What the Palesky cap cuts

Would you want to live an area with the following characteristics? Limited arts education. No school athletics. No after school programs. No recreation department. Needed teachers laid off. Town and city officials laid off. Un-funded fire protection, police protection, ambulance services, garbage collection, snow removal, and library services. Would that alarm you? On Nov. 2, the citizens of Maine will be asked to vote on Question 1, a 1 percent local property tax cap bill. If passed, the referendum will have severe consequences for many of the services that we expect our municipalities to provide, making the previous characteristics a reality. Would you want Maine’s children to grow up without these important programs? Would you want to live in an area with sub-par protection?

When entering the voting booth, Mainers will see the following question: “Do you want to cap local property taxes at 1 percent of assessed valuation?” The “Palesky Tax Cap,” as it is termed, seems to be appealing at first glance. Maine has some of the highest taxes in the country and the Maine Legislature failed to negotiate an appropriate tax solution during the past session. A citizen-initiated tax cap would seem to be a solution to our problems. Under the bill, Mainers would pay less property tax and the problem should be solved. That is not the case, however. This referendum has the ability to cripple our state by removing essential funds needed to provide Mainers the values that we have held for years, such as providing our students with the best education possible.

How did such a ballot measure even come about? The Maine Taxpayers Action Network was created by Carol Palesky, a resident of Topsham, and has been working on a tax cap initiative for more than 10 years. It wasn’t until these past several months when Palesky was able to garner enough signatures to get a plan that parallels one from California, on the ballot. In April 2004, the Maine Supreme Court handed down a majority decision which effectively ruled that parts of Palesky are unconstitutional. What remains, is the provision that would limit property taxes to 1 percent ($10 per $1,000) of the assessed value.

Studies have been conducted all throughout the state on the impact of Palesky. According to Professor Charles Colgan of the University of Southern Maine, South Portland would sustain a $17.1 million reduction in property tax revenues. If all cuts were made in municipal services, total spending on programs such as fire, police, and ambulance protection, would fall from $22.8 million to $5.6 million, an 83.5 percent reduction.

In August, Bangor City Manager Edward Barrett estimated that revenues for the city would decrease by 54 percent and the school budget would be reduced by $7.8 million (23.6 percent). In April, Augusta City Manager Bill Bridgeo estimated that general government and school budget expenditures would need to be reduced by $12 million. Three schools would be closed and one hundred and thirty seven jobs would be lost in the school department.

Predictions all over the state have been listed, but here is actual evidence to prove that those predictions are justified. As mentioned, Palesky paralleled her initiative after one in California. Since Proposition 13 passed in 1978, California’s sales taxes have escalated to 9.25 percent in some areas, with a statewide base tax of 7.25 percent. California had the equivalent of a $15 billion surplus before Proposition 13 was passed, which has now become a $25 billion deficit. According to PBS’ “The Merrow Report,” “Passed by 65% of voters in 1978, Proposition 13 is a constitutional amendment that reduced property tax rates by 57 percent and resulted in a dramatic reduction in the amount of local property tax revenue available for cities, counties, and especially for schools.” Before the bill, California had the best school system in the country. Today, California currently ranks 50th in the nation in educational spending and achievement. Parks, libraries and recreational services have never been restored to the pre-1978 levels.

Some who are leaning towards a “yes” vote on Question 1, argue that they realize the bill would be catastrophic, but want to send a message to the Maine Legislature to help alleviate the tax problem in Maine. A message needs to be sent, but the Palesky Tax Cap is not the answer. It will do more harm than good. For me, the best parts of growing up in Maine included extra-curricular activities. I was involved with Caribou High School’s music program for nine years until I graduated two years ago and am still extensively tied with the program through a student-initiated $2.4 million capital campaign to build a music addition at the high school.

Studies have shown that arts education leads to higher achievement and the Palesky bill could remove this critical program from many schools in Maine. The Recreation Department in Caribou and in communities around the state are also an integral part of giving a child every opportunity that should be afforded to them. Athletics, extra-curricular activities, and after school programs are vital tools that can be used to keep kids socially involved, academically interested, and physically fit. Ambulance, fire, and police protection are all too important to see even the slightest decrease in funding. We must not let these programs leave our state.

If you would like more information, visit websites such as http://www.citizensunitedformaine.com and http://www.memun.org. Should taxes be lowered in Maine? Yes, but not through Palesky. Think about what living in Maine would be like without the services that we all hold near and dear. Do not let Maine’s values slip away. Vote NO on Question 1.

Brandon Bouchard is a resident of Caribou.