Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Spend tax dollars to sway votes? An outrage

By HOWARD TROXLER
Published October 12, 2006

Government is never more dangerous than when it claims the power to "educate" the citizens on which way to vote.

It is none of the government's business how the citizens vote. Never, ever.

I don't care if the government thinks the voters need to be "educated."

I don't care if the government is afraid the voters will make the "wrong" decision.

I don't care what the government thinks at all.

If elected officials or top officials of the government get the itch to tell people how to vote, then let them do it as private citizens. They have the same rights to assemble, speak and publish as anybody else.

But if they use tax dollars to do it, that ought to be a felony, punishable by prison and removal from their office.

* * *

There are three brochures sitting on my desk. One of them bears the headline, in large letters, VOTE YES!

This brochure was bought with my tax dollars as a resident of Pinellas County. It instructs me to vote for seven proposed amendments to the county charter on the Nov. 7 ballot. The county has set aside up to $150,000 for the campaign.

The other two brochures are from a group called Pinellas Cities for Home Rule. They tell me to vote no on the amendments. The group has raised $135,000 as of its last report, mostly from the cities' own tax dollars.

Both my county and my city are taxing me. I do not have a choice. If I do not pay, then they will take my house. They also take my money at the cash register, the gas pump, and by taxing my utilities.

After all that, after they take my money, they use public funds to tell me which way to vote? Are you kidding me?

* * *

There are seven amendments in question. They are on the ballot because of the work of a group called the Charter Review Commission. The group met for two years, considered a lot of ideas, and came up with these.

Amendment 1 is about mosquito control, making it clear the county is running everything, which it already does. No biggie.

Amendment 2 is about the power of the county administrator. The cities point out it will let him hire and fire top staff members without County Commission approval. The county says it streamlines government.

Amendment 3 would bar elected officials from future Charter Review Commissions. The idea is that elected pols make the thing too political. The cities worry it would deprive them of a voice.

Amendment 4 is the biggest fight. It says voters of one city could no longer opt out of a countywide rule. No city has ever done this, but the cities want to keep the ability.

Here, the county seems especially misleading. The county-funded brochure tells me of Amendment 4, "Vote YES! for stronger environmental protection!"

Follow the logic. If the county had a strict environmental rule, no city could opt out. So Amendment 4 protects the environment.

Jeez Louise! That is a thin pretext for an amendment that is really much more, about the overall power of the county vs. the cities. So, just tell me what it really says.

(I talked to Alan Bomstein of Clearwater, chairman of the Charter Review Commission. He said he agrees tax dollars shouldn't be used to campaign and tried to talk both sides out of it. He also said the Amendment 4 language will be improved in another brochure.)

Amendments 5, 6 and 7 put new restrictions on the power of cities to annex. About time, I say. Five restricts repeated annexation attempts. Six bans the payment of "incentives" to property owners to annex. Seven requires a super-majority of property owners to consent to an annexation.

The charter amendments are listed at this Web site: www.pinellascounty.org/charter.

The cities have formed a Web site for their opposing arguments: www.citiesforhomerule.com.

If I could figure out how to defy both sides at the same time, I would. Maybe flipping a coin to start, then voting for every other one.

[Last modified October 12, 2006, 01:36:45]