Like a broken record

by David Grand
January 27, 2005

That best describes Sen. Larry Haines negative reaction each year, when the commissioners, with hat in hand, beseech the state delegation to approve a 1 percent property transfer tax. The only difference this time around on the merry-go-round is that he came charging out of the gate in an interview weeks before the public hearing on Jan. 29, vowing to fight the proposed tax with all his might, and then topping it off by presuming to say the public is equally opposed to it. And here I thought I was the only authentic mind reader in the county.       

That hard-line position he's taking is in direct contradiction to the one he took during a sit-down with the commissioners in October 2004, when he indicated, that even though he believes that tax is unnecessary, were the board to lower the cap on the property tax two percent more than they did earlier that week from 10 to 7 percent, the delegation would view it as an appropriate "trade-off" for gaining their support. (His version of the TV game show 'Let's Make a Deal" didn't pass the smell test.)       

And I viewed with bemusement the senator also saying during that interview that several delegates wanted to gauge public support for that tax at this year's public hearing before deciding how they'll vote, or as he put it, "show their hands." Pshaw! They said the same thing prior to last year's hearing (which I attended), and obviously weren't swayed one bit by those in the audience (e.g., firemen, emergency personnel and parents of school children) voicing their overwhelming support for that tax.  So how can we expect them to be more open minded this time around?       

But who knows, maybe in the interval they had a vision in the dead of night that's led them to do a turnaround? If so, I envy them. For the only vision I can recall  having was when I saw myself in a tuxes running a casino open 24 hours, 7 days a week in Carroll County. And how preposterous is that!        

As regards the need for that tax (which could generate as much as 7.5 million in annual revenues), there's no question but that it's essential to enabling the county to fund capital costs relating to schools, roads, public safety, and to makeup the difference between what funds the federal government and state provide and what is needed to comply with their mandates; e.g., all-day kindergarten and smaller classes. And it would at least keep the county from drowning in a sea of financial woes.       

Now, in fairness to the senator, I feel he should be given an opportunity to rebut, if he so chooses, the oft-heard criticism for his not recusing himself from voting on that proposed tax because of his conflict of interests as a real estate broker. And I believe that the best way of doing that would be by his offering to take a polygraph test. It's not painful, doesn't take long, and only requires him to wear a tube around the chest, an ordinary blood-pressure cuff, and electrodes on the fingers and surfaces of the hand, in order to register bodily responses to questions.         

If he's agreeable, I'd be glad to foot the bill for hiring an objective, apolitical examiner, who is thoroughly trained in scientific interrogation. The test could be taken at his place of business, with a "Do Not Disturb" sign on the door to ward off nosey reporters. To quote the Godfather, "I'm making him an offer he can't refuse." But if he does, he'd sure get a lot of razzing in the county.      

And I assure him that he'd only be asked to answer this simple "yes or no," three-part question: Is your steadfast opposition to the proposed transfer tax based, first and foremost, on your concern that it would have an adverse affect on your ability as a real estate broker to sell residential property? Maybe a little? Not at all?      

While I don't know how you'd bet as to which of his responses would cause the needle on the chart to spike sharply, I'm giving 20-1 odds that it'd be the last one. Any takers out there?