The Dual Tax Rate

Suddenly, it's all the rage again -- or the focus of the rage -- after the City Council decided to keep things right where they are last week.

Fitchburg Follies (see link over on the right side, don't be so lazy to expect it here) got into it over the weekend, and the Sentinel argues for a flat tax rate today on the editorial page.

Personally, I'm starting to come around on one tax rate. I used to think the city should encourage residential development and built a core, vibrant residential mass to lure business. But from all accounts, businesses are getting slaughtered, and something needs to be done.

So, why doesn't something happen? Just look at the calendar, and the voter registration list.

Shifting the tax rates to closer to even means higher property taxes for homeowners, and a bit less for business owners. But, of course, homeowners are voters. Why on God's green Earth would a politician, exactly four weeks away from an election, approve a tax hike on his or her voters? It makes zero political sense.

I don't know how many of the eight councilors who voted against moving the rates closer to even actually think it's a good idea, but you have to figure one or two would if they didn't have to worry about being re-elected next month. And considering the mood for change, why give someone one more reason to vote you out, right?

There's an underlying problem here, and it's the lack of a long-term plan when it comes to getting the tax rates back to even. There's no "let's do in this five/seven/10 years." It's "let's start now, and try to do more later." And there's minimal -- at least from what I've seen -- long-term discussion. It comes up a few weeks before the rates are set, a short-sighted discussion ensues, and nothing happens. If you think that's wrong, go back and look at how the last few weeks went down, and show where that's off base. I'll wait... I thought so.

I'll give Ted DeSalvatore credit: This was something he actually had a plan about, even though he didn't really talk very much about it. After the Sept. 20 debate, we discussed it for a good 15 minutes. He wanted to create a long-term plan as mayor and get the tax rates level after five years or so. For some reason, he didn't talk about this much on the campaign trail, but he recognized the need for something to happen.

The next mayor and council can't make this a seasonal issue. As it tries (hopefully) to create some long-term financial planning, it should make -- outside of the annual setting of the tax rate -- a policy decision on whether or not balancing the tax rate (or at least closing the gap) is the thing to do or not, and then it should start doing what it needs to do over the long term to make it happen. It would help if there was some kind of relief for residential owners through a meals tax or some other kind of other revenue (not advocating for a meals tax, exactly, just mentioning it) to offset some of the increased burden, but that's what a long-term plan is for.

Shifting the tax rates to level at this point essentially means a tax increase for homeowners. City councilors are going to be instinctively pretty opposed to that every year. But based on its spot on the calendar, it's going to be a vote taken close to the election every other year. The city needs, away from the pressure of the ballot box, to make a decision on a dual tax rate, stick with it, and do the right thing in the long term.

Politicians at all levels around here like to talk about "profiles in courage" on votes. It might be the second most annoying political cliche in Massachusetts behind "all politics are local." This is a case, however, where it would actually take some courage for a councilor to do what might in fact be the right thing. Some planning and some big onions are going to be needed if the tax rates are ever balance.