Oops…overassessed by $3 million

Did They Think the Homeowner Wouldn’t Notice?

                                                By John Matthews

B. Thomas Golisano, founder and former CEO of Paychex is used to seeing large numbers, but when the annual property tax bill on his new home in Mendon, NY arrived, even he experienced sticker shock  - a whopping $195,000 - an enormous sum that would make anyone’s eyes pop right out of their head.

Prior to breaking ground on his 38 acres, Golisano, wanted to know what he could expect to pay for property taxes.  “The Town’s assessor said that he would not know the value until the home was completed,” explained David Still, Managing Director of Fishers Asset Management, the Golisano family office.  Although Golisano did ask the right question, he did not leave with an answer.

Golisano began building the home to his specifications in 2005 and construction was nearly complete in 2007 when he received the shocking tax bill.  The assessor, apparently mistook Golisano for Santa Claus coming to town, and affixed the value of his new home at an astounding $6 million. 

Golisano and Still researched the valuations of other comparable homes and discovered that those homes were valued at $2.8 million or less. Clearly, something was wrong with the $6 million figure now attached to his property, and thus began the unpleasant journey through the maze of the property tax appeal system in New York State.

The first step to getting this valuation rectified was a preliminary meeting with the assessor, which proved fruitless.  The assessor explained that he had assessed the property on “cost”.   Golisano countered that he could never even come close to recouping the building cost in the market today or any day for that matter. The assessor refused all of Golisano’s comparable market value reports and the assessment stood at $6 million….READ THE FULL ARTICLE AT www.propertytaxrights.com

Responsible New York supports the Public Higher Education Empowerment and Innovation Act proposed by Governor Paterson.  This legislation will provide the State University of New York (SUNY) and the City University of New York (CUNY) with greater operational independence through measures that will eliminate burdensome overregulations on contracting, procurement, land use, and other areas.  The legislation will also put a rational tuition policy in place where SUNY and CUNY trustees may implement a “fair, equitable and responsible tuition policy that would provide the universities with the discretion to raise tuition incrementally up to an annual cap of two and one half times the five-year rolling average.”

These landmark reforms would essentially remove the micromanaging done by Albany and provide more independence to SUNY and CUNY so they may adapt in this ever-changing and competitive economy. 

We support this piece of legislation and urge the Senate and Assembly to pass the bill during the 2010 Session.  Reforms such as fostering public-private research and partnerships will help New York’s future and aid in propelling the economy forward. 

According to Paterson, these reforms will “create more than 2,200 faculty positions, 7,000 staff positions, and 43,000 construction jobs on SUNY university and medical centers.”

Legislation such as this will improve the economic well-being of the state and we need more of it.

Governor Paterson’s press release is available at: www.ny.gov/governor/press/press_01151001.html

The number of reform advocates is growing right here in western New York.

Tea Party activists showed up to protest the appearance of Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver at a fundraiser in downtown Buffalo on Thursday, January 28^th.  Silver never showed up even though he was the headliner for the $2,000-per-head fundraiser to benefit the Erie County Democratic Party.  Members of the protest and many others consider Silver to be part of the “three-men in a room” team that is the real governing body in Albany. 

Earlier in the week of the protest, a Tea Party meeting was held in Tonawanda. Around 110 people attended this meeting.   

The Buffalo News wrote an article on the protest.  In the article, James Ostrowski, a Buffalo lawyer active in the anti-tax tea party movement said Silver is “on top of a totally corrupt system that drags this state down, so he’s a perfect target.”

As the number of people involved in movements such as this continues to steadily increase, many elected officials will be forced to answer to their lack of reform actions and continued high taxes in Albany. 

The Speaker of the Assembly for sixteen years, Sheldon Silver, was quoted in an Albany Times Union article responding to the speculation that New York’s high taxes are a significant contributing factor as to why people are leaving the state.  His statement:

“Do we have evidence that anybody has moved out of the state other than one individual?”

                                               -         Sheldon Silver

The Times Union claimed his declaration was an apparent reference to Tom Golisano, the founder of Responsible New York.  Mr. Golisano made a very public move out of New York early in 2009, citing high taxes.  His exit will leave the state $5 million short on expected income tax revenue.

Unfortunately for Speaker Silver, Mr. Golisano is not the only one who believes taxes are pushing people to move out of the state.  The Empire Center for New York State Policy published a report, Empire State Exodus: The Mass Migration of New Yorkers to Other States. Find the report here.

Some highlights:

• From 2000-2008, New York experienced an outflow of 8 percent of its population from the start of the decade.  This translates to 1.5 million people.

• Out of all the states in the country, in 2000-2008, New York had the highest loss of residents to other states.  Yes, you read that correctly, we had the highest loss of residents to other states in the country.

• The Center cited New York’s high taxes as a factor that must be addressed when accounting for its large migration loss.  Did you know state and local taxes per capita are the nation’s highest, according to the Census Bureau?

Speaker Silver, you’ve revealed yourself to either be truly ignorant to the reality of New York’s state of affairs, or in denial. 

Published: January 11th, 2010

BY GERALD BENJAMIN AND MARIO CUOMO

Recently published year-end retrospectives universally agree: State government in New York reached a new low of dysfunction and nonperformance in 2009. Cries were heard from every quarter: Throw all the rascals out. But in truth, only a state constitutional convention can give us reforms that will help cure us of our governmental malaise and bring hope back to New York.

Here are a few examples of the changes we need:

The end of “three men in a room” and the return to effective, informed, shared governance.

A fair method for legislative districting.

Campaign financing that enhances competitiveness.

Fair, objective administration of elections.

Proper balance between the legislative and executive branches in budgeting and filling vacancies in high office.

An effective, enforceable ethics provision that modernizes the constitution’s current anti-corruption provisions

A unified court system.

Merit selection and retention of judges.

A 21st century system of local government.

Though respected leaders of both major parties recognize that a constitutional convention is the only way we can fix our state government, naysayers are once again deploying their familiar arguments, all eminently rebuttable:

The first argument is from those who say that nothing will change. They argue that the same people who now run the Legislature will control a convention. They will collect big paychecks as delegates while making sure that their personal interests and the interests of those who pay for their campaigns are protected.

We can prevent that by applying our usual standards against dual office holding to those who want to serve as convention delegates: a legislator would be allowed to run for delegate, but if elected would have to give up his or her legislative seat to serve.

The “nothing will change” crowd also often points out that the constitution written at the last convention in 1967 was rejected at the polls. That constitution failed at referendum only because those who led the convention presented all their proposals to the people in a single package. It offered desirable major improvements, like legislative districting by commission, but its unpopular provisions were strong enough to kill the constitution’s chances at the polls. In contrast, many valuable changes were adopted by the people after the 1938 constitutional convention when they were presented as separate questions. That’s what we can do again.

The second argument is that “everything might change.” That is, a convention may open a Pandora’s box, potentially unleashing a host of evils upon New York.

This is a false fear.

Constitutional change requires three separate votes by the electorate — the first to call a convention (the question is on the ballot every 20 years, with the next vote coming in 2017; the Legislature can call a convention sooner), the second to elect delegates and the third to accept the convention’s proposals.

Delegates elected to a convention know what they promised the people when they ran for delegate. And they know that if they give the state a final document that undoes one or more popular — even cherished — constitutional provisions or protections, their work will likely be rejected at the polls so they will avoid doing this. The truth is that while everything might be technically subject to change, any convention would be limited by political realities.

The third argument is that “the wrong things will change.” The constitution says that state Senate districts, designed by Republicans to elect Republicans, must be used to choose convention delegates. “The wrong people will win,” liberals say, “and they will cap taxes and constrain spending.” Conservatives on the other hand, do not like the state’s growing Democratic enrollment edge. “The wrong people will win,” they say, “and do bad things like creating new rights to housing, higher education or health care.”

But non-Republicans ought to remember that the districts they are worried about produced a Democratic Senate majority in 2008. Conservatives ought to remember that each Senate district will be used to elect three delegates, and the Voting Rights Act requires that the selection process assure the representation of a broad range of views and interests at a convention.

There are two reasons why the argument that “the wrong things would change” is the most disheartening of all. First, it says the people are only worth trusting when the outcome is certain. This is fear of democracy. Second, it suggests that protecting particular views and interests is more important than pursuing the broader public interest. This is fear of change.

Let’s go back to the story of Pandora’s box. When Pandora first opened the box and evils were unleashed, the ancient Greeks tell us one of the box’s contents remained behind, too weak to escape. It was “hope.” Pandora later returned to release “hope,” which promised to be more powerful than the evils that preceded it.

Pandora’s box has already been opened in New York; the disabilities of dysfunctional government abound. We now must act to release hope in the best way we can: We must call a constitutional convention.

To read the article in the Albany Times Union, click here.

Gerald Benjamin is director of the Center for Research, Regional Education and Outreach at SUNY New Paltz. Mario Cuomo is a former governor of New York.

Passing a Legislative Ethics bill would bode well with the public.

Unfortunately, the current bill is lacking in several aspects of necessary reform.

On February 1, Governor Paterson vetoed the Legislative Ethics Bill A9544 / S6457, citing many deficiencies that fail to improve current law.

“It is time to try a better approach: to dispense one and for all with the deck chair-rearranging on New York’s ethical Titanic.” – Gov. Paterson

“A Band-aid on a bullet wound.” – Assemblyman Jack Quinn

Paterson’s veto memo discusses several key rules and structures that bill A9544 / S6457 is lacking. Such as:

• The new Legislative Office of Ethics Investigations will not be comprised of members of the Legislature, but members of the Legislature will appoint them.   Under this proposed bill, there will continue to be a lack of separation between members and their appointees. “There is simply nothing in this bill that would alter that astounding level of coziness between enforcer and legislator, including the making of political contributions.”

• Under this bill, the Joint Legislative Commission on Ethics Standards would have an increase in the influence of legislative members.  The new commission would be split evenly, 4-4, between legislative members and non-legislative members.  The current Legislative Ethics Commission is required to have a non-legislator majority of 5-4.

• The bill fails to require full disclosure of legislators’ clients.   According to the memo, “a legislator could earn hundreds of thousands of dollars from a client with a direct interest in legislation, yet not have to disclose that fact.”

• Hinders the ability to remove executive directors guilty of misconduct by providing fixed term limits to the positions.  Moreover, providing a fixed term creates an excessive risk of a director ignoring the commissioners’ express wishes.

Every member of the Senate and Assembly with the exception of Senator Diaz, Assemblyman Quinn, and Assemblyman Vito Lopez approved this unsound bill.  Responsible New York supports any effort toward ethics reform but understands the importance of creating a truly independent ethics reform body, separated from its appointing-authority and the need for true transparency that does not hide legislators’ supplemental sources of income.

You’ve heard about the reforms that the Senate’s bi-partisan caucus passed.  What are your ideas?  How do we reform the Senate?  What else in New York (we know it’s almost everything but where should we start)?  Tell us what you think.

RNY launched a new media campaign encouraging Senator’s to say yes to reform.  You can watch the video on our website HERE.

You can help by calling your senators and asking them if they care more about their constituents or about the special interests.  Tell them it’s time they cared about you.  It’s time for them to join the bi-partisan reform caucus.

To find your senator and contact information, click HERE.

You can watch the Senate leadership vote HERE.

Five years ago, the Brennan Center at NYU called New York’s Legislature the “most dysfunctional” legislature in America.   This report was widely reported throughout the state.  Business leaders read it.  Labor leaders read it.  Voters and politicians read it and nothing changed. Statewide elections came and went. Candidates quoted the report and . . . nothing changed.

In fact things got worse. The 2009 budget process was the most secretive in history and resulted in huge, irresponsible tax increases on New Yorkers at a time when they already faced remarkable economic conditions.

Yesterday, in the New York State Senate for the first time since that report was passed, something happened.  Something changed. Reform has come to the New York State Senate.  I’m proud of the part that Responsible New York and I played in this change.

The reforms are both sweeping and meaningful.  They range from term limits for the Majority Leader and Committee Chairs to an independent Budget Office to a true C-SPAN type network with access for independent groups to critique and criticize leadership as well as many more substantive changes.   Overall, these reforms will make the Senate more democratic, encourage new and better ideas and actually involve all 62 senators in governing.  Overdue. 

These reforms languished for years when Republicans controlled the Senate and continued to be delayed after Democrats took control of the Senate.  That these reforms passed after years of failure was remarkable.  How they passed was truly revolutionary.

These reforms were passed by a bipartisan coalition of Democrats and Republicans who put the people above partisan politics.  Amazing.

As with any true reform, not everyone is happy.  When the process of changing the Senate began it was met by attempts to close down the motion, a failed attempt to adjourn, the shut down of lights, the cessation of the live video feed and finally an attempt to get State Troopers to clear the room.  These were disappointing reactions to the will of 32 democratically elected senators finally doing the right thing.  Any other subsequent legal action will be nothing but a distraction from doing the people’s business.

It is truly ironic that the Governor would object to wealthy donors being involved in this process while at the same time raising money at $100,000 per table fundraisers.

Responsible New York was founded to fight for reform without regard to party.   We did that by helping to bring together an historical coalition that passed remarkable reforms.  Of course, this coalition is fragile and there are strong special interests pushing back to protect the status quo.  Responsible New York will make sure that these reforms materialize and will continue our fight for fiscal restraint in Albany.

New York has the highest rate of migration out of state in the nation.  In fact, people are leaving New York at a rate that is 50% higher than Massachusetts with the second highest rate.  When more people are leaving than coming in, even politicians should recognize something is wrong.  This is a first step—a small but important step—in changing that.

After the headlines and sensational reporting about control and legislative maneuvering there are to key things that happened:

• The New York State Senate now has a bi-partisan government unique in our history for putting ideas above partisanship.
• This coalition already delivered real reform that promotes democracy, encouraging new and smarter ideas and an opportunity to change New York.

Together, this has a real chance to break the political stranglehold that special interests have in Albany.  These changes are revolutionary by Albany standards but only, in truth, a beginning but it is a beginning that may lead to a more responsive government.

One important concrete change is that with these rules reforms and coalition government all 62 senators will play a role in negotiating the next budget.  That means in one fell swoop one of the infamous “three men in the room” is gone. Who’s next?  Hopefully there are some members of the State Assembly who are willing to put reform above party and the people above politics.