Our next meeting will be Thursday, Nov.19, at Carol's Cornerstone Cafe (201 N. Main Street, Greenfield). The meeting will start at 7:00 pm, but feel free to show up at 6:00 for great food and conversation.
Topics will include the redistricting proposal for County Council districts, and an update on new officers!
All are welcome, so feel free to join us and find out more about the CCR and our goals. We look forward to seeing you there!
Monday, November 16, 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
Update on Redistricting Committee
Unfortunately, the committee formed to explore the redistricting idea decided in a 3-2 vote to table the idea until after the 2010 census. As expected, the three representatives from the west side were against redistricting, and the two reps from the east side supported the idea.
This recommendation will be presented to the Commissioners on Monday, Nov. 9th. Chances are, they'll go with the flow and not support redistricting at this time.
If and when this topic comes up again, we need to have a stronger show of support, or else the east side of the county will continue to be an after thought.
This recommendation will be presented to the Commissioners on Monday, Nov. 9th. Chances are, they'll go with the flow and not support redistricting at this time.
If and when this topic comes up again, we need to have a stronger show of support, or else the east side of the county will continue to be an after thought.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Keep Your Eyes Peeled on Redistricting!
The Commissioners are actually considering our proposal for redistricting the county. 2010 is the last chance to do so for quite a few years, so we need to encourage them to do so! Read the article below, and click on the links at the right to email/call your council members and Commissioners. They need to know that you care. Let your voice be heard!
To write a letter to the editor for the Daily Reporter, email David Hill:
dhill@greenfieldreporter.com
To write a letter to the editor for the Daily Reporter, email David Hill:
dhill@greenfieldreporter.com
Saturday, October 10, 2009
What About Redistricting?
What's so funny about redistricting? When our County Commissioners were asked about the subject, their response was to wait until the upcoming census. They don't seem to get it. Redistricting is not simply about population. It's about fairness.As Hancock County is currently divided, any candidate from a more populated area is almost a slam-dunk to be elected. Why should rural Blue River township be coupled with all of Greenfield? Why should District One include the entire northern third of the county plus most of Eastern Hancock? How can a representative from Fortville/McCordsville really have their finger on the pulse of Wilkinson, Willow Branch or Charlottesville?
The largely rural eastern third of the county is getting the short end of the stick. Essentially, those residents are left without adequate representation. Your issues are either being ignored, given lip service, or put on the back burner. Our representatives know that if they can win the towns and cities, they will win the election. Why bother reaching out to the people from the less populated areas, when the votes are in the towns?
Hancock County's districts are gerrymandered for the benefit of the politicians- not the citizens. This needs to change. I urge you to read John Priore's comprehensive study below, with proposed changes. Make up your own mind and contact your Commissioners if you agree.
Notes for Committee on Local Government Efficiencies
Subject: Disproportionate and Unequal Representation
Subject: Disproportionate and Unequal Representation
Disproportionate and unequal representation is a major problem in Hancock County, which needs to be resolved immediately. As currently drawn, the boundaries for County Council do not guarantee all geographic areas of the County are equally and fairly represented on the County Council. It is my opinion that the current boundaries for County Council basically constitute de facto gerrymandering. The current boundaries placed candidates for office from the rural eastern areas of the County at a distinct disadvantage and effectively eliminate any candidate from the eastern half of the County from ever getting elected to the Council.
Currently, the predominately rural eastern townships of Green, Brown, Jackson, Blue River, and to a lesser degree Brandywine are generally excluded from ever getting one oi their residents elected to the County Council. For purposes of electing County Council members, these townships have been split up and parceled out to the more populous incorporated areas with whom they have totally different and competing interests and demographics. Accordingly, the eastern part of the County which is basically comprised of agriculture and rural unincorporated areas goes totally unrepresented on the County Council. As a result, the Council consistently lacks representation on it with firsthand knowledge of and/or the ability to input on issues as they relate directly to a significant population and integral part of the County. It only makes sense that some type of redistricting be effected so as to better ensure the best interests of Green, Brown, Jackson, Blue River and the entire County are more fairly represented in County government.
One solution is to convert one of the At-Large seats to a designated District 5 seat comprised of Green, Brown, Jackson and Blue River. This would require State approval. Another solution not requiring State approval would be to redraw the district lines of the four existing districts so that you have a large rectangular block with Greenfield in the center, surrounded by two "L" shaped areas with the legs of the "L"'s connecting in the west and then a large rectangular block encompassing the entire area east of the Greenfield city limits.
The redistricting, proposed by me, ensures that all areas, communities and citizens within the County would be guaranteed fair and equal representation far better and more so than the current boundaries.
StudylS/032209
COUNTY COUNCIL CURRENT DISTRICTING
DISTRICT 1 (Leonard) Vernon 1, Vernon 2, Fortville 1, Fortville 2, Green 1, Brown 1, Brown 2, Jackson 1
DISTRICT 2 (Roney) Buck Creek 1, Buck Creek 2, Buck Creek 3, Buck Creek 4, Buck Creek 5, Center 1, Center 2, Center 3, Greenfield 4, Greenfield 9
DISTRICT 3 (Shelby) Center 4, Greenfield 1, Greenfield 2, Greenfield 3, Greenfield 5, Greenfield 6, Greenfield 7, Greenfield 8, Greenfield 10, Blue River 1
DISTRICT 4 (Bollander) Sugar Creek 1, Sugar Creek 2, Sugar Creek 3, Sugar Creek 4, Sugar Creek 5, Sugar Creek 6, Sugar Creek 7, Sugar Creek 8, Sugar Creek 9, Brandywine 1
AT-LARGE
Kirkwood (Center)
Pasco (Greenfield)
Richardson (Greenfield)
PROPOSED REDISTRICTING
DISTRICT 1 Buck Creek 1, Buck Creek 2, Buck Creek 3, Buck Creek 4, Buck Creek 5, Vernon 1, Vernon 2, Fortville 1, Fortville 2
DISTRICT 2 Greenfield 1, Greenfield 2, Greenfield 3, Greenfield 4,Greenfield 5, Greenfield 6, Greenfield 7, Greenfield 8, Greenfield 9, Greenfield 10,
DISTRICT 3 Green 1, Brown 1, Brown 2, Jackson 1, Blue River 1, Brandywine 1, Center 2, Center 3, Center 4
DISTRICT 4 Sugar Creek 1, Sugar Creek 2, Sugar Creek 3, Sugar Creek 4, Sugar Creek 5, Sugar Creek 6, Sugar Creek 7, Sugar Creek 8, Sugar Creek 9, Center 1
AT-LARGE (3) No Change
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Sept. 29th Property Tax Cap Panel After Action Report
The recent meeting at the Hancock County Public Library was largely directed by people in favor of proposed property tax caps. Not exactly a debate on the merits or problems with this proposal! We need to think ahead on this issue and look at the problems and unintended consequences involved.
On the surface, anything with a "cap" sounds great. Let's get taxes under control- let's cap them. Taking a closer look at this issue, maybe uninformed voters will end up being the ones who are capped- as in having the wool pulled over their eyes!
In a recent email, our CCR Legistlative Chairperson, John Priore, pointed out some of the main issues that sound good on the surface, but may have unintended consequences down the line. Here are some excerpts:
Though the caps sound and look appealing on the surface at first glance, they lose all their appeal under close scrutiny. If you set up a model and examine how the caps will actually work, you will be shocked at the unintended catastrophic consequences and fallout.
Factor in CEDIT, CLOIT, abatements, and a host of other giveaway programs. Factor in a statewide effort by INDOT to partner with MOP's and local economic development advocates to persuade County officials to obligate local communities to foot a major portion of the cost of several new road projects which should be fully funded by the State and Federal government. Factor in elimination of the supplemental homestead credit and the elimination or reduction in the standard homestead credit. Add in several newly proposed regional and area taxing boards such as regional public safety boards.
The potential adverse consequences on Hoosier families are mind boggling.The proposed property tax caps in no way guarantee or limit the property or overall tax liabilities of individual Hoosiers nor do they constitute or meet the standard of "fair", "equal" or "uniform" taxation. Nor do they eliminate the problem of the individual homeowners paying and carrying a disproportionate share of the cost of government services and programs. Based on current facts, they will wind up bearing an even more disproportionate share in the future.
In reality, the proposed property tax caps merely allow counties to max out property taxes in unincorporated areas which now are generally taxed at well below the max and/or are less than those paid by individuals residing in incorporated areas with more services. In other words, you will wind up with a somewhat regional flat rate tax system where everybody pays the 1% max without any regard of level of services received or needed. Additionally, counties now also have the discretionary authority to impose at will LOIT, EDIT and other area/regional taxes that are targeted at individual Hoosiers. Farmers, landlords, businesses and of course the so-called "tax exempt not-for-profit" businesses are all generally exempted from these taxes. Consequently, the possible tax liabilities for Hoosier families are now much greater than it has ever been.
You tell me what happens when counties max out on all homeowners. Do they continue to tax farmers, landlords and businesses until they are maxed out or do they impose LOIT, EDIT and other taxes on Hoosier families? I tell you from firsthand experience, it won't be the farmers, landlords or businesses that get targeted.
On the surface, anything with a "cap" sounds great. Let's get taxes under control- let's cap them. Taking a closer look at this issue, maybe uninformed voters will end up being the ones who are capped- as in having the wool pulled over their eyes!
In a recent email, our CCR Legistlative Chairperson, John Priore, pointed out some of the main issues that sound good on the surface, but may have unintended consequences down the line. Here are some excerpts:
Though the caps sound and look appealing on the surface at first glance, they lose all their appeal under close scrutiny. If you set up a model and examine how the caps will actually work, you will be shocked at the unintended catastrophic consequences and fallout.
Factor in CEDIT, CLOIT, abatements, and a host of other giveaway programs. Factor in a statewide effort by INDOT to partner with MOP's and local economic development advocates to persuade County officials to obligate local communities to foot a major portion of the cost of several new road projects which should be fully funded by the State and Federal government. Factor in elimination of the supplemental homestead credit and the elimination or reduction in the standard homestead credit. Add in several newly proposed regional and area taxing boards such as regional public safety boards.
The potential adverse consequences on Hoosier families are mind boggling.The proposed property tax caps in no way guarantee or limit the property or overall tax liabilities of individual Hoosiers nor do they constitute or meet the standard of "fair", "equal" or "uniform" taxation. Nor do they eliminate the problem of the individual homeowners paying and carrying a disproportionate share of the cost of government services and programs. Based on current facts, they will wind up bearing an even more disproportionate share in the future.
In reality, the proposed property tax caps merely allow counties to max out property taxes in unincorporated areas which now are generally taxed at well below the max and/or are less than those paid by individuals residing in incorporated areas with more services. In other words, you will wind up with a somewhat regional flat rate tax system where everybody pays the 1% max without any regard of level of services received or needed. Additionally, counties now also have the discretionary authority to impose at will LOIT, EDIT and other area/regional taxes that are targeted at individual Hoosiers. Farmers, landlords, businesses and of course the so-called "tax exempt not-for-profit" businesses are all generally exempted from these taxes. Consequently, the possible tax liabilities for Hoosier families are now much greater than it has ever been.
You tell me what happens when counties max out on all homeowners. Do they continue to tax farmers, landlords and businesses until they are maxed out or do they impose LOIT, EDIT and other taxes on Hoosier families? I tell you from firsthand experience, it won't be the farmers, landlords or businesses that get targeted.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
On The Road Again- Heavy Truck Corridor Comments
The County Commissioners sure are patting themselves on the back about the Mt. Comfort road project. Unfortunately, they've neglected to answer the tough questions and go public with the details of the $23 million project. Bottom line- how much of this overall cost (land aquisition, design plans, etc) will be paid for by the taxpayers??
Right now, they are only addressing a small portion of this massive corridor project. Will the TIF pay off the bonds for the project or will the cost land in the lap of the taxpayers?
In a recent Letter to the Editor, our CCR Legislative Chairperson John Priore wrote about planning and funding issues related to the Mt. Comfort Road transformation. This letter was not published by the Daily Reporter. Consequently, we include the letter here to inform the public on the increased financial obligations that we will be under as a result of this project.
Here is that letter:
Letter to Editor
August 12, 2009
I really can't criticize our Commissioners' decision to transform Mt. Comfort Road in to a commercial heavy truck transportation corridor, connecting 169 and 174. How can I! I've been proposing something similar for years. Though my preference was for a north-south road corridor located somewhere between Mt. Comfort Road and State Road 9 because of the economic benefits and opportunities associated with having another 170 interchange, I have always held that Mt. Comfort would be a good Plan B. I also proposed and still support a similar corridor and connector on the east side of the County between State Road 9 and State Road 109, connecting 169 and 174 with an 170 interchange.
Another difference between my proposal and the current course of action being taken by our Commissioners deals with funding. Since the new primary purpose and use of Mt. Comfort Road is being changed from that of a county road to that of State road and Federal connector or by-pass, my proposal relied solely and fully on State and Federal funding. Not a single cent of local road or other tax revenues would have been used to fund these projects under my proposal. Our Commissioners on the other hand seem to be relying on considerable local revenues to fund the project.
Though I cannot now fault our Commissioners for adopting a proposal I have previously and still support, I can and surely do take exception to their decision to obligate local taxpayers to unnecessary tax obligations related to the Mt. Comfort Road expansion without any public discussion or disclosure of what they are exactly doing and what deals they have made with the MPO, Hamilton and Shelby Counties, State and Federal officials, and God knows who else concerning the Mt. Comfort Road project. Further, just how much exactly is the Mt. Comfort Road project going to cost local taxpayers? Where do they plan to get the monies needed to design, purchase right of way, make drainage improvements, cover their share of actual constructions, and pay for future increased recurring operating and maintenance costs?
By their own admission, the Commissioners have clearly indicated that the Mt. Comfort Road expansion is an integral part of a regional plan to connect 169 and 174 and develop a transportation corridor for heavy commercial truck and other intrastate and interstate traffic. Accordingly, since it is intended to function as a State road and Federal connector, it only makes sense that funding should come from State and Federal sources and not from local taxpayers.
First, our County Council obligated us to subsidize the Colts and the Convention Center. Now, our Commissioners have decided to obligate us to pay for State and Federal road projects. How they can justify this when they are turning local roads back in to gravel roads because they can't afford to pave them is inexcusable and beyond comprehension.
John Priore
Blue River Township
Right now, they are only addressing a small portion of this massive corridor project. Will the TIF pay off the bonds for the project or will the cost land in the lap of the taxpayers?
In a recent Letter to the Editor, our CCR Legislative Chairperson John Priore wrote about planning and funding issues related to the Mt. Comfort Road transformation. This letter was not published by the Daily Reporter. Consequently, we include the letter here to inform the public on the increased financial obligations that we will be under as a result of this project.
Here is that letter:
Letter to Editor
August 12, 2009
I really can't criticize our Commissioners' decision to transform Mt. Comfort Road in to a commercial heavy truck transportation corridor, connecting 169 and 174. How can I! I've been proposing something similar for years. Though my preference was for a north-south road corridor located somewhere between Mt. Comfort Road and State Road 9 because of the economic benefits and opportunities associated with having another 170 interchange, I have always held that Mt. Comfort would be a good Plan B. I also proposed and still support a similar corridor and connector on the east side of the County between State Road 9 and State Road 109, connecting 169 and 174 with an 170 interchange.
Another difference between my proposal and the current course of action being taken by our Commissioners deals with funding. Since the new primary purpose and use of Mt. Comfort Road is being changed from that of a county road to that of State road and Federal connector or by-pass, my proposal relied solely and fully on State and Federal funding. Not a single cent of local road or other tax revenues would have been used to fund these projects under my proposal. Our Commissioners on the other hand seem to be relying on considerable local revenues to fund the project.
Though I cannot now fault our Commissioners for adopting a proposal I have previously and still support, I can and surely do take exception to their decision to obligate local taxpayers to unnecessary tax obligations related to the Mt. Comfort Road expansion without any public discussion or disclosure of what they are exactly doing and what deals they have made with the MPO, Hamilton and Shelby Counties, State and Federal officials, and God knows who else concerning the Mt. Comfort Road project. Further, just how much exactly is the Mt. Comfort Road project going to cost local taxpayers? Where do they plan to get the monies needed to design, purchase right of way, make drainage improvements, cover their share of actual constructions, and pay for future increased recurring operating and maintenance costs?
By their own admission, the Commissioners have clearly indicated that the Mt. Comfort Road expansion is an integral part of a regional plan to connect 169 and 174 and develop a transportation corridor for heavy commercial truck and other intrastate and interstate traffic. Accordingly, since it is intended to function as a State road and Federal connector, it only makes sense that funding should come from State and Federal sources and not from local taxpayers.
First, our County Council obligated us to subsidize the Colts and the Convention Center. Now, our Commissioners have decided to obligate us to pay for State and Federal road projects. How they can justify this when they are turning local roads back in to gravel roads because they can't afford to pave them is inexcusable and beyond comprehension.
John Priore
Blue River Township
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
