The KRA Blog Rotating Header Image

Property Taxes

Analyze this: Opinion masquerading as news

Aug 23rd, 2010
by admin.
No comments yet

John Milburn of the Associated Press published a piece today on the various education proposals of Republican Sam Brownback and Democrat Tom Holland. Entitled “Analysis: School funding crucial,” the piece highlights a tactic used all too often by the press to publish editorial pieces as hard news.

One must look no further for evidence of this than KAKE Channel 10′s website where a condensed version was published under the byline of the Associated Press with no mention of “Analysis,” “Opinion” or otherwise with it.

The fact is in the past decade, “Analysis” has become in vogue with the press to justify using opinion pieces as news. Some claim it to be the brainchild of the mainstream media attempting to further influence the electorate. More likely it is simply the symptom of a press corps seriously strapped for cash partly due to them being completely out of touch on how to report real news relevant to the public.

Whatever the reason, it’s clear they are written in an attempt to publish select facts and influence the public. In this instance, it appears Milburn is attempting to explain away Brownback’s superior proposals on education in Kansas. It’s interesting that in attempting to place blame on the courts rather than the politicians for out of control education spending, Milburn actually validates past arguments by conservatives that unelected judges in Kansas virtually control over half the state’s budget.

While in the actual piece this isn’t necessarily the explicit message, it’s interesting to note this piece from the KAKE Channel 10 revision.

Both Republican Sam Brownback and Democrat Tom Holland say they will focus on preserving what they see as an excellent system of K-12 schools. Where they differ is how they would steer the behemoth system that consumes more than 50 percent of the state budget.

History would suggest that it’s more likely that litigation, not pontification, will decide the course.

In the past two decades, action or the threat of from the Kansas Supreme Court has played a bigger role than activity in the Statehouse.

If these last two sentences are true, then that means that unelected and unaccountable judges control our tax dollars and how they are spent, not elected officials who represent the people. This stronger language by KAKE 10 shows the power of “Analysis” pieces by the press and how they can morph into a story of their own. It just so happens that KAKE happened to take the piece in a direction that highlighted past arguments made by conservatives.

The piece also once again highlights Holland’s curious stance against revising the state’s finance formula due to increased property taxes while simultaneously advocating for increasing a district’s local option budget.

In any case, the public can analyze this, “Analysis” is just another word for “Editorial.”

Wichita Liberty takes aim at pro-tax forces

Feb 8th, 2009
by admin.
No comments yet

prop_k

Bob Weeks at Wichita Liberty has an excellent explanation of Proposition K and its potential effects on property values and tax rates. The post is in response to a con editorial in the Wichita Eagle, “Tax Plan Would Shift Burden, Be Arbitrary.” The Eagle also featured a guest column in favor of Prop K, “Proposition K is Fair, Equal, Transparent.”

Weeks expertly dissects arguments opposing Prop K, showing the lack of logic behind each one. As you read both Wichita Eagle columns and Week’s post, keep in mind our current system and ask yourself which you would prefer.

Also, note which side is attempting to solve the property taxation problem and which is simply trying to find excuses to keep the old system in place.

Eagle comes out against Prop K

Feb 2nd, 2009
by admin.
No comments yet

prop_kPhillip Brownlee, my favorite liberal Eagle editor (there’s only two left apparently) has come out against Proposition K which would simplify property taxation in Kansas by setting property values on January 1, 2010 and increasing them by a set 2% each year as long as the property is not improved.

In a post entitled, “Plenty of reasons to be concerned about Proposition K“, Brownlee claims that Prop K may not be good for areas that don’t appreciate in value as quickly as others.

…it also could significantly benefit wealthier, growing neighborhoods while disadvantaging homeowners in poorer areas, because some neighborhoods and cities have much higher property appreciation rates than 2 percent.

Like many arguments that are made by the left, the problem seems valid on the surface until further investigation is conducted. Such is the case here. The very problem Brownlee claims to want to avoid has already propagated itself through the system.

Property tax valuation changes from 1997 to 2007 by county courtesy of the Kansas Meadowlark.

Property tax valuation changes from 1997 to 2007 by county courtesy of the Kansas Meadowlark

For Brownlee’s argument to be valid, he should show areas in the state where property tax valuations have risen below the 2% per year mandated by Prop K. The map to the right provided courtesy of Kansas Meadowlark shows that overall, property tax valuations have risen by significant amounts over a ten year period from 1997 to 2007.

Unfortunately for Brownlee, 104 of 105 counties in Kansas saw rises in tax valuations greater than 2% per year over the specified ten year period. This means that had Prop K been passed in 1997, taxpayers in every county but one in Kansas would have benefited from the 2% per year rise in tax valuations.

The one exception to the rule is Coffey County where property values have actually gone down according to the county appraisers office. Coffey County is where Wolf Creek Nuclear Power Plant is located which provides a significant portion of property tax revenues.

Further, Brownlee ignores a critical component of Prop K, that valuations rise at a set 2% as long as improvements are not made. It seems obvious to me that if an area is rising in value quicker than another, it’s due to property improvements and new buildings. This is accounted for in Prop K and Brownlee’s argument ignores this.

Brownlee continued:

Over time, this proposed system could result in significant disparities and a disconnect from actual market values, thus likely violating the Kansas Constitution’s requirement of a “uniform and equal basis of valuation.”

Again, this statement ignores what is happening with valuations already. Johnson County, the fastest growing county in the state, saw a rise in values of 111.8%. It’s easy to argue that Johnson County certainly has been a leader in building improvements that raise property values in comparison to other counties in the state. And yet counties such as Wabaunsee (116.3%) and Osage (123.9%) saw a higher increase in values than Johnson. Disparity is already present.

Like many arguments made by the left, we’re led to believe that an idea must be rejected outright based on the idea that it may harm someone somewhere in the future while ignoring the vast majority that are currently being harmed by a defective system.

Prop K is not a perfect system by any means, no system of taxation will ever be perfect or viewed as completely fair by everyone, but it is certainly a large improvement over the current valuation system in Kansas. Certainly it is not something that should be rejected outright by baseless, thoughtless “problems” that already exist and are currently harming the vast majority of property taxpayers in Kansas.