Following this past Monday's ruling by the Az Supreme Court, Clint Bolick reflects on the decision.
Gift Clause in Arizona Constitution has meaning again
by Clint Bolick
The Goldwater Institute's constitutional challenge to the $97.4 million CityNorth subsidy was the signature test for an untried idea: a litigation center dedicated to vindicating largely unused protections of individual rights and written restraints on government in our state constitution. Monday's decision by the Arizona Supreme Court in Turken v. Gordon illustrates the potential for such endeavors.
gavel b&wBefore we filed the case, cities across Arizona were engaged in subsidy wars to attract businesses that might contribute to their sales-tax coffers. Savvy developers peddled grandiose schemes, playing one city against another. Small businesses, which are the engine of our economy yet never receive special benefits, were forced to help subsidize much bigger competitors.
No one had the resources to take on the powerful combination of government and special interests. Even worse, decades of court precedents had diluted the Gift Clause--which categorically prohibits gifts of taxpayer funds "by subsidy or otherwise"--almost to the point of nonexistence. So when Phoenix gave a massive subsidy to a Chicago developer to build a luxury shopping mall, it seemed like a case tailor-made for litigation.
Things looked bleak when the trial court upheld the subsidy, crediting the developer's promises of massive tax revenues and other benefits to the City. But the Arizona Court of Appeals, meticulously applying the original intent of the Gift Clause, struck down the deal.
The Supreme Court could have returned matters to business as usual. It did allow the CityNorth deal to proceed, pointing to the confusion the Court felt its prior precedents had sown. And it deferred to the City's judgment that the CityNorth deal served a legitimate "public purpose." But the Court held that promises of "indirect" economic benefits--such as jobs that may result from a proposed project--are insufficient consideration for tax-dollar giveaways. From now on, economic development agreements must produce tangible benefits and fair-market value for taxpayers. That ought to curb the worst excesses, and we'll be on the watch to make sure that government behaves.
In the meantime, score one for the little guy--and for the idea that with the right cases brought to them, courts will hold governments to their constitutional boundaries.
Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
John Musolf Says: "Loomis Never Met A Tax He Didn't Like."
Our Oro Valley neighbor John Musolf points out what most of us know in his letter to The Explorer----John writes "Mayor Loomis never met a tax he doesn't like."
If Loomis kept control over our out of control expenditures, we'd manage, as we always have, without coming to the citizens for more taxes.
This is another reason to vote for MIKE ZINKIN FOR MAYOR
Here's John's letter.
*******************************************************************************************
Mayor never met a tax he doesn't like
Quoting from the Explorer news article, "OV candidates offer views, make cases," Jan. 20:
"Oro Valley Town Council and mayor candidates were asked Saturday if they would 'consider' a first-ever property tax to bolster a lagging general fund."
Mayor Paul Loomis said Oro Valley is the largest town in Arizona that does not have a property tax.
It seems that Paul Loomis had the same "mind set" when the mayor and council passed the utility tax in 2006. The third slide in that utility tax presentation at that time stated: "Oro Valley is one of only five other communities that does not currently tax utility services."
More recently, on Nov. 2, Mayor Loomis wrote a letter to The Explorer stating: "Raising our utility tax from 2 percent to 4 percent would put us in alignment with other southern Arizona towns."
In my opinion, Mayor Loomis likes to make sure Oro Valley taxes keep up with other Arizona towns.
Mayor Loomis has never met a tax he didn't like (especially if Oro Valley is one of the few communities in Arizona that does not have that particular tax or he thinks that tax should be increased).
Some of the same reasons for wanting a property tax today are the same reasons that were given for wanting a utility tax in 2006: 1) lack of diverse funding sources and an over-reliance on one time construction related revenues, 2) 10 percent reduction in states shared revenues in FY2009/2010 (the percent of state shared revenue reduction has grown astronomically since 2006), 3) an alternative funding source for capital improvement plan, 4) to achieve better bond ratings and thereby lower interest rate costs.
The fifth reason was insufficient recurring general funds to support 18.5 new positions. The 18.5 new positions had been turned down twice in previous budgets. The utility tax was an end run by the mayor and council to secure that revenue without voter approval. It is fortunate that property taxes require voter approval.
In my opinion, Mayor Loomis likes taxes, not justifying expenditures or cutting them.
John Musolf, Oro Valley
If Loomis kept control over our out of control expenditures, we'd manage, as we always have, without coming to the citizens for more taxes.
This is another reason to vote for MIKE ZINKIN FOR MAYOR
Here's John's letter.
*******************************************************************************************
Mayor never met a tax he doesn't like
Quoting from the Explorer news article, "OV candidates offer views, make cases," Jan. 20:
"Oro Valley Town Council and mayor candidates were asked Saturday if they would 'consider' a first-ever property tax to bolster a lagging general fund."
Mayor Paul Loomis said Oro Valley is the largest town in Arizona that does not have a property tax.
It seems that Paul Loomis had the same "mind set" when the mayor and council passed the utility tax in 2006. The third slide in that utility tax presentation at that time stated: "Oro Valley is one of only five other communities that does not currently tax utility services."
More recently, on Nov. 2, Mayor Loomis wrote a letter to The Explorer stating: "Raising our utility tax from 2 percent to 4 percent would put us in alignment with other southern Arizona towns."
In my opinion, Mayor Loomis likes to make sure Oro Valley taxes keep up with other Arizona towns.
Mayor Loomis has never met a tax he didn't like (especially if Oro Valley is one of the few communities in Arizona that does not have that particular tax or he thinks that tax should be increased).
Some of the same reasons for wanting a property tax today are the same reasons that were given for wanting a utility tax in 2006: 1) lack of diverse funding sources and an over-reliance on one time construction related revenues, 2) 10 percent reduction in states shared revenues in FY2009/2010 (the percent of state shared revenue reduction has grown astronomically since 2006), 3) an alternative funding source for capital improvement plan, 4) to achieve better bond ratings and thereby lower interest rate costs.
The fifth reason was insufficient recurring general funds to support 18.5 new positions. The 18.5 new positions had been turned down twice in previous budgets. The utility tax was an end run by the mayor and council to secure that revenue without voter approval. It is fortunate that property taxes require voter approval.
In my opinion, Mayor Loomis likes taxes, not justifying expenditures or cutting them.
John Musolf, Oro Valley
Oro Valley Will Spend $46,000 To Find A Replacement Town Manager!
The following article from The Explorer points out that as a result of the FORCED resignation of our long term Manager David Andrews, the town expects to spend an additional $46,000 to have an outside firm help in finding a replacement.
Why was Mr. Andrews forced out of his job? Mayor Loomis says it was "Issues." The only issue is that Loomis & KC Carter were instrumental in perpetrating this unnecessary action.
Neither Loomis or Carter deserve any one's vote in the upcoming election.
*************************************************************************************
Search for new manager is on
With little discussion, the council voted unanimously to begin the search for qualified firms that would help the town hire a new town manager.
The council chose to hire a firm that would conduct internal and external searches for a new manager. The process could stretch up to nine months.
It is anticipated the town would spend about $46,000 on the process.
The search for a new manager was predicated by the resignation of Town Manager David Andrews, who left Oro Valley employment in September 2009.
Since that time, Assistant Town Manager Jerene Watson has filled in on an interim basis.
Why was Mr. Andrews forced out of his job? Mayor Loomis says it was "Issues." The only issue is that Loomis & KC Carter were instrumental in perpetrating this unnecessary action.
Neither Loomis or Carter deserve any one's vote in the upcoming election.
*************************************************************************************
Search for new manager is on
With little discussion, the council voted unanimously to begin the search for qualified firms that would help the town hire a new town manager.
The council chose to hire a firm that would conduct internal and external searches for a new manager. The process could stretch up to nine months.
It is anticipated the town would spend about $46,000 on the process.
The search for a new manager was predicated by the resignation of Town Manager David Andrews, who left Oro Valley employment in September 2009.
Since that time, Assistant Town Manager Jerene Watson has filled in on an interim basis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)