Ballot initiatives this fall
The League of Women Voters of Georgia just put out their explanations and analysis of several proposed ballot iniatives for this fall's election. This piece lists both pros and cons of each amendment as they interpret them, and then distributes them for free to the voters.
As always, it's mighty informative and thanks to Mayor Heidi Davison for passing it on to me.
Unless specifically stated, LWVGA does not have a position on the amendments or ballot referendums appearing on the November ballot. LWVGA provides explanations, pros and cons as part of our mission to educate Georgia voters on candidates and issues that will appear on the November ballot.
Constitutional Amendments:
1) Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to prohibit the use of eminent domain by certain nonelected authorities and to prohibit the contested use of eminent domain except for public use as defined by general law? (HR 1306, passed in 2006)
EXPLANATION: Confines the government's use of eminent domain to public use only and it would prohibit nonelected authorities (such as local development authorities) from exercising the power of eminent domain, thereby ensuring that only elected officials are vested with that authority.
PROS: Provides stated protections for private property owners in the state Constitution to limit the power of eminent domain specifically to instances relating to redevelopment projects deemed for “public use.”
CONS: The state Constitution already restricts the use of eminent domain powers. If further protecting private property rights is the goal, this amendment may be too weak to achieve the protections it promises as it allows the definition of “public use” to be redefined by the General Assembly at any time.
2) Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to provide that the tradition of hunting and fishing and the taking of fish and wildlife shall be preserved for the people and shall be managed by law and regulation for the public good? (SR 67, passed in 2005)
EXPLANATION: Provides formal recognition of hunting and fishing as traditions in the state.
PROS: Constitutionally recognizes hunting and fishing as traditions in Georgia and could be interpreted or used in future instances to mandate funding for wildlife resource management to preserve these activities.
CONS: Georgia law already provides funding for wildlife resource management for hunting and fishing and it is unknown what impact or additional protections may be offered if these activities are constitutionally recognized.
3) Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to authorize the General Assembly to provide for special motor vehicle license plates for stated purposes, including dedications for the ultimate use of agencies, funds or nonprofit corporations where it is found that there will be a benefit to the state? (HR 1564, passed in 2006)
EXPLANATION: Empowers the General Assembly to provide for several new special motor vehicle license plates for optional purchase and authorize our lawmakers to dedicate some or all of the revenue from the sale of these special tags for programs relating to the plate’s subject. The dedicated revenue may go to an agency, fund, or nonprofit corporation for the ultimate use of a nonprofit corporation if found to be a benefit to both the state and the nonprofit.
PROS: Raises funds and visibility for many important causes and the organizations that address those specific causes with legislative authorization only. Currently, each license plate proceeds have to be enabled with a statewide referendum.
CONS: There would be little flexibility to amend the list of special interest license plates and their beneficiary organizations. Further, many groups on the list represent only one side of an issue or problem. The LWVGA encourages voters to view the full list of approved plates and the organizations that will receive funds from their sale (see below). Finally, in instances where the state places earmarks on dedicated funds it also has the right to remove those earmarks, as was the case with the Hazardous Waste Trust Fund.
LWVGA Position: The language that will appear on the ballot does not give voters all the information such as what tags were approved by the General Assembly or what organizations will receive funds raised by the tags. The incomplete language on the ballot does not offer the voter full information on what the elector is ratifying. Further, the League opposes earmarks on dedicated funding. A complete list of the special tags that were approved by the General Assembly and the organizations that will receive funds from the sale of the plates is available at www.lwvga.org or at www.legis.state.ga.us, search HR 1053.
Statewide Ballot Referendums:
1) Shall the Act be approved which provides a homestead exemption for the full value of the homestead with respect to all ad valorem taxes for the unremarried surviving spouse of a peace officer or firefighter who was killed in the line of duty? (HB 81, passed in 2006)
EXPLANATION: Exempts the unremarried surviving spouse of a peace officer or firefighter who was killed in the line of duty from all ad valorem taxes. This will not affect any special assessments assigned to the property, however, and the exemption will have to be applied for in person.
PROS: Provides a generous benefit to those whose spouses serve in the public interest and sacrifice their lives serving the community as firefighters or peace officers.
CONS: Very narrowly tailored with a small impact on Georgians overall. The referendum is potentially difficult to enforce as written because it does not specify if the benefit is applicable to officers and firefighters in other states if the surviving spouse moves to Georgia and related scenarios. Further, if the widowed spouse remarries, he/she will not be eligible for the exemption even if he/she is raising the children of the fallen firefighter or officer. Any other employee of the state or local government who is killed in the line of duty is not given this benefit.
2) Shall the Act be approved which provides that, with respect to base year assessed value homestead exemptions, the surviving spouse of a deceased spouse who has been granted such a homestead exemption shall receive that exemption at the same base year valuation that applied to the deceased spouse so long as that surviving spouse continues to occupy the home as a residence and homestead? (HB 81, passed in 2006)
EXPLANATION: Allows the surviving spouse to retain the homestead exemption which the couple had while the other spouse was still alive. Overall, the surviving spouse would not incur any increased tax liability due to an increase in assessed value.
PROS: Exemption requirements are based on age, income and disability. The taxpayers this would benefit are the younger spouses who may not qualify for the exemption on their own because they have not met the age requirements.
CONS: This referendum only provides this benefit to a very select group of the population and could have additional implementation ramifications. Further, the fiscal impact on state and local budgets is unknown.
3) Shall the Act be approved which expands the ad valorem tax exemption for veterans organizations to include certain additional nonprofit veterans organizations which refurbish and operate historic military aircraft for educational purposes? (HB 173, passed in 2006)
EXPLANATION: Expands the ad valorem tax credit already in place for veterans’ groups with 501 (c)(3) tax-exempt status to those which have been organized for the purpose of refurbishing and operating historic military aircraft acquired from the federal government or other sources, to make such aircraft airworthy, and putting the aircraft on display for public educational purposes, i.e. the Commemorative Air Force.
PROS: Provides for an ad valorem exemption to a nonprofit veterans organization which refurbish historic military airplanes.
CONS: This referendum is very narrowly tailored and is an example of special interest legislation. The fiscal impact is estimated to be less than $500,000 statewide.
4) Shall the Act be approved which grants an exemption from ad valorem taxation on property owned by a charitable institution which generates income when that income is used exclusively for the operation of such charitable institution? (HB 848, passed in 2006)
EXPLANATION: Clarifies current law in that the ad valorem exemption applies to 501 (c)(3) tax-exempt charitable institutions so that the exemption can apply to real estate or buildings owned by the charity so long as the income used from the property supports the operation of the nonprofit.
PROS: This exemption would foster and promote growth of nonprofit charitable organizations by providing a generous tax exemption.
CONS: Represents a slippery slope as groups could potentially use the nonprofit organization as a way of avoiding normal taxation. It could also encourage other entities to seek 501 (c)(3) status in order to benefit from the exemption and may take many parcels of property off the tax rolls and have real fiscal impacts on local and state revenue.
5) Shall the Act be approved which provides a homestead exemption for senior citizens in an amount equal to the actual levy for state ad valorem tax purposes on the homestead? (HB 848, passed in 2006)
EXPLANATION: This referendum would allow taxpayers 65 and older to be exempt from state ad valorem property taxes. This exemption is independent from senior exemptions already in place and would have no bearing on the county, city or local school tax revenue.
PROS: Tax exemption for senior citizens, many of whom live on a fixed income.
CONS: This credit is very small, one quarter of a mill or less than $15 per year on a home valued at $150,000. The state revenue loss is estimated at $6.8 million in FY08 and $7.3 million in FY09. This population is expected to double by 2030. Further, the income of the homeowner is not considered when providing this tax exemption.
6) Shall the Act be approved which expands the ad valorem tax exemption for agricultural products and equipment to include certain additional farm equipment held under a lease purchase agreement? (HB 203, passed in 2005)
EXPLANATION: Expands eligibility for the existing tax exemption for farm equipment to also cover any equipment held under a lease purchase agreement.
PROS: Provides expanded tax exemptions for farmers financing certain farm equipment through lease purchase agreements and treats the users of the same type of equipment the same, whether owned or leased.
CONS: Traditionally, ad valorem tax is levied based on ownership. The language on the ballot is very vague and does not offer voters an explanation of what “additional farm equipment” could include or the potential fiscal impact on the budget. Also, the agricultural industry pays almost no taxes for crops cultivated or animals raised, no sales taxes on purchases for use in agriculture and have very favorable property tax treatment for the first 2000 acres. All but 2% of farm land is controlled by corporate entities in Georgia.
As always, it's mighty informative and thanks to Mayor Heidi Davison for passing it on to me.
Unless specifically stated, LWVGA does not have a position on the amendments or ballot referendums appearing on the November ballot. LWVGA provides explanations, pros and cons as part of our mission to educate Georgia voters on candidates and issues that will appear on the November ballot.
Constitutional Amendments:
1) Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to prohibit the use of eminent domain by certain nonelected authorities and to prohibit the contested use of eminent domain except for public use as defined by general law? (HR 1306, passed in 2006)
EXPLANATION: Confines the government's use of eminent domain to public use only and it would prohibit nonelected authorities (such as local development authorities) from exercising the power of eminent domain, thereby ensuring that only elected officials are vested with that authority.
PROS: Provides stated protections for private property owners in the state Constitution to limit the power of eminent domain specifically to instances relating to redevelopment projects deemed for “public use.”
CONS: The state Constitution already restricts the use of eminent domain powers. If further protecting private property rights is the goal, this amendment may be too weak to achieve the protections it promises as it allows the definition of “public use” to be redefined by the General Assembly at any time.
2) Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to provide that the tradition of hunting and fishing and the taking of fish and wildlife shall be preserved for the people and shall be managed by law and regulation for the public good? (SR 67, passed in 2005)
EXPLANATION: Provides formal recognition of hunting and fishing as traditions in the state.
PROS: Constitutionally recognizes hunting and fishing as traditions in Georgia and could be interpreted or used in future instances to mandate funding for wildlife resource management to preserve these activities.
CONS: Georgia law already provides funding for wildlife resource management for hunting and fishing and it is unknown what impact or additional protections may be offered if these activities are constitutionally recognized.
3) Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to authorize the General Assembly to provide for special motor vehicle license plates for stated purposes, including dedications for the ultimate use of agencies, funds or nonprofit corporations where it is found that there will be a benefit to the state? (HR 1564, passed in 2006)
EXPLANATION: Empowers the General Assembly to provide for several new special motor vehicle license plates for optional purchase and authorize our lawmakers to dedicate some or all of the revenue from the sale of these special tags for programs relating to the plate’s subject. The dedicated revenue may go to an agency, fund, or nonprofit corporation for the ultimate use of a nonprofit corporation if found to be a benefit to both the state and the nonprofit.
PROS: Raises funds and visibility for many important causes and the organizations that address those specific causes with legislative authorization only. Currently, each license plate proceeds have to be enabled with a statewide referendum.
CONS: There would be little flexibility to amend the list of special interest license plates and their beneficiary organizations. Further, many groups on the list represent only one side of an issue or problem. The LWVGA encourages voters to view the full list of approved plates and the organizations that will receive funds from their sale (see below). Finally, in instances where the state places earmarks on dedicated funds it also has the right to remove those earmarks, as was the case with the Hazardous Waste Trust Fund.
LWVGA Position: The language that will appear on the ballot does not give voters all the information such as what tags were approved by the General Assembly or what organizations will receive funds raised by the tags. The incomplete language on the ballot does not offer the voter full information on what the elector is ratifying. Further, the League opposes earmarks on dedicated funding. A complete list of the special tags that were approved by the General Assembly and the organizations that will receive funds from the sale of the plates is available at www.lwvga.org or at www.legis.state.ga.us, search HR 1053.
Statewide Ballot Referendums:
1) Shall the Act be approved which provides a homestead exemption for the full value of the homestead with respect to all ad valorem taxes for the unremarried surviving spouse of a peace officer or firefighter who was killed in the line of duty? (HB 81, passed in 2006)
EXPLANATION: Exempts the unremarried surviving spouse of a peace officer or firefighter who was killed in the line of duty from all ad valorem taxes. This will not affect any special assessments assigned to the property, however, and the exemption will have to be applied for in person.
PROS: Provides a generous benefit to those whose spouses serve in the public interest and sacrifice their lives serving the community as firefighters or peace officers.
CONS: Very narrowly tailored with a small impact on Georgians overall. The referendum is potentially difficult to enforce as written because it does not specify if the benefit is applicable to officers and firefighters in other states if the surviving spouse moves to Georgia and related scenarios. Further, if the widowed spouse remarries, he/she will not be eligible for the exemption even if he/she is raising the children of the fallen firefighter or officer. Any other employee of the state or local government who is killed in the line of duty is not given this benefit.
2) Shall the Act be approved which provides that, with respect to base year assessed value homestead exemptions, the surviving spouse of a deceased spouse who has been granted such a homestead exemption shall receive that exemption at the same base year valuation that applied to the deceased spouse so long as that surviving spouse continues to occupy the home as a residence and homestead? (HB 81, passed in 2006)
EXPLANATION: Allows the surviving spouse to retain the homestead exemption which the couple had while the other spouse was still alive. Overall, the surviving spouse would not incur any increased tax liability due to an increase in assessed value.
PROS: Exemption requirements are based on age, income and disability. The taxpayers this would benefit are the younger spouses who may not qualify for the exemption on their own because they have not met the age requirements.
CONS: This referendum only provides this benefit to a very select group of the population and could have additional implementation ramifications. Further, the fiscal impact on state and local budgets is unknown.
3) Shall the Act be approved which expands the ad valorem tax exemption for veterans organizations to include certain additional nonprofit veterans organizations which refurbish and operate historic military aircraft for educational purposes? (HB 173, passed in 2006)
EXPLANATION: Expands the ad valorem tax credit already in place for veterans’ groups with 501 (c)(3) tax-exempt status to those which have been organized for the purpose of refurbishing and operating historic military aircraft acquired from the federal government or other sources, to make such aircraft airworthy, and putting the aircraft on display for public educational purposes, i.e. the Commemorative Air Force.
PROS: Provides for an ad valorem exemption to a nonprofit veterans organization which refurbish historic military airplanes.
CONS: This referendum is very narrowly tailored and is an example of special interest legislation. The fiscal impact is estimated to be less than $500,000 statewide.
4) Shall the Act be approved which grants an exemption from ad valorem taxation on property owned by a charitable institution which generates income when that income is used exclusively for the operation of such charitable institution? (HB 848, passed in 2006)
EXPLANATION: Clarifies current law in that the ad valorem exemption applies to 501 (c)(3) tax-exempt charitable institutions so that the exemption can apply to real estate or buildings owned by the charity so long as the income used from the property supports the operation of the nonprofit.
PROS: This exemption would foster and promote growth of nonprofit charitable organizations by providing a generous tax exemption.
CONS: Represents a slippery slope as groups could potentially use the nonprofit organization as a way of avoiding normal taxation. It could also encourage other entities to seek 501 (c)(3) status in order to benefit from the exemption and may take many parcels of property off the tax rolls and have real fiscal impacts on local and state revenue.
5) Shall the Act be approved which provides a homestead exemption for senior citizens in an amount equal to the actual levy for state ad valorem tax purposes on the homestead? (HB 848, passed in 2006)
EXPLANATION: This referendum would allow taxpayers 65 and older to be exempt from state ad valorem property taxes. This exemption is independent from senior exemptions already in place and would have no bearing on the county, city or local school tax revenue.
PROS: Tax exemption for senior citizens, many of whom live on a fixed income.
CONS: This credit is very small, one quarter of a mill or less than $15 per year on a home valued at $150,000. The state revenue loss is estimated at $6.8 million in FY08 and $7.3 million in FY09. This population is expected to double by 2030. Further, the income of the homeowner is not considered when providing this tax exemption.
6) Shall the Act be approved which expands the ad valorem tax exemption for agricultural products and equipment to include certain additional farm equipment held under a lease purchase agreement? (HB 203, passed in 2005)
EXPLANATION: Expands eligibility for the existing tax exemption for farm equipment to also cover any equipment held under a lease purchase agreement.
PROS: Provides expanded tax exemptions for farmers financing certain farm equipment through lease purchase agreements and treats the users of the same type of equipment the same, whether owned or leased.
CONS: Traditionally, ad valorem tax is levied based on ownership. The language on the ballot is very vague and does not offer voters an explanation of what “additional farm equipment” could include or the potential fiscal impact on the budget. Also, the agricultural industry pays almost no taxes for crops cultivated or animals raised, no sales taxes on purchases for use in agriculture and have very favorable property tax treatment for the first 2000 acres. All but 2% of farm land is controlled by corporate entities in Georgia.
posted by Jmac at 6:29 AM
4 Comments:
Pretty informative and helpful, overall. One complaint about the explanation of the eminent domain amendment, though. Under "cons", they say that the state "constitution already restricts eminent domain." But they don't explain how it already restricts it. This is most unclear.
How about we amend the constitution so that we don't have to amend it so much but still get stuff done through the General Assembly or referenda? And how about we amend the constitution to allow legislation through voter initiative? Now those would be some real amendments.
Thanks for posting these!
Thanks for helping me to make informed decisions when voting.
Post a Comment
<< Home