Louisiana voters face ten amendments this fall, half dealing with property taxes and most worthy of passage. Let’s see why or why not:
#1 – would allow surviving spouses of disabled veterans to continue receiving any property tax exemption at one subsequent location. Exemptions normally should be opposed with broadly-based lower rates preferred, but it’s already in place an exception can be made here for spouses whose spouses sacrificed with at least a 50 percent disability as a way for the state to thank their families. YES.
#2 – would allow jurisdictions more flexibility in setting millages. Currently, unless a jurisdiction keeps its rates always at the maximum approved by voters, it may lose that ability to go to the maximum if necessary. Letting rollbacks occur without forfeiting this possibility may encourage more jurisdictions not to set rates at the maximum once in the quadrennial period, reducing property tax rates in the aggregate. YES.
#3 – would disallow judicial discretion in setting bail after conviction for addition serious felonies and against children. These crimes and their looming sentences are too serious to allow such discretion regarding individuals with a greater risk of flight or of additional offenses committed. YES.
#4 – would establish a lifetime two-term limit for the governor. Most states have gubernatorial term limits but few are lifetime in nature. But if its good enough for the presidency (and Bossier City’s mayor), it’s good enough for Louisiana’s chief executive. YES.
#5 – would allow for unrestricted payment of unfunded accrued liabilities. Currently, older debt has to be paid first even if it costs less to service, so the amendment would allow tackling the costliest first and stretch dollars. YES.
#6 – would increase the homestead exemption for those 65 and older in $60,000 increments up to age 81, in effect adding that to the existing $75,000 all the way up to $375,000 when reaching 81 for households with no greater than $100,000 adjusted gross income and it would transfer to surviving spouses in fewer than five years younger. Voters in a jurisdiction would have to approve of it (parish for all entities except municipalities) and the governing authority cannot force compensation for it by increasing rates. This is the typical exemption that should be opposed in favor of overall lower rates, and the existing exemption already is too high. NO.
#7 – would create an exception to the public donation to private interest prohibition in the case of trying to upgrade water lines from a public utility into a residence. This eases the bureaucratic burden of trying to remove hazards from drinking water, but it also invites too much mischief by government involving private property and this action already may be constitutional. NO.
#8 – would prevent expropriation of private property by agents of legally-defined foreign adversaries. This would prevent entities or people possibly connected to enemy government of acquiring property in a manner that could threaten security. YES.
#9 – would increase the income limit for special assessments, such as the senior exemption subject to #6 plus others, from $100,000 adjusted gross to $150,000. There’s no reason to increase and this falls under the general rule of not increasing the number of exempted properties and instead lowering rates across the board. NO.
#10 – would allow a governing authority to offer of up to 75 percent property tax abatement up to 20 years for a structure (25 percent for ten years for land next to a structure) for distressed buildings deemed so by government if rehabilitated. While this breaks the general rule of preferring lower rates over increased exemptions, it could provide incentive to take blighted property and put it back in service at likely a higher property tax collection even with the break. YES.
Just remember “679” on which to vote against, and for the other seven.
No comments:
Post a Comment