In a post on his web site, newly-elected District 1 McHenry County Board member Andrew Gasser calls for lowering real estate taxes to be the primary objective. The Fox River Grove man did this in his comments on the County Board’s Strategic Plan, which can be found here:
Andrew Gasser
One important factor needs to be on the forefront of all of us who are elected, regardless on what board we may serve on or be appointed to, is the taxpayer.
The taxpayer in Illinois is not being heard.
Taxpayers are crying out for relief and their voices are not being heard.We need to be fiscally responsible. We need to make sure we are transparent. That means having budget documents easily accessible and online to the public. We need to make sure that McHenry County is doing everything humanly possible to make the tax burden lower. I am keeping my promise. I am doing everything I can to bring attention to our taxation problem.
The December 2014 McHenry County Conservation District Original Issue Bond Premium needs some explanation.
Bond premiums are not bonds.
They are premiums on the bonds.
The Conservation District is a subsidiary of the County but issues its own bonds.
And after that, how about a recap of all the bonds the county has issued.
So in other words bond transparency and explanation.
Bonds hike taxes.
Bonds are outside the tax cap.
So you can’t control taxes unless you control bonds.
You can’t control bonds unless you understand bonds.
The public in general does not understand bonds.
Permanent property tax relief must begin with a change to the Illinois Property Tax Code, which means that real relief must come from Springfield.
During the last campaign, I proposed a change to the Code along the lines of the “Prop. 2-1/2” passed in Massachusetts in 1984.
It capped property taxes at 2-1/2% of a property’s fair market value and capped any increase without referendum.
I also proposed elimination of unfunded mandates.
Unfortunately, there wasn’t much of an opportunity to debate this issue, but it resonated among those who took the time to listen.
Property tax reform must be bound up with real pension reform and an entire restructuring of how we pay for education in Illinois. We can’t do one without the others.
Perhaps we’ll see something put forth in the next General Assembly, but I’m not holding my breath.
I applaud Andrew’s commitment to transparency, and his willingness to take the arrows by holding the line over that part of the budget over which the Board has control.
But his efforts are little more than a holding action, because real property tax reform must be statewide.
If you really care about this issue, call your State Legislator and State Senator.
The issue is larger than simply cutting cost of existing government programs.
A deeper discussion needs to take place between the Board and public.
That is what should be the size and reach of county government.
Questioning at every juncture, the role county government should play in our lives.
More bluntly, separating “essential” from “non-essential” services and activities.
An obvious example, should the county be taxing residents to operate a retirement home when there is already excess supply for this activity in the private sector?
Government intrusion in traditional private sector activities not only results in unnecessary expense and increase in size of government at inefficient rates but results in lost opportunity income coming loss of tax revenue otherwise collected from these traditional private enterprises.
Another example is full time benefits for part-time work or payment of higher wages than those paid in the private sector.
The focus in today’s difficult economic climate should be on “necessary” and not “excessive” county government.
Only when this philosophy is adopted by the majority of elected officials in county government will there be movement toward cost effective government and true tax relief for property owners.
Until then, talk like this on Gasser’s blog makes for nice campaign slogans and rah rah language at tea party rallies but does nothing to change the present paradigm.
To do this would doom one’s prospect for re-election.
Who is David Stieper and can we get him to run for office.
David ran for the County Board Dist. 1 seat in the last primary election with Andrew but didn’t make the final cut.
Hopefully he will run again if not for this county board seat or another office as we need him as another powerful speaker for the the conservative movement.
If you place David’s name in the search engine above to get some more background information.
Thanks, Chuck.
I’m impressed with the quality of his thinking.
Regarding any decision by County or Municipal Rulers which imposes monetary obligations upon people:
Consider the logic:
“We want this, it is a benefit to us”
Without consideration of the questions:
1. “What is the maximum amount of economic pain I can force others to bear in order to supply me what I want?”
2. “What is the maximum amount of economic pain I can bear in order to supply my neighbors, by force of their will, what they want”?
I’m curious how Andy Gasser squares his tax-cutting tea party platform with his opposition to the 2013 pension reform bill.
Isn’t giving overpaid public employee retirees a haircut really the only way to dig Illinois out of the hole?
Complaining about the property tax burden of county government while ignoring the massive property tax burden from retiree pensions is a little like complaining about the added light and brightness from a flashlight on the surface of the sun.
Rawdogger, your comment about property taxes and pensions ignores the fact that pension eligibility is a constitutional issue, not a County Board issue.
Pension reform, as well as changes to the way education is funded must happen at the State level.
Those are the two main drivers to higher real estate taxes.
The County Board is playing against a stacked deck, and the State is dealing from the bottom of that deck.
Steve, you’re ignoring the fact that this morning on his Facebook page Andy appeared to come out in opposition to Lisa Madigan’s attempt to salvage the pension reform law on appeal.
He issued a (maybe poorly thought out) policy statement on an issue he has no ability to impact.
I don’t believe the pension reform law should be “salvaged” on appeal either; I favor a complete overhaul of the system, which isn’t part of this discussion.
But while County Boards don’t write the pension law, as the body that has to administer much of what’s written, Boards and their members have every right, and obligation, to make their views known as to how those laws affect the taxpayers of their County.
Try not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
That’s not the point.