TO HELL WITH THE VOTERS

As most of you know, Grand Rapids Community College bigwigs are demanding more money from the taxpayers again.  Several weeks ago GRCC lost a millage election that would have hit homeowners with a hike of $24 for each $100K of their property's taxable value.  The voters spoke and said no.  Apparently democracy is not to the liking of the GRCC board of trustees, because they have put the millage hike back on the ballot in August -- this time expecting the voters to give them the right answer.

Of course, the GRCC board has made dire predictions of doom and gloom if the voters don't do what they are told and approve the tax increase.  Migosh, students might have to pay higher tuition to cover higher compensation to the all of the employees feeding at the GRCC trough.  Yes, that's harsh, but then much of the argument for why the schooling GRCC offers is critical lies with the failure of the public school districts to teach the general education, college prep, and vocational classes that have become the core of the GRCC cirriculum.  As GRCC is part and parcel of the Michigan public school system, it does not escape blame for allowing this shift of responsibility for decent education from K-12 to it -- especially when it gets to stick the cost of that shift to homeowners.

The ballot box is the only brake on this ballooning of K-12 education out to K-14 left to the taxpayers.  They get to say no to pouring more money into a system of sinecures for overpaid administrators and instructors.  When they say "no", that should mean "no".  A close election doesn't change that.  A one-vote margin in favor of "no" is the same as a 10,000-vote margin.  But the GRCC board of trustees has no respect for the voters.  They don't care what they have decided, so they'll keep demanding higher taxes from us until the voters get it right.

Seeing that a reprobate like lawyer Gary Schenk is one of the leaders of the GRCC board, perhaps this contempt for the voters is not surprising.  More surprising is the endorsement of this millage hike by some other community leaders.  For example, at Tuesday's Grand Rapids City Commission meeting, mayoral candidates George Heartwell and Rick Tormala backed GRCC's demand for higher taxes.*  In light of Heartwell's sanctimonious fit (here and here) when Michigan voters banned racial preference policies by state and local governments, maybe ignoring the will of voters isn't so surprising for him.  Tormala, however, showed good sense in response to Heartwell's desire to go to war against the voters on that issue.  He should apply the same principle to this second bite at the apple that GRCC wants.

Likewise with the G.R. Press, which out of respect for the voters editorially opposed Heartwell's nonsense to go on a jihad for racial preferences.  It also has set aside that principle to support the GRCC millage hike.  I suppose we could lament the absence of any champion for the voters' will to oppose this tax increase on the principle that the voters had already said no to it only a couple of months ago.  However, the issue is in the voters' hands.  They should be incensed that GRCC will not take no for an answer, and so they can vote in August accordingly.  Yes, it's unfair that Michigan law allows outfits like GRCC to keep hauling people back to the voting booth every three months, and the state legislature should restrict millage ballots to the November general election.  But, unfair or not, it's up to the voters, with or without a champion, to take control of this matter.

It's up to them to make clear what they think of those who say, "To hell with the voters."  If they won't, they have only themselves to blame for the contempt that the GRCC board of trustees has shown for them by putting the millage hike back on the ballot.

(* At least Heartwell and Tormala went on the record.  As far as we can tell, the other two candidates for Grand Rapids mayor, Jim Rinck and Jackie Miller, are AWOL on the GRCC issue.  However, Rinck has publicly stated that he opposes further property tax increases, so that would appear to put him at odds with a millage hike.  But then he has made a lot of noise about education being the salvation of our community, so his position is not clear.)

Comments

[Nick]

Fight the fight. Death by a thousand cuts is still death.

--Nick
www.RightMichigan.com

[B Post]

Go Nick! As I expressed elsewhere, because of the difference between taxable value and market value on most of our homes, we're already doomed to yearly tax increases for some time to come, even if real estate prices decline. Therefore, GRCC will continue to see funding increases every year to the tune of a built-in inflationary increase. So any new construction that adds to the tax base is just so much gravy on top of that. So why do they need even more from us? I don't get it. Please everyone get out the word to everyone you know. It's time to say "live within your means" to our educational system!

[The Executive Director]

Hello, gentlemen.

Thumbs up to both of you. The nickel-and-diming of the public with small tax increases is insidious. I agree with the "live within your means" sentiment. Why is there always the wails of lament whenever the government must face belt-tightening, when that is reality for every family when income goes down?

Indeed, for the government it is seldom a matter of less income, but rather a slower rate of increase. Its appetite for taxes is insatiable. It keeps gobbling up more and more of what we earn and delivers less and less. It is amazing how the revolution in productivity this country has experienced in all sectors of the economy over the past quarter-century has had no effect on the government.

Well, I take that back. Our armed forces, at least when it comes to combat operations, are much more efficient. To certain extent law enforcement and public safety is too. But most of the rest is a bloated bureaucracy enriching itself on the taxpayer's dime without improving the work it is supposed to do for the public. It's well past time our public servants figured out how to do more with less.

Regards, Bill

[Jeff Winston]

In all fairness, the original millage was placed in the school election; in which voter turnout is abysmal (not that municipal elections are much better). I believe that one the voters speak on an issue, it is a done deal (Proposal 2 for example). However, once it is placed on a ballot again, it is fair game for the voters to either confirm their denial or change their mind and pass the initiative. God gave us FREE WILL, the Constitution gave us Democracy - we are free and have a tendency to change our minds. My advice- If you do not want the millage, show up to the polls and vote against it; If you have changed your mind or have always supported the GRCC millage, show up to the polls and vote. The key here is- VOTE!

[Bridget Dupont-Tingley, Editor - L.A.W.]

Hello Jeff,

Bill and I understand that what the law allows is one thing (multiple attempts to get an issue on the ballot for consideration by the voters) ...whether it should be allowed is another (especially school style elections that often happen at odd times during the year when the general public isn't looking).

Bill and I feel strongly that once the voters speak, the issue is done. Whether the proposal passes or fails.

We find especially irritating entities like GRCC that get an answer the first time they don't like and then keep putting the issue on the ballot in the hopes the next turnout will favor them better. How many times is showing up at the voting booth enough? Once? Twice? Three times the charm?

Like Proposal 2, the voters spoke and they were against it. Nuff' said.

The voters spoke out the first time on the GRCC mileage increase request, that should have been enough. Instead, it's on the ballot again. Apparently the motto for GRCC is, "if at first you don't succeed, try try again" in the hopes either more voters turn out who favor them, or those who voted against the proposal last time are disgusted with being asked again and simply stay home this time.

Either way, GRCC stands to win and they know it.

Regards,

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Jeff.

Thanks for your comment. My complaint is not that GRCC is acting unlawfully or even unethically, but that it is disdainful of the voters. Of course, GRCC has no obligation beyond a moral one to accord any respect to the voters, but is that really so much to ask of an organization funded by the taxpayers?

Regards, Bill