-- Susan B. Anthony
Yesterday morning in the Courier-Journal, reporter Dick Kaukas sought to plot the county council's discordant lurching back and forth as it considers a final vote on the Local Option Income tax (LOIT). Kaukas might have saved words (and trees) by simply publishing on-line video of a novice trying to learn how to drive a stick shift. I've emphasized one key paragraph.
Floyd briefly pauses on tax plan; Final council vote likely to be Dec. 9.
… For a while, however, the council considered putting off the (LOIT tax) until next year.
The tax, providing 1 percent for property-tax relief and 0.25 percent for police and firefighters, won preliminary approval Wednesday by a 4-3 vote with the council's four Democrats voting yes and the three Republicans opposed.
But Friday morning, council President Larry McAllister, one of the Democrats, said he and other council members had received so many calls from opponents that he decided to pull the ordinance from next month's agenda.
Instead, McAllister said, he was persuaded by arguments to wait until after the next General Assembly session before enacting anything."We're going to wait until after the first of the year," McAllister said, adding that the council could revisit the issue at that time. He said he checked with fellow council members and they were in agreement. The tax had been scheduled to take effect Jan. 1 if it passed.
The three other Democrats who voted for the tax -- Ted Heavrin, Tom Pickett and Carol Shope -- said they were willing to go along with the delay.
Besides, Heavrin said, because of pressure from opponents, "I'm not sure we'll have the votes" anyway, although none of the Democrats said they had changed their position.
Asked about the possibility that one of their number would defect, Shope said, "That would surprise me" …
… That's where things stood -- for about an hour.
Then Teresa Plaiss, the county auditor, said she checked with Ice Miller, an Indianapolis law firm that advises county governments, and was told that if the council didn't act by Dec. 31, it would not be able to consider an income tax until after April 1, and no tax revenue would come in until October.
McAllister said that convinced him the ordinance should stay on the Dec. 9 agenda.
Dana Fendley, a Republican council member who voted no, said McAllister's shifts indicated he was capitulating to pressure, first from police and firefighters who support the tax and then from callers who opposed it.
McAllister said he was trying to be responsive to callers, but then realized that a delayed vote would result in too long a wait for any new tax money.
As Gomer Pyle once said, "Surprise, surprise."
Apparently the result of all this caterwauling has been an unfortunate case of whiplash, at least in the case of one council member, Carol Shope. As Mrs. Baird posted last evening at her The Voice of the People blog, she who abstained in July with respect to the previous LOIT proposal and then voted "yes" in November will opt for "no" the next time around, achieving a trifecta of bullet-dodging completism previously attained by city councilman Dan Coffey, among others.
I saw Carol Shope tonight and she asked me to inform everyone I know that she will vote NO on the LOIT Tax at the December 9th County Council meeting.
If anyone reading can detect a pattern in these county council gyrations, can you please construct a flow chart so the rest of us can keep up?
Why am I not surprised?
ReplyDeleteI bielieve it is like the mathematical principle of pi....the pattern never repeats.
ReplyDeleteSomewhat aside from the primary topic of this post, it strikes me as rather timely to see today's reference to Gomer Pyle. I was thinking about him when I read NAC yesterday. There is an episode of the show in which Gomer learns of the ability to make a citizen's arrest and, once he learns about it, he pursues perceived wrongdoers while shouting, "Citizen's Arrest! Citizen's Arrest!"
ReplyDeleteWhen it was suggested yesterday that Roger would have standing to object to violations of the historic preservation ordinance, that episode came to mind. Although the analogy is humorous, there is an important point to it all: Ordinary citizens often have more power than they realize.
The image of Roger running down the street shouting, "Citizens arrest" is toooooooooooo funny!!!
ReplyDeleteWhen it was suggested yesterday that Roger would have standing to object to violations of the historic preservation ordinance, that episode came to mind.
ReplyDeleteNot just standing to object, standing to sue for injunction, enforcement, attorney's fees, and all other damages allowed by existing law.
Suggesting Roger as the plaintiff was supposed to be funny, but the truth is that lots of people other than the city have express standing to enforce the HPC ordinance. It has teeth.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAny rough guess as to how much such a preservation suit might cost?
ReplyDeleteDo I hear the concept of "public interest law" rearing it's ugly head again?
ReplyDeleteThat would depend on what type of violation you were trying to enforce, what types of damages you were seeking, who was sending the bill, etc. The ordinance leaves your options wide open.
ReplyDeleteLet me take this opportunity to state that I do not think aggressive legal enforcement of the HPC ordinance is a good way to build a preservation ethic. I do think legal enforcement against some of the more flagrant offenders would have a good deterrent effect, especially if it came from the city attorney's office.
I do think legal enforcement against some of the more flagrant offenders would have a good deterrent effect, especially if it came from the city attorney's office.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, that doesn't seem likely under current circumstances.
I think it would be helpful at this stage to establish ANY enforcement.
I do think legal enforcement against some of the more flagrant offenders would have a good deterrent effect, especially if it came from the city attorney's office.
ReplyDeleteGee, there wouldn't happen to be any recent examples of the city attorney failing to do so, would there?
I'd check back tomorrow.
ReplyDeletethe historic preservation enabling statute and the local ordinance place no special emphasis on enforcement by the commission. the commission is only one of many groups that may bring suite. if i can do this from memory, the mayor, the city council, the state architect, historic landmarks, any local historic district resident and the commission all may bring suite. what the commission does by granting COAs is grant safe harbor from these suits, granting immunity from lawsuits for violating the ordinance.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletei need to edit a little better. sorry! :)
ReplyDeleteI'd check back tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteMarvy. Chalk it up to a Publican's intuition.
@Roger and Bluegill:
ReplyDeleteExactly. It's maddening.
If and when the private enforcement actions start coming and embarassing the local government, I don't want there to be ANY doubt in the record about what the most desireable course of action was...and how the City screwed it up.
@Dan:
To put a fine point on that, here's what the ordinance says (i.e., the following people can enforce the ordinance):
INTERESTED PARTY or PARTIES means one or more of the following:
(1) the Mayor of the Civil City of New Albany, Indiana;
(2) the Common Council of the Civil City of New Albany (the "City Council");
(3) the City Plan Commission, Redevelopment Commission, and/or the Board of Zoning Appeals;
(4) a neighborhood association, whether incorporated or unincorporated, a majority of whose members are residents of a historic district designated by an ordinance adopted under this chapter;
(5) an owner or occupant of property located in a historic district established by an ordinance adopted under this chapter;
(6) Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana, Inc., or any of its successors or assigns; and,
(7) the State Historic Preservation Officer designated under IC 14-3-3.4-10.
The HPC, itself, is NOT in the business of enforcement, nor should it be (because of its duty to remain as neutral as possible). But that doesn't mean it can't consult with an attorney (or the City Attorney) that brings enforcement actions on behalf of the city. As you know, it all gets more confusing than it should be when you start trying to figure out where the money is supposed to come from.
However, this SHOULD just be an academic discussion for Dan and I to geek out about offline because, regardless of what the HPC ordinance says, state statute says that the Mayor (and by extension, the city attorney) SHALL enforce the ordinances - Which doesn't happen.
Duh...didn't somebody mention something about a Local Option Income Tax and a county council appearing to be a clone of our very own city council?
ReplyDeletePerhaps I misunderstood. Sorry 'bout that!