The Medford City Council made the right call last night, tabling the meal tax hike sought by the McGlynn administration until there is time to speak with the Mayor, restaurant owners and Medford citizens, to and examine the issue fully before voting, as the Medford Transcript reports.
“I do not think we can debate the importance of maximizing revenues to provide an appropriate level of services to our citizens,” McGlynn said by letter, in a move reminiscent of Deval Patrick's absence during his controversial casino bill. And also like Deval Patrick, Mayor McGlynn has already put the additional $175,000 the state tells him a tax hike will generate into the city budget, which is likely why there is such immediacy from his administration to pass the measure with no debate.
City Solicitor Mark Rumley was present to represent Mayor McGlynn, and sounded like Barrack Obama talking about healthcare, adamantly opposing the thought of a special meeting, or any debate on the matter. “There is only one certainty in this matter,” Rumley said. “Should you not vote to accept this tonight, there will be no revenue generated from this increase until at least the third quarter of this fiscal year. The only certainty is that if the matter is not passed this evening, we will be forgoing this revenue opportunity until January 2010. That is a certainty.”
Contrary to the Solicitor's comments and the Mayor's letter, no doubt motivated by the fact that the city has squandered all of our tax money and is trying to cover other unnecessary and/or imprudent expenditures, none of what the McGlynn office is putting forward is a "certainty". The whole estimate of $175,000 additional revenue being generated by a meals tax hike comes from a single report from the Massachusetts Department of Revenue. The state of Massachusetts' has been making bad law based upon bad predictions for years now, and stands to lose a U.S. Representative in 2010 as a direct result of both. Why should we listen to the State of Massachusetts unquestioningly about the fiscal health of our city when they have done such a poor job of forecasting economic conditions, and managing their own affairs? This .75% local meals tax hike provision is just another piece of the widely opposed 25% tax hike the State legislature just rammed through, are we then to follow them off the cliff like lemmings? Mayor McGlynn would have us do so. His friends at the state level would too; every local meals tax crammed through directs voter anger away from Beacon Hill and distills the outrage across localities. But where do us taxpayers fit into this process? If Mayor McGlynn has his way, we don't.
The fact is, much to McGlynn's dismay, similar to government healthcare and man-made global warming, the matter of a new local tax is still very much open to a debate, and we are still members of a democracy. Other cities and towns in Massachusetts are rejecting the local meals tax option, because they know that the last thing people need now is another new tax, especially a meals tax when restauranteurs are trying to get peope just to come out and eat.
“This is absolutely not the business climate to create an extra burden,” said State Rep. Michael Rodrigues, a Democrat of Westport and part of Fall River. “We’re concerned it might harm local businesses,” said Somerset Town Administrator Dennis Luttrell, and Swansea Town Chairman Scott Ventura voiced his well founded fears that the new tax - any new tax - would be opposed by diners, saying “It’s the principal. There’s always that ‘I’m not paying that,’” when taxes are raised.
Haverhill restaurant owners also voiced opposition to the new tax in their town. From the point of view of trying to run a business, I'm not in favor of it," said Fred Habeeb, part owner of George's Restaurant and Mal's Jazz & Blues Lounge on Washington Street. It's putting people out of business and it has a trickle-down effect with people losing jobs."
According to the Lawrence Eagle Tribune, John Fahimian, owner of the Tap Restaurant and Brew Pub, one of the downtown's anchor businesses, said taxing an industry that is trying to survive is "wrong."
And Haverhill City Council President Michael Hart summed up the proposed new tax thusly;"At this juncture, unless we absolutely need it we shouldn't be asking for it," Hart said. "The comments from the restaurant owners are valid. They have all had to absorb additional hits, including an increase in the sales tax. The only thing they are not getting right now are the benefits of a booming economy."
I am not seeing the "certainty" Solicitor Rumley is talking about or the lack of need to debate as stated by Mayor McGlynn. It must be like the "broad support" for government takeover of our healthcare that Barrack Obama likes to invoke whenever he paints himself into a corner during his ongoing campaign for President, only visible to partisan tax-and-spend Democrats.
Being looked at as the Mayor's rubber stamp by the McGlynn administration seemed to appropriately give the council pause. One Councilor, Robert Penta, cited the ram-it-through approach to this bill to be the reason for his vote to table, “If this gets voted up or down, there is no reason for us to be here,” he said. “There has been absolutely no conversation that has taken place. It’s a complete waste. If they want a vote tonight, we’d be better off having seven councilors come in and replace us.” And another Councilor, Michael Marks, said uncertainty about how the money would be spent alone creates the need for a discussion on the matter, saying, “Everyone is saying that we could lose this money if we don’t act now, but I personally want to know what the mayor is going to do with this money before I vote."
But that seems to be a discussion the McGlynn Administration does not want to have, perhaps because as we all tighten our belts, as the NY Times reporsts, state and city governments have expanded their payrolls throughout this recession. Mr. Mayor, in this economic climate, should you not be looking at more efficient, less expensive government in Medford, not new taxes to pay for more waste?
If the Mayor refuses to meet with the Council and the taxpayers - a trick he picked up from Ted Kennedy and John Kerry perhaps? - we will have to continue to speculate. I for one would like to know a)what has changed from last year to this that we have a $175,000 budget gap requiring a meals tax, b)is this a case of the Mayor imposing a tax simply because the new 25% state sales tax hike bill invited him to do so, and c)why his staff has so much faith in a prediction by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue that the history of meal tax hikes has soundly refuted and many towns in Massachusetts have already roundly rejected?
Mr. Mayor, this is a poor political climate for a Democrat to go into hiding from his constituents while trying to expand government and raise taxes, do so at your own peril.
Nick McNulty
Medford GOP
No comments:
Post a Comment