Pay Up! Your House Is On Fire!
Robin Vos frames only half of the equation needed to insure the financial stability of our community.
Imagine your house is on fire. The fire department shows up. You thank God. However, you find out the thanks is premature as all they do is watch as the fire consumes your home, your possessions, your pets, everything, as if put upon a funeral pyre. You forgot to pay the $75 dollar “fee.”
On Oct 6, 2010, this precise scenario happened to Mr. Crannick of Tennessee. He begged, he pleaded, offered any amount on the spot to have the bold and brave firefighters save his home. Nothin doin.
The fire department did take action though, for his neighbor – saves his property as Crannick’s home lit up like a bonfire at a homecoming, sans cheerleaders, hotdogs and marshmallows. The neighbor didn’t forget to pay.
Why is a house burning down to the ground in Tennessee have any relevance to those of us in Wisconsin? Turns out plenty. Let’s walk very carefully and think through these next few thoughts. You have to pay for things you need.
The thesis: even though you put a cap on revenues (taxes), services still cost money and are subject to cost increases.
Not unlike a schoolboy, giddy at the thought of having only a half-day of school, Rep. Robin Vos (R-Rochester) got a motion he authored creating a permanent cap on property taxes passed and will soon become part of the biennial budget. Vos said, "Taxpayers can circle this date on their calendars," "We’re making history by creating a permanent property tax cap.” YEEHAWW!
Vos said, "We’re putting money where our mouth is,” “We've talked about permanent property tax limits during the last campaign and now we're making it happen so local governments finally will have the fiscal certainty they need.” The certainty he is talking about is local governments being handcuffed to raise revenues to provide services. I like the idea of my taxes not going up – I also like the idea of being able to have government services we all need.
“This also will give families the assurance that their property tax bills can’t grow more than their income,” said Vos. Okay, you’ve addressed the family side of this equation – did you remember to put a cap on how much things cost for our town governments? No, of course you didn’t. Oops! In the real world – costs rise, and in this case I would bet the cost of needed services will rise more than the 1.5 percent – unless of course you like less police, fire, education – then the needed cuts to these won’t bother you (just ask Mr. Crannick.)
Vos struggles to barely reach the level of a surface thinker on this one, great for families in one aspect – bad for them in others. Reduced funding for schools to be sure, but it goes much deeper. Having constrained the ability to raise revenues via taxation, the remaining options available are either cuts to services or – fees. That’s right. The same fees Mr. Crannick wished he remembered to pay.
Vos’ conservative viewpoint is fatally flawed. Yes, we have a spending problem – but we have a revenue problem too. Think deeper.
Is it a role of the state to dictate spending limits to local municipalities?
Tell us in the comments.
Brian Dey
7:07 pm on Sunday, May 15, 2011
Mr. Bell- Where is the revenue problem? In Wisconsin, we are fortunate on the revenue side to have to pay not only high property taxes, a state sales tax and state income tax (the trifecta, if you will), along with constant fees and licenses. Many states on the tax side only use one or two of the trifecta, yet we are fortunate to pay all three. The peoples hard-earned money is not Wisconsin's, or the United State's to have at will and to spend at will. What I get from this is what we consider to value-added services, vital services, and ridiculous spending, and this happens at all levels of government. The ridiculous can be cut immediately (for those following along, these are the non-essential services either added to the constitution, or not part of the constitution). Free pensions would be an example of where progress can be made on the ridiculous side. In the real world, many citizens have seen freezes in their pay, reduction or elimination of fringe benefits, or worse; loss of jobs. They have had to make hard choices between what is essential, what is luxury and what is ridiculous in their household spending. Why is it soooo difficult for those left of the aisle to understand that ridiculous spending; i.e. "The Cowboy Poet Society" are not things that government should spend our hard earned money on? Just one blatant example, but subsidizing ethanol is another. IF those of you like Dan think it's a revenue problem, than send in a check.
San
6:11 am on Monday, May 16, 2011
i agree that there is a lot of waste in various levels of government, but it is impossible to have a reasonable debate if you insist on lumping in spending issues from other levels of government when there is a discussion going on about LOCAL VILLAGE GOVERNMENT. They do not subsidize ethanol or the cowboy poets society. By confusing these things together you make it seem like ALL government spending is bad, when in fact, local government for the most part is relatively efficient, supplying services such as fire protection, police/public safety, road repair etc. to local communities. Let's try to focus on the issue we are looking at here and not throw "red herrings" into the mix. Anything related to local government costs is fair game. Anything from State or National levels should be dealt with in forums related to those subjects and costs.
Scott
8:26 pm on Sunday, May 15, 2011
The fact that we are under served by the local fire dept. here in Caledonia is a great concern of mine. How do we fix that? The residents who sit comfy in their living rooms probably don't worry about it too much. I worry about it every day. I know if I have any kind of significant fire in my place of business all is lost. I will happily pay more property taxes to be protected properly.
Brian Dey
8:59 pm on Sunday, May 15, 2011
How are we underserved? Just a question because we have three fire stations (one we share with Mt. Pleasant), three rescue squads plus one back-up, shared service agreements with Racine and Oak Creek, and the capabilities with one truck that more than 3 x's exceeds the height of any of our buildings. But this bill doesn't hamper the ability to do more with the fire dept. It would just need to go to referendum.
Scott
9:17 pm on Sunday, May 15, 2011
It's about personel and response time. Both of which are abysmal in Caledonia IMHO. (No fault of the dept.) As much as I fear for my livelyhood, I fear more for the elderly who live in the apartments down the street and the apt. buildings on three mile. (I pray all are sprinklered)
I know how often the three member crew goes out across the street. (They've been busier and busier and most of the time it's the ambulance which will have to transport as well)) The next company comes from where? Nicholson I hope. And that will be a 11 minute response time if they're in house. And how many guys will be at that 60 unit building that's been burning for 11 minutes now? (A fire doubles in size every 30 seconds) Rescue? Elderly? Stick construction? As I said. I worry about it every day.
I hope the voters in Caledonia would vote on a referendom to properly protect us. I just don't think that's going to happen.
Brian Dey
9:29 pm on Sunday, May 15, 2011
It may be a matter of location, not number of personal and equipment, and if we are undersized, imagine how undersized the OCFD must be with a larger population, the largest coal power plant in the U.S. and a highly developed commercial and industrial population. They have almost the same number of firefighters, EMT's stations and equipment. Not to mention they have more schools, more traffic, busier intersection and cover nearly as many square miles as Caledonia. That may be something the Chief and the Board look at.
Scott
9:41 pm on Sunday, May 15, 2011
Location is a good point. Things have changed a little on the east side over the last ten years.
Yes, Oak Creek and many other cities face the same struggles but I don't live and work in those communites. At the moment I'm caring about Caledonia.
melissa Warner
8:11 am on Monday, May 16, 2011
The Village budget is about $12 million. The biggest pieces are police, fire, and highway. Roughly $9 million comes from tax revenue. (The rest is fees, services and shared revenue from County, State, Federal governments.) The 2010 population is about 25000±. That works out to (very roughly) $320 for each man, woman child in Caledonia. ($1280 for a family of four.) Check your tax statement to see what you pay. Personally, I don't think $320 is excessive.
Charles Geyer
9:31 am on Monday, May 16, 2011
I agree with you Mr. Bell. I did understand where the Tea Party came from. Responsible government, wasteful spending are no brainers, but they have gone too far. The Tea Party and Republican's have become the same group of extremists.
T.R.
11:29 pm on Monday, May 16, 2011
Personely i dont have a problem with less services. I am able to adapt and take chances. If your not, You didnt study enough or weren't in boy scouts.
Heather in Caledonia
8:38 am on Tuesday, May 17, 2011
I do remember reading awhile back that Caledonia has the best coverage for fire in the state. Now, things could be better, of course. There are always ways for improvement. Sorry, but I haven't the time to look up how our coverage compares to the state right now. Anyone game? One suggestion, though, would be to continue 4 1/2 Mile through to Erie street from Charles. That would make a BIG difference in response time for that area, however, the village doesn't build roads - it would be up to a developer to put that through. I don't remember if that was put into the Plan (which some folks don't want to follow, anyway), but we did suggest that if a development went in that the road would go through.