Jeff Essman's Property Tax Bill

So why did Schweitzer allow it to become law? (2.40 / 5)

Matt, at some point people are going to have to start asking, and expecting an answer to, this simple question.  Governor Schweitzer knew it was a bad bill, he said so -- and as you know, Jopek wound up voting against the bill he sponsored.  So why, under any definition of good governance, would Governor Schweitzer not simply veto the bill or send the legislature an amendatory veto to return the bill to the form Democrats could live with?  Schweitzer had the power to do that, to put a good, not a bad, law on the books.  But he punted.  Why?  Good question.  But as you are now doing, and he has already done, blaming Republicans is a poor substitute for responsible governance.  In this matter, sad to say, there's plenty of political blame to go around and Montanans, once again, get to pay for it.  

---

by: ochenski @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 18:47:10 PM UTC

Because (4.00 / 2)

if Schweitzer had not signed it into law, no mitigations to the reappraisal would have been passed and Republicans would have ran around telling everyone that Schweitzer and Democrats wanted everyone to pay more taxes and then Schweitzer and everyone would have become paralyzed in fear of not being re-electedo

God knows no one wants to do any politicking after the legislative session.  2nd session?  Who has the time?!?!?  Perish the thought!!!

One of a double handful of bills that were mangled by republicans and approved by a majority that included Democrats, and signed into law by a Governor that had veto power.

Ugh.  Here's the page of who voted which way.

---

by: jhwygirl @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 03:22:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Monday Morning Quarterbacking by Ochenski and jhwygirl (2.50 / 2)

First, let's get something strait -- the Governor did not sign this Republican Property Tax increase.  It became law after 15 days and didn't even have the support of the sponsor Mike Jopek.

This is typical Monday morning quarterbacking by ol' Ochenski.

As I am sure you were aware the bill passed in the final day of the session.  So am I correct to assume that you would have Schweitzer break out the veto pen, which by the way he has done on several bills that would have been very devastating to Montana, and call back the same group of bunk legislators who voted for this bad bill?  What would be accomplished?

It might have slipped your mind that the Republicans control the majority in the Senate and would have worked to obstruct the progressive reappraisal protections advicated by the Governor and Jopek that included Senior and low-income mitigation.

Yes, I am sure you would have like to have Jeff Esseman step right back to the plate at a cost of $80,000 a day for a special session and really help out the people affected by property increases.

What we need is a group of legislators committed to finding a real solution and that means getting some new ones.  If Oschenski spent anytime working to elect new reps he might actually have someone listening.

---

by: Junior @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 04:13:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yep, "let's get something strait" Junior... (0.00 / 0)

As a matter of fact, Ochenski did mention that "Schweitzer allowed it become law" [after 15 days] (see his title) and did mention that "Jopek wound up voting against the bill he sponsored."

So really not sure what your Monday Morning QB beef w/ Ochenski is. Looks like it's time for you to punt Junior.

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 04:43:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I made mention of the Governor (0.00 / 0)

signing it.  He's right to do so, and yep, I didn't look at that.

---

by: jhwygirl @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 04:51:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It was bad horsetrading, Junior (0.00 / 0)

if the goal was mitigation.  If it was to just get something - anything - done, they yeah, they got 'er done.  The end result was - clearly - meh.

You're right - all in the last two days of the session.  Part of the strategy. Love 'em or leave 'em.  

He got out his veto, but he also signed or let slide a number of crapos...but they didn't get there without help.  Plenty of blame, if you will.

---

by: jhwygirl @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 05:02:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A better question to be asking (2.40 / 5)

is that during a huge economic recession and rising unemployment, and when the State is carrying such a large  reserve--just under a half billion--why do we need to raise property taxes at all?

The question before us should not be one of equity, but one of necessity. A smart politician would be calling for a property tax freeze right now, and for the near future, reassessments be-damned.

The rest of this discussion is just about noise.

---

by: JC @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 19:29:39 PM UTC

It really wasn't about rasing property taxes (0.00 / 0)

as much as it was about a constitutional requirement to appraise the value as required.  When you do that, property values go up.  Every time they do this (it seems - it happened last time - there is are opposing party bills designed to mitigate the impending rise due to increase values.

With all that being said, I don't think anyone was advocating for an increase in taxes.

---

by: jhwygirl @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 03:13:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bad people troll rate just because they disagree (4.00 / 1)

---

by: jhwygirl @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 03:10:03 AM UTC

History would help you understand, Junior (4.00 / 2)

First, it takes 2/3 vote of each house to override a governor's veto.  A thin Repub majority in the Senate would not have mustered that vote without considerable Demo help.  Period.

Second, if and when the legislature doesn't finish its work on time, they don't deserve to slop some garbage onto the books and go home.  In virtually all cases in which any governor has held the legislature in town, the blame and public angst falls squarely on the legislature, not on the governor.  That would have happened in this case, too, and Brian would have still been able to blame Republicans, which seemed to be the goal instead of dealing with the very real impacts of the reappraisal.  

It's this partisan football game that some like to play so much that contributes to these kinds of decisions rather than, as I wrote, good governance.  As long as folks like you continue to concentrate on the game rather than the outcome, I suspect we'll continue to experience sub-par governance in favor of partisan politics.  If that's OK with you, so be it.  But really, the rest of us deserve better.  

---

by: ochenski @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 14:10:40 PM UTC

Last Day of the Session (0.00 / 0)

We aren't so far off that this bad bill falls directly into the laps of the Republican Senators like Essman who said "This is the closest bill to the Republican bill we have left."  Or Tudvedt who said this was a "fair and flat tax."  

The problem is it was the last day of the session.  We cannot ignore that point.  

What would an amendatory veto done after sine die?  Nothing.

Second, if the Governor had vetoed the bill and kept the same exact legislators in a special session what would have been different?  You end up playing exactly what you are advocating against -- partisan politics and blaming the Republicans for a special session.  During the session they had the most accurate information on reappraisal and it's affects in history -- 99.6% correct.  Yet that did not change the outcome and address the outlining issues in the Republican property tax increase.

Third, what if the Governor calls a special session and the Republicans lock-up just as they have in the past over all-day kindergarten or the renewable energy portfolio?  This is a very plausible scenario given the 'partisan' atmosphere that would be a special session.  Then what?  No mitigation at all?  If the appraisal on your house in Rosebud went up 25% then you would be paying it for at least two years and nothing would have been done for the senior who lives around Flathead Lake whose reappraisal jumped 400% from $6000 to $24000.  It just doesn't tactically make a lot of sense for the Governor or any property owners.

Even republican John Brueggeman said that the legislature would have to address this again in two years, but knew the danger of a special session and passing nothing.

The Governor always advocated a revenue neutral bill and the Republican proposal missed the mark.  Out of the billion dollars collected by jurisdictions from property taxes the mitigation bill increased revenue by only $2 to $5 million -- close but still a Republican Tax increase.  

Also, the state only levies 19% of property tax, while county commissioners control around 81%.  County commissioners can mitigate any increase due to reappraisal in their county.

Where the rubber hits the road is the Republicans played partisan politics and waited to the last day of the session to pass a poor mitigation bill, but a mitigation bill none the less.  It's probably better to get a few new legislators into the fray next session, so it can be done right.

---

by: Junior @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 15:17:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I can not believe (0.00 / 0)

that you would so easily suggest that the counties can bear the burden of mitigating an increase due to state reappraisal.

I know a number of county officials from a number of counties, and saying that out loud would (to put it mildly) change the tone of the conversation.

Is that really the mentality in Helena?  Because that's how these counties feel, I can say that pretty handily - that the state makes laws with little concern of the fiscal impacts on the local governments.

More meh.

---

by: jhwygirl @ Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 20:08:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Or you could do the math, Junior (0.00 / 0)

At last count, DOR said there were 26,000 reappraisal appeals filed by Montanans.  What do you figure it's going to cost the state to deal with those?  Let's see, if each appeal takes just $10 worth of state time (a ridiculously low number), that comes to $260,000...If you use a more reasonable number like, say, $100 worth of state time and travel to deal with each appeal, that comes to a stunning $2.6 million, which would have been enough to hold the legislature in town for another 33 full days.

While there's no real defense for Republican intransigence on the measure, and even less for Jeff Essmann, it must be obvious that the end result is that we spend the money anyway and still have the bad law on the books.  

A more politically realistic reason why the tax measure was allowed to go into law without the governor's signature is that Brian was concentrating a lot more on getting his carbon sequestration bill passed in the last days of the legislature so he could pump tons of Canadian pollutants (CO2) under Montana's Hi-Line and needed Republican votes for the measure.  It, like the tax bill, is another last-minute disaster -- we just haven't had to deal with the unintended consequences of that one yet..."yet" being the operative word.

---

by: ochenski @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 14:46:30 PM UTC

Would changing the bill have stopped all the reappraisals? (0.00 / 0)

And could we have gotten a significantly better bill passed in 33 days?

Not saying we shouldn't try to fix problems, George. I'm still wondering what the proposed fix is -- Mike Jopek's original bill?

---

by: Matt Singer @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 15:33:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes Jopek's bill (0.00 / 0)

Yes, a revenue neutral bill like Jopek's that addressed low-income housing and seniors in high growth areas.

---

by: Junior @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 15:40:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Matt - the reappraisals were constitutionally mandated. (0.00 / 0)

So, I don't think the legislature could have STOPPED them, but they could, perhaps, have postponed them or called for a new reappraisal given the plunging economy and, hence, property values.  

But my point to Junior was that using cost as an excuse for not holding the legislature in town is bogus because we wind up paying for it anyhow through the record number of appeals that are now filed over the reappraisal numbers.

We all need to remember that reappraisal values and TAX values are different.  Reappraisal says "this is what your home and land are worth" given market conditions.  These values are primarily determined by the going price for properties in your area.  If the guy from California moves in next door and pays 10 times what you paid for your home, heads up, because that will be factored into your next reappraisal value.

Taxes, on the other hand, are based on local and state mill levies.  The legislature CAN and HAS passed legislation to ameliorate general taxation increases through such mechanisms as limiting local governments to a certain number of mill increases per year, rate of inflation, etc.  

In fact, that's exactly what Jopek was trying so hard to do -- mitigate the enormous tax increases he knew would be coming from the reappraisal.  I have had significant dialogue with Mike on this and have praised him for his erstwhile effort in this regard, so let me make that clear.  Mike Jopek was firmly on the side of the citizens and, given his real-life experience in the Flathead, where property values literally went through the roof, he knew most Montanans were going to be hard-pressed to pay the taxes based on those new values.  As you know if you read his recent op-ed, Mike is now asking any and all Montanans for their ideas on how to hold down the tax bill -- another commendable action on his part.

Junior wants to make it a partisan issue, but if it was, then by historic standards, it would be Republicans who have always railed against property taxes (and endorsed sales tax as the "third leg" of the tax stool).  In the case of Jopek's ill-fated bill last session, however, it was Republicans, with some help from Demos, who threw the wrench in the gears of his bill.  Go figure.  It's one of the problems with looking at everything through partisan glasses...they don't always hold true (or even most of the time)...hence my preference to good governance rather than the on-going distractions of simplistic, partisan, Red v. Blue, football games.

As for whether we could have gotten another bill out in 33 days, well, that's kind of a theoretical question along the lines of "do you think we could have climbed the mountain?"  Truth is, if you don't even try, you don't know.  Brian didn't try, and I'm still convinced it was part and parcel due to vote trading on his carbon sequestration bill -- and it's no big secret that the Coal Cowboy has literally placed energy development at the top of his list of priorities for many years now.  

---

by: ochenski @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 16:10:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But you assume through fiat that a special session would solve the problem (0.00 / 0)

Where's the evidence for that?

Basically, until the last couple months, news about this has been limited. Why wouldn't the parties have just dug in and the GOP bashed the governor for wasting money on a special session?

Why would we assume that the GOP -- outside of someone like John Brueggeman who did the right thing here -- would be reasonable at all?

I can't Monday morning quarterback this unless I get at least two solid Monday morning receivers.

---

by: Matt Singer @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 16:35:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Read that comment again, Matt (0.00 / 0)

I assume nothing through "fiat" -- what I wrote is that your question was theoretical and used the analogy of whether or not someone could climb a mountain.  If you don't try, the answer is definitely "no,you can't climb it."  If you do try, there's no guarantee you'll get to the summit, but your chances are definitely better than if you simply assume you cannot climb it and walk away with the ropes in your pack.

Same with governance.  Schweitzer is persuasive to many people, had the bully pulpit of the Governor's Office, and would have controlled the call for a special session.  

If it was a big enough deal for him, I assure you, he'd have had his operatives working the legislators to put together a package that could pass -- or, as you posited, he wouldn't call the session and we'd be where we are right now -- blaming Republicans while the citizenry takes it in the shorts.

It's overly simplistic of you to try to pre-determine what would have happened had Brian vetoed that bill and called a special session.  Maybe it would have gridlocked again.  Or maybe not.  The legislature is a lot more fluid than many political theorists comprehend and a lot can happen in a short period of time if and when the public's interest, angst, or anger is aroused sufficiently.

That you haven't heard much about this until recently is because home and property owners got their reappraisal notices about Oct. 1, but haven't gotten their tax bills yet.  We'll see what happens when the taxes, based upon those new reappraisal values, roll into their mailboxes.  

Truth be told, Matt, if the politicos wanted to do this right -- and seek good governance -- they'd mandate that the reappraisals and the tax bills based on those values arrived simultaneously -- and give the public the right to appeal those values AFTER they get the tax bill.  That's not the way it works.  You get 30 days to appeal after you get the reappraisal, period, which is well before the tax BILL arrives.

For those of us who were around when I-105 passed in the late 80s, this is all like deja vu.  The result, sad to say, may be another tax revolt.

Would it have been worth the effort to try a little harder, talk a little more, and maybe put the legislators on the spot with a special session?  I guess that's up to each of us individually to make that call, but given that the end result is that the state will still have to spend a pile of dough to deal with the appeals, what, really, did we have to lose through a greater effort at diplomacy, statesmanship, and negotiation?

---

by: ochenski @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 16:55:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Appeals (0.00 / 0)

Appeals are challenges to the increase in value of your property not the tax levied, which was passed by the Republicans in the legislature.

---

by: Junior @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 15:37:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]