In a letter to the editor of the Chapel Hill News, Steve Price rightly makes the case that Orange County officials must be mindful of a property tax increase’s impact on those who DO have jobs, not just on those who don’t. Mr. Price writes in part (emphasis is mine):
A large percentage of Orange County taxpayers are employed by UNC and the state. While extremely fortunate to have jobs, it is fairly safe to assume that there will be no cost-of-living raises, or any raises for that matter in 2009. The same will probably hold true for the corporate world. Therefore, the household income for most residents will be the same in 2009 as it was in 2008. Unlike the county and city governments, which can vote for a property tax increase to raise revenue toward their 2009 budget, the citizens can’t “vote” for the university to pay them more (oh, that we could). With no increase in income, essentially being “revenue neutral,” homeowners must cut expenses. Why should the local government be any different?
Government shouldn’t be any different. But as we recently discovered in Durham, officials don’t treat other people’s money with the same respect they treat their own. The first step of government officials — whether in good times or bad — should be to make two lists. The first should be titled “needs.” The second should be titled “wants.”
Until they take this step, there’s no need to go any further.
