LBK Commission Advocates
Tyranny by the Majority
If one was going to create a perfect example of a government creating Tyranny by the Majority, it would be the LBK commission's second underground power line non-ad valorem tax assessment methodology.
Only the commission knows why they chose to abandon the long established ad valorem taxing methodology used to fund both ongoing beach maintenance and canal dredging. Non-ad valorem taxes are regressive and inherently unfair to a large segment of the community.
The illogical rationals being employed by the commission to support their two undergrounding projects, creates large economic disparities within the community, in some cases by over 1000%.
For the GMD undergrounding project, the commission reasoned, incorrectly, that since everyone eventually drives on GMD, depending on when they return to the island and how long they stay on island, so everyone should have to pay equally for the privilege of not seeing above ground power lines on GMD. The commission's undergrounding initiative does not improve safety or quality of service, compared to what the community would have received for free from the FPL's scheduled improvements to the power grid along GMD.
For the "neighborhoods" undergrounding project, the commission employs a totally different set of rationals to justify setting up a perfect instance to Tyranny by the Majority.
The long standing taxing scheme for the two beach maintenance districts, divides the community into those properties directly benefiting from renourishing the beach immediately in front of their property, and a separate voting group who receive indirect benefit from having adequate beaches along the entire island. Unfortunately the commission has been remiss for the past six years and our beaches have been allowed to deteriorate in many places. The tax liability for the two groups is 80/20.
This separation of both benefits and tax liability, into two voting groups, allows those most financially affected by a referendum (80% of the tax liability), to have protection from the large majority of property owners (voters) with only a small tax exposure (20% of the tax liability). This is both logical and fair.
For some strange reason, this commission has decided to lump the majority group of property owners, with a $500 tax liability (7000 properties), together with the 3000 property owners with overhead power lines and a maximum tax liability of $11,000. Obviously the voters with only a small tax liability can exercise their majority power over the minority group of voters with a very large tax liability. This is called Tyranny by the Majority. It is not fair and has no place in a constitutional republic such as we have in America.
In good conscience, every LBK voter should vote against the political excesses of this commission, to demonstrate that we still stand for fairness and a truly democratic society.
Please ask yourself, if you are one of the majority, is the somewhat improved aesthetics of underground power lines in the "neighborhoods" worth straddling them with a $10,500 tax liability? Remember your vote affects thousands of property owners, many of whom have small homes and fixed incomes. For hundreds, perhaps thousands, of homeowners, the second referendum will increase their yearly property taxes from 30% to 60%. Do you really want to be part of the commission's unbalanced zeal to have virtual mandatory undergrounding throughout the island?
Terrific explanation. And this tax is not capped by 3% that is in the Save Our Homes program.
ReplyDeleteThe crux of your blog seems to be two points:
ReplyDelete1. The commission's undergrounding initiative does not improve safety or quality of service, compared to what the community would have received for free from the FPL's scheduled improvements to the power grid along GMD.
2. For some strange reason, this commission has decided to lump the majority group of property owners, with a $500 tax liability (7000 properties), together with the 3000 property owners with overhead power lines and a maximum tax liability of $11,000.
I am not sure I agree with your first point since I don’t think the sources you reference as hyperlinks support this conclusion. I know you do a great deal of research, so I’d like to know if you can provide additional references before I give my understanding of the evidence in those sources.
Your second point would make sense if property owners owned overhead power lines, which they don’t; and were the only beneficiaries of those power lines, which they aren’t. We all depend on the power lines along GMD, plus connections to underwater feeder lines on Binnacle Road and Broadway. We all depend on GMD for road transportation, which can be and has been limited by downed power lines and poles. I think the Willdan report commissioned by the Town is right to call GMD the backbone of the island and to assess three special benefits (safety, reliability, and aesthetics). As I am sure you know, Florida law not only allows but requires non-ad valorem assessments when special benefits are significant.
I have issues with the Willdan methodology, which strikes me as a Rube Goldberg device for saying benefits exactly equal the $25.5 million of projected costs and each unit should pay roughly the same cost ($2500). In effect, LBK may be special but there is little special about the sub-allocation of benefits. Before I can get into that, I need to understand the figures quoted from your blog, which add up to $36.5 million or an extra $11 million. My guess is this is costs of undergrounding from the power backbone to each unit, which I understood to be excluded from the project that was approved. If so, this has been left for private benefit/cost assessments. More specifically, those of us who already have underground connections from GMD have made our capital outlays and shouldn’t be taxed to pay for undergrounding unit level connections for those who haven’t.
I would agree that property owners with overhead power lines will get more benefit in the aesthetics category, than those of us who don’t. If one buys the Willdan methodology, this would mean some reapportionment of 1/3 of the benefits. If your 7000/3000 split is right and you assume only those with overhead power lines get aesthetic benefits from undergrounding, the tax liability for the 3000 would rise to about $4500/unit while the rest of us would pay roughly $1700/unit. My personal willingness to pay for not seeing overhead lines is probably half the $840 implied by Willdan methodology. One could argue for a locational adjustment to the Willdan formula but I, personally, don’t think that it is worth the hassle for the possible saving.
I will post separately on your first point (whether undergrounding has safety and reliability benefits), after learning if you would like to share some other reference materials.