After facing a standing-room-only crowd of more than 500 angry
citizens at a five-hour budget hearing last week, members of the Tucson
City Council appear to be backing away from a proposed 2 percent rent
tax.
But some members say they may still support a lower tax on
housing-rental payments.
“I think that’s much more likely … that we could phase it in over
time and start at a much lower rate,” says Ward 3 Democrat Karin
Uhlich.
Ward 6 Democrat Nina Trasoff also isn’t ruling out a rental tax at a
lower rate.
“I know I don’t like it at all, but I also know we need to balance
the budget, and everybody has to do something,” Trasoff says. “I would
have a very hard time voting for a budget with a rental tax, but I’m
not willing to say ‘absolutely not,’ because I have to look at where
else you can get money.”
However, Ward 2 Democrat Rodney Glassman remains reluctant to
support even a 1 percent rental tax.
“I do not support a new tax that falls squarely on the working
families of Tucson in the middle of one of the greatest recessions our
country has ever seen, especially when the dollars are not going to be
used for the core services that those renters need,” Glassman says.
The rental tax—which would cost a household paying $600 in
rent a total of $144 a year—was the most controversial component
of roughly $18 million in new taxes proposed by City Manager Mike
Letcher, who took the reins of the city after the council fired Mike
Hein last month.
But the rent tax also generated the most money: an estimated $10
million a year that would help make up for declining sales-tax and
income-tax revenues.
Uhlich says she was still reviewing budget options and that it was
premature to speculate on her preferences.
“There’s still a lot of work going into identifying viable
alternatives,” says Uhlich.
But she says the council could consider a larger hike in the city’s
utility tax on gas, electric and water services in exchange for a
smaller increase in the rental tax.
“It might be that the community would see that as a more fair
option, because it’s spread across the entire community rather than
only renters,” Uhlich says. “Ultimately, any choice we make is going to
be tough and unpopular.”
The council is also looking for budget cuts that would reduce the
need for additional revenue. Among the likely items on the chopping
block: a proposed $2 million contribution to the city’s fledgling
Housing Trust Fund for affordable homes.
There also appears to be support for Letcher’s proposal to increase
fees for Parks and Recreation sports leagues, ramada rentals, leisure
classes and swimming-pool admissions. Those rates had been reduced when
Trasoff and Uhlich took office in 2005; both had been sharply critical
of previous council members who raised the fees.
The council last week also took the first step toward raising bus
fares. Last summer, Uhlich led the opposition to a similar plan to
boost bus fares, which led to a fight with Hein over budget numbers.
The council considered firing Hein at the time, but they worked out
their differences until last month, when four members of the
council—Uhlich, Regina Romero, Shirley Scott and Steve
Leal—voted to can him.
Uhlich says she’s now more comfortable with the fare increase,
although she wants the additional revenue to be reinvested in the
public-transit service.
Trasoff, who voted against the fare increase last summer, says she
wished the council had moved more quickly to increase fares.
“I suppose I was remiss in not bringing it back sooner, but other
things get on your plate,” Trasoff says. “I wish we had done it back
then.”
Glassman, who supported last year’s fare increase, says the move to
hike fares is “long overdue.” He pointed out that the city missed out
on an opportunity to bring in $2 million by not increasing fares last
year, and that the reluctance of his colleagues to increase fees for
city services is one reason it is facing a financial crisis today.
“There is demonstrable proof that the council’s unwillingness to
adjust rates incrementally has put us in a tight situation,” Glassman
says. “The irony is, if our leadership is willing to make smart,
incremental decisions, then the politically charged decisions come
around less often.”
This article appears in May 7-13, 2009.
That’s what makes our local government tick… Reverse Robin Hood tactics to pay for their inability to budget fairly, reasonably, and responsibly.
Such a shame. I thought Uhlich was for the people; she’s become just another bought-and-paid-for political hack, after the trash fee fiasco, where/when she bailed on the public who put her in office the first time. We all should have seen the way she would play from then on.
When will we stop this infection by the ‘Corpirates’ that destroys our way of life for their profit? When will we finally put those in office who truly listen and do the will of the people and not just the people with big money – which has become OUR very hard-earned tax money in their pockets – and a profit-tainted agenda?
If there will be money-grabbing photo radar at all our intersections, whats to stop them from eventually putting cameras in our homes and neighborhoods to ‘catch more crime’ without a public vote? Do you all want to be watched 24/7 everywhere you go, whatever you do? Just like the UK? Fight the Beast!
Stand up Tucson! Together we can change the rules that we are ‘governed’ by. The super-rich, since they have the most money and holdings should also have the highest tax rates and fees accordingly.
Even your Bible says you should not prey on widows and the poor, or you will be destroyed.
Shameful! Incompetent!
I am also amazed and saddened that it was not many, many more than 500 residents at that meeting.
Peace.
I believe the point was missed in the previous comment that the council must look at what local government is tasked to provide that no one else can for its citizens. Once that is done, no matter your wealth or social status, everyone that gets these services must pay for them equally. If you do not want that type of system then charge on an as-you-use basis which will be much higher. The wealthy are wealthy because they have worked hard at what they do and have become successful. whether you believe it ornot everyone has that opportunity. It is just some seem to just are happy at getting by and relying on everyone else to pay their way in “free” services for them. Get a life and be happy you have the freedom to have great services but these come with a price. If you don’t want to pay for them here then move away or better yet overseas and see what freedoms you really have. Bottom line, stop whining and be greatful you live in a great country. But remember you are part of the system and must be willing to pay for that freedom.
Nina, just can’t face cutting off her artists. She has gotten down to taxing renters who already pay taxes passed on by their landlords.
Time for Nina to go.
Ward 6 Democrat Nina Trasoff: “I would have a very hard time voting for a budget with a rental tax, but I’m not willing to say ‘absolutely not,’ because I have to look at where else you can get money.”
Who says she talks out of both sides of her mouth.
Join me in making sure they’re all fired come next election.
All I hear is that our taxes are too high. No new taxes, etc. How about some suggestions for what programs to cut? I never see any protests that say our police force or fire department is too big, we pave too many streets, we inspect too many restaurants, or we cite too many derilict property owners. People love their government they just hate to pay for it.