Dan's Insider Bulletin (He's Running for Lt. Gov.)

Conservation Insider Bulletin

Published weekly for the Conservation Council of North Carolina

Conservation News to Peruse & Use

Editor: Dan Besse, earthvote@ccnccpac.org

September 21, 2007

At the risk of giving certain developer lobbyists apoplexy, we take a look this week at the upcoming county votes on land transfer tax increases. Plus, there's court news from the Left Coast, this week in CIB:

--Campaign Watch: Counties Will Vote on Transfer Tax

--Judicial Watch: Warming Suit Against Automakers Rejected

Campaign Watch: Counties Will Vote on Transfer Tax

Among the more interesting questions to be determined by this year's balloting is the fate of proposed land transfer tax increases at the local level. Voters in 16 counties will have the chance to turn thumbs up or down on the proposal.

Readers will recall that the General Assembly this year approved the voter-optional land transfer tax hike, after a vigorous and sometimes nasty lobbying campaign failed to stop it. Now, county commissions have the option to turn to this revenue source, but only if their county electorate approves in a referendum.

The 16 counties in which commissioners have asked voters to approve the extra 0.4 percent tax on the value of land sales are Brunswick, Chatham, Davie, Gates, Graham, Harnett, Henderson, Hoke, Johnston, Macon, Moore, Pender, Polk, Rutherford, Swain, and Union. Five of those—Davie, Graham, Harnett, Johnston, and Rutherford—put both the land transfer tax and a quarter-cent sales tax increase before the voters. Voters in those five counties can approve either, neither, or both. However, if they approve both, the county commissioners can only pick one of the two to implement.

Proponents of the land transfer tax increase option argue that it presents an equitable way to assess new development for help in paying the increased local costs it creates in public service expenses (like education). They point to the spiraling costs of building schools and other public infrastructure in areas with high population growth rates.

Opponents reasonably point out that the tax will also be levied on sales of existing structures. However, they also have dubbed it the "home tax" and wail that it will unfairly burden the poor and middle-income. In that regard, they fail to acknowledge that rate increases in the major alternative source of local revenues, the general property tax, hit all homeowners every year and not just when they are buying a house.

Opponents further argue that the tax will choke off growth. For good or ill, however, such a modest rate increase seems unlikely to have a measurable impact on growth rates (nor has it done so in fast-growing counties like Dare, which use the transfer tax now). More likely, it will simply affect realtor/homebuilders' financial return margins—which does at least clearly explain those groups' intense opposition to the idea.

The referenda campaigns in the 16 counties voting on this matter should be interesting to watch. Even more instructive will be the voters' verdicts on November 6. The outcomes may tell us something about public attitudes toward booming development in fast growth areas—and even more about the likely effectiveness of the realtor/homebuilder lobby in upcoming election campaigns.

Judicial Watch: Warming Suit Against Automakers Rejected

Last week, CIB reported that a federal District Court judge in Vermont had upheld state standards on greenhouse gas emissions from autos. Vermont is one of 13 states which have adopted California's new tailpipe emission control standards.

The court news this week is less favorable toward efforts to mitigate global climate change. A federal District Court judge in California has dismissed that state's lawsuit against auto manufacturers for damages related to global warming. First, the court ruled that it could not determine the extent to which automakers were responsible for the effects of global warming in California.

OK, so perhaps that is a tough call. However, we have to part ways with the court's other stated reason for tossing out the suit—that it would undermine the President's position opposing the Kyoto Protocol for controlling greenhouse gas emissions.

So, we ask, how is that the Court's proper concern in evaluating a damages claim? Is it not equivalent to declaring, "Hey, we know you're hurt, but we can't say so because it would make the President look bad?" It's enough to make one suspect that political considerations may have trumped legal ones in the shaping of this judicial opinion.

(Politics in the federal judiciary? We are shocked, shocked, and ask that the Attorney General investigate immediately. Or, perhaps not...)

We also assume that California will appeal. The Golden State and the six major automakers sued (Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, and the U.S. subsidiaries of Honda, Nissan, and Toyota) will then have the chance to repeat their arguments before the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

With those stories, CIB will close for the week—and, in light of the Autumnal Equinox taking place this Sunday, wish all a happy official start to Fall.