PROPOSED TUCSON TAX INCREASE

THE PROPOSED TUCSON TAX INCREASES




I have been holding my consul lately concerning the fiscal problems of the City of Tucson government, while hoping to learn more about the situation. A few discussions, presentations and websites later I think I know enough about what is going on in order to logically comment upon it.

The presentation at El Rio by City Council members Romero, Fimbres and Ulich was illuminating in that four 'core services' are identified as being Police, Fire, Parks and Transportation. The Police and Fire and Parks departments were well represented by the respective department heads who took responsibility for informing the people concerning the tax increase to be voted upon in November. Nowhere did I see the head of Transportation, nor did I hear a word concerning their proposed share of this proposed tax increase. They should have been there to explain their part. I feel slighted by this omission.

I don't trust this proposal without estimates, percentages per department, prioritizing cuts and layoffs. Isn't there more to this proposition? We need expositions for the rest of this proposal. What about the reorganization of city hall? What about the proposed salary raises for council members? What else is tied up with this vote? Using scare tactics to get through a tax increase that would also include raises for council members? These items should have been four separate votes, not one huge vote with unrelated items in it.

Reorganizing city hall should be tied to a tax decrease, not an increase. Giving raises at a time when unemployment levels are high is unwarranted. Guaranteeing that one segment of the city is immune to layoffs and hikes in benefit costs is not fair to the rest of the city employees or the taxpayers since this tax hike would benefit Transportation employees in just that way. I heard that the city charter details transportation as a 'core service' but I suggest that parts of the transportation department would be better organized under different departments, thus reducing transportation to the actual core services, which would not be so difficult to fund. How about public safety and road repair administered under the police department? Are the SunTran employees under a management company so they can be exempt from the city worker agreement not to strike? Who set that up?

As for the scheduled cuts to be made in the event this tax increase does not pass, these are not the only configurations of cuts to be decided upon. I mean, there are other things besides police and fire to cut. I've seen the budget. One presenter at another meeting suggested retiring the 'double dippers', cutting high level salaries and benefits and reorganizing and cancelling departments. Absolutely, the level of public debt is too high! No more borrowing for anything.

Analyze this streetcar thing. How much money was borrowed to finance this? How much grant money was obtained? How much debt service will be paid on all borrowed funds? Does the interest cost of borrowing use up the grant money? Are we really making money on this thing, or are we just employing people in Oregon to build streetcars? What will the maintenance on this system cost? Are fares expected to pay for this deal? How realistic is this scheme? A few will be employed, but how long will it take for the rest of us to pay for this system? How many of us will use this system? I think deals like this and Rio Nuevo are impoverishing the community with debt service, reducing the value of our tax contribution.

Maybe this is off the topic of the proposed .5% tax increase, but voters are wary of giving more money into the hands of the city because of the recent track record. More tax to give to the moneylenders for debt service is simply unacceptable. If there were no debt, there would be no money crunch and projects could still continue to be built out of incoming receipts. A new way of thinking is needed.

The size and cost of government spending and projects must be reduced to fit the budget! You cannot depend on tax hikes, borrowing and selling real estate assets during a downturn.

TAX THE LIENHOLDERS!

TAXATION AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Communication with others produced a new idea. According to a source, it is possible to tax banks, but that is a state responsibility.
Can the legislature take charge and tax foreclosures and repossessions? Not a tax on the poor guy who just lost his home or investment! How about a tax on the repossessors,; instead of giving them a fat tax break on the homes and businesses they repossess? They end up with a tax advantage and physical possession of the properties, a good deal for them and a bad deal for the rest of the community.

The foreclosure policy could also be implemented as a fee. How about a fee on every repossession and foreclosure, payable by the lienholder? The courts and administrative offices could raise fees on the lienholders foreclosing and repossessing. The police and fire could have a non-refundable contingency fee on empty homes and commercial property and require a monthly list of foreclosures and repossessions, plus cash payment for each at time of filing.

The reasons for instituting new fees and taxes on lienholders foreclosing on and repossessing properties should be stated:

Foreclosures and Repossessions contribute heavily to:
Homelessness
Increases in public housing costs
Increases in bankruptcy rates
Neighborhood blight and vandalism
Increases in welfare rolls
Increases in state health care costs

These foreclosures and repossessions are damaging the social fabric of our town. Community resources have to take care of the people ousted from their homes and businesses after the lienholders are through with them. Homes and jobs are lost as a result of bank policies. Foreclosed homes are even sold for less than the original buyer could have now paid. How about appraisal fraud on homes, like the false appraisals on 'derivatives'? Social responsibility can be maintained through taxes and laws.

This fee or tax money from the lienholders could be divvied up among the state and communities. This is a tax people would support! Sock it to the banks!

NEW REVENUE SOURCE

In thinking about the need for new revenue for the city, my mind landed on the banks, who are rolling in cash. I have several questions about the banks and the foreclosures and the taxes on the foreclosed properties.


In several places I have seen case histories of those who lost their properties through foreclosure, then were charged taxes on these properties even though they could no longer had access to the properties. Taxes apparently accumulated long after they were ousted by foreclosure.

My question is this: Where are the taxes on foreclosed homes? The lenders foreclosing should be liable for the taxes, since they ousted the inhabitants and claimed possession of the property in fact. They claim the property, they own the taxes also? If you buy a property, you assume the liens which must be dealt with at time of purchase. The taxes should be assumed by the banks, since they take defacto possession of the foreclosed properties.

How much money could be generated by making the lenders pay taxes on the foreclosed properties?

The cities, towns and states could use this owed tax money, which should be paid by the defacto owner, not held in limbo by a paper technicality that allows the banks to stick the prior owners with the taxes, who now must struggle with this added debt after they lose possession of the property, that held fraudulent appraisals in the first place. The banks should step up and pay the taxes and penalties they owe on the properties they seized.

Pass some more penalties and tax the lenders for every empty home they own in this community. If they were taxed, maybe they would cut the rent or prices and get people in the houses. Empty homes in this community should cost those big owners some money.

Our governments need the money.

Tucson Employment or more Unemployment and debt?

So I learned much about this city since returning here a few years ago. Ready to compare with what I had seen in other communities to my hometown, I engaged in political activity, mainly in the form of attending political functions and listening.


Factions have been squabbling over the spoils from the failed Rio Nuevo projects and very few have taken money from the many and then given to favorites. Too much money has been spent on too little. A few made big bucks and too many are unemployed.

The latest boondoggle is to buy streetcars from Oregon, putting them to work while our own people are unemployed. And they want to borrow money to do it, laying heavy amounts of debt service on Arizona people in order to hire people in Oregon to build streetcars we don't need.

Adding more debt to the public load already in place is foolish in this economic climate. Rio Nuevo is $2,000,000 in deficit a year, owing that much more than they bring in while they feverishly try to set up yet another debt for the city to guarantee to build a hotel downtown. Occupancy rates downtown are about 50%, which is too low for another hotel to be built. Can you believe Shelko wants to borrow money, hold enough to make payments for x years and is planning on a high occupancy rate to pay for the hotel? What are the occupancy rates right now? What is the intake of the TIF revenue right now? What is the present take of TCC? We need a dose of reality.

The city is $33,000,000 in deficit but just borrowed more money to build a building when empty buildings stand all over town. This new debt adds to the debt load.

Now an 'emergency' meeting was called to bring RTA into the money pit downtown in order to adequately fund this modern streetcar project. A huge portion of this money will not bring jobs to Tucson, except in the form of benefit to the few merchants along the very short route and the developer at the end of it. How much of this proposed debt, the federal grant and the city and RTA contributions will actually stay here to fund local jobs?

What percent is debt service? Sales tax revenue is not predictable as a revenue source when compared to the steady drain of debt service on the local economy.

What percent will be spent in Oregon on streetcars built by people who boycott us?

We do not need this project. We already have roads to all of these places. Let's use them.

We need small scale local jobs funded without debt. Instead of a giant museum all at once, we build a wing.