Lawsuit makes a point on transparency and throws kink into town’s tax process

In newspaper parlance, this is a “tight” paper. We only have so many pages available based on advertising, but we have a lot of news and letters and features. So, a lot of things we would run for you in a “loose” paper will be on hold this week. Because it is so tight, I’ll be short with this. Honest. I’ll apologize to those who sent us interesting and compelling letters but won’t see them this week. There’s a lot going on right now! We at the News appreciate how engaged this community is and how community members use the local paper as a tool for some of that engagement.

Anyway, touching on a quick topic, the citizen lawsuit filed against the town over Crested Butte’s proposed excise tax on non-primary homes suddenly has CB officials scrambling. If nothing else, it threw a hurdle into what looked like a glide path to get the tax measure on the ballot. The town may or may not win the eventual judgment, but it again raises a consistent question on process, a process that is suddenly more complicated and messier. Based on a proposal from the town attorney that will officially be made to council shortly after the paper is put to bed (more newspaper parlance), the “implementation ordinance” some of the council has pushed for to make voters aware of exemptions won’t happen – at least not until after the election. Again, as of the time the paper goes to press, there has been no council decision on how to proceed, but there will be by the time the paper hits the streets.

The council-approved ballot language does not mention exemptions to the tax which is a big part of the lawsuit complaint. In that vein, councilmember John O’Neal expressed skepticism about that earlier this month. Responding to the town attorney who said it was legal to include taxing exemptions in an ordinance instead of the ballot language, John responded that “while legal, it doesn’t help with clarity on how it works.” I made a point on the same topic in a July editorial. I argued then and still believe that having exemptions included in the ballot language means those exemptions cannot be overturned easily as opposed to the way the town is doing it by ordinance. Listing them in an ordinance means they can be changed or eliminated by a vote of four future councilmembers instead of changing them only through the will of voters in town. Seems a bit sketch especially since no clear ordinance detailing exemptions will be in place for voters to consider if the council approved the Wednesday recommendation.

Would it not be best to put on the ballot everything you want the voters to vote on? Trust your citizens to be intelligent enough to understand what they are considering as they ponder which box to check after reading the ballot. Now, if the recommendation is followed, they won’t really have a total picture. Will there be exemptions? If so, for who? Will the $1.25 million be the new tax revenue instead of the council preference of $1 million? Could council change a voter approved tax by ordinance after the election is over?

Politically, it is standard to try and keep things as simple as possible with ballot language. But don’t we pride ourselves on being smart and transparent as a community? Simplicity counts but so does trust. And it appears the recent action and (anticipated) reaction has complicated the simplicity factor and put a heavier weight on trust.

Living in an engaged community is a blessing — but Lord knows it can sometimes be challenging and complicated. It seems we are in such a situation.

-30- (that’s more newspaper parlance for “the end”). At least for now…

— Mark Reaman