Bond Measures

[CBL4]

Before the election, I urged everyone to vote no on their local bond measures. No one responded but I will try again.

I happened to be in Eugene, Oregon last week and their bond measure for a new police station failed. Before the election it was absolutely necessary to have a bond to fund the police but now that the election is over, it can be built with other funds:

In spite of the failure of the city's bond issue, Mayor Jim Torrey and City Manager Dennis Taylor plan to seek City Council approval to build a police station with about $29 million in city funds that are currently available or are projected to become available.

http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/11/04/d1.cr.eugenemeasures.1104.html

If you actually force politicians to make choices, they may actually do it. If you give them more money, they will spend it.

CBL

 

[phildonnia]

Do they have direct voter propositions in OR, like they do in CA?

Used to be, you would have a proposition, say, to build a hospital, and that would come with some type of use tax to pay for it. These were natrally very unpopular.

Enter the Bond measure: Now you can build that hospital, and say with a straight face "this measure does not raise taxes!".

We are beginning to get wise to the evils of bond measures, and so something even more sinister than bonds has appeared: no bonds. It's like having totally free services. We just passed a law to cure cancer or something, with no source of money specified at all. It passed easily, despite the braying of the state treasurer, who was probably paid by the pro-cancer lobby.

 

[shanek]

NC voters (barely) passed a constitutional amendment allowing our state government to issue bonds without first issuing a referendum (after they were deceived by both dishonest advertisements and false and unconstitutional ballot wording). A sad day for us.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by phildonnia
Enter the Bond measure: Now you can build that hospital, and say with a straight face "this measure does not raise taxes!".

I have never heard of such a bond measure. All the bond measure I have heard of raise property taxes (e.g. 2 cents per $1000 of appraised value) for a specific purpose such as a school.

They allow slimy politicians to raise property taxes by pretending that the bond measure is the only way to build a popular item such as a school. The reality is that it allows politicians to have more spending instead of prioritizing programs in a manner that would eliminate some of the less important programs.

The reality is that the money in your left pocket (general funds) can build a school as easily as the money in your right pocket (bond measures.) Most people haven fallen for this silly idea of money for specific purposes instead of the reality of money being fungible.

CBL

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by ShaneK
NC voters (barely) passed a constitutional amendment allowing our state government to issue bonds without first issuing a referendum (after they were deceived by both dishonest advertisements and false and unconstitutional ballot wording).

This actually sounds like a good idea. The politician can decide things on merit instead of having to lie to the public about reasons. Since you are fully aware of the "dishonest advertisements and false and unconstitutional ballot wording" on bond measures, I would think you would agree.

I much prefer a republic to direct democracy. The average voter does not have the time or the interest in looking into details of bond measures or initiatives. They pass them because they like (or dislike) the name of the ballot measure.

CBL

 

[shanek]

I have never heard of such a bond measure. All the bond measure I have heard of raise property taxes (e.g. 2 cents per $1000 of appraised value) for a specific purpose such as a school.

Of course they do. But that's not what they tell the voters. In our school bond referendum last May, our County Commissioners went around telling everyone they wouldn't raise property taxes if the referendum passed. Yet, in the minutes of the meeting where they voted to put the bond referendum on the ballot, they specifically said, "If said bonds are issued, taxes in an amount sufficient to pay the principal and interest thereof will be levied upon all taxable property in the County of Lincoln."

Yes, they lied. Is anyone surprised?

 

[shanek]

This actually sounds like a good idea. The politician can decide things on merit instead of having to lie to the public about reasons. Since you are fully aware of the "dishonest advertisements and false and unconstitutional ballot wording" on bond measures, I would think you would agree.

Actually, no. Having a referendum at least places a practical limit on how many bonds they can pass at once. Now, there's nothing stopping them.