What Constitutes A Tax Increase?

This past week, we saw more drama in City Council, this time over whether--and when--to change property tax rates for 2010. City Council has three options: leave the millage the same, a move which would--because of increases in property values--generate about $400,000 more in 2010 than in 2009; raise the millage to the maximum allowable; or "roll back" the millage rate to generate exactly the same amount of money it did in 2009.

First, let me say at the outset: I have no position on the property tax rate. I think Council members and candidates should make their positions clear prior to Election Day. It appears some may favor leaving the millage alone, while others favor rolling it back. I've not heard anyone suggest raising it to the maximum millage permissible. Frankly, I don't care when Council takes this action, assuming members have given voters some inkling of their intentions prior to the election. (Council members are, of course, free to remain silent until after Tuesday. And voters are free to withhold their votes on that basis.)

But I'm curious about those who describe the maintenance of the current millage as a "tax increase." Is that really a fair description? If you spend more money this year than last and therefore pay more sales tax, you wouldn't complain about a sales tax increase (assuming the rate stayed at 6.5%). Similarly, if your income went up and you paid more income taxes, you wouldn't (assuming a flat tax rate) think you suffered from a "tax increase."

It seems to me Council has three options. Leave the property tax alone, increase it (perhaps dramatically), or decrease it ("roll it back"). Others seem to suggest there are just two options: roll back the millage (which they say is leaving it the same) or "increase" property taxes.

What's your take?

The Voices Behind the Blog

Last week, Stephen Carter-Novotni sat down with Griff and me for CityBeat's thirty-second podcast. The hour-long conversation covers a wide variety of topics, including our takes on the constantly shifting lines between social media, blogging, and journalism; why Griff started the blog (and why I joined him); and which blogs we read.

Many thanks to Stephen for inviting us to participate and for being an extremely gracious podcast host, as well as for doing his best not to make us look any dumber than our own dumbness naturally requires.

Thank You WOXY!

I was very glad to read CitBeat's blog post about WOXY's Local Lixx program keeping a Cincinnati centric edition going after WOXY moved its operation to Austin, TX. Thanks to all the WOXY team for keeping this showcase of great Cincinnati area music going.

Relish Leaves A Bad Taste In My Mouth

Martin Wade of the Relish Group is apparently threatening to sue Jean Robert de Cavel to prevent him from opening a restaurant in the space formerly occupied by Buddhakhan. Wade claims that the chef signed some sort of non-compete agreement when the partnership dissolved. (Hat tip: Polly Campbell's blog, which I'm having difficulty linking to right now.)

Given Jean Robert's popularity in this area, this seems like a terrible PR move. Did Wade really think it was a good idea to make public that he would do everything he could to prevent a viable business from opening in a vacant space in the center of downtown? And does he really think people will support his effort to keep Jean Robert--who adopted this city as his own even after he and his wife had every reason to return to their native land--from continuing to be a culinary presence here?

What's more, non-compete agreements are notoriously difficult to enforce. The courts don't like them. Who wants to strip someone of his or her livelihood? I'm sure Jean Robert will have no difficulty finding able counsel to represent his interests should Wade decide to sue. I can think of plenty of attorneys with expertise in that field who would be willing--quite literally--to work for food. (As long as it's Jean Robert's.)

Why? Just Why?

www.peterbronson.com

I have no other comment, I am just sick of fish.

Hollan TV Commerical

Nicholas Hollan has released his TV commercial which was to hit the airwaves earlier this week:

One Blog, Several Voices

Any reasonable person knows this already, but I thought I'd point it out in case there was any doubt.

When we post here, each of us speaks for him- or herself. When I express ambivalence about the streetcar, it should be obvious that Griff does not share this sentiment. Griff doesn't need to specifically rebut me in order for his disagreement to stand. Conversely, I don't agree with everything others write here, though I don't typically write rebuttals. (The exception, of course, is Jack. As he is the oldest wisest of the four of us, I always reflexively agree with him.)

Back to regular blogging.