Voters ‘protect’ Fairbanks borough tax cap, reject proposed change
Published Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!FAIRBANKS -- Voters decided to let the Fairbanks North Star Borough’s annual tax allowance stand unchanged, approving a plan to leave the tax cap alone for at least two years.
They simultaneously rejected a tax-watchdog group’s effort to tweak the cap — a voter-approved ceiling on each year’s taxes — and retained a tax law that lets government expand in response to growth in the community.
Interior Taxpayers Association president Donna Gilbert, who successfully fought in court to keep her measure on the ballot only to see it fall short Tuesday, said this year may have been the first time her group has watched one of its tax-focused measures fail at the polls since the tax cap was passed in 1987.
With virtually all of the precincts reporting, Proposition A — billed by supporters as a plan to “protect the tax cap” — had received approval from 65 percent of voters. Proposition B, which would have stripped the ability of borough revenues to rise with construction growth, was backed by only 44 percent.
The ballot had listed the competing measures one behind the other and allowed voters to pick as they liked. The setup left open the option that people could back both or reject both at once, leaving borough Mayor Jim Whitaker in the position of having to choose one if they both passed at once.
It didn’t come to that.
Randy Frank, an outgoing assembly member who took a hand in the “protect the tax cap” campaign, said he was pleased with Tuesday’s results. Frank said he has at times agreed with the Interior Taxpayers Association, but not this year.
“I think it shows that the public understands what the revenue needs are for the borough,” Frank said of Tuesday’s vote. “And I think we have a fairly good assembly, and a new assembly, that will reflect that understanding.”
Gilbert suggested her group might try again in two years to dissolve the tax law’s growth-clause. But she also noted the existing tax cap — which she helped champion over two decades ago — is still better than nothing.
“They’re both ITA caps. They’re both good for the community. (Proposition) B was better,” she said.
Frank noted that Whitaker had called for responding to a rising cost of living in Fairbanks by continuing a trend of spending well below the borough’s tax allowance.
“His budget showed that, and we all agreed with him,” Frank said of the assembly. The alternative proposed by Proposition B, he said, was “short-sighted.”
Frank said he viewed the taxpayers association’s effort this year as an end-around from a group disinclined to put its members up for office directly. Gilbert, a former assemblywoman, said she may be the only member of the group ever to have held office but also said the association is “not about going out and picking someone out (to) put in office.”
“I’ve run because I get so frustrated with what’s there that I know I’ll do better,” she said.
Tuesday came and went in an election year with no mayor’s races and one month before a presidential campaign with an Alaskan on a major ticket. Voter turnout appears to have been slow, with just more than 8,000 votes cast for or against the propositions before absentee and questioned ballots are counted next week. Last year’s election drew about 12,000 voters.
Gilbert said she knew her group — which she estimated has roughly 125 to 150 members — had a tough hill to climb when leaders of the community’s volunteer fire departments backed the other measure. But she said her effort had simply aimed to make life in Fairbanks more affordable for residents.
“We’ll have to look at what we do next time, where the economy is, what’s going on,” she said.
Contact staff writer Christopher Eshleman at 459-7582.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
I'm at an age, and live in a house that falls below the average value. So this vote has no immediate effect on me, but it does effect my children & grandchildren. I believe the voters made a wrong decision on this, but we did get the oppertunity to vote. Which I very much appreciate.
Thank you Fairbanks! I'm glad that people were able to see that no matter how much money they want to save that Prop B wasn not well thought out and was not based on facts.
More tax and spend policies from our local government. Prop A folks did a good job of fooling the masses.
Pat
We can all look forward to paying increased property taxes in the years to come. As the school enrollment continues to decrease we can count on the funding to increase at 2-3 times the rate of inflation.
The liberals won this one. The citizens lost.
I just wanted to say how very misleading Prop B was. Who writes this stuff? Paraphrase, "So let's put a limit on how much we will tax you guys, BUT IF inflation goes up, (imagine that) then we can raise it as much as we want, or if we are pressed for money because we mismanage it regularly, or this or that, tit for tat, no big deal just mark yes and proceed into blind oblivion. I wonder how many were duped by just reading the first half and said, "WOW this is good!" and marked yes.
I think a lot of people are more concerned about the type of community they live in than pinching pennies. I'm not sure how that makes them liberal. The L word gets tossed around too loosely, some of you should back away from the radio when Rush comes on.
Lance I believe that the 65% that voted for prop A and the 66% that voted against prop B are citizens too!
It really doesn't matter, what new construction will happen in this community in the next two years. This was just Whitaker's way to insure that if a syn gas plant got built the taxes would have gone into a special fund (A) rather than into the general fund (B) and would have reduced everyone's property taxes. The homes in this community are dropping their prices and still not selling. Box stores around the country are going to have a hard time keeping open, let alone build in Fairbanks. All those hotels, with the world economy failing also, how many will visit Fairbanks. Skinfish, can you say sales tax, next. Between the city and borough approaching economic downfall, I won't be surprised if the borough alone goes after a 10 per cent sales tax.
Typical Fairbanks mentality. Those who support Prop B are correct. Give me a reason that Prop A is a good idea? Those of you who supported Prop A have just shot yourself in the foot. Revenues will not increase due to decreasing property taxes. Furthermore, you've allowed the borough mayor to spend an additional 1.3 million on an energy plan to nowhere. Where do you expect the money to come from?
Poppa,
You probably don't pay property tax.
Wrong aa, I pay over $6,000 a year in borough taxes for a house and rec cabin, are you assuming that I voted for prop A and against prop B? You know what they say about assuming....
Yup, thanks to Mayor Whitaker and the News-Miner, we got screwed. Sure appreciate it. Today will be the last day I log on to the News-Miner website, or purchase their paper. I will however continue to collect the paper for what it is good for... burning.
To N2AK - you said: "I just wanted to say how very misleading Prop B was. Who writes this stuff?" What you might not have noticed is that Prop B was exactly the same as Prop A, just with one item taken out. So it was not more misleading than Prop A. The problem was partly in the VERY MISLEADING WAY the borough chose to show them on the ballot.
To the rest of you who voted for Prop B - Thank you and know that you did not really lose - the tax cap is still on and protected - you just did not get a chance to improve it.
Geez, from the sounds of these comments you'd think that the voting was rigged! Nope, sorry to break it to you, but apparently, the majority of voters actually have come to realize that a government needs money to run! What a crazy concept. Want to live in a country with no government so you don't have to pay taxes? Take a trip to Somalia, but watch out for pirates!
Whitaker nor the borough assembly give a flying(you know what)about anything or anybody but themselves and keeping all those good union jobs.I say when their seats come up fire them all!
Donna Gilbert.
Most 'Alaskan Conservatives' are not conservative at all.
The Alaska Conservative Party stripped the Federal Treasury to pay for their pals to get rich with special projects and favors. That a public thief.
The Alaska Conservative Party was bribed by the Petroleum Industry to transfer our wealth contrary to the Alaska Constitution. That's a public thief.
They also passed laws which were contrary to the Alaskans who work. The Alaska Worker Compensation pact is an example of this. That's not Conservative, that is a menace to our Constitution.
The Alaska Conservative Party tried to muffle protest by passing Ethics Laws which penalized questioning. Ralph Seekins, who counts Bill Allen as one of his best friends, was the leader of this anti freedom movement. He was not a Conservative. Conservative means trying to protect law and order. He was a #1 in the VECO CBC.
It so it goes on and on.
The single shining light. The true Conservative is Donna Gilbert. She has always operated honestly and openly. And Gosh forbid, if you don't agree with her. She does not pander to the rich, the oil, and the false prophets of the collection plates. She always says it like she sees it in her opinion.
She is no phony, or dishonest like every other "Alaska Conservative'.
There are very few liberals in Alaska. Liberals don't live in places like Alaska. But there are many crooks and schemers.
And those of you who profess yourself as Con servatives ewho are not crooks. You're not Con servative you are just an audience of buyers for Murdock's AM radio.
Pretty soon your conservative pals of Wall Street will have lost all your money and there will be nothing for you to buy. Think for yourself.
The taxpayers sure lost on this one!
When the next pipe line goes through, the additional property tax will go to increase borough spending vs reducing the tax burden on the rest of us.
The sound alike organization supporting prop A delivered a sucker punch to all of us by making sure future economic development benefits the public employee unions.
You don't believe me? Just watch the education lobby get a raise while we take the cut.
Passing PROP A sealed the deal!
Next time at bat, ITA supporters need to "get out the vote" and bring the issue up again, and again till is passes. (Using the same tactics as the school district.)
The score Unions 1 ; Taxpayers 0 in the first
Always, remember:
"Yes, some union members do live better than other union members" because we let them live off us.
What pipeline? Time to start getting real about the economy. Like the article that Canada is lengthening runways and will cost airlines $5,000 a flight less to land there than Anchorage. And Fairbanks thought it had a chance as a cargo stop. You know what city the state money will go to in hard economic times, and it isn't Fairbanks. Even with a reduction in interest rate the credit market remains frozen, oil has dropped back down, and the market is losing faster than you can sell, and the unemployment rate is climbing. To bad we don't have a paper that only re prints articles. Some articles on the economic truth about Fairbanks would be interesting.
caligula 24,
This borough wastes more money in so many ways, and it ALWAYS the minority (ie. taxpayers) who carry the burden of providing services. I bet you have no inkling how many people contribute nothing. You have a significant population of welfare recipients, senior exemptions, and the military. If you truly care about more revenue, then (and I know that ITA doesn't even believe this) but you HAVE to initiate a sales tax, all you would need is 2%% It is outlandish that people would consider this tax regressive. Finnaly, unify the city and borough as so many other Alaskan prinicipalities and stop duplication of services.
Has always "operated honestly and openly" depends on how far you go back and What exactly you're talking about?
I was very confused on all the props, and didnt know which way to vote. I had to read and reread. I think this was a factor in the way people voted.
FreeDarfur--- Fairbanks used to be the "stopover refueling" airport for cargo flights, in the late 70's early 80's, right after the refinery went through their fist improvement process that allowed them to crack all the jet fuel to supply the whole state. Then the Alaska railroad rebuilt the tracks and purchased hundreds of tanker cars to ship the fuel to Anchorage. I have heard, but I don't know for sure that Fairbanks is logistically a shorter transcontinental route than Anchorage. Also with more good takeoff and landing days "weatherwise" per year. But politics always wins.
aa
Amen...it's absurd that we don't have a sales tax yet(something the tourists and residents pay alike!). We cannot hope to ever lower property taxes and still mantain our borough services at an acceptable level unless we institute a sales tax (like almost every other locality in the world). I'm not rich, hate paying taxes as much as the next guy, but we have to be realistic. A sales tax that gets money from those who use our services (heck more outsiders probably come through the FNSB than there are residents of it every year) but don't live here is the most obvious choice. And let's be honest here, a few pennies on the dollar isn't going to make or break anyone. There could even be a $1000 cap, so it doesn't hurt as much when you end up buying something like a car.
To he who wrote the citizens lost and the liberals won, you lack understanding. One, liberals like conservatives are citizens. Two, not necessarily did only liberals vote in a way that seems to cause you grief. Sometimes a good idea can be agreed upon by both sides. Maybe, just a good idea won this time.
I just love how people in this community seem to do nothing but complain about these issues. Considering that LESS than 20% of the borough residents bothered to vote, I don't see how it is anyones fault but our own on how this tax cap thing will work out.
And these propositions were brought on by the citizens, not the mayor, not the planners, not the unions.
As a citizen I just cannot help but to be amazed at some of the posts people put up which seem totally unfounded, and in some cases downright ignorant, and whose writers then blast others for posting their opinion.
I rarely post anything on this site but respect other peoples opinions and right to do so. I just wish that when the chance arose for people to actually do something, that they actually did instead of posting silly diatribes on how everything the community is doing is wrong. We had a chance to vote yesterday, take some responsibility.
Well I voted so that gives me the right very well to say that I am not happy with what is going on. For me it was 100%, not 20%.
To aa,
You said "Finaly, unify the city and borough as so many other Alaskan prinicipalities and stop duplication of services." I think you meant to say municipalities, but anyway there is a bigger problem with unification (or consolidation). That is the fact that there IS NO DUPLICATION of services. The city does police, for example. The borough does not. The borough has parks & rec power - the city does not. ETC, on and on. The only thing they have in common that I can think of is a mayor.
However, if we did combine the two entities, they would have to "go to the highest power" which in this case is the first class city of Fairbanks. And that means that since they have police powers, the new combined municipality would have to have that too. Can you imagine how expensive it would be to supply police to the entire borough, especially with the wages and benefits they get now?? And police would only be the beginning. Firefighters in the City would not allow the rest of the borough to have volunteer fire service areas - they fight to keep volunteers out of the city now as it is. And on and on. No thanks, I would rather NOT jump out of the frying pan into the fire!
Igloo: The City and Borough have a LOT in common. Two bureaucracies is the most obvious, which includes two tax collectionn agencies, two human Resources departments, two Public Works offices, two emergency services offices, two Fire Marshall's offices, two Divisions of Elections, two sets of admin staff and receptionists.
You can add a third to each of those when you include North Pole.
Think about this: unification has worked essentially everywhere it has been tried. Juneau, Anchorage, Yakutat, New York City. There is no reason it won't work here.
I voted for A because of my natural resistance to change for change sake. Call me uninformed, but I think that is why most people like me who don't fully understand the borough budget process voted for A. Step one to getting our government spending under control is not to change the revenue, it is to change the spending habits.
I disagree with Henry in that the borough is as large as most states and the associated logistical challenges are not present in Juneau, Anchorage, or New York City. Also, that the borough assembly should not be focused on the metropolis of Fairbanks, when they have such a large area to serve. Fox, Ester, North Pole, Nenana, Salcha, Central, Circle, Chatanika, and Minto all fall within the Borough and need some attention from our assembly. Combining the two will focus all of the attention on Fairbanks and neglect the outlying communities.
I suspect that there was very good turn out among FNSB employees, of which there are many and who all voted for A, and the normal pathetic turnout among the rest of the population, which can't be bothered to vote in the municipal elections.
My observation - everyone who lives in this area pays property tax, just not directly. It's included in the price of every purchase you make, and every rent check paid. Another observation, for what its worth - the balance of payments between government payouts (PFD) to most individuals in the state and taxes paid per household to FNSB or COF is probably a push on average (just my guess). Why so many complaints about an onerous tax burden?
Mayor Whitaker & the borough assembly can & do get replaced. Laws come & go but are written, enforced & changed by votes.
Our bureaucracies need to pay attention locally, nationally & internationally to events that's occurring. Hard times are here for a while, time to tighten up budgets tightly on all levels.
The Alaska Constitution protects our communities and borough and state from bureaucracies if not listened to by voters.
People could/should of voted no on both to send them back to "re-think" the ballots & taxes.
Taxes added to foreclosed homes & lost jobs & incomes makes a 2 sided blade to the budgets even more dangerous.
Time to protect all the budgets first & save, save, save. It's useless to expect Fairbanks to be equally considered in a bailout like LA or New York are now. To even ask for a bailout for us would be a joke on us all..
Vote wisely on all ballots and on all people running & not by parties. It's time to think the cup is half empty & to tightly budget verses the cup half full at this time period. Many cups are/ will come up empty if we don't tightly budget & cut spending to the barest possible & save, save. Next time there might not be enought to tax or be replaced by votes...
Be prepared...we have been prewarned at a "lil" by a congress who didn't/doesn't listen to voters.
Nov. is close......
Ahhh to say goodbye can be sweet & will be heard across the land by voters....Come on Nov.
ONAPA: Have you looked at the size of the Yakutat or Sitka municipalities? They are both nearly as large as the FNSB! Anchorage and Juneau both contain smaller communities within their municipalities. If this idea has worked those situations, it can and will work here. One way to ensure this and to prevent an overwhelming dominance of the City would be to set up voting districts that correspond to each seat on the Assembly, and make sure that enough of those seats correspond to outlying areas, like Ester, Fox, and Salcha.
Also, you should look at a map of the interior. Nenana, Central, Circle, and Minto are NOT within the FNSB.
I have enjoyed reading the above insightful comments and observations.
1) More "money to the borough and city solutions are doomed to failure because they don't address reality.
Reality: It is the nature of government to grow.
For the same reason it is in the nature of malignant cancers to grow and grow until the food source is destroyed. I am tired of being a meal ticket for a lunch.
In my judgment, the natural driving force pushing excessive government growth is "IT'S USE" by special interest groups to take money from the many and put it in their own pockets.
Buzz words : "Economic Exploitation or Parasitism"
2) Step back from the the discussion of Prop A vs Prop B and ask 2
questions:
(2.1) What are the names of the interest groups in the fight?
(2.2) What is the name of the interest group who gains more money? What is the name of the interest group who pays the money?
Discussion---
In this case the borough/school district unions pushed prop A because they control the apportion process -- knowing new money coming in would go to their wages and benefits.
When the oppressed taxpayers attempted to put the parasites on a diet --they lost.
Notice the total number of votes cast on A is about same as those cast on B.
Now look at the number of Prop A's Yes vs. No votes and compare them to the number of Prop B's Yes vs. No votes
Notice the size of the difference of Yes to No votes.
Now you can see the effect of the 2 unions on all other unions.. state workers union, federal workers union, plumbers, carpenters, communication worker unions etc. as well as on all the rest us.
3) "This is not a good thing" because it drags down the living standard of almost EVERYONE, INCLUDING those who voted YES on Prop A. because the money will NOT be distributed equally among the union's members.
4) The school district will get lthe lion's share (because they control the assembly), the SD management will get a pig slice because they
control the SD budget and other borough unions will get the squeak.
This is the history of things and history repeats it's self.
Thank you again for your thoughtful comments.
-------------------------
PS. this is the best web site on the net.. NASA's
"Astronomy Picture of the Day" It updates at 8:05 pm each day. Look in the Archives for some WOW pictures!
http://128.183.240.121/apod/astropix.htm...
If the poor oppressed taxpayers really wanted Prop. B to pass, more than 10% of them would have voted. You want to blame this on the unions and the School District? Fine. Whatever. Blame it on the selfish, ignorant, and lazy idiots who don't take the time to vote!
How may voters did you turn out?
How much money did you donate to the ITA for the campaign?
Anyone tell 'um their neighbor hood fire department was using gold foil to decorate their shinny red toys?
How about most of the borough does not have fire coverage?
Or remind voters the fire service area mill levy is set by the voters in that service area!
Or money for a 14% increase on a $80,000 wage and benefit package over the next 3 years equaling $11,200 was at stake. Bet you did not know that!
For that kind of money residents of Birch Hill would rise up and vote!
The teacher's union members sure leaned on thing in collage VOTE!
This was a money issue who gets our money after the borough extorts it from us. The property taxpayers or the teacher's union via the SD budget increase.
"Yes! The teacher's union members DO live better than other union members because-they-LIVE-off-of-us!"
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.