Minnesotans must continue to endure unlimited property taxation

By Marlowe Hamerston
MnSF property tax/income security committee

At the beginning of the 2006 legislative session a frequent proclamation made by legislative leaders and the governor was that property tax relief was at the top of the list of needed legislation. Speaker of the House Steve Sviggum said more than once, "There will be significant property tax relief."

Much has been written of an embellishment concerning gay marriage attributed to Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson by leaders in the Republican party. Johnson was accused of the worst behavior that a legislator could engage in - he lied. I am waiting for the same outrage to be directed to the false statement by Speaker Svigggum because there was no "significant property tax relief." Did he lie or was it simply a broken promise? All we got from this legislative session was a couple of stadiums.

Both parties will point fingers and blame the other for the lack of property tax relief. Both parties made the same promise of property tax relief - and that promise was broken. House legislation would've given a 9 percent rebate of a property owner's property tax back to them in October, seen by most as a transparent attempt to influence your vote in November.

The Senate proposed to send more money in aid to local governments with the hope that they would not spend all of it and that some would trickle down in the form of lowered property taxes.

Neither approach would materialize unless the cigarette fee was deemed legal by the Supreme Court. Few expected the Court to uphold the fee and many felt that both the House and Senate's promised reform was made knowing it would probably not ever need to be acted upon.

However, the Court said the fee is OK. Then both the House and Senate could've lived up to their promises of property tax relief - or could they have? Not really. They positioned themselves well. The House and Senate proposals were so divergent that everyone knew there could be no common ground to work from. Hence, no property tax relief. It was a hollow promise.

But why worry about relief when what Minnesota needs is reform? The 2006 session had available real property tax reform legislation. Unfortunately, legislation cannot be enacted unless it is heard in committee. In the Senate, Tax Chair Larry Pogemiller said he would hear the bill supported by the Senior Federation if the author requested a hearing. The author said he talked to the tax chair about a hearing but was turned down.

In the House, Tax Chair Phil Krinkie told the property tax division chair of the House tax committee that there was no time for a hearing. Granted, it was near the end of the session and more important hearings were in order. Time was available for hearing stadium legislation but not for legislation to reform our property tax system. Our legislation was available for hearings from day one of the session.

All of this leads me to wonder that it isn't just Minnesota's property tax system that is broken. Maybe the whole legislative process is broken. Year after year our legislature (or those who control the whole process) continue to ignore a taxation system that can tax without limit. What legislator in his right mind would propose a taxation system without limit? Yet another legislative session has gone by and there is no interest in correcting our property tax system. A system that is allowed to tax without limit! A system that penalizes those who improve their property with higher taxes.

Our only hope of salvation is coming next November. Seniors - no, all Minnesotans - must choose legislators who have concern for our interests first and foremost - billionaires should come last.