In a recent interview with Mile Square View, Mayor Zimmer was asked if she’d favor suspending or repealing the municipal open space tax. Unfortunately, the mayor stated that she wouldn’t even consider it, despite the city’s failure to deliver on promises of tax relief. The mayor accurately noted that voters approved the open space tax in a citywide referendum. The city’s hands are not exactly tied, however. That referendum was non-binding. The council still had to vote to enact the tax.
If the mayor feels that we need to consult the voters prior to revisiting the open space tax, fine. Let’s hold another referendum. As we’ve previously written, this tax was approved in a very different political and economic climate than we face today. In these hard times, voters might now have a different opinion.
The champions of the open space tax promised us offsetting spending reductions to neutralize the tax impact. That, obviously, didn't happen. After taxes skyrocketed, Zimmer and her allies then campaigned on a 25% tax cut plan. Now that's not happening, either.
And so, as far as we’re concerned, the least they can do now is move to repeal (or at least suspend) a tax hike they themselves foisted on us (there's no blaming a prior administration, or Trenton, for this one). If they want to fund their pet initiatives, they should find a way to repeal Tripodi's massive tax hike first (or at least achieve that promised 25% reduction). In other words, Mayor Zimmer and her council allies should lead by example — especially if they're planning on asking others to make sacrifices.
The Open Space Tax, Revisited
Posted on Wednesday February 17, 2010
7 comments
7 Comments
Forde Prigot - February 17th, 2010 at 8:03 PM
I would like to ask the poster what is the rate of this tax. How much tax is there per 100 dollars of assessment?
Red Elephant - February 17th, 2010 at 8:56 PM
The municipal open space tax collects $.02 per $100, or $20 per $100,000. You can read one news report, which discusses the rate, here: http://www.nj.com/hobokennow/index.ssf/2008/01/open_space_ordinance_passed_at.html
Forde Prigot - February 17th, 2010 at 9:47 PM
Red I appreciate you posting this. I knew the rate already, I campaigned for it so it'd be bad if I didn't. So we've established the tax rate is 0.02% Yes you read that right it's not 2% it's two hundredths of a percent. Personally I think more open space would improve our city, both the character and the land values and I'm willing to pay for it. Why do you think such a small specific tax is the best target for tax relief? BTW did you know it was Dawn Zimmer who was instrumental in changing this tax so that Roberts and company couldn't raid it to spend on friends, insuring the money has to be spent on new land before anything else?
Red Elephant - February 20th, 2010 at 5:08 AM
As fiscal conservatives, we oppose raising taxes as a matter of principle. We felt that local taxes were already too high, even prior to the open space tax. If the creation of open space was a priority, it should have been funded via existing revenue streams, not a discretionary tax hike. As for the restrictions on the use of open space funds, we're not fully convinced of their wisdom. We might need those funds for the repair of our collapsing piers, for instance. If we can't use open space funds for this kind of purpose, that creates even more pressure to raise taxes.
Forde Prigot - February 20th, 2010 at 10:55 AM
Wait, what? Being a fiscal conservative doesn't mean that. A fiscal conservative is someone who pays for the government he or she wants in a prudent fashion. It has nothing to do with being anti or pro tax in and of itself.
There are even times when being a fiscal conservative means raising taxes, like Ronald Reagan did with Social Security Insurance. President Reagan deemed SSI to be a significant and valuable program and raised taxes to fund it properly.
And in retrospect saying it should have been funded from existing revenues is a tough sell because Dave Roberts wasn't even funding existing expenses from existing revenues. He was hiding the true cost of government by selling public assets, not paying some bills, employing accounting gimmicks, and in some cases just flat out lying.
To your point about the use restriction I guarantee you if this had been passed without it Dave Roberts would have raided the fund to pay existing expenses like he did the Parking Authority. Including the use restriction was the only way this fund would actually work and I would have voted against it without the restriction. So in reality the fund could have been used to help pay for the piers without the use restriction because the fund would be empty now. BTW thank you for a very interesting conversation. We as a community need to have these discussions so that we can determine exactly what our city government should be doing and making sure it stays within those boundaries.
There are even times when being a fiscal conservative means raising taxes, like Ronald Reagan did with Social Security Insurance. President Reagan deemed SSI to be a significant and valuable program and raised taxes to fund it properly.
And in retrospect saying it should have been funded from existing revenues is a tough sell because Dave Roberts wasn't even funding existing expenses from existing revenues. He was hiding the true cost of government by selling public assets, not paying some bills, employing accounting gimmicks, and in some cases just flat out lying.
To your point about the use restriction I guarantee you if this had been passed without it Dave Roberts would have raided the fund to pay existing expenses like he did the Parking Authority. Including the use restriction was the only way this fund would actually work and I would have voted against it without the restriction. So in reality the fund could have been used to help pay for the piers without the use restriction because the fund would be empty now. BTW thank you for a very interesting conversation. We as a community need to have these discussions so that we can determine exactly what our city government should be doing and making sure it stays within those boundaries.
Red Elephant - February 21st, 2010 at 7:16 AM
Your definition of fiscal conservatism is a rather curious one. Most everyone associates fiscal conservatives with tax cuts, not tax hikes. It's one of the reasons people vote Republican. For many, it's THE reason they vote Republican.
Moreover, there is a moral dimension to taxation which I'm not sure you fully appreciate. Taxes are inherently coercive, and should therefore be minimized in a free society. If you're inclined to question this, I'd ask you to you to consider: the government you desire may not be the government your neighbor desires.
The tax increase to which you've referred was one of several unfortunate compromises that Reagan made when dealing with a Democrat Speaker of the House. I wouldn't hold it up as a proud achievement of his administration. Reagan had long advocated lower taxes, and even making social security voluntary.
Perhaps we should make the open space tax voluntary. For those who are moved to do so, they could easily donate when paying their local taxes. Now there's a freedom-friendly compromise.
And yes, I too have appreciated this civil discussion. We created this site, in part, to share a conservative perspective on local issues. We're definitely not writing out of any personal animosity. Thanks for reading.
Moreover, there is a moral dimension to taxation which I'm not sure you fully appreciate. Taxes are inherently coercive, and should therefore be minimized in a free society. If you're inclined to question this, I'd ask you to you to consider: the government you desire may not be the government your neighbor desires.
The tax increase to which you've referred was one of several unfortunate compromises that Reagan made when dealing with a Democrat Speaker of the House. I wouldn't hold it up as a proud achievement of his administration. Reagan had long advocated lower taxes, and even making social security voluntary.
Perhaps we should make the open space tax voluntary. For those who are moved to do so, they could easily donate when paying their local taxes. Now there's a freedom-friendly compromise.
And yes, I too have appreciated this civil discussion. We created this site, in part, to share a conservative perspective on local issues. We're definitely not writing out of any personal animosity. Thanks for reading.
Forde Prigot - February 21st, 2010 at 10:19 AM
I'd suggest that definition is not curious at all. The modern Republican Party has seemingly abandoned nuanced political philosophy for tactical messages of the day. While the latter may be more easily digestible it has allowed, in my opinion, many to conflate the complex philosophy of fiscal conservativism with Norquist’s motto of starve the beast. A motto is not a philosophy and cannot be a governing principle. As an aside I'm personally a bigger fan of the Bruce Bartlett types than I am of the Norquists.
I will agree that there is a moral dimension to taxation. While not a conservative philosopher I find Rawl's "veil of ignorance" to be a very interesting starting point when considering taxation. In a nutshell a person should consider if the tax's goal fits with their vision of society irrespective if the goal will benefit them directly.
In the general I personally hold that a strong national defense is vital to our interests, others disagree, but the majority elects representatives who agree with the position and so all pay for our defense. In the specific case of open space the tax's enactment was even more democratic. It wasn't imposed by elected representatives rather it was directly voted on by Hoboken's electorate and it passed overwhelmingly, 2,331 votes Yes to 1,403 opposed. You can't get more freedom friendly than that. Taxes are not and should not be optional; they are the cost for living in our amazing nation. I would no more make the open space tax optional than I would the taxes that fund national defense. If a person wants a tax abolished the course is clear, make the case to your friend, neighbors, and the electorate and put people into office who hold that position.
New Jersey is facing a fiscal crisis and how we tax and what we tax for is going to be battled over in the next two years. If the Republican Party is or is seen to be solely Anti-Tax it will have no place in that discussion. Government is not simple; it will take uncommon sense and a devotion to detail to see us through the coming crisis. Fiscal conservatism would be best served if we today begin thinking about what we think government should do and not do and then look at the dollar and cents costs of each of those priorities. Only then will we know the government we want and the government we can afford.
I will agree that there is a moral dimension to taxation. While not a conservative philosopher I find Rawl's "veil of ignorance" to be a very interesting starting point when considering taxation. In a nutshell a person should consider if the tax's goal fits with their vision of society irrespective if the goal will benefit them directly.
In the general I personally hold that a strong national defense is vital to our interests, others disagree, but the majority elects representatives who agree with the position and so all pay for our defense. In the specific case of open space the tax's enactment was even more democratic. It wasn't imposed by elected representatives rather it was directly voted on by Hoboken's electorate and it passed overwhelmingly, 2,331 votes Yes to 1,403 opposed. You can't get more freedom friendly than that. Taxes are not and should not be optional; they are the cost for living in our amazing nation. I would no more make the open space tax optional than I would the taxes that fund national defense. If a person wants a tax abolished the course is clear, make the case to your friend, neighbors, and the electorate and put people into office who hold that position.
New Jersey is facing a fiscal crisis and how we tax and what we tax for is going to be battled over in the next two years. If the Republican Party is or is seen to be solely Anti-Tax it will have no place in that discussion. Government is not simple; it will take uncommon sense and a devotion to detail to see us through the coming crisis. Fiscal conservatism would be best served if we today begin thinking about what we think government should do and not do and then look at the dollar and cents costs of each of those priorities. Only then will we know the government we want and the government we can afford.
Leave a Comment
Search
Recent Posts
Worth Reading