honoluluadvertiser.com

Sponsored by:

Comment, blog & share photos

Log in | Become a member
The Honolulu Advertiser
Posted on: Thursday, January 12, 2006

City Charter is no place for tax revolt

An ill-considered proposal to put an absolute cap on property tax valuations on O'ahu was quickly and properly squashed by the city Charter Commission.

But policymakers at City Hall should recognize that this flare-up was the direct result of the failure of local officials to pre-emptively judge the temper of a public fed up with their tax burden.

Soaring property values threaten to drive property taxes through the roof. That should have been no surprise to city officials, who surely knew there was a potential windfall in the offing.

Once the appraisals were in, the first response was akin to an astonished blink, followed quickly by a scurry to find ways of easing the burden or lowering the taxes on those least able to afford them.

Fair enough. But the lack of preparedness for what obviously was coming threatened to stimulate a classic taxpayer revolt. This could be dangerous.

It is a fact that the city faces expenses that will require substantial amounts of new money. Voters are demanding repairs to potholes, maintenance of their parks, quality police and fire protection and the like. In addition, Mayor Mufi Hannemann makes a strong argument that a substantial amount (he proposes $20 million for starters) is badly needed for a rainy-day fund.

None of this comes cheap. So an arbitrary cap on property tax values — locked into the City Charter, no less — was clearly not the way to go.

Before the Charter Commission acted, City Council Chairman Donovan Dela Cruz argued that a Charter cap on property values makes little sense because it takes decision-making away from elected officials.

He was correct. But the momentum for this abortive Charter proposal is in direct response to concerns that elected officials are not paying enough attention to the burdens of the taxpayers.

The path ahead is clear: Define what the city needs to provide for the coming year, sell that need to the public, put a price tag on it and then set rates accordingly. If relief for senior citizens or others on fixed income is required, that can be cranked in.

All of this should have been clear for some time. The current hysteria is unnecessary.