Vote No to Jeff Davis Parish's Rural 2% Sales Tax

Jeff Davis Parish.com

Vote "NO" to the Rural 2% Sales Tax
<Click Here for More on the 2% Sales Tax - Follow up article>

I always use “the one-third rule” for politicians. I only believe one-third of what they say and at best they will only deliver one-third of what they promise. Our Police Jury is setting out in front of us a 2% tax proposal in the rural areas on November 7, 2006. The sales tax will be used to fund a 3-phase program to make road improvements. Phases 2 & 3 are not guaranteed as explained in the recent meetings. Right at the start, the “one-third rule” is already taking shape!

The money will be “dedicated and used by the district for the purpose of constructing, improving, maintaining and resurfacing Parish roads within the district”. The actual wording of the tax proposal is somewhat specific on how the funds will be used and vaguely specific on how they can’t be used.

There are a couple of areas in the wording of the tax proposition that concerns me as a voter. 1) There is no inclusion for bridges, drainage or grass maintenance along these roads. Because the proposal is somewhat specific, this exclusion is very important. We have 11 bridges that have been closed by the state and they did not build a provision in the proposal to cover it. Myself and another individual asked this question at a recent meeting, both of us received different answers within a few minutes of each other. 2) Employee salaries cannot be paid through the funds from the tax. It doesn’t say anything about “elected officials”. It appears the La Revised Statutes and the La Constitution describe and define employees and “elected officials as within separately defined groups. I posed the question as to whether or not elected officials could supplement their salaries from the new road fund based on this missing verbiage. Unfortunately, they seemed a conveniently confused by my question, despite attempts to clarify.

There does not appear to be any rhyme or reason for some of the areas receiving pavement, without taking into consideration phases 2 & 3. These are not guaranteed, which makes phase I lack any direction or with specific goals. It looks, as though we may have a few more partially paved roads to add to our collection, across the parish.

I rode approximately 10 miles of road of which was to receive the 3 course treatment and performed a house count. It came to an average of 20 homes per mile (HPM). Oddly, I found Lantz road averaged 10 HPM, and it was a road that was on the list to have pavement it’s full 1 mile length. The East Side of Grand Marais has 21 homes per mile with all but 4-tenths of a mile in pavement already. This road has been a cut across to Hwy 102 for many people for many years. It is a low priority road in Phase 2 which is not guaranteed. Yet, Lantz Road is listed as a priority 1 road, in Phase 1 to receive pavement. When asked how this is justified, the reply was because “we are trying to get the best bang for our buck”. I was not surprised by the answer because, the real answer I was looking for was…“ its because one of our police jurors lives on it”!

While traveling the roads, collecting information, it was interestingly unmistakable, how all of the gravel roads had just been graded and repaired. I wonder if the November 7^th tax proposal had anything to do with it or was this just a striking coincidence?

The tax will bring in as much as $2 Million per year for 20 years using conservative estimates. Confusingly, it appears on the map as though, the pavement will be put down for the most part in front of taxpayer homes and on the roads of a special few. Several taxpayers will see pavement in front of their homes but gravel further down which will help on those dry, dusty days. Are voters being asked to pay for, what is essentially a 20 year, $40+ Million dollar dust reduction program”?

At some future time, it may be legally possible to supplement the pay of elected officials though the 2% tax fund, by virtue of the fact that “elected officials” verbiage is missing from the proposition. Unfortunately for the workers, the stage has been set for them to possibly come up empty handed. This proposal is fatally flawed as worded and voters may be better off to wait for the next time around.

Discussion about Hurricane expenses was mentioned several times in the presentation. I got the impression that this was an additional explanation into the money woe’s of the parish. However, based on the data provided, the Hurricane expenses were $731,532.00, while revenue from Federal and State sources tip the scale at $756,757.00 for a difference of $25,225.00 to the good. This reason for “money woes”, if that was the intent, is not supported by the math.

As for me, I’ll vote no. I’m not against taxes. I’m not against repairing the roads. I am against a tax that deliberately denies a “crumb” for its workers. I remember the people of Hathaway had to fight for cell phone tower, the Police Jury stopped providing the service of installing culverts, transferred authority of the air space over the parish to the Mosquito District, denied zoning requests for tax generating business ventures, debated building permits for lousy barns, voted against a man’s ownership rights, supported the tourist commission as it expanded it’s hotel/motel tax while bypassing voters, and supported a plan to expropriate property for a loosely defined term called “economic development”. When they come asking for money, I seem to remember the past issues, and it has a tendency to sway my vote.

A tax to repair roads, bridges, ditches and fund a raise for the parish workers that are responsible for the repairs, would have swayed me back in the other direction for a vote of “Yes”! To deliberately leave your road workers out of a tax increase for roads is nothing less than shameful. Instead of squandering money on hiring an engineer to help develop a plan and help sell this tax proposal, maybe it would have been better spent on a one-time bonus for Parish workers.

As usual...this is just my opinion. Yours may vary!

Home / Leaning to the Right Index / E-Mail