|
Help save yourself
— join CLT
today! |
CLT introduction and membership application |
What CLT saves you from the auto excise tax alone |
Ask your friends to join too |
Visit CLT on Facebook |
CLT UPDATE
Sunday, March 9, 2015
They're coming at taxpayers from every
direction!
|
It wasn’t so long ago that voters in
Massachusetts were routinely asked to weigh in on whether the state
should scrap its flat income tax in favor of a graduated rate
structure that taxes higher income earners more.
The change would require a Constitutional amendment, and each of the
five times the question was posed between 1962 and 1976 and again in
1994 voters rejected it soundly, with the idea never getting more
than 28 percent.
Democratic leaders in recent years have been reluctant to go down
that path again, even though Gov. Deval Patrick and others have
expressed interest, if not outright support, for the concept as a
way to improve the “fairness” of the tax code, which they say
regressively hits lower-income earners disproportionately compared
to high wage earners.
But the tides could be changing with Sen. Stanley Rosenberg, a
proponent of the graduated income tax, poised to be elected the next
Senate president in January and a new crop of lawmakers arriving on
Beacon Hill.
“I will be discussing it with my colleagues,” Rosenberg told the
News Service after a special Tax Fairness Commission, co-chaired by
Rep. Jay Kaufman and Sen. Michael Rodrigues, recently included the
graduated income tax among its recommendations....
Rosenberg has been a sponsor of a graduated income tax
constitutional amendment, but the measure must be approved by two
consecutive legislative sessions to reach the statewide ballot and
in recent years Senate President Therese Murray has not brought the
proposal, or many others that are pending, forward for votes. Come
January, however, it is expected that Rosenberg will be wielding the
gavel during Constitutional Conventions.
Asked about the Tax Fairness Commission including the graduated
income tax in its final report -- the panel voted 9-4 in favor of
the idea -- Rosenberg said, “I’m very excited about that.” ...
The Amherst Democrat acknowledged that it would be a fight to get a
constitutional amendment approved, and said it should be difficult
to change the Constitution.
Citizens for Limited Taxation, now led by
Barbara Anderson,
was founded in 1974 to oppose a graduated income tax plan as it was
headed to the 1976 ballot, where it was defeated 68 percent to 24
percent.
“A graduated income tax is a tool to divide and conquer taxpayers,
hiking taxes one bracket at a time,” Anderson said in a recent
release warning of a “tax trap ahead.” She continued, “By targeting
a single bracket, enough critical mass will never be reached for
effective tax resistance. And, without legislative cooperation, a
constitutional amendment is forever.” ...
Sen. Jamie Eldridge, an Acton Democrat and fellow sponsor of the
graduated income tax amendment with Rosenberg, said he was
“pleasantly surprised” to see the recommendation included in the
commission report.
“Speaking on behalf of many fellow Democrats, I think there is
recognition that we really need to take a look at it next session,”
Eldridge said.
Eldridge said the fact that voters last rejected the idea in 1994
shouldn’t dissuade lawmakers from reconsidering now. “It’s the job
of the Legislature to revisit issues and an important thing to keep
in mind is that property taxes have skyrocketed in Massachusetts and
we have passed taxes the last few years, it just tends to be
regressive taxes. We need to do it in a more fair manner,” he said.
The fate of a graduated income tax could depend, in large part, on
the predispositions of the new House and Senate members elected in
November, as well as who becomes the next governor and the attitudes
of the public.
State House News Service
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Grad Tax supporter in line to wield gavel at Constitutional
Conventions
Highlights of the commission's draft report last
week included the institution of a graduated income tax — a change
necessitating a constitutional amendment, and one that has been
defeated in Massachusetts before....
Responding to the commission's recommendations,
Barbara Anderson
with Citizens for Limited Taxation called the graduated
income tax an attempt to “rig the Massachusetts Constitution in
favor of easy income tax hiking.”
“A graduated income tax is a tool to divide and conquer taxpayers,
hiking taxes one bracket at a time,” said Anderson, CLT's executive
director. “By targeting a single bracket, enough critical mass will
never be reached for effective tax resistance. And, without
legislative cooperation, a constitutional amendment is forever.”
Anderson's organization was founded in 1974 to oppose a graduated
income tax proposal that failed at the polls in 1976.
GoLocalWorcester.com
Monday, March 3, 2014
Massachusetts Lawmakers Examine “Fairness” of State Tax Code
Plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging a Hyannis
Fire District vote scheduled Wednesday on whether to spend $19.8
million on a new fire station say they haven't given up despite
a judge's ruling last week that the vote can proceed.
"I'm doing what I do because I'm exercising my right," plaintiff
John Julius said Sunday about his plans to file a motion for
reconsideration today of an injunction on the vote that
Barnstable Superior Court Judge Christopher Muse denied
Thursday....
In his motion for reconsideration he plans to file today Julius
argues that Muse had erred in his interpretation of the law.
"The statute clearly state: 'the total taxes assessed WITHIN any
city or town under the provisions of this chapter shall not
exceed two and one-half per cent of the full and fair cash
valuation in said city or town in any fiscal year,'" he wrote in
a draft provided to the Times.
Julius acknowledged Sunday that he and the other residents may
need to hire a practicing lawyer but said that, regardless of
whether he is able to stop the vote, he plans to continue with
the lawsuit.
Barbara Anderson, executive director of
Citizens for
Limited Taxation, the organization that led the campaign for
Proposition 2½, said the intent of the law when it was written
was to include all government entities with the ability to
collect taxes.
"I know exactly how we wrote the law," she said. "Not only our
intent but our language included district."
Anderson said she is unclear when or why the law might have
changed so that fire districts are excluded as Muse and the
state Department of Revenue contend.
The only way that would have been possible under the original
intent of the law would have been if fire districts, like water
districts for example, charged fees rather than taxes, she said.
The Cape Cod Times
Monday, March 3, 2014
Barnstable man pursues Hyannis fire district challenge
A two-thirds majority proved too high a
hurdle for supporters of a new fire station in Hyannis.
During a special meeting of the Hyannis Fire District at
Barnstable High School on Wednesday night, 210 residents voted
in favor of the $19.8 million plan and 169 voted against it, but
supporters failed to achieve the 254 vote supermajority required
to pass the spending measure....
An 11th-hour attempt by Julius and others to stop the vote
failed Tuesday when Barnstable Superior Court Judge Christopher
Muse for the second time in a week rejected the argument that
fire districts are limited by the state law known as Proposition
2½.
Proposition 2½ limits the amount towns and other entities can
raise taxes in any given year unless voters approve the measure
in an election. Muse and the Department of Revenue have both
found that fire districts are not restricted by Proposition 2½.
After Wednesday's vote, Julius said the lawsuit challenging that
finding remains active but may be withdrawn and refiled in
federal court.
The Cape Cod Times
Thursday, March 6, 2014
New Hyannis fire station shot down
The law was passed some 34 years ago and for
all that time 350 other cities and towns in the Commonwealth
have obeyed the law. Not the five fire districts in Barnstable.
No, not them. They have claimed for all this time that they are
exempt, yet the law states otherwise. Barbara Anderson
was the pioneer of the Prop 2½ law and she appears to be very
concerned about the status of the fire districts. She
categorically states that the word district was there back then
and that no one was ever meant to be exempt from the law. If
anyone knows, it is her....
Despite his rulings, we still have a lawsuit that will happen.
If this judge or anyone else thinks we are going away, then it
is my turn to laugh now. We are not, pure and simple. The only
thing we are trying to do is stop the fire districts from taxing
all of us into oblivion and have them refrain from breaking the
law after 34 years. Enough is enough! How sad is it that any
judge demands a law degree for anyone to prove convincingly in a
court of law that someone has broken the law for this kind of
time!
Have faith, folks. The lawsuit will be heard in front of a jury,
who may see things far differently. Let’s hope so for all of us!
The Barnstable Patriot
Friday, March 7, 2013
LETTERS: Judge’s ruling leaves much to be desired
By John Julius
Fees are going up at the Registry of Motor
Vehicles and you may wonder why. The I-Team found it has nothing
to do with the RMV being able to pay its own bills. In fact, as
Chief Correspondent Joe Shortsleeve found out, the RMV is making
a bundle off you and me....
“It is absolutely amazing, the Registry of Motor Vehicles is a
cash cow!” says Mary Connaughton of the Pioneer Institute, a
conservative watchdog. She says registry fees are a huge source
of revenue for the state. “Over the years they have gone to the
registry and they say ‘aaaahhh that is another way to get
money.’”
How good is business at the registry? Consider this,
Massachusetts will collect almost $600 million in fees from the
registry or about ten times what it costs to operate. A much
higher ratio than any other New England state. Vermont and Maine
generate are about four times their actual costs while New
Hampshire and Connecticut are about seven times.
Connaughton calls it a back door tax. “And they are going once
again to the easiest source of money,” she says. “And that is
raise fees. Let’s not let this go through the state legislature.
Let’s have to go to an appointed body that can do it in a vote.”
Secretary of Transportation Richard Davey says, “It is a tax, a
tax is a fee. Either way the consumer is paying out of their
pocket for a government service. It’s a three letter word either
case.”
WBZ-TV4
Friday, March 7, 2014
I-Team: Mass. RMV Making Hundreds Of Millions Of Dollars
Watch video below
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
It's been a busy week for CLT:
Testimony against a bill to allow illegal aliens to get drivers
licenses; an ongoing
assault on Proposition 2½; another
Graduated Income Tax proposal gaining steam; and yet another
report exposing the Registry of Motor Vehicles as a backdoor
cash-cow state revenue collector.
More Is Never Enough (MINE) and never will be ―
until they have it all.
Though Barnstable Superior Court Judge
Christopher Muse twice denied taxpayer-activists' challenge of a
"fire district" property tax increase as a violation of Proposition
2½, when it reached a unique "district" voting procedure of the
Hyannis, its voters shot it down. John Julius, the spokesman for the
activists, vowed to continue the court challenge in federal courts.
CLT has agreed to file an affidavit in support of his challenge.
After the vote, John wrote to Barbara: "Without your comments
I don't think the measure would have failed. We are coordinating an
effort to recruit new members for CLT."
The so-called Tax Fairness Commission, co-chaired
by Rep. Jay Kaufman and Sen. Michael Rodrigues, released its "tax
fairness" recommendations with a vote of 9-4 in favor of its
proposals, including a Graduated Income Tax (Grad Tax).
(A bit of trivia: Your might remember Sen.
Rodrigues when he was a state rep and was
caught on camera by a CLT member filling his trunk with tax-free
New Hampshire liquor ― right after he voted to hike the sales and
alcohol taxes on liquor purchased in Massachusetts by the
law-abiding.)
The expected elevation of state Sen. Stanley
Rosenberg (D-Amherst) to the position of next Senate president adds
more impetus to a Grad Tax. It has been a target of his lust for a
long time, and as the Senate president he'll be at the podium of
constitutional conventions pounding the gavel.
We'll be paying attention.
Secretary of Transportation Richard Davey had it
absolutely wrong when he said,
“It is a tax, a tax is a fee. Either way the consumer is paying out
of their pocket for a government service. It’s a three letter word
either case.”
'Nix' is a three letter word too, and that's what
should be done to this out-of-control agency's extortion. That's
what we accomplished in 1992 with our lawsuit, Ford vs. Lashman
(Secretary of Administration & Finance), Suffolk Superior
Court: #89-2288 (See:
The 1989-'92 Freedom First/CLT Fees Challenge). We launched the
legal challenge while Michael Dukakis was governor; it took years to
wend it way through court. In the meantime, William Weld was
elected governor. When he was sworn in we settled the case
out-of-court. Gov. Weld removed the fee for license renewals and
other RMV charges.
Like so many tax issues on Bacon Hill, this
perennial issue surfaces every few years, and each time we learn
that the cash-cow has been fattened. When the Legislature considered
hiking RMV fees again in 1999, we were there at the barricades (See:
CLT Update, Jul. 8, 1999, "It's
time to demand better"). CLT delivered a statement-of-intent
memo to legislators and, in the end, they decided to abandon the
idea (See: CLT Update, Jul. 28, 1999, "Senate
prez KOs Registry fee hikes").
Gov. Weld's secretary of Administration &
Finance, Peter Nessen, issued his "procedures for setting fees" on
Apr. 13, 1992 (see Page 4
here). After
the election of Gov. Deval Patrick, this procedure was repealed and
replaced on Jun. 25, 2008 by his secretary of A&F, Leslie A. Kirwan
(here).
After much legal research in 2001 our attorney
concluded:
"Given this
language from O’Brien and the power conferred on the
legislature by the Constitution it becomes clear that the
need for the additional revenue needed for highway
construction which drove the decision of the legislature to
establish the new registration and license “fees” would make
it extremely unlikely that a majority of the justices would
conclude that the increased fees either standing alone or in
the aggregate with all other fees and taxes imposed on the
ownership and operation of motor vehicles on the roads of
the Commonwealth are unreasonable, or in any other respect
unconstitutional.
"The
reasonableness of the fee or excise would never be measured
by only the direct costs. Furthermore the legislature need
not be exact, provided that all the revenue from the fees,
duties, excises or license taxes relating to registration,
operation or use of vehicle on public highways, or to fuels
used for propelling such vehicles are used for the purposes
set forth in Art. 104."
―
Read the full conclusion ―
Today, the Registry of Motor Vehicles is
empowered to raise fees unilaterally, though where it finds that
authority eludes me. Article XXIII of the Massachusetts
Constitution clearly states: "No subsidy, charge, tax, impost,
or duties, ought to be established, fixed, laid, or levied, under
any pretext whatsoever, without the consent of the people, or their
representatives in the legislature." What part of "under any pretext
whatsoever" don't they understand?
Yes folks, we've surely got our work cut out for
us in the year ahead.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford |
|
|
|
|
|
State House News Service
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Grad Tax supporter in line to wield gavel at Constitutional
Conventions
By Matt Murphy
It wasn’t so long ago that voters in Massachusetts were routinely
asked to weigh in on whether the state should scrap its flat income
tax in favor of a graduated rate structure that taxes higher income
earners more.
The change would require a Constitutional amendment, and each of the
five times the question was posed between 1962 and 1976 and again in
1994 voters rejected it soundly, with the idea never getting more
than 28 percent.
Democratic leaders in recent years have been reluctant to go down
that path again, even though Gov. Deval Patrick and others have
expressed interest, if not outright support, for the concept as a
way to improve the “fairness” of the tax code, which they say
regressively hits lower-income earners disproportionately compared
to high wage earners.
But the tides could be changing with Sen. Stanley Rosenberg, a
proponent of the graduated income tax, poised to be elected the next
Senate president in January and a new crop of lawmakers arriving on
Beacon Hill.
“I will be discussing it with my colleagues,” Rosenberg told the
News Service after a special Tax Fairness Commission, co-chaired by
Rep. Jay Kaufman and Sen. Michael Rodrigues, recently included the
graduated income tax among its recommendations.
Rosenberg has been a sponsor of a graduated income tax
constitutional amendment, but the measure must be approved by two
consecutive legislative sessions to reach the statewide ballot and
in recent years Senate President Therese Murray has not brought the
proposal, or many others that are pending, forward for votes. Come
January, however, it is expected that Rosenberg will be wielding the
gavel during Constitutional Conventions.
Asked about the Tax Fairness Commission including the graduated
income tax in its final report -- the panel voted 9-4 in favor of
the idea -- Rosenberg said, “I’m very excited about that.”
“In the overwhelming majority of states that have an income tax it’s
a progressive graduated tax and I know it’s been on the ballot
before a number of times and was defeated each time but I think the
situation has now changed to the point where people will take
another look at this and see it differently as a result of the
growing income inequality and stagnation of the standard of living
and recognition the graduated income tax will be a fairer way of
raising money for public services,” Rosenberg said.
The Amherst Democrat acknowledged that it would be a fight to get a
constitutional amendment approved, and said it should be difficult
to change the Constitution.
Citizens for Limited Taxation, now led by Barbara Anderson,
was founded in 1974 to oppose a graduated income tax plan as it was
headed to the 1976 ballot, where it was defeated 68 percent to 24
percent.
“A graduated income tax is a tool to divide and conquer taxpayers,
hiking taxes one bracket at a time,” Anderson said in a recent
release warning of a “tax trap ahead.” She continued, “By targeting
a single bracket, enough critical mass will never be reached for
effective tax resistance. And, without legislative cooperation, a
constitutional amendment is forever.”
Steve Aylward and Marty Lamb, the organizers behind a proposed
ballot question to repeal the indexing of the gas tax to inflation,
also criticized the commission’s characterization of a graduated
income tax as “fairer.”
"When has Beacon Hill been fair to the taxpayers? Is it fair that
the gas tax is automatically going to increase every year without a
vote?" Aylward said. "Are these lawmakers forgetting that the people
have rejected a graduated income tax multiple times? Their
conclusions are completely disrespectful to the voters of the
Commonwealth."
Lamb said the Legislature should stop looking for ways to raise
taxes and start identifying savings.
Sen. Jamie Eldridge, an Acton Democrat and fellow sponsor of the
graduated income tax amendment with Rosenberg, said he was
“pleasantly surprised” to see the recommendation included in the
commission report.
“Speaking on behalf of many fellow Democrats, I think there is
recognition that we really need to take a look at it next session,”
Eldridge said.
Eldridge said the fact that voters last rejected the idea in 1994
shouldn’t dissuade lawmakers from reconsidering now. “It’s the job
of the Legislature to revisit issues and an important thing to keep
in mind is that property taxes have skyrocketed in Massachusetts and
we have passed taxes the last few years, it just tends to be
regressive taxes. We need to do it in a more fair manner,” he said.
The fate of a graduated income tax could depend, in large part, on
the predispositions of the new House and Senate members elected in
November, as well as who becomes the next governor and the attitudes
of the public.
Eldridge wouldn’t speculate whether Murray’s departure from the
Senate and Rosenberg’s expected elevation to president might create
a more friendly atmosphere at the State House toward a graduated
income tax.
“I’m really not sure at this moment. Our Senate president is Therese
Murray right now so I’m not thinking about anything else,” Eldridge
said.
While Rosenberg might be leading the Constitutional Convention next
year, he won’t be able to get anything done without support in the
House. The House has 160 members compared to 40 in the Senate.
During a Constitutional Convention, the branches sit jointly in the
House chamber.
Rep. Patricia Haddad, a Somerset Democrat and speaker pro tempore,
said she knows Kaufman is “very high” on the idea and said the
Revenue Committee chairman will have to sell her on it to get her
vote.
“My opinion of the graduated income tax? I don’t actually have one.
I try not to put my nose in where I don’t know enough about it. I
think a lot of people think it’s a good idea. I think I would have
to wait to hear the debate,” Haddad said.
As for the level of support in the House, Haddad said most will want
to take their time to weigh the proposal.
“I’m sure there are people over here that are already very in favor
of it, but I think there’s a process that people will have to be
sold on it. Part of my issue is I really am very careful about
changing the Constitution so just the fact that it has to be an
amendment means we have to spend an awful lot of time talking about
and getting the pros and cons,” she said.
GoLocalWorcester.com
Monday, March 3, 2014
Massachusetts Lawmakers Examine “Fairness” of State Tax Code
Recommendations from Massachusetts' Tax Fairness Commission may
arrive dead in the water when they're presented to lawmakers on
Monday.
Highlights of the commission's draft report last week included the
institution of a graduated income tax — a change necessitating a
constitutional amendment, and one that has been defeated in
Massachusetts before.
Commission looks at who pays, how much
Established by the Legislature last year, the bipartisan commission
was charged with analyzing and focusing on the equity of current tax
policies. The 15-member body found the “overall tax system in
Massachusetts is regressive, meaning middle- and low-income
taxpayers pay a larger share of their income in taxes than
high-income taxpayers.”
The commission reports the share paid in state and local income
taxes was inversely proportional to households' incomes: the bottom
20 percent of households paid 10 percent while the top 1 percent of
earners paid 4.9 percent.
That regressivity is largely because of property and sales tax,
areas where lower income households spend a greater share of their
income. While Massachusetts has a flat personal income tax, various
exemptions, deductions, and credits create some relief for lower
wage workers.
Pushback against graduated income tax
Responding to the commission's recommendations, Barbara Anderson
with Citizens for Limited Taxation called the graduated
income tax an attempt to “rig the Massachusetts Constitution in
favor of easy income tax hiking.”
“A graduated income tax is a tool to divide and conquer taxpayers,
hiking taxes one bracket at a time,” said Anderson, CLT's executive
director. “By targeting a single bracket, enough critical mass will
never be reached for effective tax resistance. And, without
legislative cooperation, a constitutional amendment is forever.”
Anderson's organization was founded in 1974 to oppose a graduated
income tax proposal that failed at the polls in 1976.
Because of a 1915 amendment to the state's Constitution requiring a
tax be “levied at a uniform rate throughout the commonwealth upon
incomes derived from the same class of property,” a graduated income
tax change necessitates a public referendum.
The proposal has been voted down five times: in 1962, 1968, 1972,
1976, and 1994, each time by at least a two to one margin.
Massachusetts in the minority of flat tax states
Two-thirds of states have a progressive income tax today according
to a recent tally by the Federation of Tax Administrators, looking
at state rates at the beginning of this year. Eight states have a
flat income tax versus 33 (plus the District of Columbia) that have
separate rates based on income brackets. (Seven have no income tax,
while two only tax dividends and interest income).
While Massachusetts currently has a 5.2 percent income tax on paper,
that percentage is not paid at any income level because of
exemptions, deductions, and credits: The bottom 20 percent (earning
less than $21,000) contribute 0.7 percent of their income toward
state and local taxes while top earners pay 4.5 percent.
Commission not unified with proposals
Members of the commission voted individually on each proposal at its
final meeting last week.
Michael Widmer, a member of the committee and president of the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, voted against the graduated
income tax measure, saying it would undercut the creation of jobs
and be counterproductive toward the goal of a more competitive
economy.
A majority supported a package of reforms to reduce the tax burden
on low- and middle-income households (which included an increase to
the state's earned income tax credit, an expansion of the property
tax circuit breaker to include low-income households, and a doubling
of current exemptions — all offset by an increase in the flat income
tax rate).
Members of the commission also supported an online sales tax,
meanwhile, that would seek to collect revenue from all Internet
sales should Congress implement that requirement.
Some of the commission's recommendations echo proposals by Gov.
Deval Patrick last year, including an increase in the income tax and
personal exemptions, which were not acted upon in the Legislature.
Taxes a small percentage of cost of business
Gregory Sullivan, a member of the commission and research director
of the Pioneer Institute, recommended studying ways to increase
economic competitiveness through an expanded research and
development tax credit and lower corporate tax rate, but that
proposal was not picked up.
The commission reported the average cost of state and local taxes in
Massachusetts at 2 percent of the total cost of business, while
employee compensation accounts for between 40 and 80 percent of
expenses. “Therefore, a simple reduction in the corporate tax rate
is unlikely to lead to significant change in the Commonwealth,” the
report concludes.
The Cape Cod Times
Monday, March 3, 2014
Barnstable man pursues Hyannis fire district challenge
By Patrick Cassidy
HYANNIS — Plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging a Hyannis Fire
District vote scheduled Wednesday on whether to spend $19.8 million
on a new fire station say they haven't given up despite a judge's
ruling last week that the vote can proceed.
"I'm doing what I do because I'm exercising my right," plaintiff
John Julius said Sunday about his plans to file a motion for
reconsideration today of an injunction on the vote that Barnstable
Superior Court Judge Christopher Muse denied Thursday.
Fire district officials have proposed to build a new fire station
which, including money district voters already approved to buy land
and for other costs, would cost $23.2 million total.
Proponents of the plan argue that a new station is necessary to
replace the nearly 50-year-old existing station and to meet the
growing needs of the district. Opponents decry the cost to district
residents and contend a smaller station would accomplish those same
goals.
Julius and nine other residents filed their lawsuit Feb. 14 arguing
that the vote on the new fire station was illegal on a number of
fronts, including because it violated a state law that is intended
to restrict the amount towns are able to raise taxes each year.
Last week Julius filed a motion for an injunction to stop the vote,
arguing during a hearing before Muse on Thursday that the decision
to hold the vote at a district meeting during the off-season rather
than during a daylong election at a time when more residents are in
town and not allowing absentee balloting would violate the Americans
with Disabilities Act among other laws.
But, in his decision, Muse wrote that the Hyannis Fire District,
which is one of five in the town of Barnstable, was not subject to
the restrictions of Proposition 2½, which limits the amount of taxes
towns can raise. Therefore the plaintiffs had not established the
likelihood of succeeding on the merits of the lawsuit, according to
Muse. Because of this he refused to issue the injunction.
Muse, who at times during the hearing Thursday sounded more like a
law professor than a judge in explaining to Julius — who is not an
attorney — how the law should be read, said that the lack of a
specific exemption for fire districts in the Proposition 2½ law
could not be interpreted as requiring the districts to adhere to the
law and that there is a separate law that governs fire districts.
In his motion for reconsideration he plans to file today Julius
argues that Muse had erred in his interpretation of the law.
"The statute clearly state: 'the total taxes assessed WITHIN any
city or town under the provisions of this chapter shall not exceed
two and one-half per cent of the full and fair cash valuation in
said city or town in any fiscal year,'" he wrote in a draft provided
to the Times.
Julius acknowledged Sunday that he and the other residents may need
to hire a practicing lawyer but said that, regardless of whether he
is able to stop the vote, he plans to continue with the lawsuit.
Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for
Limited Taxation, the organization that led the campaign for
Proposition 2½, said the intent of the law when it was written was
to include all government entities with the ability to collect
taxes.
"I know exactly how we wrote the law," she said. "Not only our
intent but our language included district."
Anderson said she is unclear when or why the law might have changed
so that fire districts are excluded as Muse and the state Department
of Revenue contend.
The only way that would have been possible under the original intent
of the law would have been if fire districts, like water districts
for example, charged fees rather than taxes, she said.
The Cape Cod Times
Thursday, March 6, 2014
New Hyannis fire station shot down
By Patrick Cassidy
HYANNIS — A two-thirds majority proved too high a hurdle for
supporters of a new fire station in Hyannis.
During a special meeting of the Hyannis Fire District at Barnstable
High School on Wednesday night, 210 residents voted in favor of the
$19.8 million plan and 169 voted against it, but supporters failed
to achieve the 254 vote supermajority required to pass the spending
measure.
New Hyannis fire station vote:
254 of 381 votes were needed to approve $19.8 million plan by
two-thirds majority
210 voted for the measure and 169 voted against it (two ballots were
left blank)
"I want to give thanks to all the voters who came out," said John
Julius, a local real estate agent who spearheaded a lawsuit to try
to stop the vote.
Julius was among a handful of speakers who decried the decision to
hold the vote at a special meeting rather than during an election
when more taxpayers would be around.
"Quite frankly it was an outrage the way this thing was done," said
resident John Best.
Best also claimed that Hyannis Fire Chief Harold Brunelle had not
been truthful when he said there were no immediate plans to add
personnel to the department, sparking the testiest exchange of the
night.
"I think you called me a liar, and I'm not going to stand for it,"
Brunelle countered. "You are full of baloney."
While most of the speakers agreed with Brunelle and other fire
officials that a new station is needed, they balked at the cost and
the way the measure was presented.
Others argued that, if the measure was defeated, the cost would
increase the next time around.
"I truly believe that if you don't take this opportunity to vote
this station in, it's going to cost you millions more," said former
Town Councilor Harold Tobey. "If you don't support it, I guarantee
you'll rue the day."
During a presentation at the start of the meeting, Brunelle issued a
similar warning.
Chatham voters put off building a new station for a year, cut 5,000
square feet out of the building and still paid nearly $1 million
more than they would have under the original proposal, Brunelle
said.
"We will get less building for more money," he said.
In the meantime, money will have to go into the old building, which
is too small for the department's operations and rapidly
deteriorating, Brunelle said.
The existing Hyannis station was built in 1965 and is the sixth
busiest station in the state, handling more than 6,000 calls each
year, Brunelle said.
After about an hour of back and forth on the subject, including a
contested voice vote, a secret ballot was called. The results dealt
a setback to fire officials who have been working for the past year
to sell the public on the new station.
An 11th-hour attempt by Julius and others to stop the vote failed
Tuesday when Barnstable Superior Court Judge Christopher Muse for
the second time in a week rejected the argument that fire districts
are limited by the state law known as Proposition 2½.
Proposition 2½ limits the amount towns and other entities can raise
taxes in any given year unless voters approve the measure in an
election. Muse and the Department of Revenue have both found that
fire districts are not restricted by Proposition 2½.
After Wednesday's vote, Julius said the lawsuit challenging that
finding remains active but may be withdrawn and refiled in federal
court.
In his denial last week of an injunction of the vote, Muse wrote
that, beyond procedural problems with the request, the appropriation
vote by the Fire District is not prohibited by Proposition 2½.
"Furthermore, this decision may be mooted by the scheduled vote,"
Muse wrote, presaging the outcome of Wednesday's vote.
The new station would have been built at the location of the current
station and on adjacent land previously purchased for the purpose.
Originally the building was designed to be 56,000 square feet and
cost $25.5 million to construct.
Over the past year the Fire District's building committee reduced it
in size to 42,695 square feet and the $19.8 million price tag.
An additional $3.4 million already had been approved by voters to
buy land and for other related costs.
The residential tax impact of the new station in the first year on a
home valued at $311,000, the median price in the district, would
have been $42.72. The next year it would have risen to $152.78 and
dropped from there. The total cost over 30 years would have been
$3,309.73.
Fire Commissioner Richard Gallagher, chairman of the building
committee, said after the vote that the commissioners would now
discuss their options, including whether the proposal could be
brought forward in some form of election as many voters have
requested.
"You always like to go with the will of the people," he said.
The Barnstable Patriot
Friday, March 7, 2013
LETTERS: Judge’s ruling leaves much to be desired
By now many residents in Barnstable are fully aware that a
Barnstable Superior Court judge denied our request for an injunction
to halt the vote on the proposed fire station. After his denial we
then filed an emergency motion for reconsideration. Boom! He denied
that as well, basing much of his ruling on the fact that John Julius
is not an attorney and can only speak for himself. He also wrote in
his ruling that the vote is not prohibited by the provisions of
Proposition 2½ and further that there could be some voters who wish
to approve the appropriation and this injunction would effectively
disenfranchise those people.
The law was passed some 34 years ago and for all that time 350 other
cities and towns in the Commonwealth have obeyed the law. Not the
five fire districts in Barnstable. No, not them. They have claimed
for all this time that they are exempt, yet the law states
otherwise. Barbara Anderson was the pioneer of the Prop 2½ law and
she appears to be very concerned about the status of the fire
districts. She categorically states that the word district was there
back then and that no one was ever meant to be exempt from the law.
If anyone knows, it is her.
It is obvious that the judge took the easy road and the easy way
out. Anyone surprised? I am not for sure! In essence, the judge is
saying that one must have an attorney to come into a court of law to
accuse someone of breaking the law for the past 34 years no matter
how much proof and evidence one has. He is also making a statement
that he will protect the rights people on one side of the fence who
may want a vote to go their way but the hell with the other people,
some of whom are in other places and cannot vote by absentee
ballots, those with disabilities, others who could not get out at 7
p.m. when demanded to do so by the Hyannis Fire District and many of
the elderly who cannot drive at night. Most importantly the judge is
patently wrong that the Hyannis Fire District is exempt from the
law, along with the other four fire districts.
All of the residents from Barnstable should be aware that the
judge’s ruling affects every person in our town and more importantly
his ruling could set a bad and concerning precedent. If this ruling
stands, then why would not every city and town in the state turn
their fire departments into a “district?” After all, if the judge
thinks that they can be exempt based solely on that word then
perhaps every city and town will have all of their departments
called “districts” and we may as well just give them our checkbooks.
Prop 2½ was enacted to control runaway spending, which is precisely
what the five fire districts have been allowed to do for the last 34
years!
Despite his rulings, we still have a lawsuit that will happen. If
this judge or anyone else thinks we are going away, then it is my
turn to laugh now. We are not, pure and simple. The only thing we
are trying to do is stop the fire districts from taxing all of us
into oblivion and have them refrain from breaking the law after 34
years. Enough is enough! How sad is it that any judge demands a law
degree for anyone to prove convincingly in a court of law that
someone has broken the law for this kind of time!
Have faith, folks. The lawsuit will be heard in front of a jury, who
may see things far differently. Let’s hope so for all of us!
John Julius
Hyannis
WBZ-TV4
Friday, March 7, 2014
I-Team: Mass. RMV Making Hundreds Of Millions Of Dollars
By WBZ-TV Chief Correspondent Joe Shortsleeve
Click graphic to watch video
BOSTON (CBS) – Fees are going up at the Registry of Motor Vehicles
and you may wonder why. The I-Team found it has nothing to do with
the RMV being able to pay its own bills. In fact, as Chief
Correspondent Joe Shortsleeve found out, the RMV is making a bundle
off you and me.
At the RMV in Watertown, they are standing in line. And everybody
has their checkbook or credit card ready.
Shortsleeve asked, “What do you think of the costs?”
“I think it is little bit expensive” said one person standing line.
“What did you have to pay today at the Registry?” Shortsleeve asked
another customer. “50 bucks,” the person said.
How much money is the registry raking in these days? The answer:
hundreds of millions of dollars!
“It is absolutely amazing, the Registry of Motor Vehicles is a cash
cow!” says Mary Connaughton of the Pioneer Institute, a conservative
watchdog. She says registry fees are a huge source of revenue for
the state. “Over the years they have gone to the registry and they
say ‘aaaahhh that is another way to get money.’”
How good is business at the registry? Consider this, Massachusetts
will collect almost $600 million in fees from the registry or about
ten times what it costs to operate. A much higher ratio than any
other New England state. Vermont and Maine generate are about four
times their actual costs while New Hampshire and Connecticut are
about seven times.
Connaughton calls it a back door tax. “And they are going once again
to the easiest source of money,” she says. “And that is raise fees.
Let’s not let this go through the state legislature. Let’s have to
go to an appointed body that can do it in a vote.”
Secretary of Transportation Richard Davey says, “It is a tax, a tax
is a fee. Either way the consumer is paying out of their pocket for
a government service. It’s a three letter word either case.”
Davey does not apologize.
Shortsleeve asked, “Why are we so high?”
Davey responded, “Because we are making big investments. Across the
state in terms of transportation.” Davey says Massachusetts has been
aggressively investing in roads and bridges and those projects cost
a billion dollars just in debt service each year.
“What I have heard from customers is that they don’t want the money
spent on overhead and salaries. They want it spent on bread and
butter projects that will make their commute better. And that is we
are focused on with the registry fees.”
Those fees also help pay for the MBTA and its regional
transportation authorities. Davey points out, “The MBTA moves 1.3
million people a day. I can’t imagine eastern Massachusetts without
it or else our clogged roads would even be worse.”
Connaughton says, “Every dollar that is collected and that does not
go to the roads and bridges ultimately winds up in the black hole of
the MBTA.”
Secretary Davey points out the state has been successful at driving
down the cost to the operate the registry. He says he hopes someday
fees will be 10 or 15 times operating costs at a more streamlined
registry.
He says very soon drivers will able to renew their license or
registration at a free standing kiosk similar to an ATM.
|
| |
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Citizens for Limited Taxation ▪
PO Box 1147 ▪ Marblehead, MA 01945
▪ 508-915-3665
BACK TO CLT
HOMEPAGE
|