Dear Town Board Members

For over a year, I have stood before you on the second Tuesday of every month and attempted to rectify an injustice to the residents of the town.  You have decided that it’s an admirable endeavor to provide, at taxpayer expense, free trash service to a small percentage of the residents, though ostensibly it is available to everyone. The manager of the transfer station says approximately 130 cars from Burlington visit the site weekly. Even if every one of them carried the trash for a neighbor, this would still represent only 10-20% of the population at a cost of $40,000 per year. OK, so be it; even though I personally believe property owners should be responsible for their own trash and it’s not the government’s role to be providing these kinds of services.  What ever happened to personal responsibility?  But now comes the injury to the insult.  Instead of creating a special tax district to equally spread the cost over all taxpayers, much like the county does with the MOSA bill, you placed the entire amount into the general fund.  This spreads the $40,000 over the tax base based on the assessed value of one’s property.  So instead of it costing me approximately $40 per year, it costs me $160 per year.  

When I appear at the town meeting, I do not come empty handed.  I have tabulated the taxes paid in the town and have shown you, using actual data, that less than 1/3 of the property owners pay over 2/3 of the taxes. A whopping 70% of property owners contribute only 30% of the taxes and 40% of owners less than 10% of the taxes.  I have shown, supported by the two assessors sitting in the meeting that a taxpayer who owns a 1-acre lot can pay far more than a landowner of a 300-acre lot.  There is no correlation to the number of acres one owns and the amount of taxes one pays.  Clearly, there is a poor relationship at best, between the assessed value of one’s property and the market value of that property.  Even at its best, when the level of assessment is at 100% due to a very recent revaluation of the entire community, special interest exemptions and changing market conditions quickly render assessed values indistinguishable from arbitrary valuations.  Please tell me, on what basis  does it rest that I pay $2000 per year in taxes while my neighbor pays $100?  I don’t expect to change the entire tax system of the town over night, but I would like to see at least the acknowledgment of the unevenness of the burden by addressing the very narrowing defined issue of the $40,000 transfer station tax.

How do you respond to this concerned citizen’s plea?  Snickers…. Mockery…. and the very disturbing use of “straw man” arguments.  A “straw man” argument is an issue that appears, at a distance, to be valid, but upon closer examination has no merit whatsoever.  To use a “straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a statement or issue by substituting a superficially similar but fallacious proposition, discrediting that restated proposition, without ever having actually refuted the original position.  Straw man arguments can usually be recognized by their degree of silliness and absurdity, but sometimes they are very subtle.  It’s a method that is often used to belittle the other side, to make them look foolish.  Normally it is best not to refute the straw man but rather simply acknowledge it as such. However, here are a few of the numerous “straw man” arguments you have used.

From Russ McCall, supervisor, “Well then are we to divide up the fire protection tax the town pays to only those who have a fire?”   My refutation, I offer this: 1) There is no comparison between the town providing fire protection, a hallmark responsibility of government to protect, a service an individual can not possibly provide for himself and that of providing free trash service.  2) My position of changing the tax to a flat fee is not based on utilization.  This is a classic example of a straw man argument.

From Pete DeJong, member,  “I don’t have any school aged children, but I still have to pay school tax”.  Refutation 1) Again there is no comparison between a community taking the responsibility to educate the next generation, something everyone benefits or suffers from depending upon how effectively it is accomplished and paying for free trash service which benefits only a handful of people. 2) The state controls how school taxes are calculated; but even they have attempted to rectify some of that inequity through STAR programs. 3) No one is suggesting not paying any taxes.

From Dale Mayne, member, “Well I own 6 properties, so I would have to pay the fee six times?”.  Refutation 1) Fewer than 25% of the taxpayers have multiple tax parcels and most of them are NY State and public service companies.  Of the residents, many are contiguous properties that could be realigned into one tax map number.  2) Even paying the $40 flat-fee 6 times would be lower than using the current method. 3) There is no absolute fairness, we’re talking about taxes, but there are degrees of fairness and that is the real issue.

From Gary Rathbone, member, upon hearing that 71% of the taxpayers only pay 30% of the taxes, “Well that’s right in line with the state and federal ratios”.  Refutation, 1) This is justifying bad behavior (or practices) with other bad behavior.  Personally I was cured of using this kind of logic when I was 6 years old.  If I tried to justify my bad actions of the day with “my friends were doing it too”, even a stubborn six-year-old understood mom’s response; “If all your friends jumped off a cliff would you do it too?”  So am I to believe that if everyone else is doing it, we shouldn’t bother fixing it?

Finally, Russ McCall again, “But some people would not be able to afford the $40”.  Refutation: 1) I don’t recall anyone asking me if I could afford paying 4 times as much.  The town does not use any reliable means for assessing the taxpayers’ ability to pay when determining taxes.  Remember, there is no correlation between assessed value and even market value, let alone the financial status of that taxpayer in any given year.  2) Special policies could be set up for the truly indigent.

I don’t know your reasons for resorting to straw man arguments, month after month; perhaps you simply have no principle-based argument from which to make a stand; but realize that 71% represents more votes than 29%. I hope it has not come to that.  It’s not easy for this ex Air Force officer, business man of 30 years, husband and father of two to stand before a group of individuals and be mocked, ridiculed and held in general contempt month in and month out, but I believe it matters to fight battles based on principle. What else is there to defend?  While in the military, I flew with some of the most outstanding men this country has ever produced. Men for whom honor, values, principles and devotion to duty meant something, in fact they were willing to die for it.  In all those years, I never heard one man (or woman) fall back on straw man arguments to justify their position. “Lieutenant, you’ve been landing a thousand feet long on the last two sorties”  Lt. to commander, “Colonel,  I think that would fall right within the national average”. Can you imagine such an exchange?  Yet that is what I have received from you.

I wish more residents would stand up. The lack of citizen outrage is almost as disturbing as a board which, faced with this obvious injustice, does nothing but mock the messenger.  Whether residents stand to gain or lose financially, principles matter and they should care.  If not this, what?  I understand that when only one man stands against an issue, the case is harder to hear, but until it is, I’ll see you Tuesday night.