Hoosier Hysteria

For those of you who read more than your local paper, the Indianapolis Star and our own county seat paper, the Anderson Herald, is full of reports of angry taxpayers. There was one editorial in the Star when a citizen had drawn a correlation between the double and triple property levy on residents because of the abusive practice of city and council governments giving abatements to corporations.

I have long held the same correlation and have even been to my city council meetings complaining about this very issue for the last year. If any of you attend your council meetings, you will find that virtually most companies are playing one community against the other selling the idea that for them (the companies) to remain on a competitive edge, they must have these abatements because of other communities offering the same deal. Also, they use crafty language to imply the threat of packing up their operations and moving to a community that WILL cater to their extortionist practices. Right here at home, our council do not even know the costs to the city when saying yes.

Two weeks ago, I attend our council meeting when a company here in town ask for another abatement. The council started to motion to accept the "findings of the facts" (what a joke because they did not even assert what those facts were) and vote on the measure. They all had their minds made up before the motion. Anyway, the motion was going forward and the issue had not even been open to the floor of the public to question or comment. I interjected and said, "Hey!! Are you going to open this issue on the floor for the public to question or comment?!" (I was angry to say the least). The Mayor recognized me and I asked the council if they knew what the cost to the city is for giving the abatement. The MAYOR reacts with the answer, "There is no cost to the city." I said, "WHAT????!!!!" Then, The MAYOR, clearly pissed, not the council President, covered the mic, put his head down, mumbled something, then raised his head and said, "No. We do not know how much."

Now, I wonder...if the mayor does not know, then does it stand to reason that the council does not know? And as it turned out, they did not. I even asked the salesmen from the company. They did not know either. Moreover, does it stand to reason that if the council does not know how much money we are talking about, they are really in no position to even say no? How can they have any leverage to say no if they do not know how much money is involved? My point: they had no intentions of saying no from the beginning. Why? Probably because of FEAR! Fear that they will lose the company to another municipality and then lose their seat in the next election. Also, the council have no criteria for even saying no to these companies.

Lo & Behold, after a year of complaining about this, I open the Anderson Herald to find that the two mayoral candidates are posed the question about the appropriate use of the abatement. They both virtually agreed that it should be used "sparingly." But, you would not deduce any truth in the reasoning by watching politicians in action.

Though I was wanting to save specific agenda items until we meet, I want to share one only by virtue of the fact that the heat is rising on this issue and we have not seen the boiling point yet. While we observe the heat getting hotter, I plan to suggest that we consider freeping the state capitol at the right time by creating a rally. As sure as the sun rises, I know that if we lead the way, we would get bucu support from all over the state.

Man, if you and I got together, we would have a hoot at some of these meetings. I yearn to find just one more like me to go and actually hold these yeh-whos accountable. I guess I am due for a trip to Texas.

BTW, I am part of an orgnaization that seeks to synergize certain, credible, constitutional orgs to move government back within it's constitutional jurisdiction. Three such members are from Texas. As a matter of fact, we started out our org by several of us from all over the states meeting at Lake Whitney. We officially began there on July 4th 1999.

I love Texas, but there is no place like home. Especially the big laugh I get when watching our elected officials trip over their own logic. Would not miss it for the world.

Stay the course Lonestar...

Arrowhead>>>------->

I'm just not with the people who want to "stick it to businesses". I got my job from one, so I'm kind of partial to them sticking around.

We're talking about businesses getting taxpayer money to move to a town and many times putting small businesses that have been there for decades out of business. They are the same businesses who support the local communities more than the Wal-marts, Lowes and Walgreens.

They go into communities and the dollar they take in today is sent to their home office overnight. They provide minimum wage jobs; 39 hours a week. It is very harmful to samll towns.

Well, I do not look at it as "sticking it to business." If anything, SOME businesses, mainly large corporations, are sticking it to us. You know, the citizen, the taxpayer.

Consider this: If you decided that you were going to expand onto your home a large room addition that makes the mechanics of living more suitable so you can add another child to your family, a child that will grow up and pay taxes, do you think that if you took your expansion project to the City Council and ask for a ten year abatement on the reassessed value of your home, that you would get it?

Of course, they would laugh at you. So, why are we not laughing at the corporations? What is so differnt from their expansion projects than yours? You add a room, they add a warehouse. You add furnishings to the room, they add equipment to the warehouse. You add a child to your family (who btw, grows to help around the house and ultimately finds a job or is instrumental in creating jobs) and they add an employee.

Is there any real difference other than scale? And if not, I say what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If we have to pay the full weight of reassessment by virtue of improving our residential properties with no recourse for relief, then corporations should be required to pay their share as well. Contrary to some on this forum, if the corporations get "breaks," it does fall back upon those who do not! Namely, residents!

The astute business man understands, especially in terms of economies of scale, that a loss of financial opportunity can never be regained. Such is the nature of the abatement. Once we say yes, we can never regain that loss. And that is why the abatement should be used "sparingly."

Are you old enough to remember when a soda drink was a treat instead of a general rule of consumption? Well, if you are, then you are old enough to see how the exception in using the abatement nowadays has become the general rule as well. Just as the mass doses of the consumption of sugar has created a hyperactive reduction in our health, so has the extra consumption of corporations use of abatement result in the poor health of our economy.

Arrowhead>>>----->

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.