The test message never came: the media, once again, by way of stakeout, pestered its way to this scoop. After 1 a.m. Saturday morning, and after leaks throughout Friday evening indicated that Barack Obama’s vice presidential finalists were being slowly disqualified from the veepstakes, it’s now being reported that Obama will run with six-term Delaware Democratic Sen. Joe Biden.
Obama’s choosing Biden will present all of the positive and negative effects that the punditocracy can muster up, but picking Biden is certainly more than simply running with a Washington fixture with a quick wit and a progressive bent. He has more foreign policy experience than John McCain, and that’s what we’re going to hear in the coming days.
But what about at home? Biden’s 1994 crime bill was lauded as putting more police on the streets resulting in a reduction in violence nationwide. In 2007, the senator introduced a reauthorization of many of the original elements of the 1994 bill, including the reauthorization of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services; adding 1,000 FBI agents to focus on traditional crime (Biden has argued a drop in FBI resources since 9/11); creating a national commission on crime intervention and prevention strategies; a proposed reduction in recidivism; and not to mention the renewing of the assault weapons ban while closing the gun show loophole.
So while we’re going to hear a lot about a foreign policy balance on the Democratic ticket, let’s ask ourselves what this ticket, with Obama’s community organizing background, can do for American communities?
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Thursday, August 21, 2008
What Shall We Do? What Shall We Do With All These Useless Houses?
John McCain could have dismissed his inability to recall how many houses he has as a senior moment, but that would have pointed to his age.
So there wasn’t any way for John McMansion to dig out of this one, but one thing is clear: the McCains have more houses than you or I do, and his inability to count them is not due to a simple forgetful moment, but because of a legitimate clarity issue in how to count separate houses on one estate, what is owned by the senator and what is owned by the financially reticent Mrs. McCain, and how many condos they fused into one giant McCondo-seum.
Fortunately, most of us are privileged enough that we will never, ever have to deal with such pesky clarity issues.
McCain’s staff says he has four houses, but then the watchdogs are saying that he has at least seven. Then again, Huffington Post cites an assessment by Progressive Accountability that says they have 10, with a combined value upwards of $14 million! I’ll tell you, nothing makes me feel more in touch with a presidential candidate than when I compare his or her financial holdings, to my personal financial worth. Now McCain says that I won’t be rich until I reach the $5 million threshold? Man, I have a long way to go.
Barack Obama, who has taken a hit in the polls that pundits say worsened while he was catching rays during the Russia/Georgia conflict, has launched something of a populist attack against McCain to a point where it could push back the much-anticipated text message that I’m supposed to get telling me of Obama’s veep pick. Why would anyone want to hurry the announcement of the potential second-in-command of the Free World when there is political gold to be unearthed from this prospector’s mother load?
Politico quoted Obama on a campaign stop in Virginia where McCain was painted as out of touch:
"Somebody asked John McCain, ‘How many houses do you have? And he said, I’m not sure. I’ll have to check with my staff. True quote: I’m not sure, Ill have to check with my staff. So they asked his staff and he said, at least four. At least four! ...
"If you’re like me and you’ve got one house—or you were like the millions of people who are struggling right now to keep up with their mortgage so that they dont lose their home—you might have a different perspective. By the way, the answer is: John McCain has seven homes. So there’s just a fundamental gap of understanding between John McCain’s world and what people are going through every single day here in America."
To be sure, it’s difficult these days to relate personally with our presidential candidates. These folks generally live in a world that most Americans will never experience. So with that, the “I just want to have a beer with my president” argument off the table.
The questions we need to ask is, with millions of Americans facing foreclosure and with the concept of a sturdy fixed-rate mortgage to some Americans as foreign as that of your spouse being worth $100 million after inheriting a beer distributorship, is McCain in touch with everyday economic issues? How big of a tax deduction are the McCains getting from owning all of these houses? At what point do we call someone “out of touch” with the common man? Is it when he or she needs two hands to count his or her houses, or when he or she can’t count at all?
So there wasn’t any way for John McMansion to dig out of this one, but one thing is clear: the McCains have more houses than you or I do, and his inability to count them is not due to a simple forgetful moment, but because of a legitimate clarity issue in how to count separate houses on one estate, what is owned by the senator and what is owned by the financially reticent Mrs. McCain, and how many condos they fused into one giant McCondo-seum.
Fortunately, most of us are privileged enough that we will never, ever have to deal with such pesky clarity issues.
McCain’s staff says he has four houses, but then the watchdogs are saying that he has at least seven. Then again, Huffington Post cites an assessment by Progressive Accountability that says they have 10, with a combined value upwards of $14 million! I’ll tell you, nothing makes me feel more in touch with a presidential candidate than when I compare his or her financial holdings, to my personal financial worth. Now McCain says that I won’t be rich until I reach the $5 million threshold? Man, I have a long way to go.
Barack Obama, who has taken a hit in the polls that pundits say worsened while he was catching rays during the Russia/Georgia conflict, has launched something of a populist attack against McCain to a point where it could push back the much-anticipated text message that I’m supposed to get telling me of Obama’s veep pick. Why would anyone want to hurry the announcement of the potential second-in-command of the Free World when there is political gold to be unearthed from this prospector’s mother load?
Politico quoted Obama on a campaign stop in Virginia where McCain was painted as out of touch:
"Somebody asked John McCain, ‘How many houses do you have? And he said, I’m not sure. I’ll have to check with my staff. True quote: I’m not sure, Ill have to check with my staff. So they asked his staff and he said, at least four. At least four! ...
"If you’re like me and you’ve got one house—or you were like the millions of people who are struggling right now to keep up with their mortgage so that they dont lose their home—you might have a different perspective. By the way, the answer is: John McCain has seven homes. So there’s just a fundamental gap of understanding between John McCain’s world and what people are going through every single day here in America."
To be sure, it’s difficult these days to relate personally with our presidential candidates. These folks generally live in a world that most Americans will never experience. So with that, the “I just want to have a beer with my president” argument off the table.
The questions we need to ask is, with millions of Americans facing foreclosure and with the concept of a sturdy fixed-rate mortgage to some Americans as foreign as that of your spouse being worth $100 million after inheriting a beer distributorship, is McCain in touch with everyday economic issues? How big of a tax deduction are the McCains getting from owning all of these houses? At what point do we call someone “out of touch” with the common man? Is it when he or she needs two hands to count his or her houses, or when he or she can’t count at all?
Friday, August 15, 2008
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Drilling For Finances From Tax-Exempt, Non-Profits?
It's tight here in New Jersey.
It's crowded. With 8.7 million people, we are 11th in the country in population, but first in population density in the Union with over 1,100 people per square mile. We're also wealthy -- 2nd in the country -- but you wouldn't necessarily know it by looking at those areas that make us the most densely-populated state in the country.
The Garden State, as it so happens, also as the highest imbalance of any state in the country in terms of what it gives and receives to and from the federal government. According the the New Jersey State League of Municipalities, the Garden State gets back just less than two-thirds of every dollar it sends to Washington.
So there are demands here. There are spatial demands, housing demands, demands for resources, infrastructure, you name it. As such, New Jersey is often at the vanguard in dealing with all kinds of issues facing the nation. The state hits a major stumbling block, however, when it comes to property taxes.
In New Jersey, where we rely on a property-tax-based system to largely fund our public schools and governments, rising municipal costs are taxing people out of towns. The state has mandated a four percent cap on municipal budget increases, and as home values are reassessed and towns are revaluated, property tax rates will adjust -- either up or down. But obviously the worst-case scenario is an increase, so that's what we'll examine.
In 2006, the average tax bill of the wealthy Township of Montclair was $13,547, and that was based on an average home assessment of $252,742. According to NJ.com's "New Jersey by the Numbers," if you equalize that assessment for comparisons with other towns, that $13,547 bill applies to a house worth $624,207. So often is the case that you have a homeowner who can no longer afford the tax-related costs to their homes, even if they were smart and took out a 30-year fixed mortgage.
So what to do? We've increased taxes on the highways, per Gov. Jon Corzine's asset monetization plan to raise tolls on select highways and increase the state sales tax to 7 percent. Both of these can be regarded as regressive as they pose a greater burden on the poor.
So what next? With the New Jersey Legislature in constant "hold on" mode when it comes to the long-anticipated "property tax convention," towns, facing affordable housing development mandates, and approaching complete build-out with little area left to develop tax-ratables, are looking at those who, by law, do not have to pay taxes.
According to the New Jersey Policy Perspective, the assessed value of all property -- buildings and land -- in New Jersey in 2000 was $648.5 billion, and of that, 13.5 percent paid no property tax. Under law, that 13.5 percent was tax exempt. This tax-exempt property is largely composed of public, private and religious schools, state, county, and municipal buildings, churches and charitable institutions, hospitals, and cemeteries. Other partial exemptions include those for water and sewage facilities, urban enterprise zones.
New Jersey's Princeton Borough, a 1.1-square-mile, 12,000-resident municipality lies right smack in the middle of the state, and is a pretty good example of "if it can go wrong, it will." Princeton Borough is a donut-hole municipality -- a town that is physically surrounded by another town, in this case, Princeton Township. Both towns consider "downtown" (Princeton Borough) its downtown, share a school district, a municipal library, and more than a dozen other municipal agencies. In fact, the only agencies the two towns do not share are administration (government), public works, and police.
However, as you might have guessed, Princeton is home to Princeton University, and, alas, most of Princeton University's tax-exempt land lies in tiny Princeton Borough, which is already strapped for cash. About 50 percent of the Borough is tax exempt.
The Borough's annual operating budget is roughly $23 million, and Princeton University, which is the largest employer in the Princetons, and pays the most in what is taxed -- sewers, buildings with full, or partial, tax levies, etc. -- holds an agreement to give about $1 million a year in voluntary municipal funds, used however the Borough sees fit. Princeton University also funds other community projects, adding value to the town-gown relations.
There has long been a tension between the local government and PU regarding these in-lieu finances, but this year, the local Democratic Party has upped the ante, gathering signatures as part of a petition asking if PU pays its fair share.
The petition contends that a resident's property tax levy would drop a whopping 24 percent in the Borough. The average resident there pays in the $13,000 range per year in property taxes. The Democratic Party there is lobbying for local officials to support efforts to negotiate a fairer payment from Princeton University. PU currently pays tax on its commercial property, and maintains voluntary tax roll inclusion for grad and faculty housing where schoolchildren might live, and pay its "fair share" of all taxpayer-supported services.
The petition does not call for the removal of federally authorized tax-exempt status -- granted to all nonprofit educational institutions
According to a report in The Times of Trenton, the university's tax payments in 2006 amounted for about 8.5 percent of the $9.5 million in municipal taxes the borough collected from all taxpayers in 2006. According to the story in the Times, "when school and county taxes are included in the calculation, there was a $27.9 million gap between the $7.1 million in property taxes the university paid in 2006 and what it would have paid if all its property in the Princetons were taxed."
The state legislature has so effectively slept on working with localities in creating a sensible solution to rising property taxes that towns are now taking it upon themselves to drill for oil, er, money in local reserves, rather, $15 billion university endowments, that had been largely untapped, not counting the annual contributions, agreements, and institutional presence. As is the case with so many institution-based towns, the existence of the town is based squarely on the existence of the institution -- is there a formula that quantifies that value?
Other heavily-endowed private institutions like Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass. have devised long-term in-lieu-of-tax deals with their municipal hosts. In 2005, Harvard and Cambridge came to terms on a deal that would bring the city more than $60 million over the next 20 years.
But Cambridge, with more than 100,000 people, is the fifth-largest city in Massachusetts, has a far higher annual city operating expense budget, and has far more tax-ratable property than Princeton ever could. So, in effect, it's incomparable.
Just another example of New Jersey being the science laboratory for social progress, but with so much at stake, this issue is far too big for a couple hundred local residents to swallow. The legislature must step in, and step in soon, to find broad-based creative ways to amend what is quickly turning into a statewide property tax crisis.
It's crowded. With 8.7 million people, we are 11th in the country in population, but first in population density in the Union with over 1,100 people per square mile. We're also wealthy -- 2nd in the country -- but you wouldn't necessarily know it by looking at those areas that make us the most densely-populated state in the country.
The Garden State, as it so happens, also as the highest imbalance of any state in the country in terms of what it gives and receives to and from the federal government. According the the New Jersey State League of Municipalities, the Garden State gets back just less than two-thirds of every dollar it sends to Washington.
So there are demands here. There are spatial demands, housing demands, demands for resources, infrastructure, you name it. As such, New Jersey is often at the vanguard in dealing with all kinds of issues facing the nation. The state hits a major stumbling block, however, when it comes to property taxes.
In New Jersey, where we rely on a property-tax-based system to largely fund our public schools and governments, rising municipal costs are taxing people out of towns. The state has mandated a four percent cap on municipal budget increases, and as home values are reassessed and towns are revaluated, property tax rates will adjust -- either up or down. But obviously the worst-case scenario is an increase, so that's what we'll examine.
In 2006, the average tax bill of the wealthy Township of Montclair was $13,547, and that was based on an average home assessment of $252,742. According to NJ.com's "New Jersey by the Numbers," if you equalize that assessment for comparisons with other towns, that $13,547 bill applies to a house worth $624,207. So often is the case that you have a homeowner who can no longer afford the tax-related costs to their homes, even if they were smart and took out a 30-year fixed mortgage.
So what to do? We've increased taxes on the highways, per Gov. Jon Corzine's asset monetization plan to raise tolls on select highways and increase the state sales tax to 7 percent. Both of these can be regarded as regressive as they pose a greater burden on the poor.
So what next? With the New Jersey Legislature in constant "hold on" mode when it comes to the long-anticipated "property tax convention," towns, facing affordable housing development mandates, and approaching complete build-out with little area left to develop tax-ratables, are looking at those who, by law, do not have to pay taxes.
According to the New Jersey Policy Perspective, the assessed value of all property -- buildings and land -- in New Jersey in 2000 was $648.5 billion, and of that, 13.5 percent paid no property tax. Under law, that 13.5 percent was tax exempt. This tax-exempt property is largely composed of public, private and religious schools, state, county, and municipal buildings, churches and charitable institutions, hospitals, and cemeteries. Other partial exemptions include those for water and sewage facilities, urban enterprise zones.
New Jersey's Princeton Borough, a 1.1-square-mile, 12,000-resident municipality lies right smack in the middle of the state, and is a pretty good example of "if it can go wrong, it will." Princeton Borough is a donut-hole municipality -- a town that is physically surrounded by another town, in this case, Princeton Township. Both towns consider "downtown" (Princeton Borough) its downtown, share a school district, a municipal library, and more than a dozen other municipal agencies. In fact, the only agencies the two towns do not share are administration (government), public works, and police.
However, as you might have guessed, Princeton is home to Princeton University, and, alas, most of Princeton University's tax-exempt land lies in tiny Princeton Borough, which is already strapped for cash. About 50 percent of the Borough is tax exempt.
The Borough's annual operating budget is roughly $23 million, and Princeton University, which is the largest employer in the Princetons, and pays the most in what is taxed -- sewers, buildings with full, or partial, tax levies, etc. -- holds an agreement to give about $1 million a year in voluntary municipal funds, used however the Borough sees fit. Princeton University also funds other community projects, adding value to the town-gown relations.
There has long been a tension between the local government and PU regarding these in-lieu finances, but this year, the local Democratic Party has upped the ante, gathering signatures as part of a petition asking if PU pays its fair share.
The petition contends that a resident's property tax levy would drop a whopping 24 percent in the Borough. The average resident there pays in the $13,000 range per year in property taxes. The Democratic Party there is lobbying for local officials to support efforts to negotiate a fairer payment from Princeton University. PU currently pays tax on its commercial property, and maintains voluntary tax roll inclusion for grad and faculty housing where schoolchildren might live, and pay its "fair share" of all taxpayer-supported services.
The petition does not call for the removal of federally authorized tax-exempt status -- granted to all nonprofit educational institutions
According to a report in The Times of Trenton, the university's tax payments in 2006 amounted for about 8.5 percent of the $9.5 million in municipal taxes the borough collected from all taxpayers in 2006. According to the story in the Times, "when school and county taxes are included in the calculation, there was a $27.9 million gap between the $7.1 million in property taxes the university paid in 2006 and what it would have paid if all its property in the Princetons were taxed."
The state legislature has so effectively slept on working with localities in creating a sensible solution to rising property taxes that towns are now taking it upon themselves to drill for oil, er, money in local reserves, rather, $15 billion university endowments, that had been largely untapped, not counting the annual contributions, agreements, and institutional presence. As is the case with so many institution-based towns, the existence of the town is based squarely on the existence of the institution -- is there a formula that quantifies that value?
Other heavily-endowed private institutions like Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass. have devised long-term in-lieu-of-tax deals with their municipal hosts. In 2005, Harvard and Cambridge came to terms on a deal that would bring the city more than $60 million over the next 20 years.
But Cambridge, with more than 100,000 people, is the fifth-largest city in Massachusetts, has a far higher annual city operating expense budget, and has far more tax-ratable property than Princeton ever could. So, in effect, it's incomparable.
Just another example of New Jersey being the science laboratory for social progress, but with so much at stake, this issue is far too big for a couple hundred local residents to swallow. The legislature must step in, and step in soon, to find broad-based creative ways to amend what is quickly turning into a statewide property tax crisis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)