Vote "No" on All Three Virginia Constitutional Amendments

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

---

by: TheGreenMiles @ Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 17:36:50 PM UTC

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.

---

by: GretchenLaskas @ Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 17:45:25 PM UTC

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.

---

by: Clemgo3165 @ Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 19:33:06 PM UTC

[ 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?

---

by: libra @ Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 00:03:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

#1 Makes sense to me... (0.00 / 0)

#2 and #3 do not...

---

by: sonofkenny @ Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 20:30:17 PM UTC

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.

---

by: Teddy Goodson @ Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 00:29:03 AM UTC

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

---

by: The Richmonder @ Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 00:47:55 AM UTC

[ 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?"

---

by: Teddy Goodson @ Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 03:09:56 AM UTC

[ 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.

---

by: notlarrysabato @ Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 00:40:52 AM UTC

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.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 00:51:14 AM UTC

[ 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.

---

by: snolan @ Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 14:21:30 PM UTC

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.

---

by: Virginia Conservative @ Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 18:31:11 PM UTC