Showing posts with label Taxpayers Revolt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taxpayers Revolt. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 05, 2016

Costly and Unwise Vote No November 8, 2016


 Mass Transit Tax

·      A Massive Tax Increase.
Ø  What you already pay for existing mass transit in SE MI:
o   $100 per $100,000 of taxable value on your home and business.
o   Ten percent of what you pay at the pump in current gas taxes.
o   Ten percent of your car's annual vehicle registration fee.
o   The mass transit taxes you already pay could buy every regular user of mass transit in metro-Detroit a brand new Ford Focus every three years - and still have $XXX left over.

Ø  What you WILL pay for mass transit under the ballot proposal:
o   $120 more per $100,000 of taxable value on your home and business every year for 20 years.
o   $2,500 per $100,000 of taxable home value over the duration of the tax.
o   The plan authorizes the mass transit authority to initiate an additional 25% increase in your existing annual vehicle registration fee.
o   The proposal will take $4.7 billion out of taxpayer incomes - enough to provide every regular user of mass transit in metro-Detroit with a brand new leased Cadillac every three years.
 ·      More Traffic Congestion:
Ø  Major roads will have lanes closed to create 'bus only' lanes - congesting traffic.
Ø  Cities with bus only lanes also implement priority traffic signal policies that turn  stop lights green for approaching buses and red for cross traffic - further  delaying motorists
·      Blocks Mass Transit Innovation
Ø  The proposal spends hundreds of millions on old transit technology like buses and rail while other cities are contracting out transit services to Uber; Lyft, Chariot and others that provide door-to-door service at substantial savings.


Ø  Advances in self driving vehicles may provide breakthroughs in personalized, cost-effective transit service that cannot be realized if our region is financially locked for decades into a dinosaur mass transit system.




Wayne RESA Millage

     To get the particulars on this nightmare you should go to The Wayne County Taxpayers Association website.  www.wctaxpayers.org and scroll the presentation on why you should vote NO. It was presented to us by a Northville School Board member but the information can be used by all of us.

      The passage of Proposal A which changed the way we finance school only allows  up to a  three mil increase and only if voted by the entire county intermediate district.

Monday, February 22, 2016

Point Made

For Immediate Release                                                                                   Contact: Ben Kaufmann
Feb. 22, 2016                                                                                                  517-373-5932


Shirkey: Loophole Voids Property Tax Protections,
Must be Fixed
Current Judicial Levy Law Makes Tax Caps Meaningless

LANSING — Are property owners in Michigan truly protected by the Constitution, state law, and local charters on how high their property taxes can be raised? Do they as voters have any say in the matter? A 2015 report issued by the non-partisan Citizen Research Council makes it clear that the answer is no. State Sen. Mike Shirkey, R-Clarklake, says it's time to reform the law that allows judges to effectively create new property taxes as the result of a lawsuit.

"There are supposed to be caps in place on how high property taxes can go, so that homeowners aren't treated like ATM machines," said Shirkey. "Just because they own property somewhere doesn't mean they should be viewed as an unlimited source of revenue by the government."

Shirkey said it does little good to have limitations on how many mills can be assessed if a judicial levy can simply bypass them.  Judicial levies result when a person wins a lawsuit against the government and then petitions the court to raise property taxes as a way to make sure they are paid in a timely manner.  The way the law is currently structured such a court ruling can effectively bypass constitutional protections such as Headlee, other state laws, and even locally voted in charter limitations.

"Proposal A was supposed to provide real property tax protections, and we must ensure these caps carry force and aren't just illusion," said Shirkey. "Most people would rightfully ask, how can a judge effectively create a new tax that can exceed all these caps?  And why don't they as local taxpayers have an opportunity to vote on such a proposal, just as they would for other new taxes or rate increases?"

Shirkey has introduced legislation, SB 630, which would instead treat court ordered damages as a garnishment out of existing tax dollars, as opposed to just allowing for the creation of new and additional taxes. The Senator said that such an approach recognizes that property owners are not an unlimited source of income for government to solely shift their obligations to. Shirkey said the current law is also based on an assumption that if a homeowner gets their property taxes raised that they automatically have some sort of easy way to go out and get extra money.

"No homeowner has the ability to go out and force their boss to give them a raise, yet current law allows government to be compelled to force additional money out of the very people who they are supposed to be subject to," said Shirkey. "There are real repercussions to raising property taxes above a cap; we don't want to return to the days before Proposal A where elderly people owned their homes outright but had to sell them because high taxes made it impossible for them to afford staying there."

The legislation is currently scheduled for a hearing in Lansing on February 23rd.  


###

Thursday, November 05, 2015

Headlee Abused Again

From: "David Lonier" <davidlonier@gmail.com>
Subject: Authority not granted to raise taxes/fees to fix roads!
Date: November 5, 2015 at 10:50:17 AM EST
To: "David Lonier" <davidlonier@gmail.com>

To anyone who has the tiniest grasp of the English language and the concept of self-rule…
This was sent to all State Senators who actually had the nerve…  
A similar notice was sent to all State Reps prior to their actually voting to increase a tax on gasoline and vehicle registration fees…can you believe that?



Dear State Senator,

To increase the gas tax AFTER VOTER DISAPPROVAL, is a blatant disregard of lawmakers’ oath to uphold the constitution.
The Headlee Amendment was passed by the people of Michigan to ensure that there would be no tax increases without their approval.

Where in Article IX of the Michigan State Constitution does it say that the State Legislature can pass a tax increase without voter approval or with an over 80% voter disapproval (Prop. 1) or by a 2/3rds vote of the Lawmakers?

        Guess what?  It doesn’t!

    Any Bill to increase taxes without voter approval has no force of law!
                             It’s in direct contravention of our State Constitution!

      Can you read?  Can you comprehend?

↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓


Text of Section 25:

Voter Approval of Increased Local Taxes; Prohibitions; Emergency Conditions; Repayment of Bonded Indebtedness Guaranteed; Implementation of Section
Property taxes and other local taxes and state taxation and spending may not be increasedabove the limitations specified herein without direct voter approval. The state is prohibited from requiring any new or expanded activities by local governments without full state financing, from reducing the proportion of state spending in the form of aid to local governments, or from shifting the tax burden to local government. A provision for emergency conditions is established and the repayment of voter approved bonded indebtedness is guaranteed. Implementation of this section is specified in Sections 26 through 34, inclusive, of this Article.[1]

For clarification as to where the funds will come from, and the law prohibiting excess surplus, see below for verification:
Re: Section 26 below…
There is currently well over $20 Billion above the tax limitation, all but 1% of which belongs in the taxpayers’ bank accounts.
Actually far more if one considers the sixty thousand million dollar ($60  Billion +) astronomical State pension fund.
For government to amass this amount of taxpayers’ money is unconstitutional and beyond plunder!
Article IX:

Text of Section 26:

Limitation on Taxes; Revenue Limit; Refunding or Transferring Excess Revenues; Exceptions to Revenue Limitation; Adjustment of State Revenue and Spending Limits
There is hereby established a limit on the total amount of taxes which may be imposed by the legislature in any fiscal year on the taxpayers of this state. This limit shall not be changed without approval of the majority of the qualified electors voting thereon, as provided for in Article 12 of the Constitution. Effective with fiscal year 1979-1980, and for each fiscal year thereafter, the legislature shall not impose taxes of any kind which, together with all other revenues of the state, federal aid excluded, exceed the revenue limit established in this section. The revenue limit shall be equal to the product of the ratio of Total State Revenues in fiscal year 1978-79 divided by the Personal Income of Michigan in calendar year 1977 multiplied by the Personal Income of Michigan in either the prior calendar year or the average of Personal Income of Michigan in the previous three calendar years, whichever is greater. For any fiscal year in the event that Total State Revenues exceed the revenue limit established in this section by 1% or more, the excess revenues shall be refunded pro rata based on the liability reported on the Michigan income tax and single business tax (or its successor tax or taxes) annual returns filed following the close of such fiscal year. If the excess is less than 1%, this excess may be transferred to the State Budget Stabilization Fund. The revenue limitation established in this section shall not apply to taxes imposed for the payment of principal and interest on bonds, approved by the voters and authorized under Section 15 of this Article, and loans to school districts authorized under Section 16 of this Article. If responsibility for funding a program or programs is transferred from one level of government to another, as a consequence of constitutional amendment, the state revenue and spending limits may be adjusted to accommodate such change, provided that the total revenue authorized for collection by both state and local governments does not exceed that amount which would have been authorized without such change.[1]

And so where is the money going to come from to fix the roads???????

The State is allowed to retain no more than 1% surplus above its spending in any given fiscal year….

On Page 23 of the 2014 CAFR find Governmental Funds:

Read as follows:
Most of the State's basic services are reported in the governmental funds, which focus on how money 
flows into and out of those funds and the balances left at year-end that are available for future spending. The governmental fund 
financial statements provide a detailed short term view of the State's general government operations and the basic services it 
provides. Governmental fund information helps determine whether there are more or fewer financial resources that can be spent 
in the near future to finance the State's programs. These funds are reported using modified accrual accounting, which measures 
cash and all other financial assets that can readily be converted to cash. Governmental funds include the General Fund and 
special revenue, capital project, debt service, and permanent funds. 

Governmental Fund balance is $5.77 Billion

Budget Stabilization Fund is $497 Million

Total cash available for spending:  Governmental + Budget Stabilization = $6.227 Billion
All that’s necessary to fix the problem and the roads is for government to obey the CONSTITUTION!
And beyond the above cash that’s readily available to fix the roads…take a good look at this:

            1. Repeal the Prevailing Wage Act: $400 Million
            2. Repeal the counterproductive MEDC:  $ Billions wasted on corporate welfare
            3. Bring benefits paid to state workers in line with the private sector:  $5.7 Billion
            4. Drop any thoughts of Michigan taxpayers footing any portion of the totally unnecessary 
                $5.3 Billion International Bridge
            5. Use the “unrestricted” surplus in the CAFR/Governmental/Rainy Day/Budget Stabilization Fund:  
                $5.77 Billion, See CAFR pgs 23 & 38
            6. There are $ billions in the Catastrophic Claims Fund that are being used for nothing!
            7. Use the money from the nearly $2 billion increase in state revenue that’s expected from FY 2015-2017.  See attachment
            8. Roads?  Or a new $130 million senate office building so senators can have better view of the capitol????

                Click on the links & see attachment to verify! 

To tax the people AFTER the people have said NO… 
Is telling the taxpayers that the tax-takers have assumed the role of tyrants with total disregard for the will of the people!
You all should hang your heads in shame for even considering such unethical behavior.  


Courtesy of David Lonier
2014 Nominee, State House, 29th District
1842 Commonwealth
Auburn Hills, Michigan 48326

248-373-9111

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

Vote NO For Sales Tax Increase May 5


The Board of State Canvassers is scheduled to meet this Thursday to adopt final language for the proposal.
Concerned Taxpayers of Michigan is on the Web athttp://michigantaxpayers.com.
The letter delivered by Rep. McMillin reads:
Christopher Thomas, Director of Elections
Bureau of Elections
430 West Allegan St
Lansing, MI 48933
CC: State Board of Canvassers
Dear Director Thomas:
Thank you for providing draft ballot proposal language to the public this past Friday and providing an additional opportunity for public comment before the language is finalized.
The new language makes many significant improvements over the language suggested by the state House in HCR 39 of 2014. First, it clearly states that the state sales tax is increased to 7%. Second, it notes that the motor fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees are increased. Third, it notes some of the other laws that go into effect if and only if the proposal is passed.
However, there are still several shortcomings in the proposed language in the view of Concerned Taxpayers of Michigan, an organization I represent.
First, while the proposed explanatory language does mention of some of the ten laws activated by the proposal, it remains our position that the effect of all ten of these laws, including affirmative action for transportation companies, must be noted in the proposal language.
Each of these laws was distinctive enough to have its own bill number, its own vote by both chambers of the legislature, and its own governor's signature.
There is no mention of Public Act 473, which requires the Department of Transportation to accord preferential treatment to "disadvantaged" businesses. Voters have the right to know that they are activating affirmative action laws in this proposal.
Second, while the language of the explanatory statement is improved, the title of the proposal itself is still misleading, particularly by noting the repeal of sales taxes on gas while omitting mention of the replacement wholesale taxes found in the ten laws activated by the proposal.
I note that the title refers to these ten laws as: "OTHER LAWS THAT INCLUDE DEDICATING REVENUE FOR ROADS AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION PURPOSES."
Yet in the explanation that follows, dedicating revenue for roads is the last point of the second bullet in a list of what these other laws do.
The language of the explanation affirms that the most important aspects of these ten additional laws are the sales tax increase, gas tax increase, and vehicle registration tax increases. Furthermore, to describe the other laws as including "dedicating revenue for roads and other transportation purposes" suggests that each of the laws relates to dedicating revenue for roads, when several of them have nothing to do with roads.
The title should reflect this by saying, for example "OTHER LAWS THAT INCLUDE INCREASED TAXES ON SALES AND FUEL, AND UNRELATED MATTERS."
Third, there is no mention anywhere in the ballot language that a major portion of the revenue is going to mass transit, which is of interest to the large portion of Michigan residents who do not live in an area served by any mass transit (or do live in such area, but feel it is a massive waste of taxpayer money).
The explanatory language comes to exactly the maximum 100 words if each of the four slashes are counted as their own words. Removing the spaces surrounding the slashes reduces the word count to 96. Therefore, it is simple to insert "mass transit" into the bullet point: "Increase motor fuel tax on gasoline/diesel fuel and vehicle registration fees, and dedicate revenue for roads, mass transit, and other transportation purposes."
Fourth, regarding the earned income tax credit, it would be more specific to note it is doubled, not just increased.
Fifth, there is no mention that the vehicle registration fees will no longer be tax deductible for federal taxes, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. This is an important cost for voters to be aware of.
Sixth, it is an oversimplification to note the proposal requires competitive bidding and warranties for road projects, which applies only in particular circumstances.
Seventh, the language mentions dedicating money for the SAF, but not increasing money to schools.
Eighth, a statement of the total tax/revenue increase, per the Senate or House fiscal agency, would be appropriate to convey to voters the total cost of all the tax increases contained in the proposal.
While I applaud your efforts to improve upon the language of the proposal from what was recommended by the state House and other actors interested in raising these taxes on Michigan, more is needed to present voters with an accurate presentation of the effect of the proposal.
At the minimum, it should be clear that the taxes on fuel being replaced, not simply "repealed" or "eliminated." Each of the ten laws, including the law requiring affirmative action for road projects, must be mentioned, as must the increased funding for schools and public transportation.
Failing these changes, we must maintain that the language misleads voters by omitting these important facts.
Thanks again for your continued work on this issue. Please don't hesitate to contact me if I can be of assistance.
Best regards,
Rep. Tom McMillin (ret.)
Concerned Taxpayers of Michigan
###
Copyright © 2015 Concerned Taxpayers of Michigan, All rights reserved.
You were signed up for this list via MichiganTaxpayers.com, opposing tax hike schemes in Michigan.
Our mailing address is:
Concerned Taxpayers of Michigan
Paid for by Concerned Taxpayers of Michigan
PO Box 211
Milan, MI 48160
Add us to your address book
unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences

Thursday, June 26, 2014

Proposal 1 August 5, Primary



Wayne County Taxpayers Association Position Paper

Proposal 1
APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF AMENDATORY ACT TO REDUCE STATE USE TAX AND REPLACE WITH A LOCAL COMMUNITY STABILIZATION SHARE TO MODERNIZE THE TAX SYSTEM TO HELP SMALL BUSINESSES GROW AND CREATE JOBS
The amendatory act adopted by the Legislature would:
1. Reduce the state use tax and replace with a local community stabilization share of the tax for the purpose of modernizing the tax system to help small businesses grow and create jobs in Michigan.
2. Require Local Community Stabilization Authority to provide revenue to local governments dedicated for  local purposes, including police safety, fire protection, and ambulance emergency services.
3. Increase portion of state use tax dedicated for aid to local school districts.
4. Prohibit Authority from increasing taxes.
5. Prohibit total use tax rate from exceeding existing constitutional 6% limitation. Should this law be approved?
************(*
I want to state that the Personal Property Tax is a horrible tax and a burden to business and employment. If I were to say to the average taxpayer that their stove, refrigerator, washer, dryer and any other appliance or furniture were all subject to personal property tax for 10 years after purchase with a reduction each year for depreciation, we would have a revolt.
Anyone wishing to understand how the tax works and its effects can go to Personal Property Tax Reform in Michigan The Fiscal and Economic Impact of SB 1065-SB 1072, Anderson EconomicGroup  http://www.andersoneconomicgroup.com/SearchAEG/tabid/59/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/8021/Personal-Property-Tax-Reform-in-Michigan-The-Fiscal-and-Economic-Impact-of-SB-1065SB-1072.aspx or the Citizen Research Council at  https://crcmich.org/TaxOutline/index.html
This is not just an elimination of the Personal Property Tax for some small businesses. It is about much more.  It is my estimation that it was not necessary to place anything on the ballot to allow the reduction of that tax. Everything they needed is presently included in the State Constitution as defined in the Headlee Amendment.
Article IX  Michigan Constitution
§ 25 Voter approval of increased local taxes; prohibitions; emergency conditions;
repayment of bonded indebtedness guaranteed; implementation of section.
Sec. 25. Property taxes and other local taxes and state taxation and spending may not be increased above the limitations specified herein without direct voter approval. The state is prohibited from requiring any new or expanded activities by local governments without full state financing, from reducing the proportion of state spending in the form of aid to local governments, or from shifting the tax burden to local government. A provision for emergency
conditions is established and the repayment of voter approved bonded indebtedness is guaranteed.
Implementation of this section is specified in Sections 26 through 34, inclusive, of this Article.

§ 26 Limitation on taxes; revenue limit; refunding or transferring excess revenues;
exceptions to revenue limitation; adjustment of state revenue and spending limits.
Sec. 26. There is hereby established a limit on the total amount of taxes which may be
imposed by the legislature in any fiscal year on the taxpayers of this state. This limit shall not
be changed without approval of the majority of the qualified electors voting thereon, as
provided for in Article 12 of the Constitutio n……. If responsibility for funding a program or programs is transferred from one level of government to another, as a consequence of constitutional amendment, the state revenue and spending limits may be adjusted to accommodate such change, provided that the total revenue authorized for
collection by both state and local governments does not exceed that amount which would have
been authorized without such change.


§ 29 State financing of activities or services required of local government by state
law.
Sec. 29. The state is hereby prohibited from reducing the state financed proportion of the
necessary costs of any existing activity or service required of units of Local Government by
state law. A new activity or service or an increase in the level of any activity or service beyond
that required by existing law shall not be required by the legislature or any state agency of
units of Local Government, unless a state appropriation is made and disbursed of Local Government for any necessary increased costs. The provision of this section shall not apply to costs incurred pursuant to Article VI, Section 18 to pay the unit. 

There are 10 Senate Bills connected to this proposal. Nowhere in the ballot language is a Personal Property Tax mentioned specifically. The bills range from SB821 through SB830. For brevity and simplification I will address SB822 which must be passed for most of the others to take effect.
 .

We start our problem with the establishment of yet another Authority which would be granted enormous power. Since this new Authority would not be elected by the voters, there would be no true accountability but they would have the responsibility of handling a huge amount of our money.   
“BEGINNING ON OCTOBER 1, 2015, THE SPECIFIC TAX LEVIED UNDER SUBSECTION (1) INCLUDES BOTH A STATE SHARE TAX LEVIED BY THIS STATE AND A LOCAL COMMUNITY STABILIZATION SHARE TAX AUTHORIZED BY THE AMENDATORY ACT THAT ADDED SECTION 2C AND LEVIED BY THE
AUTHORITY, WHICH REPLACES THE REDUCED STATE SHARE AT THE FOLLOWING RATES IN EACH OF THE FOLLOWING STATE FISCAL YEARS”

Legislation then goes on to define the state’s portion of “THE LOCAL COMMUNITY
STABILIZATION SHARE TAX RATE TO BE LEVIED BY THE AUTHORITY IS THAT RATE CALCULATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY ON BEHALF OF THE
AUTHORITY… THE STATE SHARE TAX RATE IS THAT RATE DETERMINED BY SUBTRACTING THE LOCAL COMMUNITY STABILIZATION SHARE TAX RATE FROM 6%.”

The state then declares the revenue portion from 2015-2016 through 2029 without knowing the accuracy of the amount listed. They will also be committing future legislatures to a dollar amount.
This Authority would be granted an enormous responsibility. That cannot be good for taxpayers.  The line in the proposal that limits the used/sales tax to 6% does not address the expansion of the sales tax to, for example, internet purchases or fines or penalties for failure to comply. It does not address other things that they may choose to include as taxable by the sales tax which they seem to think they have the authority to adjust.
Whatever your feelings on taxes, this proposal does not give the taxpayer more security. The language does not reflect the full nature of the outcome if it passes.  If you have concerns, I will be glad to forward copies of the bills.  Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments.  wctaxpayers@comcast.net .  313-278-8383.

The Wayne County Taxpayer Association suggests vote NO on Proposal 1



Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Until Next Time

I am sorry to announce that the Part Time Legislature Committee has informed me that they will not be able to collect enough signatures to place the issue on the ballot. For the hundreds who received petitions from the Wayne County Taxpayers Association  I am asking that you destroy the petitions.  It is their intentions to try for the 2016 elections but those petitions you have are dated and can not be used. There are a number of reason why they were not successful but they hope to have those problems worked out for the 2016 election.

Thursday, May 01, 2014

Contacts in All 83 Counties are Now a Reality for Part Time Legislature Petitions


Collecting signatures on a petition for a Part Time Legislature is really easy. Very few people will turn you down. Well, maybe some legislators,their staff and their relatives. Maybe a few other self serving lobbyists and there is also a few people who don't care or don't know the facts. Don't let that deter you. You can now get petitions in all 83 counties through county coordinators. Simply click on This Link and you will be able to click on your county and be able to contact your county contact.

 I thought I would answer a few questions that a few people ask.

 Q. How will they be able to get their work done?

 A. They only work 120 days as it is and half the stuff that they are working on should not even be on their agenda. We are only one of four states that have a Full Time Legislature - New York, California, Pennsylvania and Michigan. This should tell you almost all you need to know. The Texas legislature only meets every other year.

 Q.It says that the governor can call emergency sessions, How doe we know that this power will not be abused?

 A.That language is the same as the language that exists in our present constitution and it doesn't happen now. For one thing the legislators would not like being called back and if the governor or his party ever expects to get elected again I don't believe they would want to play that game unless it really was an emergency.

 Q. How can we get quality people to run for office if we pay them so much less?

 A. We did it for 127 years before they decided to rewrite the constitution in 1963 and it was all or nothing for the voters. Quality people will run for office. Look at all these people who are out there working for better government and don't get paid a thing. (I hope we can include you.)

 Q. How will I know what to do to collect signatures?

 A. If you have never done this before, it is as simple as reading the directions on the flap of the petition. It is as simple as asking your friend, family, church or social group members to sign or if you are really dedicated to stand in front of a store or post office or walk your block to get signatures. You can also contact your county contact for events they might have scheduled so that people may sign the petition.

 If you have more questions, we will try to answer them. In the meantime, remember to sign as the circulator at the bottom and that you can collect signatures from all counties but all the signatures on sheet must be from the same county.

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Making Full Time a Part Time Reality.

The Wayne County Taxpayers Association will have Part Time Legislature Petitions available at the meeting at Leon's Family Dining on Michigan Ave just east of Telegraph on Wednesday March 26, and May 28, between the hours of 7:00 pm and 9:00 pm.  If you are not able to attend but wish to obtain petitions call 313-278-8383 and we will work out a way to get you petitions.

The weather is warming and spring is almost here. Each day will make it easier to make contact with people after their winter hibernation. Please help us and get a few petitions to circulate. You can also make a request at wctaxpayers@comcast.net . It doesn't take much to ask your friends and family to sign a petition. If we all do a little, it will make the job easier for the rest of us.

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

IMPORTANT INFORMATION for all Allen Park Voter/Taxpayers!




 By Tim O’Brien

The Allen Park Emergency Manager
recently released a video of FAQ’s to
answer some “Frequently Asked
Questions” about the 6¾ mill tax increase
she has placed on the August 6th ballot.
State law does not permit public officials
to use tax money to advocate a tax
increase so the questions and answers
were carefully selected.
But before you vote on August 6th you should also consider the Frequently Avoided Questions
Q. How much will this millage cost the average Allen
Park homeowner?
A. As our Emergency Manager says: 74¢ a day. But
thinking of it as “less than the cost of a cup of coffee
or a soft drink” is, ironically, exactly what financial
planners warn people against doing! This tax increase
will cost the average homeowner $270 per year —
$2700 over the ten years it will last. Or to put it in the
most familiar context, an additional $22.50 a month
into mortgage escrow for the next decade. Assuming,
of course, a house with an SEV of $40,000.
 
Q. Will this millage go exclusively to providing police and
fire services?
A. That is a meaningless distinction. The city has only
two checkbooks -- one for water and sewerage and
the other for everything else. The basis of the claim is
that since 6¾ mills will generate almost $5 million in
annual revenue while expenditures for public safety
are more than twice that amount, it can be said that
the money raised is being spent there. That, of
course, frees up $5 million that went for police and
fire services last year to be spent on other things. It's
the same shell game that was played on voters years
ago when they approved a state lottery on the promise
that the revenue generated would go to education.
Money is what economists call a "fungible
commodity.” Just as one glass of punch is like every
other one dipped from the same punchbowl, one
dollar is just like every other one taken from the same
general fund. There is no way to ‘earmark’ it.

Q. Have residential property taxes really decreased 28%
in the last five years?
A. That's difficult to answer without knowing how the
calculations were made. But what does it matter to
individual homeowners in any case? The important
question is: Has your property tax bill decreased 28%
in the last five years?

Q. Are home values predicted to continue to decline?
A. Not unless recent trends suddenly reverse and values
start down again. The Zillow real estate website
shows current Year-over-Year selling prices for
homes in Allen Park at +12.4%. The Trulia website
puts the Y-o-Y number at +17.7%

Q. If this millage passes, will no additional tax increase
requests be made? Also, if fiscal stability is restored,
might this increase even be rolled back?
A. Both are speculations, not commitments. There is
nothing in the proposal that even hints at either one.

Q. If this millage proposal fails, what changes in city
services can residents expect as a result of the fallback
"Plan B"?
A. That's impossible to say. However, whether or not the
dire predictions are a 'scare tactic’ as some have said,
consider the warnings from public officials before the
last proposed millage increase — that if it did not
pass, the city's recreation center would close. The
millage failed. Stop by the rec center and interrupt all
the activities there to ask if it’s closed.

Q. Isn't that because operation of the rec center was
given over to a private company?
A. Indeed. And that certainly suggests what will actually
happen if this millage fails. At the top of the list of
services ripe for turning over to a private provider is
EMS. In this era of fireproof everything and smoke
detectors in every building the function of the fire
department has become primarily providing an
ambulance service. This doesn’t require a full-time
staff of 28 and such expensive equipment as, for
example, our 100-foot ladder truck. (In fact there is
the only one building in the entire city tall enough
where this specialized vehicle could ever even
possibly be needed -- which is probably why the only
action the truck has ever seen is in parades.)
 
Q. What has been done to reduce the $3 million per year
cost of providing health insurance for the city's 220
retirees?
A. Nothing yet. However, beginning in the new fiscal
year prescription co-pays will be increased to $10 for
generic drugs, $20 for preferred brand name drugs
and $30 for all others — from long-standing co-pays
of $1, $2 and $5 respectively. In addition both
current and reired employees will begin paying 20%
of the premium for their health insurance plans (that,
incidentally, will provide coverage that — like the copays
— will be closer to what most taxpayers have.)

Q. Have current employees been switched over from
"Defined Benefit" pensions to 401(k) type "Defined
Contribution" pensions?
A. No. And even though this — along with the goldplated
health insurance plans — is what bankrupted
two of the Big Three, it isn't clear how or when the
transition even can be made. Although government
employees — city and county, along with teachers —
are the only workers who still have this open-ended
benefit, ever increasing life-spans have made the cost
of funding it so enormous that the system cannot
afford to allow current employees to rto redirect
retirement savings into their own 401(k) accounts.
The contributions they make under the current
system are essential to continue paying benefits to
retirees.

Q. Hasn’t anything been cut from this year’s budget?
A. Yes. Pay for the mayor and council was cut by 50%
for an annualized savings of $24,000 and curbside
pick-up was transferred from DPS to trash contractor
Republic Services for an additional $200,000 per year.
A.

Q. Do appointed city employees really get 90 days of
annual sick leave?
A. Yes. Though that three months of sick time per year
will be changed to 12 days per year beginning with
the next fiscal year.
 
Q. Has the pension "spiking" been stopped?
A. No. Though this is something else that is scheduled
to be eliminated next fiscal year. In the meantime,
however, at least three — and perhaps more — city
employees will be using the (borderline fraudulent)
tactic of banking all of their vacation, comp time and
unused sick days to and converting them into cash to
enhance their last year's salary. The 2.9 pension
multiplier is then applied to this artificially inflated
pay scale to calculate their retirement benefit — a
“spiked” amount they will then draw for the rest of
their lives.

Q. 2.9 multiplier? Isn't that higher than average?
A. Higher than average? It is the highest in the entire
state! It is double the typical 1.25 to 1.5 range.
Adjusting it down to 2.25 is another change to begin
next year. Strangely, this is still 50% higher than the
1.5 pension multiplier that is part of Governor
Snyder’s “Best Practices” program for local
governments. Perhaps we can get our EM to confer
on this with the person who appointed her.


 The Bottom Line
Our experience with an Emergency Manager makes you wonder why people were so worried about giving an unelected official so much power. The Allen Park E.M. has done almost nothing to address our structural deficit. No property sold. No bonds renegotiated. No consolidation of services with other cities. No staff reductions. Not one provision of one labor contract has been revised. The only
substantial steps she has taken is to borrow another $2 million, and then put a proposal on the ballot to raise taxes by $5 million a year for the next decade.
They will only raise our taxes as a first resort!I
 
I need both the funding and some volunteer help to do the lit drop the week before the election.

Any help you can offer -- or point me to -- with either or both will be greatly appreciated.


 313-359-7820

 Small Government Committee _ PO Box 118 _ Allen Park, Michigan _ 48101They