Imposing Open Space Tax will cut your taxes?

The proponents of an open space tax have always argued that imposing an increase in taxes via the open space tax will in the long run lower overall taxes for our Township. While there are other arguments that could support and open space tax, like preserving valued scenic vistas and preserving historic farms and sites, imposing an open space tax is not going to drop your overall tax bill. This argument is at best inconclusive and more probably just the opposite.

First let's present the proponents position: If you impose the open space tax you will save money in the long run on infrastructure costs and services and have fewer kids utilizing the school district as well. This will in turn lower your township property tax and your school district tax. Basically, less people, less taxes.

Next, let's tackle the school district claim. The obvious flaw in this argument is that the school district includes eight different municipalities many of which have been growing at a very rapid pace. So while Wallace has grown less than 6% in population since the year 2000, the school tax has ballooned from 17.750 mils to 24.850 mils. That is a 40% increase. The slow growth of Wallace did not translate into a savings on the school tax bill, because townships like Uwchlan, Upper Uwchlan, West Bradford, and East Brandywine have been pumping lots of new students into the Downingtown School District. Wallace could lose residents and the school property tax would still go higher and higher. We are too small a piece of the pie.

So, does a smaller population translate into a township having lower township property taxes? Logically, this does not even hold up. Many of the services a township provides require certain facilities, equipment, and personnel whether the township is big or small. Just to run a township there is a minimum amount of each of these categories that is required; the more population the more income taxes and property taxes to spread across many of these areas of the budget.

Let's pause for a moment, remember we are dispelling a property tax proponent myth here, we are not proponents of more development. In fact like just about everyone in our township we would have liked to shut the door on development right after we moved into the Township. That might have precluded many of you from moving in. Sorry, but you get our point.

Notably, before discussing the local property tax versus population, 4 of the 5 highest taxed townships in the county have the open space tax - EAST BRANDYWINE TWP (2.5), FRANKLIN TWP (2.75), SCHUYLKILL TWP (2.9),
LONDON BRITAIN TWP (3.52). Next, when you look at township taxes for the townships in Chester County, more specifically the Downingtown School District you will find there is not a definitive correlation between population and local real estate taxes. Other than the fact that by far the two most populous townships West Bradford (18,430) and Uwchlan (12,146) are by far the least taxed 0 mils, and .09 mils respectively. Meaning West Bradford has no property tax and Uwchlan for all intents and purposes has such a low millage rate they also have no property tax; whereas, East Brandywine (6,485) and Wallace (3,433) townships, with fractions of the same population, have the highest taxes 2.5 and 2.4 respectively. Now thankfully the BOS has eliminated property taxes going into 2009. But, these are 2008 statistics and they show that the supposed tax savings that the property tax proponents claim as gospel does not hold up when you put the numbers to it.

So we can resurrect the debate, but let's not resurrect the old illogical argument that raising taxes will saves taxes.

The Great Open Space Debate (It Was Civil)

The issue of an open space tax has been thoroughly debated in our township. It was a good, fair and civil debate. Both sides vigorously presented their view of the tax. Both sides acknowledged that each had the resident’s best interests at heart. They just disagreed fundamentally on how those interests should be addressed. That's ok. It seems now when people disagree with the BOS or their supporters it is because the BOS is bad and has bad intentions. They feel the need to attack them personally and even try to suppress any information that would support the BOS view. We feel here that the more information available on either side of an issue the better. And, we are ok if you disagree with us. We will not attribute some intellectual or ethical depravity to you; we will just acknowledge our disagreement and continue to argue our side of the issues.

There have been some rumblings as of late, that an open space tax could have helped to stave off the Valhalla project. The idea that the 2 million bond that may have been available due to the open space tax could somehow purchase enough land to stop this project is absurd. The various tracts are rumored to range anywhere from 30million to 50 million dollars. Even using the 2 million to buy development rights would not have gone very far. The project was originally on about half of the acreage anyways. The Heim and Comstock tracts were added later. On top of that it is doubtful that the open space proceeds would have ever been used to purchase the Industrial portion of the project which is where the main portion of the project resides. Besides, we are not convinced that most residents would be ok with handing their hard earned money to a wealthy land owner to keep on living on their property as they always have, just a lot richer. We don’t mean to impugn the land owner who may sell development rights. We believe they would have the best intentions as well. Wanting to preserve their land for generations to come. But, still the idea of taking from the poor to give to the rich still seems a little backwards. Meanwhile, even though residents are essentially paying a tax to this land owner they can’t step foot on the property. This all assumes that any of the money would have ever gotten spent on open space.

In East Brandywine on February 21st, 2007 the BOS voted to spend much of their open space money on their new building. “… $665,000 of the proceeds from the 2003 Bond will be changed to help pay for the new Township buildings. Mr. O’Neill stated that $65,000 would be used to reimburse the open space funds for interest costs and $600,000 would go towards completion of the construction“. They have yet to pay back the money. They do not ever have to repay the money.

Enough said for now, besides much has been said already. See the top ten reasons against the open space tax at our old site:
http://www.wallacevoters.com/top%2010.htm

Old Wallace Voters Site - Vote "NO" Open Space Tax

We may integrate some of these into the current blog to help find older articles and information, but for now you can link to the old site to the series of posts on the vote "No" campaign ==> Vote "NO" Open Space Tax