How to Market a Tax Hike for the Masses So They Vote for It

[XLFD]

In 1978, as part of the tax reform of the initiated Headlee Amendment passed with ease by the Michigan electorate, the law in Michigan made local governments (including school districts, city/township/county government units and agencies) unable to levy any new type of tax or for increasing the tax rate above a limit set by the initiated law. 

This was added to the Michigan Constitution as Article IX, Section 31 which says in part:  "Units of Local Government are hereby prohibited from levying any tax not authorized by law or charter when this section is ratified or from increasing the rate of an existing tax above that rate authorized by law or charter when this section is ratified, without the approval of a majority of the qualified electors of that unit of Local Government voting thereon."

Ludington's Unethical Tax Rate Hikes

Nearly forty years later, local units of government are getting better at going around the limits to get a larger share of the taxpayer's earnings.  The City of Ludington discovered it could prevent their millage rates from falling further by having annual 'truth in taxation' hearings each July, with eight ordinances that typically do not do anything, unless the assessed valuation of Ludington property increases by a larger percentage than the increase in the General Price Level from the previous year.  

The same section says in this case the maximum authorized rate shall be reduced to yield the same gross revenue from existing property, adjusted for changes in the General Price Level, as could have been collected at the existing authorized rate on the prior assessed value.  In other words, if the local assessors over-value properties in Ludington the tax rate should go down, but Ludington leaders can (and always have when they could since they started this practice seven years ago) keep the rate high and receive more than they should. 

Citizens can get up at these hearing and say what they will, but a majority of the council will effectively raise taxes with a vote, and there's nothing you can do about it except pay more than you should be paying.

St. Claire Shores Switcheroo

Taxpayers are an amazingly generous bunch when it comes to voting onto themselves new expenses, provided they believe it is needed for the betterment of their community, especially if it involves the children and/or public safety.  Just two years ago, Mason and Oceana County voters passed a new millage for an already bloated 911 Dispatch Center just two Augusts ago. 

Scottville has an extremely burdened tax rate already, but ask for renewals or new millage levies for Mason County Central Schools within reason and they will pass it with ease.  No trickery by officials is needed, other than the usual threats of not being able to provide adequate services without the additional stipends.

St. Clair Shores firefighter/paramedic Derek Haarala talks about the police and fire millage with residents Randy and Kris Rice at Kennedy Middle School Aug. 2. (Photo by Kristyne Demske)

A nominee for this year's best example of base trickery in asking for a tax increase has to be the City of St. Claire Shores (SCS) at least according to former city councilor of SCS, Erin Stahl.  Stahl says officials are actively misleading voters about a millage (which was approved with about 70% of the vote) promoted as a public safety measure. Stahl said the city is using an accounting trick to deceive citizens about the millage, and that the higher tax will actually let officials spend more on things unrelated to public safety. 

The short explanation is described in the video below with eggs in a basket describing the magic involved:

Effectively, the money they are using before this millage takes effect for funding the police and fire department come from the general fund.  The millage will go directly into future funding of those services directly, while the general fund will have the money they previously used for such funding at its disposal for other purposes.  A diabolical way of raising taxes.  She actually posted the following 80 minute video of the whole process and placed it on the city website on July 12 (like the simplified video above):

Both were deleted by July 24, and Stahl was banned from the page.  Stahl claims the City of SCS is using their page and resources to encourage people to vote 'yes' while actively denying the opposing view.   

Stahl gave her email address and offered to answer any questions after prefacing her video, claiming she had information about the millage that city officials did not want voters to know.  “I’m just really offended that the city doesn’t want to give residents the full picture view of what’s going on with this millage. It’s just a shame,” Stahl said.  “I just really do not like the fact they’re doing everything in their power to silence my voice." 

Mary Jane D’Herde, a spokeswoman for the city, cited the Facebook page’s terms of use policy as why they removed the videos and Stahl, though she did not specify which was violated.  When pressed, D'Herde said that the city "can legally provide additional guidelines for behavior above and beyond those specified by Facebook." She did not specify what information in the materials Stahl posted was false, misleading, or otherwise violated some 'shadow' guidelines which prompted Stahl's removal from the page.

D'Herde explained:  "Ms. Stahl also posted two videos she created that disguised and presented her opinion as ‘fact’ and made false statements that serve to mislead our residents." Citing directions from City Manager Mike Smith, she said that the videos were deleted after Stahl posted the second video. She added that Stahl was banned from posting on the city's Facebook page and that comments for and against the millage continued to appear on the page.

Stahl, who served on city council from 2003-07, has appealed the ban and requested a certified public accountant review the city’s statement. Her appeal meeting, set for Sept. 14, will be voted on by the city's communications commission. Under city rules, a majority vote of the commission can overturn the ban.

Stahl founded Citizens Opposed to Unfair Needless Taxes (COUNT), a group that opposed the millage request, and hopefully will continue to battle for accountability and fairness in St. Claire Shores. 

The lesson learned from SCS, Ludington, and the MCC school district is that whenever you see a new millage for your local school, police or fire department on the ballot you need to do some research and find out why they cannot make do with what they have been getting historically, and whether the extra money will just wind up in the general fund to be used at the whim of your local government entity or used to fund an unsustainable pension system they created (or other ridiculous pet projects). 

[XLFD]

The picture I borrowed from the article about the SCS millage vote  (which was approved with about 70% of the vote) shows another ploy, that may be illegal, often used by those trying to muster votes for such issues.  Michigan election law (MCL 168.744) says that:  "On election day, a person shall not post, display, or distribute in a polling place, in any hallway used by voters to enter or exit a polling place, or within 100 feet of an entrance to a building in which a polling place is located any material that directly or indirectly makes reference to an election, a candidate, or a ballot question."

A firefighter on election day handing out material supporting (or not supporting) the millage within 100 ft. of the polling place entrance/exit (Kennedy Middle School is one) would be committing a misdemeanor.  I wouldn't be surprised that this was not being done throughout the city since the media shutterbugs take a photo and think nothing is amiss. 

And I seriously doubt any SCS police officer would be arresting anybody (unless they are campaigning against it and doing the same thing). 

[Willy]

Good find X. Without people like Stahl and yourself we would be in an even worse condition. I like her videos and the way she explains things in simple terms.

[XLFD]

It's an excellent trick, and something that could be tried in Ludington with good success, consider:  the city could split the "City operation and refuse" into a "police and fire operation" and one or more other millages.  They could then seriously underfund the P&FO so that it doesn't come close to breaking even, and come back in a couple of years with the usual threats of service reduction and cessation of P&F if they didn't get several more mils.