69% voted for a provision that would allow an opt out. It was very plain in the text. If you can muster enough support, to get what you want out of this, good on you. But let's not pretend that the loophole wasn't there for everyone to see. No one should be shocked or surprised by this.
You are partially correct. I voted against it because it did absolutely nothing. I am completely in favor of restrictions on the boards to raise taxes. That is legit. However, this provision, leaves us exactly where we were before.
In prior years, if the boards were afraid of their electorate, then they could choose to not raise taxes or to even lower them. If not, they would raise them. Now, if they are not afraid, they opt out. It's the same garbage wrapped with a pretty bow to make you think you did something.
The only positive about this amendment is that the "gotcha" was in plain text.
I followed the progress of this bill closely. Senate Bill 349, originated by Senator Chuck Hufstetler, was a good, effective bill that did not allow an opt-out. When Senator Hufstetler's bill got to the House Ways and Means Committee, they completely mangled it; and in the end, the only way to get anything approved was for Senator Hufstetler to agree to the Opt-Out provision at the 11th hour. Here is a detailed writeup that I did several months ago. At that time, I was more optimistic of the outcome. As so many have said, the outcome is not unexpected: https://bartowgettingbetter.wordpress.com/how-house-bill-581-came-to-include-an-opt-out-provision
I assume the dates you wrote were in order. You wrote Jan 21 twice. The 2nd would be the 27th at 6pm. Just so you are aware that the body of the email has that mistake.
69% voted for a provision that would allow an opt out. It was very plain in the text. If you can muster enough support, to get what you want out of this, good on you. But let's not pretend that the loophole wasn't there for everyone to see. No one should be shocked or surprised by this.
Brian. Please. People were not voting for this because they WANTED the Board to opt out of a limit on property tax hikes.
Those who did not want to limit tax hikes voted "no" about 31.% of them.
You likely voted "no" as well.
People in this county are over-taxed Especially homeowners.
You support big government. So, please don't try this argument. It is so obviously fallacious that it is laughable.
You are partially correct. I voted against it because it did absolutely nothing. I am completely in favor of restrictions on the boards to raise taxes. That is legit. However, this provision, leaves us exactly where we were before.
In prior years, if the boards were afraid of their electorate, then they could choose to not raise taxes or to even lower them. If not, they would raise them. Now, if they are not afraid, they opt out. It's the same garbage wrapped with a pretty bow to make you think you did something.
The only positive about this amendment is that the "gotcha" was in plain text.
I followed the progress of this bill closely. Senate Bill 349, originated by Senator Chuck Hufstetler, was a good, effective bill that did not allow an opt-out. When Senator Hufstetler's bill got to the House Ways and Means Committee, they completely mangled it; and in the end, the only way to get anything approved was for Senator Hufstetler to agree to the Opt-Out provision at the 11th hour. Here is a detailed writeup that I did several months ago. At that time, I was more optimistic of the outcome. As so many have said, the outcome is not unexpected: https://bartowgettingbetter.wordpress.com/how-house-bill-581-came-to-include-an-opt-out-provision
I assume the dates you wrote were in order. You wrote Jan 21 twice. The 2nd would be the 27th at 6pm. Just so you are aware that the body of the email has that mistake.
Thanks Tom! I fixed it!