Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Appraisal reform battle

Dallas Blog | Tom Pauken:
“Terrence Stutz has a very fair and balanced analysis in Monday's Dallas Morning News of the Governor's Task Force on Appraisal Reform's efforts to address the problem of skyrocketing property taxes in Texas. ... State Representative Fred Hill, who has become the principle spokesman for the Texas Municipal League in the Texas House, makes an absolutely ludicrous statement in the Stutz article by saying that any such restraint on the growth of local government spending would actually lead to greater tax increases at the local level.”
Ed Cognoski responds:

Definition of "fair and balanced": agreeing with Perry and Pauken (see Terrence Stutz quoting Tom Pauken).

Definition of "ludicrous": having the temerity to disagree (see Fred Hill).

Actually, Terrence Stutz does a decent job of presenting both sides of the issue without the loaded adjectives that Mr Pauken piles on. Mr Stutz gives Tom Pauken more space in his story, but at least he allows Fred Hill to respond. Mr Pauken's account of the The Dallas Morning News' story is anything but fair and balanced. My advice? Skip the Tom Pauken account and go straight to the DMN.

Tom Pauken, in Dallas Blog, calls Fred Hill's position ludicrous without ever explaining his position. Actually, Fred Hill makes sense. He argues that if you cap local government revenue increases at 5%, that's what you're likely to get, whether the need is 3% or 4%. Local governments will be tempted to build a bit of a surplus, just in case next year the need is 6% and the new law caps them at 5%. That inclination to reach for that 5% cap could very well lead to higher taxes over the long run.

So, why does the Texas Municipal League in the Texas House oppose this? Because Fred Hill is looking out for the local taxpayer's interest. He knows the law of unintended consequences can bite back when you start putting artificial ceilings and formulas in place instead of just electing good people to represent you in the first place. Fred Hill was elected just that way. The Task Force on Appraisal Reform was appointed. By an unpopular governor, no less. Who do you trust?

1 comment:

Ed Cognoski said...

On the one hand, Fred Hill was elected by local taxpayers to represent them in Austin. That's what he's doing. On the other, Tom Pauken, who has a history of being unable to get voters to elect him to anything, was appointed by Rick Perry to push an Austin-sponsored solution on local government. His tool is the so-called Task Force on Appraisal Reform. But listen and you'll hear the only goal is to cut taxes. How? If local officials won't do it and if local taxpayers won't elect local officials to do it, then he plans to strip local government of some of their power. If Perry/Pauken/Austin can't get what they want through representative government, then toss that out and try government by referendum. Turn Texas into California.

No, thanks. Let local voters choose local government. Let Austin keep its hands off local government and worry about state government. They've screwed that up enough.