By Council Member James S. Oddo
 
On December 18, 2008, over the strong objections of 18 City Council Members, the Council passed legislation hiking the property tax 7%, fully restoring the historic 18.5% tax increase first forced on New Yorkers in November 2002.  December’s vote was taken in the middle of what many people consider to be the worst economic climate since the Great Depression.  
   
For anyone who follows the City Council closely, the 33-18 vote could be considered a nail biter.  A moral victory perhaps, but New Yorkers who saw their tax bills increase obviously do not see it that way.     
 
Last week the City Council’s Republican delegation, along with Brooklyn Democrat Lew Fidler, introduced a piece of legislation that would amend the City Charter to require a supermajority vote of 2/3rds of Council Members for any attempt to impose new taxes or increase tax rates.  
 
Under current law a simple majority of 26 votes is all that is required to raise taxes.  This proposal would raise the requirement to 34 votes.  Such a requirement would have helped us in our attempt to ward off the property tax hike back in December.

I drafted this legislation because I want to give New York’s overburdened taxpayers a fighting chance in the City Council where the prevailing liberal orthodoxy is “tax now, tax often, and spend more.”  We all know that higher taxes inevitably leads to higher spending, perpetuating the vicious cycle of high taxes and excessive spending.  Even those taxes that proponents bill as “temporary” to make them more palatable never seem to go away.     

As April 15th looms and New Yorkers think about how much they pay in taxes to the local, state, and federal governments, the climate is right to make the point that New Yorkers are grossly overtaxed and they want some of their elected officials to have a fighting chance to ward off what remains the default position for too many city politicians.  
 
Research shows that sixteen states – both blue states and red states – have some form of supermajority requirement on the books, either statutory or constitutional.  Those states are: Arizona (2/3 vote required for all tax increases), Arkansas (3/4 vote for tax increases), California (2/3 vote for all tax increases), Colorado (2/3 vote for all tax increases), Delaware (3/5 vote for all tax increase), Florida (3/5 vote for votes to increase the corporate tax rate), Kentucky (3/5 vote for all tax increases), Louisiana (2/3 vote for all tax increases), Michigan (3/4 vote for property tax increases), Mississippi (3/5 vote for all tax increases), Missouri (2/3 vote for all tax increases), Nevada (2/3 vote for all tax increases), Oklahoma (3/4 vote for all tax increases), Oregon (3/5 vote for all tax increases), South Dakota (2/3 vote for all tax increases), and Washington (2/3 vote for all tax increases).  
 
According to Michael J. New, Assistant Professor at the University of Alabama, “During the budgetary shortfalls in 2001 and 2002, supermajority tax limits demonstrated their ability to prevent tax increases, protect taxpayers, and steer states towards sound fiscal policies.”  Simply stated, our legislation would accomplish those three goals in New York City.    
 
We are well aware that this legislation is not a panacea and that proponents of tax increases would certainly have the ability to garner the required 34 votes to raise taxes.  However, rather than being a fait accompli, tax increases would be more difficult to accomplish.  Supporters of tax increases would have to reduce the size of the hikes and/or agree to desperately needed reforms to spending programs to garner the necessary support in the Council.  It would give legislators a greater voice and a seat at the table when tax decisions are made.  It could have the effect of shifting the debate from one of how high taxes should be raised to discussions of how we can reform spending.    
 
We owe it to New York City’s struggling middle class to protect them from the tax and spend proclivities of the most liberal members of the City Council.  This legislation would provide us with an additional tool to do just that.  

 

< Prev		Next >