Advertising

Blog Roll
Who's My Legislator?

Virginia Blogs
Augusta Free Press
Bacon's Rebellion
Blue Ridge Caucus
Blue Louisa
Coarse Cracked Corn
Crew of 42
DemRulz
Dixie Pig
Equality Loudoun
Greater Greater Washington
Loudoun Progress
Moonhowlings
Not Larry Sabato
Ox Road South Blog
Pilot on Politics" blog
Richmonder
Richmond Sunlight
RTD Virginia Politics blog
Roanoke Times blog
Shad Plank
Vivian Paige
Waldo Jaquith
Waldo's VA Political Blogroll


Find more about Weather in Arlington, VA
Click for weather forecast
Search




Advanced Search


Vote "No" on All Three Virginia Constitutional Amendments

by: lowkell

Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 13:35:54 PM EDT


I've been reading over the arguments for and against the three constitutional amendments on the ballot tomorrow, and I've decided that I will vote "no" on all three.  

The first ballot question would amend  Section 6 of Article X of the Constitution of Virginia "to authorize legislation that will permit localities to establish their own income or financial worth limitations for purposes of granting property tax relief for homeowners not less than 65 years of age or permanently and totally disabled."
On this one, I agree with the Roanoke Times, which argues that the amendment's flawed because it lacks "means testing." In addition, this amendment "fall[s] into that deplorable class of legislation that serves the political needs of lawmakers in Richmond to the detriment of localities...support[ing] tax breaks for seniors and veterans without having to deal with the fallout:" a "sudden reduction in revenue" to localities," the result of which likely will be "taxes must increase on everyone else." Not smart at all.

The second ballot question would amend the Constitution to " require the General Assembly to provide a real property tax exemption for the principal residence of a veteran, or his or her surviving spouse, if the veteran has a 100 percent service-connected, permanent, and total disability."
I join the Roanoke Times in opposing this one as well, for many of the same reasons as the first one. I also agree with Waldo Jaquith, who writes, "I don't think that the state has any business ordering localities to stop taxing some people...if the state wants to reduce taxes for veterans, they should reduce their own revenue, not localities'.

Finally, the third ballot question would amend Section 8 of Article X of the Constitution of Virginia "to increase the permissible size of the Revenue Stabilization Fund (also known as the "rainy day fund") from 10 percent to 15 percent of the Commonwealth's average annual tax revenues derived from income and retail sales taxes for the preceding three fiscal years."
On this one, I again agree with Waldo Jaquith, who writes:

...why not increase that cap so that, if it does look like it'll be a good idea to save up more quickly, it'll be possible to do that. On the other hand, why 15%? Why not 10%? Or 20%? Or 50%? Was there something wrong with 10%? I'd like to assume that there's some logic behind these particular numbers, but much like "three-strikes" laws, I fear that there's not.
A poorly written, poorly reasoned amendment. I'm voting "no."
lowkell :: Vote "No" on All Three Virginia Constitutional Amendments
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

My votes (0.00 / 0)
No on the first two, yes on the third one.  

Read more at TheGreenMiles.com and follow me on Twitter

Agree (0.00 / 0)
I've gone back and forth on #1, and have come away thinking that it's just not good for the Commonwealth (common/wealth) as a whole.  

I had already decided to vote against #2 and #3.  I really hate the fact that I, a mere voter and citizen, and put into the position of having to vote for or against a disabled veteran.  As Jaquith says, there are other ways to do this without having to hide behind voters, but evidently, our elected officials don't have the political will to make that happen.

And if someone made a credible case as to why we should raise the percentage of the Rainy Day Fund, I might buy into it, since I'm a big supporter of the Rainy Day Fund itself.  But with such massive cuts to Virginia's most vulnerable (and often hidden) citizens this past year (especially in mental health), I'm not sure that raising by 50% even a promising program like this one is really the best use of our tax dollars.


I'm not getting... (0.00 / 0)
Why #1 is not a good idea.  There is no requirement for localities to establish new guidelines, only the opportunity for them to do so should they choose to.  The localities themselves will make the decision to bear the burden of lowered tax rates.

[ Parent ]
In my community (0.00 / 0)
we have two major constituencies whose interests are diametrically opposed on some issues. The -- mostly "imported" -- retirees don't care much about the schools (either maintenance or the teaching standards), or even the public library. The young ones, with children, are less concerned with how well maintained the downtown sidewalks are and more with the fact that there aren't any in the "suburbs". And they don't like to see yet another bank sprout, where a playground used to be.

But... it's the retirees who are more likely to attend the City Council meetings, not to mention that they're the ones who sit on the Council and make the decisions about how the limited resources are apportioned. If they're allowed to give themselves a tax break, many of them will and be d...d to the kids. "I got mine and I'll hold on to it" attitude is likely to prevail.

Me, I'm like lowkell -- will vote "no" on all 3. All 3 are aiming to rip off localities, one way or another. And the "Rainy Day (slushy day?)" fund adds an extra worry: who's gonna decide to raid it and when, once the localities have built it up?


[ Parent ]
#1 Makes sense to me... (0.00 / 0)
#2 and #3 do not...


Delegate David Bulova advises voting "Yes" (0.00 / 0)
David Bulova, D-Fairfax, in his web site "Focus on Fairfax" gives an extended explanation of all three amendments, which he says passed both the House of Delegates and the Senate unanimously in the 2010 session. He advises voters to go to www.sbe.virginia.gov for more information. Given the comments above, I am quoting extensively from Delegate Bulova's article:

Local Control Over Property Tax Relief
Under the existing Constitution, the General Assembly may give local governments the power to grant full or partial exemptions from real estate taxes to persons 65 years of age or older or for persons permanently or totally disabled when such taxes would impose an extraordinary burden in relation to income or financial worth.  Since I've been in office, the General Assembly has periodically debated the appropriate "cap" to qualify for real property tax relief.  Today, this is defined as a combined income of up to $50,000 or a net worth of $200,000.  A locality may grant relief below, but not above, this amount.  Of course, the problem is that what is reasonable in one part of Virginia isn't necessarily so in another part.  

The proposed amendment simply puts the authority to make these decisions at the local level.  Given the diversity of our Commonwealth, and the fact that any revenue loss from these decisions is only felt by the local government, this makes a lot of sense to me.

Property Tax Exemption for Certain Veterans
This proposed amendment would exempt any veteran, or his or her spouse, declared by the federal Department of Veterans Affairs to have "a one hundred percent service-connected, permanent, and total disability" from real estate taxes on their home.  Unlike the first proposal, which grants localities a new discretionary power, this amendment would mandate the exemption state-wide.  Based on information from Disabled American Veterans of Virginia, there are slightly more than 7,000 veterans who meet this definition in Virginia, of which about 4,200 own their own homes.  Helping these veterans to be able to afford to stay in their homes, or even purchase a home, is a small price to pay for their service.

Increasing the Revenue Stabilization Fund
The Revenue Stabilization Fund, which was put in the Constitution in 1992, allows the General Assembly to take a portion of revenue in good times and save it for difficult economic situations.  The amount that can be put in the fund is capped at 10 percent of Virginia's average annual tax revenues from income and sales tax for the preceding three fiscal years.  

While it is often called the "rainy day fund," this is a bit of a misnomer.  The Revenue Stabilization Fund is not a slush fund and cannot be used to balance a new budget.  Rather, it can only be used mid-budget cycle when actual revenue is less than official revenue projections.  Because Virginia has a balanced budget requirement in the Constitution, the Revenue Stabilization Fund helps to soften the short-term blow when revenue unexpectedly falls.  However, it does not keep the General Assembly from having to make tough long-term decisions to balance the budget.

What the most recent recession showed us was that our fund is not large enough to weather several years of progressively declining revenue.  In FY2007, the fund was approximately $1.7 billion.  Today, it stands at only $295 million.  The proposed amendment increases the cap from 10 percent to 15 percent.

I have great respect for Delegate Bulova's opinion. He's a detail-oriented, judicious legislator, with an eagle eye for protecting and enhancing local government, and the for the pocketbooks of his constituents. I approve of his explanations, and I will be voting "Yes" on all three of these amendments.


Not the first two (0.00 / 0)
Teddy:

The first two amendments are basically designed to ensure that the Tea Party takes over in local elections.  Who are people going to vote for?  The person who keeps taxes at a reasonable level to protect schools, or the person who promises them a big tax cut?

The Richmonder


[ Parent ]
Interesting, but (0.00 / 0)
why did the Democratic-dominated Senate then pass them unanimously? Were the Democrats tired of standing up against the radical reactionary House of Delegates (which also passed them unanimously, which means Democratic Delegates also voted for them)? Are you saying this is how Proposition 13 comes to Virginia?

Democrats have got to start changing the framing of "Tax Relief".... did you notice a couple of signs at the Rally for Sanity, which said boldly "Raise My Taxes?"


[ Parent ]
I think the time to oppose these (0.00 / 0)
Was in May when parties were deciding positions to put on the sample ballots.

I didn't even know they were doing that (0.00 / 0)
Oh well.

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

[ Parent ]
None of this stuff should even be in the state constitution (0.00 / 0)
This is silliness and a distraction...  The first two are about local taxation, and have no business even being in the state constitution.  The third does not need to be in the constitution either - though it is a state budget issue.

Gah.

I voted yes on all three though because they are tiny incremental improvements to a goofed up situation.  I'd rather have all the language removed entirely... but I don't have that as a choice at all... so I do the best I can.


Vote no! (0.00 / 0)
Although you and I no doubt disagree on a great many things, I also encourage voters to vote no on all three amendments when they go to the polls today.

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Advertising

FOLLOW BLUE VIRGINIA on SOCIAL MEDIA


Donate to Blue Virginia

About
The purpose of Blue Virginia is to cover Virginia politics from a progressive and Democratic perspective. This is a group blog and a community blog. We invite everyone to comment here, but please be aware that profanity, personal attacks, bigotry, insults, rudeness, frequent unsupported or off-point statements, "trolling" (NOTE: that includes outright lies, whether about climate science, or what other people said, or whatever), and "troll ratings abuse" (e.g., "troll" rating someone simply because you disagree with their argument) are not permitted and, if continued, will lead to banning. For more on trolling, see the Daily Kos FAQs. Also note that diaries may be deleted if they do not contain at least 2 solid paragraphs of original text; if not, please use the comments section of a relevant diary. For more on writing diaries, click here. Thanks, and enjoy!

P.S. You can contact us at lowell@raisingkaine.com and you can subscribe to Lowell's Twitter feed here. If you'd like to subscribe to Miles Grant's Twitter feed, click here. For Teacherken, click here. For Kindler, click here.

P.P.S. To see the Blue Virginia archive, please click here. To see the Raising Kaine archive, please click here. To see the Blue Commonwealth archive, please click here.



RSS Feed

Subscribe to Blue Virginia - Front Page


Real Time Web Analytics
Powered by: SoapBlox