|
The Cincinnati Beacon
The Cincinnati Tax Scam?
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati
 Photo courtesy of here.
Each election year, campaign rhetoric reaches a frenzied pitch about the “property tax rollback.” The issue allows politicians to stump about whether Cincinnatians deserve a tax break, or whether we need to do what it takes to keep things like swimming pools open. However, the concept that any of these politicians—or the corporate media outlets in town—really care to inform voters about Cincinnati taxes is absurd, as soon as we remember that the entire City council voted to raise taxes so Corporex could have a $30,000,000 parking garage, and that The Enquirer didn’t bother to inform anyone about this.
Here is some rhetoric from a story in today’s paper:
Cincinnati property owners might not get that average $1.39 tax rollback after all - and the money might instead go to keep city swimming pools open longer.
A resolution to set property tax levy millage was on City Council’s agenda Wednesday, two days after a vote of council’s finance committee indicated five council members - a majority - favored giving the money back to taxpayers. To generate the same $29 million the city got last year, the millage would roll back from 4.57 mills to 4.53 mills.
But Mayor Mark Mallory held the resolution after asking to talk to some council members about changing the plan to keep the money, which would add up to more than $234,000.
(...)
Supporters of keeping the money say a policy that sets revenue at the current $29 million doesn’t allow for inflation. Opponents say that taxpayers deserve any breaks the city can give.
On August 1st, City Council unanimously passed “emergency” ordinance 0300-2007:
ORDINANCE (EMERGENCY), Providing for the issuance, sale and delivery of not to exceed $30,000,000 of Economic Development Bonds (Baldwin 300 Project) or notes in anticipation thereof, of the City of Cincinnati, County of Hamilton, State of Ohio, for the purpose of financing certain improvements; authorizing a pledge of the City’s faith and credit or a pledge of and lien on certain revenues and other city resources, as appropriate, to secure such bonds or notes; and authorizing necessary documents to secure such bonds or notes, and declaring an emergency.
According to the actual language of the ordinance (which can be downloaded here), these “Economic Development Bonds” will be used to offset costs for a garage to Corporex, and funds will come, in part, from raised taxes:
For the purpose of providing the necessary funds to pay the interest on the foregoing issue of Bonds or Notes promptly when and as the same falls due, and also to provide for the discharge of said Bonds or Notes at maturity or as mandatory sinking fund payments fall due, there shall be and is hereby levied on all taxable property in the City of Cincinnati, in addition to all other taxes, a direct tax annually during the period said Bonds are to run ...
So there you have it. Voters against tax increases are being encouraged to have the discussion relative to neighborhood swimming pools, which are more likely to service kids in poor neighborhoods. Those are the kinds of options we are given. And all of City Council is at least partially complicit.
When it comes to securing funds for corporate giveaways, voters are not informed, taxes are raised, and no one talks about it. But when it comes to providing services to people, we find ourselves in the midst of a frenzied debate about taxes.
Where is the frenzied outrage about having our taxes raised to support a corporation? How many Cincinnatians, if given a choice, would prefer their taxes go to swimming pools than to an expensive parking garage for a corporation?
|