Wed
Feb 28 2007
09:03 am

Blount County Mayor Jerry Cunningham wants County Commission to override the will of the voters and pass a wheel tax. He says the extra $1 million from a wheel tax will give the county access to $4 million in matching Free Federal Funding™.

Rant after the jump...

From the Maryville Daily Times:

"We need bridges, we need roads widened, and we need to make it safer for kids boarding school buses," he said. "We could use the $10 million. It's there for us to get."

That sounds a little nonspecific. And "It's there for us to get" pretty much sums up the government's view of your wallet, I guess. And notice how quickly $1 million grows to $4 million and then to $10 million. It's better than a Ponzi scheme.

Here's Mr. Cunningham's response to last year's League of Women Voters candidate survey question about revenue sources:

Just like all Blount Countians, I do not want to pay or be faced with additional taxes. I hope that through controlling spending and downsizing government new taxes will not be necessary. However, if additional taxes become necessary, I feel that the concept of a real estate transfer tax is deserving at least of discussion and consideration by the Blount County Commission.

The wheel tax concept has already been placed on the August 2006 ballot for a referendum decision by the citizens of Blount County.

[..]Again, however, due to my strong conservative beliefs relative to taxation, I would hope that by controlling spending and downsizing government, that these new taxes of whatever kind can be avoided.

So he was against it before he was for it.

Here's what his opponent Joe Gallagher said:

I am not in favor of the wheel tax. It is regressive to low income citizens.

Apparently 71% of Blount Co. voters agreed with Joe Gallagher when they voted down a wheel tax and elected Jerry Cunningham on the same ballot.

Anyway, I went to the Blount County Highway Department's website to see what kinds of projects they had going for "building bridges, widening roads, and making it safer for kids boarding school buses." When I click on "current projects" I get "Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage."

Look, I don't care if Blount County raises taxes if we need to. We've already eliminated animal control operations, leaving residents on their own to deal with stray cats and bears. The Sheriff's Department is losing deputies because they are being paid poverty wages. Blount County schools are underperforming compared to Maryville and Alcoa schools.

Jerry Cunningham just took over in September, so obviously this isn't all his fault although he hasn't proposed many solutions other than tell citizens to shut up. And his right-wing campaign rhetoric about "controlling spending and downsizing government" and his "strong conservative beliefs regarding taxation" are exactly the kind of thinking that has lead Blount Co.'s down the wrong path. But you have to give him credit for downsizing the hell out of Blount Co. government.

But yeah, let's tax the 1992 Toyota of the working poor single mother so Jerry and his pals can build more roads and bridges. Because that's clearly what Blount County needs, even if he can't tell us where they are.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

Relativity...

I dunno, Randy--I have a somewhat different read on this one.

As a huge supporter of a state income tax in Tennessee, I'm certainly sensitive to the need to avoid an further forms of regressive taxation around here, at either the state or the local level. If we agree that Blount needs more revenue, though, and it sounds like you think so, then the problem to surmount is one of too few devices in existance locally to generate revenues of any real and lasting consequence.

Another move Cunningham might have proposed would have been to raise the local option sales tax by that last small amount available to local governments (at least I think Blount could bump that up--I didn't look to see), but that move would have been even more regressive.

Cunningham could also have suggested a property tax increase, but lots of folks seem not to understand that the sustainability of new revenues generated that way is hugely dependent on the locality's ability to sustain growth at a certain level.

That is, under the cap imposed on property taxes in our state constitution, that reassessment of property values the state requires of localities every four years often results in a *downward* adjustment of the property tax rate, even following any recent decision the locality may have made to increase rates, such that new revenues *over time* are only available if an adequate volume of new properties has become available to tax. An increased property tax rate, then, is an iffy solution to any need to produce new and constant revenues for the long haul.

Among the devices available to local governments that might fill the bill, then, the wheel tax is about the only device left that is able to generate revenues of any satisfactory and lasting degree. Consequently, the impact it has on the poor may be viewed as a sort of compromise solution in this context.

When the $30 increase in Knox County's wheel tax appeared on the ballot, friends who knew my support for a state income tax expressed surprise to learn that I voted for it. My support for the wheel tax, though, hinged on my understanding of how few devices local government has at its disposal for raising revenues of any substantial and lasting amount, so my task seemed to be one of choosing the device that could do so with the least *relative* effect to an already-regressive tax structure.

It's a catch-22 imposed on Tennesse localities by our state government's reluctance to correct problems in *their* tax structure, I think.

R. Neal's picture

Cunningham's opponent in the

Cunningham's opponent in the last election and several other progressive types in the community support the idea of an adequate facilities tax that would directly finance the infrastructure buildout associated with growth and let the developers pay as they go.

Cunningham opposes the tax and says it will create a barrier to entry for first-time homebuyers. He suppports the idea of a real estate transfer tax, which would essentially be a sales tax on every real estate sale.

So there are alternatives.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

Political realities and immediacy of needs

Randy: "Cunningham's opponent in the last election and several other progressive types in the community support the idea of an adequate facilities tax that would directly finance the infrastructure buildout associated with growth and let the developers pay as they go...So there are alternatives."

Well, sure, but to whom should an adequate facilities tax be pitched and when might it realistically be adopted?

The political reality is that Cunningham's political opponent previewed an adequate facilities tax and *lost* the mayoral election, while Cunningham previewed a real estate transfer tax and *won* the election.

In this county whose citizenry just elected Cunningham for four more years, and also elected a school board that's now teaching creationism in high schools, I can't imagine that they turned around and elected a Commission likely to adopt an adequate facilities tax.

All I'm suggesting is that if this isn't the time or the Commission to adopt the right tax mechanism, progressives won't do their community any service in this already cash-strapped county by voting down the tax alternatives that *are* proposed and allowing service levels to slip even further.

It seems to me that the task of progressives in Blount County is to first educate the voters able to bring in a more progressive local government, rather than to bang their heads against the wall trying to extract a Commission vote that isn't likely to be forthcoming...

(Your thoughts on another approach welcome, of course.)

R. Neal's picture

Thanks for the lecture.

Thanks for the lecture.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

Despairing, myself

Aw, I didn't mean to lecture. I'm despairing, myself. The task seems so big sometimes...

Creationism in Blount County high schools? 15 of 19 Knox County Commissioners dependent on increased development for their increases in personal income?

Where to start, except at a grassroots level?

So, thanks for the contribution *you* make in that very important regard.

Bill Lyons's picture

Impact Fees and Adequate Facitlties taxes in TN - new info

This document Josh Jones, "The Recent Attorney General Opinion and its Effect on the Availability of Development Taxes and Impact Fees to Municipalities" might be of useful to this discussion. It is a publication of UT's Municipal Technical Advisory Service.

(link...)

The essence of the argument conclusion as it affects both cities and counties is as fo..

"The development taxing authority of local governments was significantly altered by the County Powers Relief Act, which went into effect June 20, 2006...... "This new law caused much discussion among local government officials who were unsure of the statute’s effect on local taxing authorities. Then recently, a Tennessee county attempted to enact a new development tax. The tax initiative was challenged, and the issue was brought before the attorney general. The question presented to the attorney general was, “Does this provision (the County Powers Relief Act) prohibit any county or municipality which has imposed any type of development tax prior to June 20, 2006, from increasing the tax in existence on that date?” The nonbinding opinion holds that counties are now precluded from enacting any further impact fee or development tax. This new law caused much discussion among local government officials who were unsure of the statute’s effect on local taxing authorities. Then recently, a Tennessee county attempted to enact a new development tax. The tax initiative was challenged, and the issue was brought before the attorney general. The question presented to the attorney general was, “Does this provision (the County Powers Relief Act) prohibit any county or municipality which has imposed any type of development tax prior to June 20, 2006, from increasing the tax in existence on that date?” The nonbinding opinion holds that counties are now precluded from enacting any further impact fee or development tax. For cities, the crux of the opinion lies in the last sentence, which reads, “… any private act passed after June 20, 2006, and authorizing a county or municipality to impose a new development tax or adequate facilities tax or to increase the rate of such a preexisting tax would be invalid because it would be in conflict with the general law expressed in Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-4-2913. 'A municipality with a development tax enacted under a private act prior to June 20, 2006, may still levy this tax for so long as the private act is in effect. Subsequent legislation authorizing new or amending existing development taxes is invalid.' "

R. Neal's picture

Did not know that, Bill.

Did not know that, Bill. Thanks!

Tamara Shepherd's picture

Home rule counties?

This is disappointing news, Bill, but do home rule counties possibly have some leeway that other counties do not?

(It's more likely that adoption of adq fac tax/impact fee now, even in a home rule county, would be read as a "contradictory" measure, and therefore unlawful, I guess.)

BIG question: Who sponsored this dawg?

LadyVols's picture

Everyone hates any form of a

Everyone hates any form of a wheel tax, no matter what county is trying to install it.

Tennessee needs a state income tax (even if Hal Hill is against it) and we also need to push the tax on cigarettes a dollar or MORE. Blount County sounds like they are having major problems paying their county lawmen and women and from their test scores their school system also needs some real work. A wheel tax is not the answer though!

Number9's picture

Again, for the thousandth time...

Tennessee needs a state income tax (even if Hal Hill is against it) and we also need to push the tax on cigarettes a dollar or MORE.

The revenue side is not the problem. It is the spending that is the problem. We do not need a State Income Tax.

R. Neal's picture

Troll.

Troll.

Ennui's picture

Boils down to trust. If Mr.

Boils down to trust. If Mr. Neal(or anyone else) trusts the local gummint to spend the tax wisely, then so be it.

Knox County taxpayers haven't gotten a good return on their wheel tax, in my opinion, and trust was hard to come by even before January 31st. Now it is positively shattered.
Knox County can find money to make expensive hires(or rehires in some cases), spend money outside the county, buyout Dr. Lindsey etc.

As far as the state income tax, I have ZERO trust in those scoundrels. Anyone believing they wouldn't spend themselves poor and then raise the sales tax again is dreaming. Anyone paying attention to the E-911 surpluses that the state is just keeping, without really saying why?

LadyVols's picture

Maryville city does a good

Maryville city does a good job with their tax dollars. Friend show own the small book store downtown (Southland..check it out for great old books) are always talking about the work being done on the greenways and the downtown area. Loved the cartoooon in the Big Paper showing the good ol boys in cock county talking about Knoxville commission! So true!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

    State News

    Wire Reports

    Lost Medicaid Funding

    To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

    Search and Archives