This is where I stand on some of the issues.
On Property Taxes...
I quit smoking a lot of times before I really quit smoking. Sometimes for a couple of hours, sometimes for a day, sometimes for a week. And I always started again by smoking just one cigarette. I'm convinced going "cold turkey" is the only way to stop, because until you quit altogether, you haven't really quit. I'm also convinced that not everybody feels that way.
In the current movement to eliminate the property tax, there are a lot of proposals being put forth. Most opponents of the tax agree that a constitutional amendment is the best way to make sure it doesn't reappear in a couple of years. The problem is an amendment has to be passed by 2 legislatures selected by 2 elections, and then passed by the voters in the next election. Right now that puts the end of property taxes at 2012, and that's only if enough legislators get on board and stay on board. It also depends on the majority of voters not falling for the "wild dogs will carry off your babies if we eliminate property taxes!!!" argument that will inevitably surface if by chance the current legislature did pass an amendment.
I'll agree that an amendment is necessary, and something that we should continue to work for. I also know that a lot of people are leery of wild dogs and cold turkey, and if we can't get enough lawmakers to give the people a chance to vote on doing away with the tax, we're probably not going to get them to remove it on their own, either.
So while the Libertarian in me says "all the way, today", the pragmatist in me realizes that the change may be more gradual. When I ran for District 54 State Representative in 2006, I presented a plan for the simplification and eventual elimination of property taxes. It didn't suit some Libertarians because it didn't end them soon enough, and it didn't suit some Republicans and Democrats because it ended them at all.
I do believe the property tax is the most unfair tax in existence today, and it's elimination by any method is preferable to allowing it to stay. I'll put forth an abbreviated form of the plan here.
We all know how expensive assessments and reassessments are. We also know that the assessors office already has the square footage of our homes on file. So here's the deal: Tax homes on a square footage basis, and tax them equally per square foot. I know some homes are more expensive than others with the same footage, but if the purpose of the tax is to provide services, it doesn't cost any more to provide them to an expensive home than to a less expensive home. And we've eliminated the need for assessors AND assessments. That's the simplification part.
The elimination part takes a little longer. For simplicity, I chose fifty cents per foot as the taxing rate on homes, understanding that the figure might vary locally by circumstance. The rate would then decrease by 10% a year for ten years. If I did my math correctly, the tax would be gone in ten years, or sooner if the constitutional amendment happened to kick in before that. Every two years a sales tax increase of 1/4% would be added.
Will the plan provide the government with as much money as they are getting now? No, it won't. Will it satisfy people that want no taxation or people that believe government should be allowed to take as much as it wants. No, it won't.
It will provide government with enough money to do what a lot of people believe government should do. Protect us from force and fraud, and provide essential services for it's citizens.
It won't happen without a struggle, and it won't happen if we don't put the right people in office.
And if we don't get involved and pay attention to what's happening, it won't happen at all.
On Property Rights and Smoking Bans...
I put a lot of stock in private property rights. I think those rights made America great and proud, and protecting those rights will help keep America great and proud.
I have a neighbor that smokes. I also have a brother that smokes. I know it's not healthy, and they know it's not healthy. I wish they would quit, but I also know that is a choice they will have to make.
I do have a rule that nobody may smoke in our house, and my wife has a rule that nobody can smoke in her store. I think that is how it is supposed to work. I don't have the right to tell someone they can't smoke, or allow other people to smoke, on their property.
And since I don't have that right, the people I elect don't have that right. And since one person doesn't have that right, two people don't have that right. Neither does 100 people, or 1000 people, or a million people.
As I said before, I put a lot of stock in private property rights, and as an elected official or a private citizen, I will do all I can to protect them for everybody.
On Property Rights and Zoning...
Libertarians are generally opposed zoning, and I'm generally opposed to it myself. One of the basic tenets of property rights is that people can decide what to do on and with their property. For various reasons, a lot of people have a hard time accepting the concept of no zoning. Reasonable arguments have certainly been made concerning the consequences of certain uses of property on neighboring property, but many current zoning laws go far beyond offering reasonable protection.
I can see no reason to prevent my neighbor from opening a barbershop, or building a garage that is taller than his house, or selling sweet corn from his front yard. People that require such control over their neighbors can certainly achieve it by living in developments with deed restrictions and protective covenants.
In order to maintain a little decorum in the neighborhood, I would propose some simple zoning requirements, that would maintain reasonable distances between seemingly incompatible entities. Communities might set different standards, and I won't try to list all possible combinations here, but I would like to address one issue that is getting a lot of attention in my area right now.
Confined Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFO's, are being built all over Indiana, and Wayne, Henry and Randolph counties are all trying to deal with them as best they can. Under current zoning laws, a person can build a new home in an area that is zoned residential, and a company can then apply to build a CAFO next door. The people making the decision, the local Board of Zoning Appeals, most likely don't own property in the area, and will not be affected by their decision.
Under a simplified set of zoning ordinances, a CAFO couldn't be built within a pre-determined distance, (perhaps 2000 feet) of an existing home. If a company wanted to build a CAFO within that setback, it would have to seek a variance from the affected homeowners. The homeowners and the company could strike whatever deal they wish, and BZA members, such as myself, who might live miles away, would have no input in the matter.
It's by no means a perfect plan, and no doubt could use some tweaking, but it's far better than asking someone you don't even know if your grandchildren can open a lemonade stand.
