Tennessee State Attorney General Robert Cooper has issued an opinion on the new state legislation regarding traffic enforcement cameras and the effect of the legislation on contracts between cities and red light camera companies.
Click here for Morristown's rushed renewal of its contract with RedFlex on June 7 in an attempt to beat the July 1 effective date of the new laws.
Click here for a brief discussion by Legislative Reporter Tom Humphrey.
Click here for the full opinion.
Click here for Sen. Stacey Campfield's blog with a link to an article about Oak Ridge and red light cameras and safety.
Click here for recent action by Los Angeles removing red light cameras due to problems in collecting on the citations.
Showing posts with label red light cameras. Show all posts
Showing posts with label red light cameras. Show all posts
Friday, August 12, 2011
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
June 8, 2011 Morristown Extends Red Light Camera Contract
The red light camera contract with RedFlex was extended yesterday in a 5-2 vote. Councilmembers Brooks and Bivens voted NO. Bob Garrett, Claude Jinks, Paul LeBel, Kay Senter, and Mayor Danny Thomas voted YES.
The contract was approved prior to the public comment portion of the meeting and without any prior notice in the paper of the upcoming vote.
Councilmembers themselves only became aware of the proposed contract extension late last week when they received the agenda and information packets.
The contract apparently gives the City more of the money that is collected, moves the WalMart light to 25E at Cherokee Park, and allows the City to add more lights in the future.
The City voted on the renewal yesterday with the stated purpose of avoiding the implementation of the new state law (July 1, 2011) which, among other things, requires traffic studies prior to putting up new lights.
In a cash-strapped city that has been dubbed guilty of self-inflicted financial "malfeasance" by a federal judge, the vote was not surprising.
The contract was approved prior to the public comment portion of the meeting and without any prior notice in the paper of the upcoming vote.
Councilmembers themselves only became aware of the proposed contract extension late last week when they received the agenda and information packets.
The contract apparently gives the City more of the money that is collected, moves the WalMart light to 25E at Cherokee Park, and allows the City to add more lights in the future.
The City voted on the renewal yesterday with the stated purpose of avoiding the implementation of the new state law (July 1, 2011) which, among other things, requires traffic studies prior to putting up new lights.
In a cash-strapped city that has been dubbed guilty of self-inflicted financial "malfeasance" by a federal judge, the vote was not surprising.
Saturday, June 04, 2011
June 4, 2011 Red Light Cameras Unconstitutional?
Many questions have been raised about the constitutionality of red light cameras.
Fort Lauderdale (Florida) Judge Fred Berman has cited constitutional issues in his recent ruling that police can no longer issue red light tickets as long as cameras are operating.
Berman's ruling maintains that it is not fair that red light runners caught by police face a stiff fine and points on their license, compared to those nabbed by the cameras, who face a smaller fine and no points.
"This violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, as well as the Florida Constitution," the judge wrote.
Click here for the video news report.
According to a Fort Lauderdale attorney with the "Ticket Clinic," red light tickets issued by police will be challenged in Fort Lauderdale and perhaps beyond with citation to Judge Berman's opinion.
The Florida attorney general will become involved: "In our view, Judge Berman did not apply the appropriate standard of review. From here, we will be weighing all of our options to challenge his ruling, including an appeal to the Circuit Court."
Click here for the Florida story and links to previous reports by the Florida news channel.
Thanks to Michael Silence who reports on the story here with comments from Knoxville PD department spokesman Darrell DeBusk and to Taxing Tennessee which has the story and a link to Silence's post.
Fort Lauderdale (Florida) Judge Fred Berman has cited constitutional issues in his recent ruling that police can no longer issue red light tickets as long as cameras are operating.
Berman's ruling maintains that it is not fair that red light runners caught by police face a stiff fine and points on their license, compared to those nabbed by the cameras, who face a smaller fine and no points.
"This violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, as well as the Florida Constitution," the judge wrote.
Click here for the video news report.
According to a Fort Lauderdale attorney with the "Ticket Clinic," red light tickets issued by police will be challenged in Fort Lauderdale and perhaps beyond with citation to Judge Berman's opinion.
The Florida attorney general will become involved: "In our view, Judge Berman did not apply the appropriate standard of review. From here, we will be weighing all of our options to challenge his ruling, including an appeal to the Circuit Court."
Click here for the Florida story and links to previous reports by the Florida news channel.
Thanks to Michael Silence who reports on the story here with comments from Knoxville PD department spokesman Darrell DeBusk and to Taxing Tennessee which has the story and a link to Silence's post.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
November 24, 2010 Morristown Sends Bill for New $10/Month Garbage Fee To Some City Residents But Not To Others
I asked a simple question at the Morristown City Council meeting on November 16.
Short Question: Are some city residents paying the garbage fee while other city residents are not?
Short Answer: Yes.
My question and City Administrator Tony Cox's response were not reported in the "news"paper, but two days later Bob Moore had a front page article trying to provide cover for the fact that the City of Morristown is charging the new $10/month garbage fee to some city residents but not to others.
After this came out on November 16, Moore talked to Asst. City Administrator Buddy Fielder. Fielder apparently said that the city's billing system is 95% complete and added that the City is resolving all MUS-related bills before addressing billing difficulties in the Alpha-Talbott, Witt, and Russellville-Whitesburg utility districts.
For some reason, Moore didn't describe the billing difficulties that the City needs to address in AT, Witt, and RV-WB utility districts. Why?
As soon as Fielder said there were billing difficulties with AT, Witt, and RV-WB, a reporter would ask certain obvious questions especially for a front-page news article: What are the billing difficulties with AT, Witt, and RV-WB? What are you doing to address these difficulties? When will these difficulties be resolved?
But IF Moore had asked the obvious questions, then Fielder's statement about billing difficulties in the Alpha, Witt, or RV-WB utility districts would have unraveled.
There are no current billing difficulties to address with the Alpha, Witt, and RV-WB utility districts. Alpha, Witt, and RV-WB have NOT sent a single bill for the city's garbage fee to city residents in their areas because the City has NOT yet asked or authorized them to add the city's garbage fee to water bills of city residents.
Moore, in my opinion, wrote the article solely or primarily to allow the City to provide front-page "spin" for its actions in billing some residents and not others. To make sure that the City had free rein to "spin" its response, Moore adopted a new journalism standard that could be described as "don't ask (the obvious questions) and don't tell (what's really going on)." Just front-page governmental "spin."
What we have is the City directing MUS to jump in and add the $10/month garbage fee to water bills for city residents in September 2010, but the City did NOT and still has NOT (as of November 16) directed or authorized AT, Witt, or RV-WB to add the $10/month garbage fee to water bills for city residents in September or in October or in November. Why start billing some but not others?
Assistant City Administrator Buddy Fielder said that City residents who weren't billed for September, October, and November won't be charged for past service. "Those were issues on our part, not on their part....I don't think it makes sense to do that."
As a matter of fairness, Fielder is probably right that the City should not go back and try to collect past garbage fees from city residents who didn't receive a garbage fee on their utility bill because of the city's "issues." Especially when the "issue" in this whole thing is that the City didn't even try to bill city residents served by AT, Witt, or RV-WB.
But what do Fielder and City Administrator Tony Cox and Mayor Barile and City Councilmembers think about the flip-side of this mess? What about those city residents who did receive a bill and who did pay the $10/month garbage fee for a service that others didn't pay for? What's fair for them?
Just looking at what's fair and addressing some potential legal problems in this "charge some/don't charge others" situation, the City should stop billing the garbage fee to city residents served by MUS until the city residents served by Alpha, Witt, and RV-WB utility districts have been billed an equal number of months.
After all city residents served by Alpha, Witt, RV-WB utilities have been billed for the same number of months that MUS customers have already been billed for, then billing of city customers thru MUS would resume.
Sadly, this post is about proper billing of a new garbage fee instead of the fee itself. The new garbage fee is the city's poster child for years and years of financial mismanagement and an almost total lack of accountability.
The new garbage fee is nothing more than a way for the Mayor and City Council to take more money from the citizens and use that money for pet projects--like brick pavers on city roads--while providing financial cover for the problems brought about by years of financial mismanagement, sweetheart deals, and illegal money switcheroos.
It's not rocket science. Mayor Sami Barile and City Council wanted more of "other people's money" so they decided to make city residents start paying a separate and new "fee" for garbage pick-up, a service which used to be provided thru property taxes and other city revenues.
[The only person to vote against the new $10/month garbage fee was Councilman Gene Brooks.]
Of course, making the taxpayers shoulder the financial burden created by the Mayor and City Council's years of financial mismanagement, neglect, and lack of accountability is nothing new.
Let's see...property tax increase in 2007, sales tax increase in 2008, red light cameras, sewer increases almost every year, and now a new garbage fee! Next year?
Short Question: Are some city residents paying the garbage fee while other city residents are not?
Short Answer: Yes.
My question and City Administrator Tony Cox's response were not reported in the "news"paper, but two days later Bob Moore had a front page article trying to provide cover for the fact that the City of Morristown is charging the new $10/month garbage fee to some city residents but not to others.
After this came out on November 16, Moore talked to Asst. City Administrator Buddy Fielder. Fielder apparently said that the city's billing system is 95% complete and added that the City is resolving all MUS-related bills before addressing billing difficulties in the Alpha-Talbott, Witt, and Russellville-Whitesburg utility districts.
For some reason, Moore didn't describe the billing difficulties that the City needs to address in AT, Witt, and RV-WB utility districts. Why?
As soon as Fielder said there were billing difficulties with AT, Witt, and RV-WB, a reporter would ask certain obvious questions especially for a front-page news article: What are the billing difficulties with AT, Witt, and RV-WB? What are you doing to address these difficulties? When will these difficulties be resolved?
But IF Moore had asked the obvious questions, then Fielder's statement about billing difficulties in the Alpha, Witt, or RV-WB utility districts would have unraveled.
There are no current billing difficulties to address with the Alpha, Witt, and RV-WB utility districts. Alpha, Witt, and RV-WB have NOT sent a single bill for the city's garbage fee to city residents in their areas because the City has NOT yet asked or authorized them to add the city's garbage fee to water bills of city residents.
Moore, in my opinion, wrote the article solely or primarily to allow the City to provide front-page "spin" for its actions in billing some residents and not others. To make sure that the City had free rein to "spin" its response, Moore adopted a new journalism standard that could be described as "don't ask (the obvious questions) and don't tell (what's really going on)." Just front-page governmental "spin."
What we have is the City directing MUS to jump in and add the $10/month garbage fee to water bills for city residents in September 2010, but the City did NOT and still has NOT (as of November 16) directed or authorized AT, Witt, or RV-WB to add the $10/month garbage fee to water bills for city residents in September or in October or in November. Why start billing some but not others?
Assistant City Administrator Buddy Fielder said that City residents who weren't billed for September, October, and November won't be charged for past service. "Those were issues on our part, not on their part....I don't think it makes sense to do that."
As a matter of fairness, Fielder is probably right that the City should not go back and try to collect past garbage fees from city residents who didn't receive a garbage fee on their utility bill because of the city's "issues." Especially when the "issue" in this whole thing is that the City didn't even try to bill city residents served by AT, Witt, or RV-WB.
But what do Fielder and City Administrator Tony Cox and Mayor Barile and City Councilmembers think about the flip-side of this mess? What about those city residents who did receive a bill and who did pay the $10/month garbage fee for a service that others didn't pay for? What's fair for them?
Just looking at what's fair and addressing some potential legal problems in this "charge some/don't charge others" situation, the City should stop billing the garbage fee to city residents served by MUS until the city residents served by Alpha, Witt, and RV-WB utility districts have been billed an equal number of months.
After all city residents served by Alpha, Witt, RV-WB utilities have been billed for the same number of months that MUS customers have already been billed for, then billing of city customers thru MUS would resume.
Sadly, this post is about proper billing of a new garbage fee instead of the fee itself. The new garbage fee is the city's poster child for years and years of financial mismanagement and an almost total lack of accountability.
The new garbage fee is nothing more than a way for the Mayor and City Council to take more money from the citizens and use that money for pet projects--like brick pavers on city roads--while providing financial cover for the problems brought about by years of financial mismanagement, sweetheart deals, and illegal money switcheroos.
It's not rocket science. Mayor Sami Barile and City Council wanted more of "other people's money" so they decided to make city residents start paying a separate and new "fee" for garbage pick-up, a service which used to be provided thru property taxes and other city revenues.
[The only person to vote against the new $10/month garbage fee was Councilman Gene Brooks.]
Of course, making the taxpayers shoulder the financial burden created by the Mayor and City Council's years of financial mismanagement, neglect, and lack of accountability is nothing new.
Let's see...property tax increase in 2007, sales tax increase in 2008, red light cameras, sewer increases almost every year, and now a new garbage fee! Next year?
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
July 7, 2010 First Reading: City Tax Rate Is Increased from $0.98 to $1.05; Garbage Fee of $10/month Is Still in Place
With a 7-0 vote, Mayor Barile and City Council "increased" the City of Morristown property tax rate from $0.98 to $1.05 on first reading yesterday. The second and final reading will take place tomorrow (Thursday, July 8) at a special called meeting at 4:00 at the City Center.
This amended and increased rate comes just a little over two weeks after the property tax rate was first set at $0.98 on June 17 AND a $10/month garbage fee was voted in for residents of Morristown.
The new garbage "fee"--forcing residents to start paying a separate "fee" for garbage pick-up that has previously been a service paid for by taxes--was put in by Mayor Barile and Councilmembers Bob Garrett, Claude Jinks, Kay Senter, and Doc Rooney. Councilmember Frank McGuffin "abstained" on the garbage vote due to a potential conflict of interest in that his family owns a garbage service (Tidi-Waste). Councilmember Gene Brooks voted "no" on the garbage fee.
Why a new garbage "fee"? Mismanagement, waste, illegal money transfers, excessive and unnecessary spending, loads of debt, violations of the City Charter, $100 Million dollar wish lists, and on and on.
Higher property taxes (2007), increased sales taxes (from the 2008 "pick-your-poison" sales tax referendum), red light camera revenues, and illegal money transfers (taking money from the sewer fund and putting it in the general fund to "cover" for financial mismanagement) no longer did the financial trick at the City Center.
Since Mayor Barile, Garrett, Jinks, Rooney, and Senter didn't want to repeat any of the recent previous tax hikes/revenue "enhancements," they came up with a brand new "fee" to take an extra $1 million from the residents of Morristown.
And the $10/month starter rate is just a way for the Mayor and Council to get their foot in the door and get residents used to paying a fee for garbage pick-up even though there has not been any additional charge for garbage pick-up in previous years.
Watch out! In the coming years--- if the Mayor, Council, and City Administrator do what they have said they are going to do (pull all tax money from the sanitation fund so they can spend that tax money elsewhere and collect a garbage "fee")-- then the garbage "fee" of $10/month will end up being $17 or $18 per month or more.
This amended and increased rate comes just a little over two weeks after the property tax rate was first set at $0.98 on June 17 AND a $10/month garbage fee was voted in for residents of Morristown.
The new garbage "fee"--forcing residents to start paying a separate "fee" for garbage pick-up that has previously been a service paid for by taxes--was put in by Mayor Barile and Councilmembers Bob Garrett, Claude Jinks, Kay Senter, and Doc Rooney. Councilmember Frank McGuffin "abstained" on the garbage vote due to a potential conflict of interest in that his family owns a garbage service (Tidi-Waste). Councilmember Gene Brooks voted "no" on the garbage fee.
Why a new garbage "fee"? Mismanagement, waste, illegal money transfers, excessive and unnecessary spending, loads of debt, violations of the City Charter, $100 Million dollar wish lists, and on and on.
Higher property taxes (2007), increased sales taxes (from the 2008 "pick-your-poison" sales tax referendum), red light camera revenues, and illegal money transfers (taking money from the sewer fund and putting it in the general fund to "cover" for financial mismanagement) no longer did the financial trick at the City Center.
Since Mayor Barile, Garrett, Jinks, Rooney, and Senter didn't want to repeat any of the recent previous tax hikes/revenue "enhancements," they came up with a brand new "fee" to take an extra $1 million from the residents of Morristown.
And the $10/month starter rate is just a way for the Mayor and Council to get their foot in the door and get residents used to paying a fee for garbage pick-up even though there has not been any additional charge for garbage pick-up in previous years.
Watch out! In the coming years--- if the Mayor, Council, and City Administrator do what they have said they are going to do (pull all tax money from the sanitation fund so they can spend that tax money elsewhere and collect a garbage "fee")-- then the garbage "fee" of $10/month will end up being $17 or $18 per month or more.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
November 12, 2009 Lawyer: Red Light Cameras Must Have a Private Investigator License
There are a lot of people in Morristown who don't like the red light cameras. And that sentiment is shared by many people across the state.
An attorney in Clarksville claims that the cameras are "private investigators" for the company (Redflex) that operates them. The attorney represents several clients, all of whom have been "pictured" running red lights. Now, the attorney may file a motion with the court asking that all of the city's "evidence" (pictures) be thrown out of court because the cameras do not have a private investigator's license! Click this link to the story.
You can bet that many Morristown motorists will be watching for the outcome of these trials.
An attorney in Clarksville claims that the cameras are "private investigators" for the company (Redflex) that operates them. The attorney represents several clients, all of whom have been "pictured" running red lights. Now, the attorney may file a motion with the court asking that all of the city's "evidence" (pictures) be thrown out of court because the cameras do not have a private investigator's license! Click this link to the story.
You can bet that many Morristown motorists will be watching for the outcome of these trials.
Friday, October 30, 2009
October 30, 2009 Expect a Slow Revelation of Crumley's Handling and Mishandling of City Finances
The City of Morristown is in a financial mess--even more so than was previously admitted or known.
At least some of former City Administrator Jim Crumley's handling and MIShandling of city accounts is gradually coming out. The Mayor and Council may be looking at budget cuts and postponing projects as the true magnitude of the problems with the city's general government fund and sewer fund comes out.
The Trib will probably provide part of the story today.
Mayor Barile, Jim Crumley's staunchest supporter, was concerned in July that Crumley was "railroaded" out of his job, but she voted to "retire" him. Click here.
Councilman Doc Rooney also supported Crumley until it became apparent that the votes were there to "retire" him.
Frank McGuffin supported Crumley even at the end of Crumley's reign, casting the lone vote not to accept Crumley's offer to "retire."
Bob Garrett, Gene Brooks, Kay Senter, and Claude Jinks led the effort to fire Crumley and in the end they accepted Crumley's offer to "retire" with a nice going away package ($145,000+) from the taxpayers.
The Mayor and Council, regardless of their feelings about Crumley and regardless of what has happened in the past, need to look in the mirror and then look at the taxpayers and say never again. Then the Mayor and Council need to take action to lead the city toward true transparency and accountability and FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.
Forget the smoke and mirrors. Forget the spin.
Crumley was given way too much power to spend the city TAXPAYERS' money however he wanted to. Crumley was given way too much power to shift money around with little or no control and often without even having to make a report as to what he was doing or had already done. There was way too little oversight over his actions. The lack of checks and balances in city government is absurd.
Sure, it's efficient and easy to set a tax rate and then turn over the taxpayers' money to a city administrator. Sure, it's efficient and easy for the Mayor and Council to come to three or four meetings a month and act as a rubber-stamp for a city administrator. Now, we find that this efficient, easy, and laissez-faire style of governance leads to abuse, waste, out-of-control debt, perks for the "good old boys," interest-only payments, and, ultimately, financial disaster.
Mayor Barile was always concerned that asking questions or trying to actually take part in the management of the city's finance would be seen as "micro-managing"! Click here. So instead of asking pertinent questions and following through, the Mayor and councilmembers are just now finding out what a financial mess the City is in.
The system needs to change, so that this situation doesn't repeat itself with a new cast of characters. Policies and procedures should be tightened. A system of checks and balances needs to be put in place.
Strict and accurate financial reporting to the Mayor and Council by the Finance Director, Budget Director, and City Administrator needs to be provided on a monthly basis.
Questions need to be asked about all financial reports, revenue, debt, expenditures. And the Mayor and Council need to insist on answers--not namby-pamby, everything's OK answers, but answers that are backed up by financial reports that are provided to the council monthly and that are put on the city's website for the citizens and taxpayers, too.
You can bet that when there are financial problems, the Mayor and councilmembers will NOT be ponying up their own personal money to pay off the debt or to buy this property or that property or to clean up the sewer debacle. No, the Mayor and councilmembers will turn to others--taxpayers and ratepayers--for the money to take care of the city's finances.
Just since 2007, property taxes in the city have increased 25 cents. Sales taxes have increased by 1/4 cent. Sewer fees have gone up AGAIN. And red-light cameras have been installed to generate even more "revenue."
What happened?
Jim Crumley in 2006 said everything was fine. Click here for his glowing 2006 statement.
Then in 2007 (well BEFORE any national financial problems) Crumley and the council were saying there's a huge problem---a structural deficit in the city's finances. That's when property taxes went sky high. Click here.
Sales taxes went up the next year (mid-2008) as the City used taxpayer-money to help finance a political campaign to encourage city taxpayers to vote for the sales tax increase. In its political campaign to get a YES vote on the sales tax increase, the City used a little bit of what some would call tax "bribery" as the city promised to reduce the previous year's huge 40-cent property tax increase down to "only" a 25-cent increase if people would vote YES in the sales tax referendum. Click here to see the taxpayer-funded vote YES political campaign letters. For more info, click here and here.
The city took the county's "pick-your-poison" wheel tax referendum of years ago to a new level by giving city taxpayers the choice of just one big poison (40-cent property tax increase) or two smaller poisons (25-cent property tax increase plus a 1/4 cent sales increase)!
Of course, red-light cameras were also put up to enhance city coffers---and make an out-of-town company rich, too!
In 2009, sewer fees went up dramatically. Click here.
Where has all this additional revenue gone? When will someone step in and ask for a real, detailed audit of the city finances? The cursory sampling of financial transactions in the yearly audit has limited usefulness. Someone needs to get in there and find out what's really going on.
At least some of former City Administrator Jim Crumley's handling and MIShandling of city accounts is gradually coming out. The Mayor and Council may be looking at budget cuts and postponing projects as the true magnitude of the problems with the city's general government fund and sewer fund comes out.
The Trib will probably provide part of the story today.
Mayor Barile, Jim Crumley's staunchest supporter, was concerned in July that Crumley was "railroaded" out of his job, but she voted to "retire" him. Click here.
Councilman Doc Rooney also supported Crumley until it became apparent that the votes were there to "retire" him.
Frank McGuffin supported Crumley even at the end of Crumley's reign, casting the lone vote not to accept Crumley's offer to "retire."
Bob Garrett, Gene Brooks, Kay Senter, and Claude Jinks led the effort to fire Crumley and in the end they accepted Crumley's offer to "retire" with a nice going away package ($145,000+) from the taxpayers.
The Mayor and Council, regardless of their feelings about Crumley and regardless of what has happened in the past, need to look in the mirror and then look at the taxpayers and say never again. Then the Mayor and Council need to take action to lead the city toward true transparency and accountability and FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.
Forget the smoke and mirrors. Forget the spin.
Crumley was given way too much power to spend the city TAXPAYERS' money however he wanted to. Crumley was given way too much power to shift money around with little or no control and often without even having to make a report as to what he was doing or had already done. There was way too little oversight over his actions. The lack of checks and balances in city government is absurd.
Sure, it's efficient and easy to set a tax rate and then turn over the taxpayers' money to a city administrator. Sure, it's efficient and easy for the Mayor and Council to come to three or four meetings a month and act as a rubber-stamp for a city administrator. Now, we find that this efficient, easy, and laissez-faire style of governance leads to abuse, waste, out-of-control debt, perks for the "good old boys," interest-only payments, and, ultimately, financial disaster.
Mayor Barile was always concerned that asking questions or trying to actually take part in the management of the city's finance would be seen as "micro-managing"! Click here. So instead of asking pertinent questions and following through, the Mayor and councilmembers are just now finding out what a financial mess the City is in.
The system needs to change, so that this situation doesn't repeat itself with a new cast of characters. Policies and procedures should be tightened. A system of checks and balances needs to be put in place.
Strict and accurate financial reporting to the Mayor and Council by the Finance Director, Budget Director, and City Administrator needs to be provided on a monthly basis.
Questions need to be asked about all financial reports, revenue, debt, expenditures. And the Mayor and Council need to insist on answers--not namby-pamby, everything's OK answers, but answers that are backed up by financial reports that are provided to the council monthly and that are put on the city's website for the citizens and taxpayers, too.
You can bet that when there are financial problems, the Mayor and councilmembers will NOT be ponying up their own personal money to pay off the debt or to buy this property or that property or to clean up the sewer debacle. No, the Mayor and councilmembers will turn to others--taxpayers and ratepayers--for the money to take care of the city's finances.
Just since 2007, property taxes in the city have increased 25 cents. Sales taxes have increased by 1/4 cent. Sewer fees have gone up AGAIN. And red-light cameras have been installed to generate even more "revenue."
What happened?
Jim Crumley in 2006 said everything was fine. Click here for his glowing 2006 statement.
Then in 2007 (well BEFORE any national financial problems) Crumley and the council were saying there's a huge problem---a structural deficit in the city's finances. That's when property taxes went sky high. Click here.
Sales taxes went up the next year (mid-2008) as the City used taxpayer-money to help finance a political campaign to encourage city taxpayers to vote for the sales tax increase. In its political campaign to get a YES vote on the sales tax increase, the City used a little bit of what some would call tax "bribery" as the city promised to reduce the previous year's huge 40-cent property tax increase down to "only" a 25-cent increase if people would vote YES in the sales tax referendum. Click here to see the taxpayer-funded vote YES political campaign letters. For more info, click here and here.
The city took the county's "pick-your-poison" wheel tax referendum of years ago to a new level by giving city taxpayers the choice of just one big poison (40-cent property tax increase) or two smaller poisons (25-cent property tax increase plus a 1/4 cent sales increase)!
Of course, red-light cameras were also put up to enhance city coffers---and make an out-of-town company rich, too!
In 2009, sewer fees went up dramatically. Click here.
Where has all this additional revenue gone? When will someone step in and ask for a real, detailed audit of the city finances? The cursory sampling of financial transactions in the yearly audit has limited usefulness. Someone needs to get in there and find out what's really going on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)