Technicality sinks tax initiative
Organizer says group will continue to push tax breaks
Published Sunday, May 11, 2008
Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell has rejected an initiative application from local officials looking to boost tax breaks for homeowners.
Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly Presiding Officer Nadine Winters, who co-sponsored the application, said her group’s paperwork failed to include enough technical information about the 128 people who signed as co-sponsors. She called it a technicality and said organizers will simply file another application.
State law already lets participating municipalities allow homeowners to deduct up to $20,000 from each home’s value for tax purposes, or 20 percent of the value — whichever is less. The proposed initiative aimed to ask state voters in 2010 to consider raising the cap five-fold to $100,000.
Parnell wrote that about half the 128 state residents who signed the application in late April — a list that included a number of current and former elected officials — were ineligible because they failed to provide the right “numerical identifier.” Winters said Saturday that Parnell was referring to birth dates and Social Security numbers, which some had thought were optional.
“I would consider it a technical setback,” she said. “We’re going to get the signatures and try it again.”
Winters, Fairbanks Mayor Jim Whitaker and Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich had co-sponsored the application. The Borough Assembly in Fairbanks has set aside $150,000 to help collect signatures on petitions.
Parnell wrote in Tuesday’s letter that the group would need a new list of names if it wants to apply again.
“Alaska law requires the application to contain the ‘printed name, the signature, the address, and a numerical identifier of not fewer than 100 qualified voters,’” Parnell wrote.
Winters said the state’s application form left it confusing as to which “identifying” numbers are optional and which aren’t. She said the setback shouldn’t slow or halt the efforts to put the measure before voters.
“We’re still committed to the idea, we’ll just be more careful about reading the asterisks,” she said.
Mayors from around Alaska offered a mix of responses to the proposed measure in interviews this winter.
The Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce has yet to take a formal stance on the proposed change. Chairman Rick Solie said he senses board directors are sensitive to the rising cost of owning a home in Fairbanks, but are wary of the prospect of a five-fold increase in homeowner exemptions.
Borough officials acknowledge less tax revenue from homes will require more from businesses, and Solie suggested companies would pass higher costs on to consumers, erasing much of the plan’s intent of reducing homeowners’ tax burdens.
“As of yet, nobody has shown me — and I’ll be interested to see if the borough can show me — what is good about simply shifting a tax burden,” Solie said.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
(This comment was removed by the Newsminer.com staff. Please see our User Agreement for further information.)
The tax us to death and spend our money like drunken monkeys borough wants to give homeowners a tax break? Something smells
BullsEye ... you hit the nail on the head! You can add the Fairbanks school district to the top of the list for wasting money too. GVEA is a close second. We don't have any choice and you can't control the spending!
(This comment was removed by the Newsminer.com staff. Please see our User Agreement for further information.)
Looks to me like the bigger picture is a bunch of beurocrats trying to give themselves a better tax break. notice it said that only in certain municipalities is this for, in which includes a number of current and former elected officials. And they cant even get that right.
We are back to the "he who has not sinned cast the first stone . . ." as we have seen in other articles that people have commented on in the past. No one has the right to publicly cut down Rick Solie for something in his past. Calling people names and trying to humiliate them is something we did in grade school because we didn't know any better. Grow up and focus on the issue and not the person. His comments do not make him a key player in this issue and his past certainly has nothing to do with this issue.
Kudos to all who have been involved in this effort to lower residential property taxes.
Since no one has offered any realistic alternatives, I'd go with this approach- and maybe ask, again, why the idiots in Juneau have not allowed local governments to set the exemption at whatever level they feel is best.
Oh, that's right, Juneau does not wish to give up power. Better that we go begging.
A $150,000 exemption would save a homeowner between one- and two thousand dollars, per year. Not bad.
Where do I sign up to become a petition sponsor?
And what about the Chamber making Solie their top guy? Didn't this oil industry lobbyist disgrace himself with his drunk driving and participation in an illegal, secret, borough meeting? Why did the News-Miner not identify that he works for a major advertiser of the News-Miner? (ConocoPhillips).
A "technical setback". I'd call this outrageous, $150K just to collect fewer than 150 signatures! Maybe a good way to save some taxpayer money would be to keep it away from the type of folks who would waste it like this. For a $150K perhaps the borough could have had their staff attourney take a look at the "confusing" form before they sent it in...I guess $150K doesn't buy what it used to. Did I mention they spent $150K (more than double my annual income) to screw up a petition!?
As for the tax break, it still comes down to the same old math...you can't cut taxes and balance the books unless you reduce spending... either
Alinak. You do not understand the process. The folks who signed the petition were the sponsors who would, after the Lt. Gov approves the effort, then have to go and collect between 30,000 and 40,000 signatures. That is where it gets expensive. A statewide effort to collect that many signatures is a big, expensive, project.
5050
Thank you for the info, I didn't catch that detail in the News-Minus article.
If it ever does make it, hopefully it will not be be the dollar amount or a percentage amount which every is less. For a full $100,000 exemption your home would have to be in the million plus range if they go 20 percent or less concept.
There are times to be critical and skeptical of governments, and there are times to be supportive. This is the time we should be supportive of the borough and lend a hand. Ask not what our borough can do for us, but where can we sign for our borough.
We do have choices. It called casting your vote, attend borough and city meetings, get involved.
alaskastoryteller, are you Karen Parr?
Just so you know, I always vote in every election.
I have attended many, many assembly meetings.
In the past, I used to attend some school board meetings.
None of it has done any good.
I have heard at the city level, at least one of the council members wants to require constituent e-mails be made public.
That's a good idea, for all elected bodies.
Because, whenever elected officials don't like what the majority at any given meeting say, it's been too easy for them to use the excuse to do the opposite, claiming that the majority of their e-mails came down on the other side of an issue.
I have witnessed this again and again for years now. So, why go to the meetings, when apparently, those elusive, covert e-mails tend to win out?
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.