It Is My Opinion

We must conserve water, but will it save us money?

Administrator — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:20:07 +0000

We must conserve water. If we do not conserve during a drought, we could run out of water, or have cloudy water as the water systems pump from the bottom of the lake.

We do conserve water so, of course, we should be saving money on our water bills. But now we find out that our per unit rates may go up. That’s horrible! Why should we be paying more per gallon when we use fewer gallons?

What people must understand–but many do not understand–is that the water rate, or price per gallon, must go up as we conserve water and use fewer gallons.

The cost of the water services is based on the cost of facilities–the reservoir, treatment facility, and pipes to our homes–and the maintenance of these facilities. Only a small part is based on the amount of water used. As we conserve water we use fewer gallons per month. The cost of maintaining existing facilities and building new facilities remains the same, so the cost per gallon will increase.

The bottom line: Households who conserve the same as the average household will eventually find that their monthly bills are the same as previous bills. Those who conserve more than the average will see decreasing bills; those who conserve less than the average will see increasing bills.

When it comes to water pipes, “we must pay the piper.”

Transfer Tax

Administrator — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:10:18 +0000

The Realtors are at it again. They intend to spend millions to repeal a law that allows county commissions to, with the approval of the voters, impose a 0.4% transfer tax on the sale of property.

The transfer tax will, if adopted, will provide funds to help build new schools and infrastructure for growth. The cost will fall primarily on commercial property and real estate bought for investment purposes. About one third will fall on residential owners.

In spite of the fact that the tax affects commercial property more than residential property, the Realtors and homebuilders are calling the tax a “home tax”. They have spent millions to defeat referenda in 19 counties by convincing people that this 0.4% cost on the sale will make it difficult to sell a home and that it “taxes the American dream”. Now the NC Association of Realtors has made a commitment to add $10 million to an advocacy fund to continue their efforts to defeat the transfer tax.

Fast growing counties will have to find a way to pay for new school construction. The only way that does not require a referendum is an increase to the property tax. This tax will be paid by all property owners, not just those who are selling property.

The bills to repeal the transfer tax option do not repeal the sales tax option. The sales tax is a very regressive tax, hitting a much larger percentage of the income of a low income person than that of a higher income person.

The Realtors and homebuilders must recognize that the growth in Wake County will force the school district to buy property and to build school buildings. These new buildings and land will come at a much higher cost than existing buildings and land. The county commissions and voters should have the option of placing that tax burden on the growth rather than on the backs of all citizens, including those who do not benefit from the growth. This burden will come in the form of higher sales tax or higher property tax–the real home tax.

John Shaw

Cary, NC

Not a year for increased state and local tax?

Administrator — Sat, 24 May 2008 18:33:44 +0000

Some people say that, with the current economic problems, this year is not one to raise taxes.

Yes, many people’s finances are tight at this time. Families are having to tighten their belts and do without many things they would like to have. Vacation travel, meals in restaurants, and many other things are being cut back. Many families will have to make the decision every time they spend money: must we have this expense?

However, the needs of municipalities, counties, and states continue. School districts have to buy more land and build more schools to handle the increased school population. The construction and land acquisition costs are far higher than they were for existing schools. Streets have to be improved to handle the increased traffic. A larger population will require more services.

A family may be able to do without many things, but we cannot ask them to do without classrooms for their children or roads to drive on. These things must be paid for, and they are paid for with our tax money.

I realize that times are tough for many people. Many people cannot pay higher property tax or higher sales tax on their necessities. However, beer and cigarettes are not necessities. Those who cannot afford or do not want to pay a higher tax can do without them. The legislature should consider these tax increases before they cut needed services.

Transfer taxes affect only those people who have just sold a home or other property, and at the time that they are receiving income from the sale of property. They have been rejected by voters who were led to believe that enactment of the transfer tax would result in a tax increase for everyone. Perhaps they will reconsider when they find out that defeat of a transfer tax will only mean a higher property tax – the real home tax – for everyone.

There are many who, in spite of the current economy, can pay more to provide the schools and services that we need. Shouldn’t we consider an increase of tax for the highest earning taxpayers? Perhaps an additional tax on luxury cars or on heavy gas guzzling cars could be used.

No one wants to pay higher taxes. But the schools, roads, and other services that we depend on must be paid for.

Scientists: no exceptions to seawall ban needed

Administrator — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 02:12:39 +0000

North Carolina has a law banning the use of “groins” (often known as jetties), man-made devices that reach out into the ocean from the beach. These are often used to prevent erosion of beach sand. However, they are very destructive to beaches “down drift”, that is, further down the beach in the direction of the prevailing current.

Because of the destructive nature of groins the General Assembly prohibited their use (G.S 113A-115.1). However, Ocean Isle Beach and Figure Eight Island homeowners are trying to change the law that would allow exceptions to be made. They claim the exception would be experimental and would establish a “pilot project” to study the use of groins.

A bill (SB 599) has passed the NC Senate to allow exceptions to be made by the Coastal Resources Commission to the anti-groin rule. This would allow, with conditions, groins to be built to protect some beach areas from erosion. The bill will be considered by the House in this year’s “short session”.

A report recently issued by a scientific study group argues against the change. According to the report, there is nothing experimental about groins. The proposed change would require that groins be monitored and removed if damage results from the groin. The report points out that it may take many years for groin impacts to become apparent. By the time they become apparent, removal of the groin will be too late to prevent damage to other areas.

The report, signed by 43 academic and other scientists, can be found at:
http://psds.wcu.edu/WebFiles/PDFs/Coastal_Scientist_Groin_Statement.pdf

John Shaw
Cary

Is Stam Against or For Naming Buildings for Living People

Administrator — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:27:39 +0000

Paul Stam, a Republican NC House member from Wake County, and Republican leader in the NC House, had the following comment about the naming of a new NC State library for former Governor Jim Hunt”

“Normally to get your name on a government building, you have to be dead. But I’m not on a crusade about this.”

But he must have forgotten about the Holshouser building at the state fair, named for the still alive former Republican governor and the Reagan National Airport, renamed for the former Republican president before his death.

The above is from Gary Pearce in the Talking About Politics blog.
www.talkingaboutpolitics.com/Home/tabid/36/ctl/ArticleView/mid/364/articleId/992/NoClass-Paul-Stam.aspx

There is also the George H. W. Bush Intercontinental airport in Houston and the ironically named George Bush Center for Intelligence (CIA HQ), appropriately near the Turkey Run park on the Virginia side of the Potomac river.

North Carolina’s Tough Lending Laws Get Business Week Attention

Administrator — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 01:46:49 +0000

According to a recent Business Week article, North Carolina’s progressive protection laws for borrowers may become a nationwide model.

Looking over a past issue of Business Week today, an article about North Carolina and our attorney general, Roy Cooper, and the tough lending laws adopted by the state. Cooper introduced the1999 law when he was a state senator.

According to the article, critics of the 1999 law argued that it would harm the housing market in the state. However, studies have found that it did not. The recent economic problems have not affected North Carolina as much as other states. The foreclosure rate has not risen as much as in the rest of the nation while the median home prices rose much faster than in the rest of the nation.

For more, read the article:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_45/b4057078.htm?chan=search

John Shaw

Cary, NC

Ban Possible on New Water Tie-Ins

Administrator — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 00:58:47 +0000

From 12/5/07 Raleigh (NC) News and Observer:
Ban Possible on new water tie-ins
“With water supplies drying up in Raleigh and Durham [NC], elected leaders in the Triangle’s two biggest cities are considering tough new restrictions that could include a ban on new water customers.

“Development in Raleigh and Durham effectively could be frozen until the region’s severe drought lifts, because new homes and businesses wouldn’t be allowed to tap into city water.”

http://www.newsobserver.com/weather/drought/story/811889.html

The Most Urgent Environmental Problem

Administrator — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 23:51:16 +0000

On November 9 I posted a poll on Blue NC asking “What is the most urgent environment problem facing North Carolina?” I promised to give my opinion later. It is now later.

The choices in the poll were:
Global warming and lack of water,
Water pollution,
Loss of farm land, and
Air pollution.

The results were very close (they can be seen, and you can vote, using the link on the bottom of the left column). All four of these environmental problems are very serious and must be addressed by members of the public and by elected officials.

It is my opinion that the most significant environment problem is the loss of natural land-farm land and forest-to development. The significance is that this cannot be reversed. If we pollute the air or water, and then stop the pollution, the air and water eventually will be cleaned up. However, once a farm or forest is destroyed to build a shopping center or subdivision, the natural land is lost.

it is my opinion
John Shaw

Chatham County, N.C. has reacted to the defeat of the transfer tax and it does not involve sales tax.

Administrator — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 02:30:38 +0000

The Chatham County N.C. Board of Commissioners has addressed the need for more money for schools by increasing the school impact fees from $2,900 to $3,500, the maximum amount allowed. The Board also approved a new impact fee study, which will be underway within the next few weeks. The new study will likely result in a maximum level well above the present $3,500 limit.

According to Board Vice Chairman George Lucier, it is the commissions’ responsibility to “put fees and regulations in place to assure that the county is not overwhelmed by growth.” He also stated that the board has very limited options to pay for schools. According to a press release, “an increase in annual property taxes is the only other option currently available to county commissioners.”

http://www.chathamnc.org/index.aspx?recordid=265&page=19

John Shaw
11/25/07

Transfer tax rejected in 16 NC counties–did voters say they supported property tax increase?

Administrator — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 01:21:54 +0000

Last week the voters in 16 NC counties rejected the proposed 0.4% property transfer tax.

Are these voters saying that they would prefer to increase the property tax (the tax that the county commissioners can raise) instead?

The stated purpose of the transfer tax was to pay for the cost of growth. Could this rejection indicate that North Carolina voters are against growth and therefore see no need for a tax to pay for it?