I'll get you my pretty... And your little bill too!
The Rapid City Journal has a Bill Harlan story this morning noting that Representative Hargens had been one of the legislators in full support of SB 173. Until he didn't get his way:
So, one day Hargens is saying that SB 173 is vital to agriculture, and is even photographed at the same press conference with the sponsors as shown here at Denise Ross' Hog House Blog.
But when it came time to vote on the bill he called "vital to South Dakota's future," it looks like it was all about the politics. Apparently Dale translates "vital to South Dakota's future" as meaning "whoever scratches his back."
Let's just hope he doesn't owe the tanning bill sponsor anything next year.
Hargens asked Rhoden to switch the House agenda so school funding would get a vote before the property tax bill.Read it all here.
“It was very clear what his intentions were,” Rhoden said Monday.
On Tuesday, Hargens readily acknowledged what he wanted. In return for Rhoden’s support on more aid to schools, Hargens offered to persuade members of his own caucus to support the property-tax measure.
and...
Rhoden, however, noted that Hargens had stood up with him at a news conference the previous week to support SB173 as vital to agriculture.
After Rhoden refused to deal, however, Hargens voted against the property tax measure, which lost 40-30 in the House, with 17 of 20 Democrats voting against it.
So, one day Hargens is saying that SB 173 is vital to agriculture, and is even photographed at the same press conference with the sponsors as shown here at Denise Ross' Hog House Blog.
But when it came time to vote on the bill he called "vital to South Dakota's future," it looks like it was all about the politics. Apparently Dale translates "vital to South Dakota's future" as meaning "whoever scratches his back."
Let's just hope he doesn't owe the tanning bill sponsor anything next year.
Comments
Hargens may have made a "partisan" decision and that would be a statement with actual significance. It might also be wrong however..or right.
I find it somewhat amusing that those who admired Janklow for his hardball partisan decision making, now find it just terrible that a Democrat can also play hardball in the legislature. Republicans have been doing it all the time, it just never was as obvious when they had 2/3 majorities.
Pot..kettle and all that....
http://www.hoghouseblog.com/
I agree that it was a bad, confusing bill, and I'm glad it went away to the great beyond.
Hargens was only exhibiting the long-held guiding philosophy of the democrat party. "Politics Over Principles!"
Here-here!
I think taxing property is a pretty unfair way to tax older folks - especially those who aren't working anymore.
It's pretty clear property taxes doesn't work for every group, and probably isn't the fair way to handle things.
This cash-rent system is SORT of an income tax for farmers. And, actually, in every state they have this cash-rent system, they have an income tax on top of it.
It makes me puke that people are so afraid of studying how the tax system might be made more FAIR by an income tax. But, it's stupid Republicans that hold that up.
Also, on a side note, I wonder if you can do some investigative reporting, PP.
Look at the two sides of this debate. Look at Jim Lintz's property tax, and see how much they would go down as a result of cash-rent. Then look at Al Norvstrup's business, and see how much his property taxes would go up.
Betcha that's pretty telling.
SB 173 would increase the assessed valuation of all commercial property in South Dakota by an average of 4%. The mill levy would decrease slightly so I might expect a 0% to 4% increase in my commercial property taxes.
There is no reason to believe that the commercial or residential property that I own is different than the statewide average.
Ag/Development land has been kept low by the 150 rule and the NAZ rule. It is possible that Ag/development land in Black Hills that is assessed at $2,000/acre is worth $20,000 per acre. So if assessed at full and true value the assessment could increase by a factor of 10 times. Mill levies would decrease but there would be a large increase in Black Hills ag/development land taxes if assessed at full and true value.
The bill that I sponsored (HB1308) would have taken all property to full and true value. SB173 (Lintz’s bill) would have taken homes and business to full and true but locked ag land into a value that was 8.5 billion dollars less than full and true.
By the way, if I owned a commercial property that was worth $100,000 the state education property tax would be $1019. If I owned $100,000 worth of Ag/development land the state education property tax would be $303. Ag/development land gets a 70% discount today based upon the mill levies.
SB173 could have assessed some Ag/development land at 10% of full and true value (90% discount) in some case in the Black Hills. Then a 70% Ag mill levy discount would be applied. So Ag/development land would be a 90% discount and then a 70% discount for a total discount of 97%. So under SB173, a $1 million dollar piece of Ag/development land could be assessed at $100,000 and would pay state education property tax of $303. Does this sound reasonable?
The benefits of SB173 flowed to the high value Ag/development land. Under SB173, there would be a shift (increase) in taxes to the ordinary farm land.
The other major flaw with SB173 is that the Department of Revenue would take over Ag assessments. Appeals of valuations would be almost impossible.
Rep. Al Novstrup
State wide, ag taxes would stay the same under 173. Norstrups taxes would go down slightly because of the increased valuations added with the repeal of the 150 rule. And production value system has nothing to do with income. Only the lands ability to produce ag commodities
House Democrats wanted more money for schools, and brought amendments to restore SB 157 to the senate version and to restore the 4.3% index factor. Rhoden and his block-voting House Republican caucus refused to compromise on their goal to give education LESS than what the senate included in SB 157.
Because Rhoden refused to compromise on a Democratic (and Senate, and Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce, and statewide K-12) priority, Hargens refused to compromise when it came to Rhoden's priority - SB 173.
As every legislative leader should know, if you want something but you don't have the votes, you need to offer something to get the votes on board. Rhoden offered nothing and got nothing. A failure of leadership by Rhoden?
Maybe use that again in a story about Ed Olson looking for a hospitality room.
You hit the nail on the head. The only reason SB173 failed is because of Rodent arrogance and unwillingness to compromise. This is exactly why this bill failed. I can also tell you that the Senate Democrats where also lining up to kill this bill had it come back to them, this bill was the tool to get more funding for K-12 schools. What the hell is Rodent doing voting to freeze the small school factor and to close schools. He must have forgotten where he lives - Union Center is not exactly a major city with people all over the place.
You said you would like to visit with me about property taxes. Please call me and I will buy you a cup of coffee and listen to your opinions. My phone number is in the phone book.
Rep. Al Novstrup
It was the block-headed, block-vote controlling Rhoden, Dykstra and Deadrick that are terrified of our Gubna that turned them away.
Oh, man. If only Michaels were still around.
And it's only goint to get worse with Rave and Dykstra looking to move up. And dingbats like Brunner and Turbiville waiting to take leadership roles.
House Republicans are a JOKE.