Look who's calling who obsessed?

by David Grand
October 21, 2004

For Sen. Larry Haines to call the "bureaucrats in the county government as obsessed with getting a property transfer tax for more than 10 years" is almost laughable, considering that his heels are dug in so deep in opposing that tax over that same time period it'd take a crane to lift him out. And is it possible that he believes that state legislators are held in higher esteem by the public than those he sarcastically refers to as government bureaucrats? I dare him to have a poll taken on that question.         

And the prospect of our legislators and commishes reaching an agreement on that tax issue was doomed to fail even before they sat down for a powwow three weeks ago today, what with Sen. Haines stating that "the commishes lowering the cap on property tax assessment increases from 10 percent to 7 percent two days earlier was nothing but a ploy to secure the delegation's approval of the transfer tax."  (My, isn't he a fine one to question their motives in offering that "olive branch," when as a large realtor his motive in opposing that added tax is as transparent as water in a goldfish bowl.)       

He also sent out a mixed message, saying on one hand that he still opposes the transfer tax as being unnecessary; and then on the other, saying a 5 percent cap on the property tax would be an appropriate "tradeoff" for gaining the delegation's support for that tax, adding that figure would be in line with the cap limit established by some other unnamed counties. Personally, I don't think he'll ever "throw in the towel." And that his proposed quid pro quo is nothing but a diversionary tactic.          

But for the sake of argument, let's assume that he sincerely believes that's the best solution for ending the standoff. My response would simply be as that Hebrew proverb says, "a halber iz a gantzer lign" (a half truth is a whole lie). For while it's true that some counties have property tax increases capped at 5 percent or lower, there is a direct correlation between the tax caps and the industrial/commercial percentage of the tax base. For example, Howard County has a 5 percent cap and Baltimore County a 4 percent cap, but their indusrial/commercial percentages are 20.03 and 20.11, respectively; while Carroll, which is fourth from the bottom of all jurisdictions has been frozen for so long at the 12 percent mark it'd take a blowtorch to melt it, if even then.

 Moreover, there's no way of glossing over the fact that, according to the county's director of management and budget Ted Zaleski, even if the county gets a transfer tax that would bring in an estimated $7.5 million annually it won't cover the county's needs. As he points out, there's  potentially more than $104 million in new costs the county may be faced with, due in to no small part to the unfunded and underfunded state and federal mandates, and the possibility that the state will pass the tab for $14 million in retirement benefits for teachers/librarians to the county.      

Now, I wasn't surprised that the fledgling delegate Tanya Shewell sided with the senator on having a 5 percent cap on the property tax, for it figures she wouldn't want to get on his bad side right off the bat. But  I can't understand how Sen. David Brinkley could've joined hands with him. For with all due respect, he should clean up his "own garden of evil" in Frederick County, where the property tax cap is 10 percent despite a 18.30 industrial/commerical percentage of its tax base, before aiming his "cap" gun at Carroll County, a small portion of his district.    

So, what it comes down to as I see it is, that unless the majority of the members of the delegation suddenly decide to vote the dictates of their conscience and do the right thing for the county's welfare, instead of what Sen. Haines dictates, the proposed transfer tax will once again be consigned to the trash heap, perhaps forevermore.