Grim tax cap predictions open to question

If voters approve a property tax cap on Nov. 2, Lewiston’s school system might be left with just enough money to educate pupils through eighth grade. Portland would have to lay off 457 school employees and have one teacher for every 30 to 40 students.

Other Lewiston departments would see a 67 percent cut in staff, eliminating 50 of 79 firefighters, 65 of 103 police officers and 68 of 95 public works employees. Portland predicts that it would have to cut 88 people in the Police Department, 95 fire personnel and 70 public works employees.

Lewiston, which released its numbers last week, and Portland, which weighed in on Monday, aren’t the only municipalities to offer doomsday scenarios of what might happen in the event the referendum is approved.

Day after day, towns and cities across Maine have come out with estimates of the potential loss of tax revenue and how that might play out in terms of services should property taxes be limited to 1 percent of assessed valuation.

Do these scenarios, advanced by Lewiston and Portland city officials, represent grim reality, or are they scare tactics designed to convince voters to reject the so-called Palesky tax cap? And how are voters likely to respond to such bleak assessments?

Tax cap supporters argue that municipal officials have been offering worst-case scenarios in an attempt to scare voters into rejecting the proposal by warning of massive layoffs of police, firefighters and teachers.

Instead, said Phil Harriman of Tax Cap Yes!, officials should be looking “to think in new ways and offer suggestions on how to make the bill work and ultimately to lower the property taxes on Maine citizens.”

Lewiston School Superintendent Leon Levesque said he was not trying to influence the outcome of the vote but simply laying out the facts. With potential cuts in state subsidies that reflect reduced local school spending, Lewiston might be able to afford to educate its youngsters only through fourth grade, he said.

“My purpose was just to have a reality check. If you have a budget and cut it by 66 percent, there is going to be some very heavy hemorrhaging,” he said. “I can’t help that. I’m just trying to show that there will be some very difficult choices.”

Even so, he said, some listeners responded to his assessment with disbelief. “I presented this to the City Council and a committee of the citizenry, and people referred to my presentation as a bogus budget,” he said.

Harriman and Tax Cap Yes! co-founder Eric Cianchette indicated that scare tactics by the opposition appear to be working.

“Hopefully we will have an opportunity to present our side of the discussion,” Harriman said. “We hope that as the next six weeks unfold, people will keep an open ear and an open mind as to what the other alternatives are.”

Cianchette sees it as “government versus the people,” putting his side at a disadvantage when it comes to getting the message out. “The government’s got more money, more power. We’re just trying to tell people the truth,” he said.

Larry Benoit of the anti-tax cap group Citizens United to Protect Our Public Safety, Schools and Communities denied that municipal officials are engaging in scare tactics.

“They’re simply making factual statements of the impact that this very extreme and unfair proposal would have on many Maine communities,” he said. “The facts speak for themselves.”

Benoit said the impact of the tax cap would vary sharply from community to community, with regional service centers such as Lewiston among the hardest hit. He said the budget figures are simple to calculate and it’s important for voters to have the facts before they cast their ballots.

“They give citizens an insight into how the Palesky initiative would impact their lives and the vital services they depend upon in their communities.”

Christian Potholm, a government professor at Bowdoin College who also works as an adviser for the anti-tax cap group, suggested that warnings of sharp cuts in services at the local level could prompt prospective tax cap supporters to think twice about how they will vote.

Potholm said voters who may have intended to send “a free message” to the Legislature about taxes are learning that there is a cost in terms of lost services close to home.