Citizens for Schools and Parks Meeting

It saddens me to see erstwhile "progressives" adopting polarizing spin tactics to force this issue without reasonable dialogue on other options.  By calling a group pushing for the tax Citizens for Parks and Schools, it makes it sound like anyone opposed to the tax is against parks, schools, children, kittens, butterflies, apple pie and puppies. The reality is that the issue is not black and white, and in Orange, alternatives have not even been seriously considered. I question that.

Taxes are going up, one way or the other. I think most folks understand and even accept that at some level. But, the question should be what mechanism does the most good with the least negative consequences. Is the land transfer tax increase the best solution? The answer is we don't know, because narrow special interest groups on both sides are essentially stifling debate. Why?

The land transfer tax was soundly defeated in 16 of 16 NC counties where it was voted on last year. Why? And, why are Orange officials so interested in only considering this one tool? There are plenty of other mechanisms such as across the board property tax increases (which might actually cause folks to seriously question how the money is being spent), increased sales tax, or a truly progressive tiered imperveous surface tax increase that might serve the same goals while also achieving other goals. Is the land transfer tax increase really the best possible tool for the job?

 It may well be, but it hasn't been discussed openly enough for most of us to really feel like we even know the answer. Bands of Carrborians and Chapel Hillians spinning the issue doesn't really help, any more than it helps to have realtors groups spinning the issue in the opposite direction.  

Then there's the question of where the money will actually wind up going, and how it will be allocated. I'll take a wild guess based on previous experience and boldly predict that Efland, Mebane, Cedar Grove and Hurdle Mills areas of Orange County, where median home values are frequently less than half of what they are in CH and Carrboro, will not even get their fair share of this pie. The wealthier parts of the county will be made a little bit nicer, and the poorer components,  will remain largely forgotten and underfunded.

If we're going to be forcefed this particular tax, is there at least a mechanism to insure that monies generated will stay in the township that they originated in? That won't solve the inequity, since house prices are so disparate, but at least it would seem a little bit fairer.

I do care about school quality, but have not yet decided one way or the other about the transfer tax. I do know that I prefer it over an increase in the ad valorem tax or the sales tax, but as with so many other issues, it seems like a solution in need of a good problem description.

SAPFO was established to synchronize the timing of new development and new school facilities. Reading this original ordinance, it is clear that the intent was to link infrastructure and growth. A later amendment to the ordinance gave the two school districts the authority to stop development in the absence of sufficient space in existing schools OR funding to building additional schools.

My observation is that the school districts are extremely reticient to withhold a certificate from a new developer and that the BoCC feels compelled to provide funding to support new schools even at the detriment of other county needs. That may not be an accurate summary of the problem, since I am an outsider to the process. But I would really appreciate it if the group responsible for managing the county's education campaign, or individuals/groups in support of the new tax, would help us all see the bigger picture rather than simply saying we have to have a new taxing mechanism.

Well, bear in mind that the new elementary school is a one-time cost, whereas the new funds will be annual.  Also, there will be annual costs for staffing and maintenance etc.

The Medicaid changes that happened in the same bill are beside the point.  That change is done and even if it frees up some county tax revenue, it does little to mitigate the need for additional revenue sources.

Regardless, the $3 Million from the transfer tax is going to be $3 Million less we have to pay in our property tax bills.  That's the real point.

In Orange County, we export money. We have more wealth and spend more of it than our neighbors, but more than half of our spending is done across our borders. We export jobs. Every day 42 percent of us get into our cars and drive somewhere else to earn our living. Private sector jobs actually declined in five of six years since 2000.

Without jobs and shopping, Orange County exports tax revenue. Orange County residents contribute nearly $12 million of sales tax to our neighbors' schools and parks. Our commercial tax base is anemic, providing a mere 14 percent of our property tax. To make up for those missing revenues, the burden on residential property owners rises year after year.

I've repeatedly heard some people say that we need to increase our non-residential tax base in CH but I haven't heard many solutions offered. When medium-to-large-sized stores show an interest in locating in CH neighbors turn out to express their opposition. When developers propose large office complexes neighbors turn out to express their opposition. When developers propose large condominium projects neighbors express their opposition.

I don't personally disagree with Mark Zimmerman's column but he may be wrong in thinking that Chapel Hill citizens are uncomfortable with their current situation. Yes, it means higher taxes but perhaps the majority of citizens are willing to accept that rather than some of the alternatives.

If we don't start by understanding this, we consign ourselves to a future of being abused. It's like acknowledging an alcoholic parent.

Next step is for the NC organization of County Commissioners to vote that each county puts up $2000 (or some figure that makes sense) and they hire a lobbyist to start working on getting our money back home where it belongs. Or they could put up $3000 annually and start an agency with an office and staff to work full-time on this.

Next, after a front-page article in USA Today, other states take similar action.