created.
County officials could have made SPLOST renewal easier if they’d done three things differently.
First, county leaders should have allowed taxpayers to vote on the creation of all the debt they’ve taken on. From the courthouse project forward, Jackson County has assumed a lot of debt in recent years. Some of that was necessary. Still, had county leaders put those projects before voters, they wouldn’t be facing a SPLOST crisis. If voters approve debt, then voters are obligated to pay it. Instead, county leaders created debt without a vote and taxpayers can rightly now say, “We didn’t obligate ourselves to that.”
Second, if county leaders had stood up to city officials who have been abusing SPLOST money, the public might have more confidence in the system. But so far, not a single county leader has stood up in public to decry how several towns have abused SPLOST money. Nobody in government wants to talk about the accountability of SPLOST funds; they just want the money. That lack of accountability is very troubling.
Finally, county leaders should have been more proactive in addressing the property tax problems in Jackson County. They were certainly very happy when property values were rising year after year. They didn’t mind finding new ways to spend that windfall rather than cutting taxes. But now when property values are falling, they’ve been silent on making sure taxpayers are being treated fairly. Voters are furious about that.
Of course, the next phase in this SPLOST discussion will be for county and city officials to put a gun to taxpayers’ heads by saying, “If you don’t approve the SPLOST, we’re going to raise your property taxes.”
But voters are tired of such threats. And they’re tired of government dictating to them rather than governments listening to them.
Maybe it’s time for Jackson County leaders to stop telling taxpayers what THEY want and start asking taxpayers what we’re willing to pay for.
Mike Buffington is editor of The Jackson Herald. He can be reached at mike@mainstreetnews.com.
Taxpayers can’t control much about what their governments do, but they can cut off SPLOST as a protest against government abuse.
There is a small possibility, however, that voters might support SPLOST if local government officials do the following two things:
1. First, all of the SPLOST money should remain at the county level. Not one dime of SPLOST should go to any town in Jackson County; too many have abused SPLOST money for items that did not qualify. Since that isn’t illegal in Georgia, the only recourse is for taxpayers to cut the money off as punishment for these towns’ abuse.
2. All of the next SPLOST should not only be kept at the county level, but also 100 percent of the SPLOST should be used to reduce the county’s current debt. No new projects should be initiated; no new debt should be created.
County officials could have made SPLOST renewal easier if they’d done three things differently.
First, county leaders should have allowed taxpayers to vote on the creation of all the debt they’ve taken on. From the courthouse project forward, Jackson County has assumed a lot of debt in recent years. Some of that was necessary. Still, had county leaders put those projects before voters, they wouldn’t be facing a SPLOST crisis. If voters approve debt, then voters are obligated to pay it. Instead, county leaders created debt without a vote and taxpayers can rightly now say, “We didn’t obligate ourselves to that.”
Second, if county leaders had stood up to city officials who have been abusing SPLOST money, the public might have more confidence in the system. But so far, not a single county leader has stood up in public to decry how several towns have abused SPLOST money. Nobody in government wants to talk about the accountability of SPLOST funds; they just want the money. That lack of accountability is very troubling.
Finally, county leaders should have been more proactive in addressing the property tax problems in Jackson County. They were certainly very happy when property values were rising year after year. They didn’t mind finding new ways to spend that windfall rather than cutting taxes. But now when property values are falling, they’ve been silent on making sure taxpayers are being treated fairly. Voters are furious about that.
Of course, the next phase in this SPLOST discussion will be for county and city officials to put a gun to taxpayers’ heads by saying, “If you don’t approve the SPLOST, we’re going to raise your property taxes.”
But voters are tired of such threats. And they’re tired of government dictating to them rather than governments listening to them.
Maybe it’s time for Jackson County leaders to stop telling taxpayers what THEY want and start asking taxpayers what we’re willing to pay for.
Mike Buffington is editor of The Jackson Herald. He can be reached at mike@mainstreetnews.com.
SPLOST will help keep taxes down whether it is used for debt or infrastructure. These are things that need to be done. In the case of debt, it has to be done. The tax payers are on the hook so why not try get as much out of a sales tax as possible. Have some of the out of towners help pay for our infrastructure. You can count on the fact that you are building the coffers of other tax districts when you spend money outside of the county boundary.
The point is the services citizens demand and the infrastructure to support them are not free. If you want your government to hear your voice then remember to bring a list of the services you no longer want when you vote no to cut funding!
1. You suggest SPLOST will "keep taxes down." SPLOST is a tax, not free money.
2. You suggest those who misuse the money "should be held accountable." I agree and the only way to do that is to cut off the source of the money that is being misused; there is no other way to hold government officials accountable. If you have an idea of how to do that, let's hear it.
3. You suggest the citizens "demand" these services, but in fact citizens were denied the opportunity to vote on any of the debt they're now being asked to pay for. If public officials want citizen support, then they should have allowed a vote, but they chose not to. The taxpaying citizens didn't "demand" anything.
2. How do you figure that the only way to hold those elected public servants accountable is to vote down SPLOST? Can't the voters vote them out of office if they are not handling the people's business properly?
3. Since you are advocating lowering the millage rate and not renewing SPLOST, how about answering the writers question. Tell everybody how much should the millage rate be decreased and what services that you'd cut to offset the loss? Give us numbers and not just generalities.
You've spent the better of your adult life writing about Jackson County and should be able to step right in. Instead of being the one who criticizes all the time, try being the one that actually has to solve the problems. Do that and soon you'll know exactly what the taxpaying citizens are demanding.
As for services, I don't recall the taxpaying citizens ever — not once — demanding a new courthouse, or a multi-million dollar training facility. Nor do I remember Jefferson taxpayers demanding $150,000 in "recreation" SPLOST money be thrown away on a radio station.
Local public officials have increasingly shown poor judgement in handing our tax dollars. Why should taxpayers trust them now to handle it correctly?
As for my role, it's a newspaper's job to ask the questions and to hold public officials accountable for their actions in the public sphere. I make no apologies for doing that.
Silly me, I thought that you journalists were supposed to do the following in an unbiased fashion: look, listen, report. I thought it was the public’s job to decipher the information and act. That aside, your platitude sounds nice. Unfortunately it’s misleading. You’re not simply asking questions and attempting to hold public officials accountable, you’re advocating a specific position. You contend that local governments should have lowered their millage rates in response to the recession. I’m simply asking for clarification. Specifically, which local government(s) should have lowered their millage rate(s) and by how much? What services would you cut to offset the losses? Larger class sizes? Longer school bus rides? Fewer teachers? Shorter school years? Less police or police equipment? Less firefighters and firefighting equipment? No road maintenance? Shut the libraries? Shut off the utilities?
You must know that sales tax collections and other revenue sources are reduced already reduced, thanks to the recession that you’ve alluded to. This is essentially a back door tax cut and this means that these local governments are already getting less money to operate. On top of that, you’re advocating reducing sales tax collections and property tax collections.
You complain about your new courthouse. Do you contend that the old one was still serviceable? My understanding is that the old one was a fire waiting to happen and 200 years of original records would have gone up in smoke when it did. I wonder how many gallons of ink and how many rolls of paper you’ve had used to tell us how irresponsible Jackson County’s leaders were for not replacing that fire trap had it burned before a new one had been built. The people elect people that they feel will look at the problems and do what is needed. Do you expect them to hold a referendum for every decision?
I wasn’t looking for an apology for what you say and didn’t expect one. I’m simply trying to ask questions and hold those in the public spotlight accountable when they advocate a position to their public, while not fully informing that same public of the full ramifications of the action of which they advocate.
I never said local governments should lower the millage rate, but rather that local governments should have adjusted property values down to follow the market. As I recall, you have opposed property assessments being lowered to reflect the true current values due to the high number of foreclosures.
As for what government should cut, how about salaries and benefits that are higher than similar private sector jobs; and how about cutting administrative staff levels where we have secretaries for secretaries. If you think local governments are effecient, then think again. There is waste that could and should be cut.
As for the SPLOST, if there is a system of accountability and if the majority of the money is used to retire existing debt, I'm all for it. But that's not what has happened in the past. Let me ask you a question, what specific new projects do you want a SPLOST to pay for in the middle of a major recession?
You don't seem to agree, but I believe the public should have input into the decisions our leaders make. We don't just elect them then walk away until the next election. They should ask taxpayers what they're willing to pay for in a SPLOST rather than dictate that. And given the history of SPLOST abuse by some local governments, why shouldn't taxpayers hold them accountable?
I may be wrong, but I think I reflect a very prevelent opinion in Jackson County that it's time to have some greater accountability about how our tax dollars are being spent. That certainly isn't the view of our government-elites, but frankly, I think they're out of touch on this issue.
If the SPLOST vote later this year fails, it will be due to their own arrogance and unwillingness to listen to what taxpayers are now trying to tell them.
I say cut out those who have proven they can't properly handle SPLOST funds. That is not everone though. Another option is to have the County be the custodian of SPLOST funds like in the previous SPLOST. Yet another option is to have independant auditors, chosen by a comittee or some other fashion, to audit the spending. Who ever is found to be purposfully misusing SPLOST forfeits the rest and those funds can be directed towards County debt. There are a lot of ways it can be structured.
Citizens do demand services. I am one of them, but not the only one. I want roads to drive on. I want water to drink and I want sewer services to help protect the streams and rivers from our crap. Literally. I want these things in place to attract business so I can get a job closer to home. I don't care if it is government or private industry that provides it. I also understand these thing have a cost associated with them.
On the debt issue, I agree with you. We should have a choice. That does not change the fact that debt has been issued and the tax payers are on the hook for it. Lets use SPLOST to pay down some of the current debt load if we can. Also lets use some SPLOST to fund things like roads, parks, water & sewer services, etc.
I have my list of things I can do without by cutting funding to governments if it happens. Just have the people who enjoy the local government services do the same. If we cut funding by voting no on SPLOST and then actually keep prpoerty taxes from rising, there is nothing left for a Gov. to do but cut services.
The key issue here is accountability; today there is none, nada, nyet. Local governments are abusing SPLOST dollars and there is no legally enforceable way to stop it short of cutting off the flow of dollars to them. That's why all of the money should stay at the county level and none should be allocated to local towns until state law is changed to hold them accountable for how they spend SPLOST. They've violated the public trust and should be punished for that by having the money cut off.
You're right, we are on the hook for the current debt; but how will taxpayers ever put a stop to the government's increasing debt load short of turning off the money?
I think the difference between your views and mine are simply I have no faith or trust in local officials to do the right thing with SPLOST and you apparently believe they will do the right thing. (I base my view on their sorry trackrecord.)
In addition, have they even asked the public what we want to pay for? No, tonight it's the governments meeting together to plan the next SPLOST; why the hell don't they ask the taxpayers what they're willing to pay for?
Such top-down decision making is not going to fly in today's difficult economic environment. Unless publc officials start showing some respect for the public, taxpayers will kill the next SPLOST at the ballot box.
I see where you are coming from, but I disagree about all SPLOST going to the County. Call me a biased city resident. I don't know if a County SPLOST would be approved without the support of the cities. You probably know that too. Anyway we will see how it plays out.
I think residents should have a say but it can't be some free for all where everyone puts ideas in a hat and what ever gets the most wins. There has to be some sort of organization and planning to the type of projects to be funded. The SPLOST people vote on has a reference to the type of projects being funded. If they don't like them then vote no. Maybe this one will be more specific.
What do you suggest a County does to get the taxpayers input in a managable fashion? Who will have the ultimate say in what projects the citizens want? It is doubtfull all residents will agree.
Just to put the record straight, I do not have full faith in our local governments ability to do the right thing. I don't have faith that the citizens can pull together and decide what the right thing is. There is an agenda for everyone.
As for keeping the money at the county level, those living in cities are also on the hook for the county debt, so there is no bias against city residents in that kind of plan. Everyone pays county debt, so why would city voters vote against it?
Nobody is suggesting a free-for-all, but taxpayers should have a way to say what they will and won't support; why haven't public officials made such a forum available? Ultimately, county officials decide what's on the ballot for a SPLOST, but do dictate that rather than ask for input is politically stupid and does nothing to engender trust in the process.
But the biggest issue remains accountability; unless there is a way make local governments accountable, then taxpayers will vote the SPLOST down no matter what the merits of the projects may be. The abuse has to stop and if that means cutting the flow of dollars off, then so be it. Greedy and unethical public officials have brought this situation on themselves. Had they done the right thing, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
A defeat of SPLOST is a defeat for continued Jackson County prosperity for the coming decade. Without the additional SPLOST revenue, the critical infrastructure mentioned by Just a resident will either fall into disrepair or be directly subsidized by property taxes, i.e. MUCH higher millage rates.
The abuses of SPLOST by a few cities for a few questionable-to-asinine projects pales in comparison to the overall benefit of SPLOST. The courthouse notwithstanding (not a SPLOST project anyway to my recollection), $50+ million generated by SPLOST appears far more beneficial than the few examples you cite such as the $150,000 spent on the radio station. Also, if I remember correctly, the fire training site was only supposed to be a small-scale SPLOST project. Later bonds were issued for it as plans for the project apparently expanded.
In response to your proposition of direct democracy for all major projects (seemingly SPLOST-based or not), may I point you to the voter initiatives in California that have not only bankrupted the state but also tied the government's hands to find a sustainable revenue source to balance the budget? Elections have consequences. We must be sure to pick the candidate that makes these choices actually has the wherewithal to understand the big picture, including the long-term debt associated with each project.
Further, like others have stated, without SPLOST to service debt and provide for infrastructure, the cities and county will have to be virtually gutted of almost all programs and services in order to pay for past projects and constitutional officers. Can you imagine a court system whereby there is nobody to process the cases but the elected official because the county or city cannot afford to hire staff. Criminals would almost certainly walk free for almost any offense.
And lastly, it would be nice to use a great portion of SPLOST to retire debt, but 100%??? That would mean no new roads or water/sewer upgrades for at least 5-6 years. That'll really attract new jobs to the area huh?
Anyway, thanks for the forum to debate this topic.
-RB
As for the abuse, I don't excuse wrongdoing just because of the dollar amounts. If it's wrong, it's wrong--and $150,000 is not chump change.
I didn't advocate direct democracy, just a forum for the public to have input. What's wrong with that?
Many people would support using a SPLOST to retire existing debt; but new projects are suspect given the state of the economy. No private investors are sinking millions of dollars into projects now, why should government?
As for new projects, what specifically is needed that isn't already in the works?
Getting the debt down is, in my opinion, the county's biggest priority.
I say all of this to point to the fact that attracting and initiating private investment in the community is dependent on the quality and availability of these items.
Again, I agree that SPLOST should be written to include a great portion dedicated to debt retirement and counties and cities facing upcoming SPLOST initiatives should be sure to go back to the basics rather than splurging on more parks and other niceties.
I for one want the local goverment to live like I do, within a budget. A tax is a tax, I don't care what name you give it. When was the last time any money was ever returned to the taxpayer.
Mr. Burgandy is correct when he says that without SPLOST a lot of the basic services will be gutted or ignored out of necessity. SPLOST is a vital revenue source for these things which is why I don't believe 100% should go to County debt. Let some of be used to service the debt, but let the County find a way to come up with the rest.
It is foolish to think a private entity would locate to a place where they have to invest a lot of money to have basic services such as roads, and water/sewer. A company will look to where it can go to have the least impact on their bottom line. In response to that we need to have these things in place as best we can. To a large extent that means having to be proactive in our investment. Otherwise we will lose jobs to the areas that do.
I am not advocating we give private entities a free ride though. We can offset some of the cost through tap fees, limited tax abatements, and other means.
For better or worse I have enjoyed having a forum to post my opinions. Thanks Mike!
If memory serves me correctly it was the county BOC and cities that wanted all this sewer built to attract business in the first place and now things went belly up.
Apply 95% of SPLOST to debt and the rest for minor capital improvement.
The big point here to ALL of you if SPLOST fails the millage rate goes up and I for one would rather that EVERYONE pays not just land owners.
How would our local goverment payback debt if not SPLOST ? Most of the debt in both the county or city is backed by GEFA or bonds.
Do you think there going to allow anyone to throw up there hands and say "we can't pay" when they can raise taxs?!
BEWARE that SPLOST is the lesser of two evils the alternative will finish off many more home owners and buisness's in Jackson County.
Mike Buffington we must still keep a % of SPLOST for captial projects like Roads and bridges as we can't swallow those costs otherwise.
I don't like the abuse anymore then the rest of you but the milage rate increase that HAS TO HAPPEN if SPLOST doesn't pass is worse.
The usual arguments for SPLOST are really just rationalizations. First, there is always the assertion that renters don't pay property taxes. But landlords will charge more for rent if the property taxes rise, so renters will pay the tax.
As for visitors shouldering a significant portion of the tax burden, there will be some people who come to Jackson County to shop. But many people in Jackson County shop out of county and pay whatever taxes are levied there. Actually, every time I buy in Gwinnett, my taxes go down. Lowering the sales tax here might bring some of those shoppers back.
Bubba, 30 years old, who lives with Momma, doesn't pay property taxes.
People who live in government housing and government subsidized housing don't pay property tax.
Sales tax is the fairest way to tax everyone evenly. The more you got the more you spend and the more tax you pay. No politicians to tinker with the process. It's fair.
That being said, vote no on SPLOST until the county agrees to either apply it to the debt or decrease property taxes. That's fair.
get in office they worry about their own pockets and how much they can squeeze out to make their life comfortable first then the they work on their good ole boys that gave money to their being voted into the seat they now whole. they forget about the poor people and the middle class families that are having a hard time maying
ends meet. Do you think for a second they care if we are having a hard even thur we are working to make a living for our families
and they know alot of short cuts to help themselves so they only care about themselves and only who they can or know they can get money out of. These landlord are the same way they want the money reguardless where it is coming from. My thing is everyone needs to get on their knees and thank God every day that they have what they have because it could be taken away at any time. These big guys are greegy and selfish and what they don't realize is we all came into this world naked with nothig and we will all go out the same way because we can not take it whith us. And it is going to get worse. We all need to email Our so called leader of our country and tell him. He puts he pants on one leg at atime and he has to eat and drink just like the rest of America does and he is not or never be any better than the lowest man on the face of this old world. Obama will be the down fall of our nation he has already taken away our nation pray day. Then pictures went out that he was praying to his god on the same day he told the nation that we were no longer a christian nation. I don't know where he is getting his information but I still know how to pray and I do every day. That is why the song comes to my heart " Remember Iam human and human forget so remind me remind me dear Lord" How many of we as christians would do a million christian walk and walk to Washington DC and show him just how many christains are in this UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. WE know that there are millions of black men why can't we show that there are more or as many christains in
this great nation and it does not matter what color you are if you love God then let us show the world that we are here and we know that THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS STILL A CHRISTIAN NATION.
And lowering the sales tax might be a bit of an incentive for those "big ticket" items. You know, like that new Government Motors pickup, or that new Ford minivan. I bet the local car sales people would love to see the sales tax go down. I know anyone buying a new car or truck would love to see a lower price!
As for specific "services" that we are willing to give up, well, that is the rub isn't it? Nobody wants to give up their "pet project", now do they? But as for what is actually NEEDED and what we would "like to have", get real people. For instance, we do NOT "need" a rec department (oh, I can hear the screaming starting already!). We do not "need" a lot of the departments in government that have long since lost value as a service and have become an excuse to grab more tax payer money (pretty much any "permit" department). Oh, the screams, the protest, the horror of what I've written!!!
For heaven's sake, people! We never had a rec department when I was a kid and we stayed out of trouble and managed to have a good time just the same. The truth is...we don't NEED most of the "services", we WANT THEM! But we don't want to PAY for them.
And as long as I'm causing panic in the streets, why don't we take a look at the Board of Education top level salaries. I bet some of the folks in the county would be pleased to know just how much money could be saved if we didn't have so many "assistant" superintendents. Too many chiefs, not enough...workers in the trenches?
So here ya go, here are the services that I'm willing to pay reasonable tax to have: Law enforcement, emergency services (fire/rescue/EMT), ROADS AND BRIDGES, and a small, efficient administrative staff to ensure that the right jobs are done with the amount available to work with.
And, just to REALLY get screams started, if you don't have kids enrolled in the school system, you shouldn't have to pay SCHOOL TAXES! If you have more than one kid in school, you should have to pay additional taxes on each one! If you don't want to PAY FOR YOUR OWN KIDS, then DON'T HAVE KIDS! Get over your self-importance.
There it is. Dump it all except the basic, truly needed services and start over.
Anyone else have a better idea?
By the way mister and miss goverment tax spender, when you start reaching your greedy hand out for MORE money in these times when the tax payer has LESS money, you might want to think about this: When we, the people, don't have the money, we the PEOPLE have to make due WITH OUT it, we can't come to you with our hands out saying YOU MUST GIVE ME MORE MONEY, YOU HAVE NO CHOICE!!! Well, we are getting REALLY TIRED of you trying that game with us. Learn to do like we do, if you don't have it, learn to live without it! We THE PEOPLE are not YOUR private bank account! YOU are supposed to be working for US, we don't BELONG to you to treat as you see fit. It is about time some of you had to face reality like us poor "we the PEOPLE" have.