Nathan Moore's Thoughts
Well Then
The Tennessean has today printed a damning editorial regarding the recent effort by Tennessee Tax Revolt to amend the Metropolitan Nashville Charter to include a provision providing for maximum property tax rates to be decided by referendum. But alas, The Tennessean’s editorial position is notable only for its disingenuousness. To wit
Metro citizens elect representatives to be good stewards of public funds, and the public should let those representatives do the job they’re given.
The council is ineffective as a “good steward” because of the way the Metropolitan Charter is drafted (explained more fully below). Funny that good stewardship was never mentioned by the editorial board when discussing the education budget. Now
The effort comes on the heels of a referendum this year in which Nashville voters rejected a local sales tax increase. Anti-tax activists apparently feel they have momentum from the sales-tax vote and want to extend the referendum power to property taxes.
I think the rejection of the sales tax increase last month by a 42 point margin (71-29%) does indeed qualify as “momentum”. Further
There are some serious questions about the legality of the proposed referendum. But even if it does square with state law, it’s a bad idea.
Well, last month the editorial board didn’t give a spit in a bucket about legality. It’s quite kind of them to toss the issue about now. I suppose it all depends on whether it’s something they support or not. But to give them the benefit of the doubt, let’s discuss their objection on the merits
The attempt to put property tax increases directly into the public’s hands through a referendum is a step away from a republican form of government. It feeds a potentially dangerous environment where people unhappy with government can say no to all taxes while they still expect government services, which doesn’t work.
That last sentence is horribly condescending and smacks of governmental elitism - the poor public simply would not understand. We simply cannot trust the people to control the size of their government. Utter hogwash. Here’s the problem left unaddressed by The Tennessean - we do not have effective representative government in Nashville. Due to the way the charter is written, the mayor is both the de facto legislature and executive when it comes to controlling the budget process. We have a flawed charter, in that the mayor’s budget is the default budget unless the council passes a different one. However, under the charter the part-time and excessively large council is left little time to debate and discuss an alternative budget. A politically skilled mayor that can keep the council mired in its own petty bickering will get his budget passed every time. What we have in Metro is a full-time all-powerful executive lording over a council containing 40 part-time cats in need of shepherd. Due to the department budgetary deadlines and access the mayor has to the executive branch that the council does not, seldom is a real second option available for the council to vote upon.
The petition gatherers may believe they are on a wave of tax revolt that keeps taxes down. But by limiting the power of elected officials, they limit their own chance for responsible government. If such a petition gets on the ballot, it should be rejected.
Opposing the mayor’s budget and potentially failing carries great risk for each individual council member that his or her district will be retaliated upon by the mayor during the next budgetary cycle. Because of the way the charter is written, the council is more accountable to the mayor than the people it has been elected to represent. Having forty individual councilmen exacerbates the problem. As such, the Metro budgetary process is seriously flawed. Taking taxation out of the hands of the mayor and putting that power back in the hands of the people is the right answer.
For more information about the petition drive, go to Tennessee Tax Revolt’s website here. The actual petition with instructions is here.
UPDATE Blake Wylie, who supports the referendum, comments as well.









October 21st, 2005 at 8:15 pm
You make some excellent points here. I’m not familiar with your charter, but it do sound flawed. (Bad grammar purposeful, if Sarah’s reading.) I do have a question about one thing you mention a couple of times: the number of elected positions on the Metro Council.
It seems that, with the population in a constant explosion, we’re seeing representatives with far too many constituents. The U.S. House might be the worst example, with 435 individuals answering to literally hundreds of millions. Perhaps your problem with 40 in Nashvidson stems from the power distribution issues you mentioned, but that wasn’t clear to me. Why are you wishing that you had fewer members on the Council?
October 22nd, 2005 at 1:24 pm
The council’s size wouldn’t be as much of a problem if the rules weren’t stacked so heavily in favor of the office of the mayor. As it stands, there are too many councilmen to effectively offer alternatives as a part-time body. If each councilman operated on a full-time basis, and had a more diverse constituency (i.e. represented more than 16,000 or so people) the dynamic would be different. At present, due to the charter and the size of the elected body, political transaction costs are so high that no effective coalitions can form to oppose much of what the mayor supports or proposes.
As you noted, our governing document is rather flawed. Several amendments need to be proposed to fix it.
Regards,
NSM
October 23rd, 2005 at 11:15 am
[...] All other things being equal (they seldom ever are), I support the reduction in council size. But for some reason, I get this sneaking suspicion that the amendment to the charter will be poorly and confusingly worded, and will be on the ballot at the same time as the property tax referendum amendment in an attempt to cross-up voters (one the right answer being “yes”, and the other the right answer being “no”). I suppose only time will tell. [...]
May 23rd, 2006 at 7:46 pm
bureau credit report
insistence,dash twenty,opus?extras forts!carrying reliable free credit http://free-credit.credit-report-support.com/
August 9th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
[...] Nathan Moore completely dismantles a Tennessean editorial, and leaves the parts scattered all over this post. Bob Krumm gets after the Tennessean, too, and notes the economic reality that “Few of [...]