No www.Woodford-County.org yet.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me a whole buncha times . . .

Quote Of The Day

Calvin Trillin

from Quotes of the Day

"Health food makes me sick."

A Brief History of the new County Website

The website is here! The website is here! Sorta.

We have it on good authority that Woodford County's long fabled website is to go up today or tomorrow. Right now we still are getting ye ole "placeholder".

Please peruse the history of same here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Phew! The long and winding road. We hope for the best. From what we hear it will be pretty useful for the taxpayers.

PTELL Is Dead ! ? !

There is only one way in which we can deliver relief to taxpayers - through mandated local TELs.

PTELL is dead.
PTELL is dead.

Long Live TEL.

The Fat Lady Sang - Again - PTELL in Woodford County

An initiative to put Illinois' Property Tax Extension Limitation Law before the voters in Woodford County once again went down in flames at tonight's regular Woodford County Board Meeting.

We thought there was a 50-50 chance of PTELL ending up on the November '08 ballot. Boy, were we wrong. It wasn't even close. It was soundly voted down, and if you take the Board members' explanations of their votes at face value, it was voted down for the most ridiculous and uninformed reasons imaginable. Here's a sampling:

"If you look at rates, I've done research, they haven't gone up that much . . ."

What do "rates" have to do with PTELL? NOTHING!

"We and others have CUT taxes in the past. I don't know if we could DO that under PTELL"

Oh, we don't think that would be a problem.

"Larger population areas shouldn't be able to tell smaller population areas what to do with their schools."

Huh? Under PTELL, as under the current laws, no one, no how, outside of a taxing district can tell that district how much money they can raise. The question of extensions in excess of the ceiling goes to the voters in and only in that district. How is this "unfair"?

"I was GOING to ask for this to be tabled for more study, but I'm not going to now, and I'm voting against letting the voters decide on this issue, BECAUSE SOME OF THE PROPONENTS HERE TONIGHT ARE USING EMOTIONAL, PATRIOTIC, INFERENCES . . ."

Well that's as good a reason as any of the others.

"I don't appreciate one of the board members making veiled threats . . . so I'm voting against it"

Yes, well, nothing like voting on the merit of the proposal.

"We [the County Board] can't solve your property tax problems"

The implication is "so why should we even try. It's not our problem."

"I don't know what the impact of PTELL has been on the counties that have it. I wish some of the "public input" speakers would have presented some facts on that. I'm voting against it"

Gee, Mr. Board member. Maybe you could have Googled PTELL before the meeting and boned up a bit. One name that would have come up is woodfordtaxfacts.org. We'd have been delighted to accommodate you. The Illinois Department of Revenue has voluminous non-biased information on PTELL and its implementation. Or you could have asked your finance committee for that information BEFORE YOU VOTED! And these are the same folks that said in the same breath (with nary a grin in sight) that the voters have trusted THEM to make taxing decisions!

It went on and on. We have access to video of some of this stuff and we'll attempt to cross post it over on YouTube and here. It's quite entertaining.

We were so shocked by some of the votes that we missed the final tally - more on that tomorrow - but it must have been nearly 2 to 1 against.

A lot of the tough talk from the last Republican Primary contest for Board seats seems to have gone all squishy when it came to PTELL.

Update:

The PJS says the vote was 9-5:

"Voting against putting PTELL on the ballot were Larry Whitaker, Kenneth Uphoff, Caroline Schertz, Joel Lemkemann, Gary Joseph, Gary Jones, Thomas Karr, James Fyke and Glazier. Voting in favor were Pete Lambie, Marcus Adams, Thomas Evans, Thomas Janssen and John Krug."

Accountable Transparency Is The New Democracy

Grover Norquist, Financial Times:

Published: 08-09-07

" The nice venture capitalists in Silicon Valley are always looking for 'the next big thing'. While we will have to wait for another six months to learn who will make it through the Republican and Democrat "Survivor" reality show we call primaries we can already see the next big thing in politics bubbling up from the 50 states: transparency. Making state budgets, contracts and individual expenditures available to the public on the internet "

Any of this sounding familiar to you regular visitors to our site?

RELAX! PTELL won't hurt a bit.

The fear mongering is beginning once again in Woodford County.

Next Tuesday, the Woodford County Board will vote on whether or not to allow the State of Illinois' Property Tax Extension Limitation Law (PTELL) to be put on the November '08 ballot for voters to give a thumbs up or thumbs down. PTELL essentially limits the growth of property tax extensions to 5% per year or the rate of inflation, whichever is less - UNLESS THE INCREASE IS TAKEN TO VOTERS for approval in a referendum. This "cap" does not pertain to new construction growth.

Already, two objections to EVEN ALLOWING THE "FOLKS" TO VOTE on this issue have been raised by those terrified of a PTELL initiative (taxing authorities). Both are red herrings:

1. Taxes will actually GO UP, because taxing districts will "load up" on the front end, and . . .

2. PTELL will force one local taxing district (read School District) to live by the rules of another area's voters not those in the district.

Both arguments are specious not to say ridiculous.

First of all, taxes may indeed go up initially in a PTELL county if a taxing district chooses to "front load" on its extensions before the law can go into effect. Not only is this onerous, it is a tactic designed not only as a threat to voters in advance of a vote, but if implemented after a successful vote, a deliberate, albeit legal, attempt to circumvent the will of the voters. If a taxing district chooses this route they will indeed have a revenue bump in the initial years, but history shows that this initial bump will pale in comparison to the spending restraint statistically accrued over time in those counties under PTELL versus those not. It will also destroy the taxing authorities perceived credibility, accountability, and transparency to the voters - hardly worth the effort just to be able to say, "we'll show them".

Second, with regard to the "unfairness" of one district having to live with the same rules as another in the County (the PTELL opponents gripe that areas with larger populations have a disproportionate influence) - couldn't the same thing be said about ANY county law? Why should one district live under the zoning laws of another? Why should one school district have the same truancy laws as another? What about "local control" of a school district? Let's face it - "local control" is largely an illusion anyway. What about NCLB? What about federal and state mandates? What about unions?

Local control? Well, let's demonstrate that by asking the local voter for the money rather than confiscating it.

Clearly, the "unfairness to local districts" argument a silly one. Even if it were true that the voting on PTELL were somehow skewed because it is one man, one vote (hunh?), it simply IS NOT TRUE that a taxing district can't raise any amount of money that they wish under PTELL. No one but that district's own voters can determine what their budgets will be. The district, simply, must ASK THE VOTERS rather than just TAKING THE MONEY. No other area is in charge of a district's levy or extension under PTELL. If it's more than the rate of inflation or 5% the district simply needs to ask the voters for that increase. WHAT"S WRONG WITH THAT?

Finally, and most egregiously, you will hear Woodford County Board members that are opposed to PTELL maintain that "this is why we, and the local taxing authorities' Boards are elected - to 'make the hard decisions'. We don't need PTELL to help us keep taxes low. The voters already have accountability - at election time!"

Well, that is fine and good. Unfortunately, taxes are assessed every year costing homeowners thousands of dollars. Officials aren't elected every year. Try and get an explanation in plain english for a rise in equalized assessed valuations from one of your board members at any level. This isn't asking for money - this is taking it.

Can you even attend all of those board meetings? We sure can't. There are hundreds of taxing authorities in Woodford County.

Just look at the past record and decide for yourself if you want to give permission for increased taxes or if you want to continue to cede that permission to various local boards.

China Drops "the other shoe"

You knew it was inevitable. China has finally started to publicly threaten the U.S. with "taking its chips and going home".

Two officials at leading Communist Party bodies have given interviews in recent days warning - for the first time - that Beijing may use its $1.33 trillion of foreign reserves as a political weapon to counter pressure from the US Congress.

Foreign control of over 45 percent of the U.S. debt has left us incredibly vulnerable to political miscalculations of our various "friends" overseas.

Cheap goods are great, borrowing for social programs wonderful - until the tab comes to the table.

Government doesn't "spend"; just moves money around

Patrick Robinson isn't a political analyst. He's a "pop" author in the Tom Clancy vein. Never-the-less, we were struck by one of his character's (from a 2004 novel) concise analysis of government spending.

And we paraphrase:

Do you know what brasses us off about government? It's what is never adequately explained to "the folks". The fact is that "government" doesn't have any money of its own. It creates nothing - no wealth. They only "have" what they can take from the American people and corporations. So when they say, for example, a counter insurgency program, or an aircraft carrier is "too expensive" they are talking nonsense. Government doesn't "spend" in the conventional sense. They take money from whatever source they can find with out inciting a revolt and they redistribute that money throughout the economy.

This applies at all levels of government. They don't really spend, they push everyone else's money around and take a cut for salaries, pensions, and benefits in the process.

Let's take a road initiative. Half of the labor cost goes to they guys building the roads - paychecks that go to people who immediately give one third of it back to the government in taxes. The rest gets spent in the communities, buying concrete, lunches, etc., which goes to other folks who immediately pay one third back to the government. Some goes to corporations like Cat, Mitsubishi, etc., who pay corporate taxes. The whole thing is just a round-about.

The road isn't expensive - it's free! It's not the government's money anyway. They're just moving it around and taking their cut.

We get so amused by these people that want new benefits, new parks, want to force a "green" society via taxes; Where does the money come from? These folks aren't creating any new money. They are just taking from one area and moving it to another while taking a salary for their supposed "wisdom".

Next time something is called "expensive" or "no-cost" by your taxing authorities - STOP - and think - where is the money coming from and who is it going to?

Live web casts of County and City Council meetings good for transparency

If you want a democracy to work, the people have to know what their leaders are up to. And, conspiracy theories aside, technology has greatly improved public access and transparency -- from C-SPAN to YouTube.

More than 250 cities/counties nationwide have chosen to make their meetings available online. The services can be expensive, but not prohibitively so. Recent costs have averaged $30,000 for the initial setup and $15,000 per year to create and maintain searchable archives of the meetings. The public boards often contract with outside vendors who store the video and integrate it with agendas, minutes and other public documents.

In addition to Internet video streaming, many boards broadcast their meetings live on area cable television systems.

All it would take for, say, Woodford County to broadcast its Board and Committee meetings live is a flick of the switch and some pocket change. Board members and the County Administrator have talked a good game for months now about a new website which may or may not already include some of these costs. Hopefully, regional peer pressure will make it act sooner rather than later to enhance transparency in this fashion.

Of course, all of the video in the world, streaming or otherwise, won't make a difference if local residents don't actually tune in or log on to see their local governments in action, and, after watching, participate in the political process. But it does give voters one less excuse for not being informed and involved.

Hello iphono!

Sent from my IPhone
Congerville, IL 61729

Latest Census Estimates for Woodford County

Not sure how this will render on screen:













(click to enlarge)

The philosophy of Philosophy

Ludwig Wittgenstein

from Quotes of the Day

"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language."

Property Taxes As Cultural Extermination

from The Entrepreneurial Mind by Jeff Cornwall

Rising property taxes can often squeeze homeowners out of neighborhoods that they have lived in for years. And they can also force small business owners to sell their businesses. Such is the case of a 117 year old family owned amusement park outside of Washington, DC. From the Washington Post via Cato-at-Liberty:

For 117 summers, generations of children have frolicked through Trimper's Rides on this beach resort town's signature boardwalk. But this Memorial Day weekend might begin the last summer they circle the antique wooden carousel, fling around the Tilt-a-Whirl and loop through the Tidal Wave roller coaster.

The Trimpers say they are considering closing the amusement park and arcade this year.

As Ocean City has exploded into a megaresort, property taxes have soared for Trimper's, which operates on the last chunk of undeveloped land on the town's three-mile boardwalk. In the past three years, family members said, their assessed property value has tripled, from $21 million to $65 million.

So the family is now torn over the possibility of having to sell the business because they just can't generate enough revenue to pay for the property taxes. I know, I know. Don't cry for them -- after all they now own land that is worth $65 million. But, if you read the rest of the story, you will hear a message that I hear over and over -- it just isn't all about the money. This is a century old family business. They take joy and pride in providing good family entertainment and good jobs.

Yet another example of public policy that is blind to our entrepreneurial economy.

(Thanks to Bill Hobbs for passing this along).

We've been barking up the wrong tree.

We want to officially acknowledge that we have been wrong.

Well, not wrong, exactly. We once thought we'd been wrong about something but we were mistaken.

We have revised our position on PTELL (property tax extension limitation law in Illinois).

You may take out your frustrations on us here.

We are now proponents of TELs - tax and expenditures limitations in Illinois.

TELs are tax caps, and spending caps. Seen most often at the local level, sometimes mandated by state governments, TELs force local governments to put all real growth in spending and all tax and fee increases to a vote. Capping spending at the local level would be by far the most effective means of providing long term property tax relief.

This is why Illinois HB 750 does not pass the smell test. As Mike Van Winkle and Colin Hitt argued earlier this month in the State Journal-Register, "any attempt by the state to relieve property taxes through an 'abatement fund' scheme - which is what HB 750 proposes - would lead to permanent tax and spending increases at both the state and local levels, unless that 'tax abatement' is accompanied by a TEL."

Mr. Hitt says,

Without a check on local government spending, any property tax relief will instantly be capitalized by local governments in the form of higher taxes. And the abatement fund in Springfield will be raided for new spending, therefore de-funding property tax relief and forcing property taxes to rise.

Realistically, there is no way to guarantee protection of relief funds, should an abatement fund ever be established. However, there is a way...In fact there is only one way in which Springfield can deliver relief to taxpayers - through mandated local TELs.

TELs may be terrible for gamblers, but they may be property tax payers' salvation.

It Ain't the Rates, It's the SPENDING!

Once in a while the Bloomington Pantagraph editorial folks hit one out of the park and this is one of those instances:

Despite your elected officials bragging about keeping your tax rates unchanged or even lowering them, most likely your latest tax bill is larger than your last bill.

That’s because a steady tax rate means little if the assessed value of your property has gone up — and most property in this area has steadily increased in value.

We've harped on this over and over.

If public officials really want credit for being fiscal watchdogs, they should be telling us more about how they are holding the line on spending rather than how they are keeping tax rates down.

Tax rates might be relatively steady, but the levies — the revenue that taxing bodies seek from property taxes — are going up.

And finally . . .

If increased spending is justified, just say so. But public officials shouldn’t repeat the mantra “we haven’t increased your tax rate” unless they give equal billing to what they have done with the levy.

"It's the spending, stupid."

CNN's Freudian Slip is showing

As much as Wolf Blitzer may have wanted it to be true, the caption was not accurate.

Instead, Prime Minister Tony Blair of the UK had announced he was retiring.

Property Tax Cap with Bite!

The county of Honolulu in Hawaii has a new property tax cap law due to go into effect on July 1.

The law will limit the residential real property tax for an owner whose income is $50,000 or less per year at 4 percent of the income. The salary ceiling applies to combined incomes if there is more than one titleholder.

While we'd like to see the income level a bit higher and indexed in some fashion, we think this at least addresses the regressive nature and the "ability to pay" issues which make property taxes inherently unfair. In fact, why limit the income at all? It is sort of self limiting anyway in that at a certain point your taxes would NEVER be more that 4 percent of your income.

Property Tax Bills On The Way . . .

Neither Woodford nor Tazewell counties met the state's deadline to mail tax bills May 1, but then not many counties do, and there is no penalty for not meeting the "deadline".

Besides, when's the last time the State of Illinois paid a bill by a deadline anyway? Oh sure, they may bill on time, but what about the other side of the equation?

Busy, Busy, Busy

We've been busy trying to earn money to pay our soon-to-be due property taxes and thus the paucity of posts.

At this time of year, we are always reminded of how inherently unfair property taxes really are. As a single example, take for instance the following scenario:

Let's say that we "own" a $150,000 home. Let's also assume that our neighbor has a nearly identical piece of property valued the same at $150,000. We "own" our home outright. He holds a $100,000 mortgage on his. Now, why on God's green earth do we both pay the same tax?

The property tax is not even a good tax on assets like the death tax!