FREEDOM WORKS


I am a volunteer and the spokesman for Orange County FreedomWorks.  I was contacted by a citizen concerned about inaccuracies on this site about Tax Revolt and FreedomWorks.  I thought it might be a good idea to attempt to correct some of the inaccuracies by providing information.

FreedomWorks is a national, state, and local organization made up of grassroots activists.  FreedomWorks is a non-partisan organization with members from all political parties.  Unlike what was said in a recent Carrboro newspaper editorial, FreedomWorks is not “a GOP effort to recruit new members to the party”. North Carolina has the largest and most active state chapter with more than 32,000 members across the state.  Along with tax and budget issues, North Carolina FreedomWorks members are extremely engaged in private property rights issues.  Our members are working against forced annexation and the use of eminent domain.  An example of one of our NC FW issues:  NC FW opposed the United State’s Navy’s plan to build an OLF (Outlying Landing Field) at Site C in Washington and Beaufort counties.

Orange County has an active FreedomWorks chapter.
Orange County FreedomWorks began as Orange County CSE (Citizens For A Sound Economy).  After the merger of CSE and Empower America, the new group chose the name FreedomWorks so Orange County CSE became Orange County FreedomWorks.  Over the years, OC FW has been very active.  A few of our projects:  Opposed System-Wide School Merger, Supported District Representation for the Orange County BoCC, Opposed the Land Transfer Tax. Several years ago, OC FW was awarded a FW Most Active Chapter Award.

For all of our projects, including Orange Tax Revolt, funding comes from here in Orange County.  Money is donated here to be used on the specific project then spent on that project.  We have never used funding from outside Orange County for OC FW projects.

How did OC FW become involved in this project?  Members of OC FW began receiving calls asking us to help organize a group and movement of citizens concerned about their recent revaluations and the upcoming setting of a new tax rate.  A few OC FW members met with those citizens who had contacted us to ask for our help.  At an organizational small group meeting including a couple OC FW members and several OC citizens, OC Tax Revolt was formed.  

It concerns me deeply that there are those who continue to claim that OC Tax Revolt is about an “outside national group using local folk to forward their agenda”.  This is entirely a citizen led venture.  FreedomWorks members working on OC Tax Revolt live here in Orange County.  FreedomWorks is not “using” Tax Revolt to discuss any of our other issues.  Contact information is being gathered – but only so that Tax Revolt can stay in contact with interested citizens.

Issues: 

Comments

If this comment is accurate "That's because town staff anticipate a shortfall of $6.3 million in motor vehicle, public utilities and personal property taxes next fiscal year, and the county needs to replace that money with real-estate taxes in order to generate the same revenue as last year. " and the "revenue neutral" rate is being adjusted upwards to try to recover the missing 6.3 million in other types of tax revenues, then it is not a revenue neutral rate at all. What they appear to be saying is that if this was not a revlauation year, they were going to raise property taxes to bring in 6.3 million before they even dealt with the costs of government itself.

The state statutes still require the county to publish a revenue neutral rate that does NOT take into consideration trying to make up the $6.3 million.

I have been concerned for a while that the misuse of terms has not only caused confusion but it has been down right misleading.  The "revenue neutral rate ," as you point out, can't be used to cover all revenue sources like some seem to want to do.  This is also why the lack of precision on what revaluation does and doesn't do has really confused people.Thanks again.

The town has a motor vehicle tax?  My personal property tax didn't mention that.  It did mention a vehicle tax but not a motor vehicle tax.  As we're so often reminded, motor vehicles aren't the only vehicles on the roadways.

It is on your Orange County Vehicle Tax Notice that shows the vehicle value and vehicle location.  Mine shows the OC tax rate (.998) the Chapel Hill City rate (.581), the CHCCS rate (.23) and the City Vehicle Tax of $20.I think there should be a crackdown on all of these cars with out of state plates that are owned by residents who should have transferred their title to NC long ago.  There appears to be way to many of these driving around and I don't think they are "visitors!"

One way that could happen would be for UNC to require that vehicles with UNC parking permits must be registered at a local address.  They don't have any obligation to impose such a rule, but I think it would help our local governments significantly.

Mark, I don't think this would be a good policy for students' cars, since those cars may well be registered at their parents' house and permanent address. Even though I voted in Chapel Hill during college, I kept my vehicle registered at my dad's NC address in Elizabethtown so I wouldn't have to change it every year when I moved. This makes sense especially for dorm-dwellers. Even out-of-state students may have good reason to keep their cars registered at their parents' addresses.  

is all I'm saying.  It is clear on who does and who doesn't have to register their cars because they are residents.  Enforce the laws.

Enforcing the speed limit would bring in a LOT more revenue than enforcing the nuisance taxes.  Encouraging people to drive the limits would help cut carbon emissions, and increase safety.  In Carrboro, when I suggested to officials the idea of patrolling 25 MPH school zones, I was politely dismissed.  "It's not a priority" I was told.  I immediately informed my children that thir safety was officially of no concern to the Town, and that they need to be extra vigilant. The County was similarly disinclined to consider enforcing vehicular laws of this sort. "That would be the responsibility of the Highway Patrol."I didn't bother trying to joust with the Chapel Hill windmill.  I learned that here in Leftland, only *certain* laws need to be enforced ... not others.  It's OK though.  Change is coming. 

Steve, we station folks from the police department at many school crossings at school time as you very well know.

The bill says that $20 tax is for vehicles, not just motor vehicles.

Chapel Hill must be using the same definition as below:According to: www.ncdot.org/dmv/vehicle_services/registrationtitling/taxproperty.html 

 Motor Vehicle Property Tax The property tax system requires counties to assess the values of motor vehicles registered with DMV and to prepare tax bills. Three months after the motor vehicle’s registration renewal date, the vehicle owner will receive a tax bill which is payable on the first day of the following month. ... The new law covers all motor vehicles except: vehicles exempt from registration by North Carolina law; manufactured homes; mobile classrooms and offices; semi-trailers registered on a multi-year basis; motor vehicles owned or leased by public service companies; and vehicles in confidential status.

Vehicles in confidential status?

It's clearly not the vehicle our paper deliverer uses - nothing confidential about it with that muffler, but,

 North Carolina General Statutes § 20-39.1 (e) Upon approval and request of the Director of the State Bureau of Investigation, the Commissioner shall issue confidential license plates to local, State, or federal law enforcement agencies, the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, agents of the Internal Revenue Service, and agents of the Department of Defense in accordance with the provisions of this subsection. Applicants in these categories shall provide satisfactory evidence to the Director of the State Bureau of Investigation of the following: ...(omitted)Confidential license plates issued under this subsection shall be issued on an annual basis and the Division shall maintain a separate registration file for vehicles bearing confidential license plates. That file shall be confidential for the use of the Division and is not a public record within the meaning of Chapter 132 of the General Statutes.

I'd tell you, Mark, but it's confidential.  :)[Post edited because Fred beat me to posting the NCGS.]

[comment deleted]

Gerry Cohen, thanks for clearing up the confusion about "revenue neutral".  Your explanation completely agrees with the way we used the term in Chapel Hill during the 1990s. Here's my question about prop tax valuations:   If the new valuations are supposed to represent market value on Jan 1, 2009, how could the BOCC approve the new values in Sept, 2008, (so stated by one of the speakers at the tax revolt meeting earlier this week) thus ignoring any real estate sales that occured in the last four months of 2008?  Since of course, accumulating the data and running the numbers takes some time, it is likely that no sales in the 2nd half of 2008 were used to calculate the 2009 valuations.  If my concern is true, then of course the values are way too high, for they ignored a very bad period in real estate sales.  Does the state law provide a cutoff date after which sales are no longer considered?  How, if at all, does the law address my concern?

but Joe, I'm worried about the implications of what you've stated.  Regardless of what data from what date is used, the real point is that the valuations should be FAIR between themselves.  If what you suggest about not including last 6 months is true, then I hope the appeals process also excludes this data.  Because as you state, the downturn will unfairly benefit those who have the latest data and thus they will pay less than their fair share.

They go on and on about how they're continuing to be supportive of revenue neutral, without mention that that bar has changed and they were as surprised at anyone at staff's definition of "revenue neutral".  Nor mention that that definition does not match what is written in state law. They can say they aren't increasing county taxes overall, but it is completely dishonest to suggest that they are not raising property taxes at this point. 

Here are the operative words of the law:"The revenue‑neutral property tax rate is the rate that is estimated to produce revenue for the next fiscal year equal to the revenue that would have been produced for the next fiscal year by the current tax rate if no reappraisal had occurred. " This has nothing to do with whether sales tax revenue is up or down, building permits are up or down, or anything to do with any other revenue but property taxes.The county is free to do another calculation about what property tax rate is necessary, along with all other revenues, to give the county the same amount of income as last year. It can call that alternate number whatever it chooses. That, however, is NOT what the budget officer has to set out in the proposed budget as the revenue neutral tax rate.http://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_159/gs_159-11.html"(e)       In each year in which a general reappraisal of real property has been conducted, the budget officer shall include in the budget, for comparison purposes, a statement of the revenue‑neutral property tax rate for the budget. The revenue‑neutral property tax rate is the rate that is estimated to produce revenue for the next fiscal year equal to the revenue that would have been produced for the next fiscal year by the current tax rate if no reappraisal had occurred. To calculate the revenue‑neutral tax rate, the budget officer shall first determine a rate that would produce revenues equal to those produced for the current fiscal year and then increase the rate by a growth factor equal to the average annual percentage increase in the tax base due to improvements since the last general reappraisal. This growth factor represents the expected percentage increase in the value of the tax base due to improvements during the next fiscal year. The budget officer shall further adjust the rate to account for any annexation, deannexation, merger, or similar event."

It makes absolutely no difference to the bottom line from the point of view of how much tax a jurisdiction wants people to pay on property, but I'm curious: Every other place we've owned property based tax rates on some percentage of assessed value, rather than the full 100% as done here.  Why is this?    Again, if they want you to come up with $1200. on your $100K house, it doesn't really matter whether the rate is $1.2 per $100 at 100% valuation, or $2.4 per $100 at 50% valuation.  All I can say is that somehow it didn't feel quite so painful to know we were only being taxed on a portion of the valuation - irrational as that is.  Were the other counties being PR strategic or are there other, policy-related reasons to calculate taxable value their way?

North Carolina allowed an assessment ratio at less than 100% until the early 1970s. Now all counties have to assess at 100% of valuation.

Do you know what precipitated the change?

There should be a hefty tax on the rural "streetlights" that pepper the countryside.

Or how about the wear and tear on the roads having to drive our kids in opposite directions from our workplace to get them to school and then driving by 4 or 5 Chapel Hill Schools we are excluded from on the way to work.Thx

So I read that the county contributes 10% of the CHPL budget but 40% of the books are checked out by non-CH county users.  And Kevin Foy is saying how something has to give.  But the pertinent question to me seems to be, why did it take this long for something to give?  Something should have given a long time ago.  If it weren't for the recession then maybe this would continue indefinitely.   Shouldn't there be a system whereby the charge for non-CH OC users is roughly commensurate with how much the county puts in and if the number of non-CH OC users goes up or down then so does how much they pay? OC gov't contributes 10% of the CHPL budget but keep in mind that some of that money comes from CH residents in the first place.  (I'd be curious to know how much.)  Maybe there are non-CH OC things that CH residents use disproportionately but right now this looks pretty imbalanced to me. 

Oops, I'm sorry, I meant to start my own thread with that post, not hijack this one.  If anyone can convert that into its own thread then feel free to do so.

To create a new post on OP: log in, look under your name in the right sidebar, then click on Create content, and Blog entry. Or just click here: http://www.orangepolitics.org/node/add/blog

the more relevant question, however, might be how to end one?

"Who determines how much non-CH residents pay to use the library?'The Chapel Hill Town Council decides that.The Council had been pursuing this issue for many years.  When I was on the council in the mid 1990's we actually succeeded in getting the county to up their ante.  Since then the county contribution has been stagnant. 

I can think of a situation where OC citizens pay for something in Chapel Hill but can't use it at all.

Orange County citizens are required to pay (bonds) for all the really
neat new school buildings in Chapel Hill but are excluded from
attending those buildings even if they live close to them.

Thx 

Jose, this figure may have changed somewhat, but about 42 pct of the  county tax base was within the city limits of Chapel Hill, so CH people pay about 42 pct of county prop taxes.  The population of CH is also about 45 pct of the county  population.Your comment that some of the county contribution to the CH library comes from CH citizens is right on.  The CH library is an excellent example of what happens when a town starts to do the usual tasks of the county, namely that the town citizens get double taxed to pay twice for county services.  Unfortunately, this is what happens when townspeople wants a service that the county normally provides, but at a lower level.  CH people decided, by referendum, that they wanted an excellent public library and were willing to pay for it through town as well as county taxes.  Where this one gets tricky, is that the CH library is open to all local citizens, including residents of Carrboro and Hillsborough, and even people from Chatham.  So CH taxpayers are paying to provide a very high level of library service for both themselves and their neighbors.  Actually, CH library financing is a triple whammy -- because the CH library is strong, the county spends less money on school libraries.  So CH people are supporting the school library function through both their county and town taxes.  Mark Chilton is right about the history of this tension.Look at it from the view of the county commissioners, however.  They can reason that CH is not going to close the library if the county doesn't contribute more. 

Joe, I'm sure that both you and Mark C. remember how year after year, the CHPL Trustees came before you at budget time and asked permission to go to the BoCC and make the argument that Orange County needed to provide more support dollars because of the imbalance between non-Chapel Hill tax payer users and County support.  In the mid 1990s, we got the support up to $250K and it hasn't changed since.Also at those sessions, we suggested the rate to charge patrons who reside outside Orange County and the city limits of Chapel Hill.  It is now up to an annual fee of $60. People in Chatham, Durham and any other counties except Orange pay this fee.  The debate has gone back and forth over what to do about Orange County.  Some think charging OC residents who don't pay CH taxes would start a funding equity war with OC that CH would eventually loose.  Others would argue that we should just have one library system in OC, much like the schools debate. Mayor Foy is right; something must be done soon to resolve this because I don't think CH taxpayers will continue to fund a library for all OC residents, especially when they get that next tax bill that may be at a "revenue neutral" rate, but it surely won't be neutral in terms of the higher taxes most of us will pay!

This sounds kind of like Orange County citizens having to pay for school buildings (bonds) in Chapel Hill that they are excluded from using. HMMMMMMThx

Those paying Chapel Hill taxes also pay Orange County taxes.  Orange County uses some of that money to build County schools.  Can Chapel Hill kids use those schools?See where this approach takes us?

How about showing some analysis about how much goes in to Chapel Hill Schools and how much to OC and relate that back to amount paid. People should be alllowed to use the schools that are closest to them.I won't even comment about Chapel Hill parents wanting to sent their kids to OC schools. Didn't you attend the merger stuff. Thx

CH-C schools and OC schools get EXACTLY the same amount (per student) from the OC taxes.  If you assume tax values are fairly divided between CH/Carr and the rest of the county, then everyone is paying an equal share for schools. The difference (and merger issue) is that the city folks are willing to pay more for schools.  So they have a SEPARATE tax that also goes directly to the city schools.   Non-CH/Carr residents are not willing to pay extra for schools, so they have a separate school system and a lower overall funding.  Until the rest of the county is willing to pay the 20% more in taxes that CH/Carrboro already is, merging is a horrible idea because it will only severly cut funds available to city schools.

I am not advocating merger but funding schools by property taxes perpetuates inequality of opportunity. I have this fantasy that every child deserves a top notch education. But richer communities can afford to put more money into the schools.  While more money does not necessarily guarantee quality it sure helps.  And I was more than willing to pay that extra 20%.I do not have the solution but it still irks me.  

Respectfully, I think that issue would exist whether property taxes or any other county-based tax was used.  There will (always?) be places that value education more than others and thus are willing to make the extra investment.   Whether the funding comes from property taxes or income taxes or magic fairy dust, the 1st decision is how much you want to spend on education.  NC has a clear policy of leaving that decision up to county commissioners and thus you have huge differences in how much they want to pay for education. But you do raise an interesting question that prompted a crazy idea.  Business leaders like from time to time to talk about how much they support education (as it is required for them to have good workers).  What if all business taxes were dedicated to education and then raised to the point necessary to fully fund it?

Huh

I am not talking about the operating costs of the schools. We all
know that the commissioners allocate operating education dollars on an
equal per student basis and that Chapel Hill has a district tax to
extend there budget. That is a given. I am talking about paying for the
construction of the buildings (Capital costs). Chapel Hill has enjoyed
far more new schools than the county. In fact the county a few years
back rather than build a new school renovated Hillsborough elementary
saving ALL county taxpayers milions of dollars. All Orange County
citizens (both OC school system and CH school system residents) pay for these Chapel Hill school buildings via bond issues yet
Orange County school system children are excluded from using those very
buildings OC school system residents help pay for even if they live closest to those Chapel Hill schools. I would be curious
to see the cost of building all the schools allocated to county vs city
to see the share of building money relative to taxpayers input.Thx

Fred, you're correct of course in your history and in your ideas.  I would add  that if there were only one library system for the county, it would be run at a lower service level than the current CHPL.  Continuing this speculation, I don't know if the citizens of CH would vote for more funds to subsidize the county library branch in CH, analagous to the CHCCS district tax.  The common thread is that different parts of the county want different levels of service, so the commissioners can't please everyone.

*   read this.*   and this.from the thinkprogress post: "Next week on Tax Day (April 15), right wing activists will converge in cities across the country to protest President Obama. The primary figures organizing the protests, the lobbyist-run think tank Freedom Works and bloggers such as Michelle Malkin, say they are reacting to taxes that are “too high.” However, previous tea party protests have attracted protesters who called for impeaching Obama while slurring the President’s name as “Obama Bin Lyin." - - - - -"The events are also being embraced by a smorgasbord of far-right causes. Gun rights militias, secessionists, and neo-Nazi groups are currently working to contribute to the organizing effort." anyone going to the Charlotte rally?  take pictures.

It is becoming increasingly clear that there are many good points to be made about local taxation. It is also becoming painfully obvious that those sentiments are being hijacked by an astroturf organization, Freedomworks, that purports to be expressing local sentiment but is in actuality backed by big corporate sponsors and other right wing heavy-hitters. To be fair, most people attending the meetings may not be aware of all this. But it is now time for those with authentic and sincere local concerns to differentiate themselves from the Dick Armey-type  corporate shills who would use local frustration to further the goals of the upper crust who bankroll and direct Freedomworks and other faux grassroots organizations. They either acknowledge the outside influence or they lose credibility.  

... more about the 'credibility' formula you use to determine what the validity of my citizen's concerns are. For example, is it okay with you if I am Jewish?  Because if I am I might belong to B'nai Brith and that might be an organization that is not on your 'list.'  How about if I am Irish, because the Hibernians could be on the 'disapproved' roster?  Can I belong to Kiwanis?  The Boy Scouts?  The Catholic Church?  The LDS Church?  Any church at all?  AOPA?I am a person of Hispanic descent, is that permissible? Do you even hear yourself, Mark?  Goodness, of ALL people!  I expect ever so much more from YOU.

I'm obviously in total support of people expressing themselves and advancing their politics. All I'm saying is that people should be aware of any manipulation that may be occurring and that making public statements to clarify the involvement of Freedomworks would be a good strategic move. I 

Did you read Mark's post?". . . there are many good points to be made about local taxation . . . most people attending the meetings may not be aware of [FreedomWorks] . . . those with authentic and sincere local concerns [should] differentiate themselves . . ."I think Mark is saying that there is very credible and legitimate grassroots advocacy going on.  How is that offensive?

If there is a list of organizations with which I cannot associate, lest my concerns as a citizen be discredited, please post it.If there is no list, please also so state, and in the future refrain from suggesting that objective consideration of my views and concerns as a citizen are dependent on my passing any such 'litmus test' of free association.Anything less is tyranny.   

I just thought I'd offer some free advice. Legitimate local concerns about taxation and other issues will not be taken as seriously when they are offered under the aegis of Freedomworks, an organization funded and promoted by corporate interests that do not have the welfare of regular people at heart. That's my opinion & I'm pretty dang sure I'm right. Take it or leave it.

Okay, there's no list.As for whether one might be judged by the company one keeps, I suppose some will and some won't.

Pages

 

Community Guidelines

By using this site, you agree to our community guidelines. Inappropriate or disruptive behavior will result in moderation or eviction.

 

Content license

By contributing to OrangePolitics, you agree to license your contributions under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.

Creative Commons License

 
Zircon - This is a contributing Drupal Theme
Design by WeebPal.