July 23, 2014 at 2:10 p.m.
Ballot questions (10/29/04)
Editor's Mailbag
By To the editor:-
Many voters will be surprised when they step into the voting booth Nov. 2 to find three questions facing them regarding amendments to Indiana’s Constitution. This letter explains Indiana Farm Bureau’s position on those three questions.
Let’s start with Public Questions No. 2 and No. 3, both of which Farm Bureau supports. Public Question No. 2 would allow the Indiana General Assembly to establish a uniform date for the beginning of the terms of office for the county clerk, auditor, recorder, treasurer, sheriff, coroner and surveyor. Currently, the constitution provides for these offices but does not specify when their terms begin. Our members believe this amendment makes sense and therefore we support it.
Public Question No. 3 addresses the order of succession in the event that something would happen to the governor and lieutenant governor at the same time. Right now, the law does not provide for anyone to step into the executive role until such time as the General Assembly can convene to select a new governor. This amendment would establish a line of succession that includes all the statewide office holders. This line would act as governor only until the General Assembly could complete the process of selecting a new governor. Again, our members support this common sense amendment.
IFB does not support Public Question No. 1, which deals with property tax exemptions. Currently, the constitution authorizes the General Assembly to exempt property held by tax-exempt organizations, tangible personal property other than business equipment and inventory, and intangible personal property such as stocks, bonds and other securities, from property taxes.
If passed, the amendment known as Public Question No. 1 would allow (but not compel) the General Assembly to add to that list of exempt property to include owner-occupied residential property, business equipment and inventory.
IFB is opposed to this amendment for this reason: The amendment does not direct the state legislature to provide an alternative source of revenue for the property taxes lost through these new exemptions, nor does it reduce the amount of the total levy to be raised through property taxes.
In other words, it would authorize the legislature to grant relief to some property taxpayers at the expense of those who own other classes of property — most notably, farmers and landowners.
This amendment would legitimize actions already taken by the General Assembly to reduce the inventory tax and provide relief to homeowners. Farm Bureau supported the proposed amendment when it was considered by the legislature in 2002 and 2003 because it was seen as a way to reduce inventory taxes on farms. However, after measuring the impact of reassessment coupled with a new $35,000 homestead exemption, Farm Bureau has withdrawn its support for this amendment and now opposes.
On Nov. 2, we urge voters to vote “no” on Public Question No. 1 and vote “yes” on Public Questions No. 2 and No. 3.
Sincerely,
Don Villwock, president,
Indiana Farm Bureau[[In-content Ad]]
Let’s start with Public Questions No. 2 and No. 3, both of which Farm Bureau supports. Public Question No. 2 would allow the Indiana General Assembly to establish a uniform date for the beginning of the terms of office for the county clerk, auditor, recorder, treasurer, sheriff, coroner and surveyor. Currently, the constitution provides for these offices but does not specify when their terms begin. Our members believe this amendment makes sense and therefore we support it.
Public Question No. 3 addresses the order of succession in the event that something would happen to the governor and lieutenant governor at the same time. Right now, the law does not provide for anyone to step into the executive role until such time as the General Assembly can convene to select a new governor. This amendment would establish a line of succession that includes all the statewide office holders. This line would act as governor only until the General Assembly could complete the process of selecting a new governor. Again, our members support this common sense amendment.
IFB does not support Public Question No. 1, which deals with property tax exemptions. Currently, the constitution authorizes the General Assembly to exempt property held by tax-exempt organizations, tangible personal property other than business equipment and inventory, and intangible personal property such as stocks, bonds and other securities, from property taxes.
If passed, the amendment known as Public Question No. 1 would allow (but not compel) the General Assembly to add to that list of exempt property to include owner-occupied residential property, business equipment and inventory.
IFB is opposed to this amendment for this reason: The amendment does not direct the state legislature to provide an alternative source of revenue for the property taxes lost through these new exemptions, nor does it reduce the amount of the total levy to be raised through property taxes.
In other words, it would authorize the legislature to grant relief to some property taxpayers at the expense of those who own other classes of property — most notably, farmers and landowners.
This amendment would legitimize actions already taken by the General Assembly to reduce the inventory tax and provide relief to homeowners. Farm Bureau supported the proposed amendment when it was considered by the legislature in 2002 and 2003 because it was seen as a way to reduce inventory taxes on farms. However, after measuring the impact of reassessment coupled with a new $35,000 homestead exemption, Farm Bureau has withdrawn its support for this amendment and now opposes.
On Nov. 2, we urge voters to vote “no” on Public Question No. 1 and vote “yes” on Public Questions No. 2 and No. 3.
Sincerely,
Don Villwock, president,
Indiana Farm Bureau[[In-content Ad]]
Top Stories
9/11 NEVER FORGET Mobile Exhibit
Chartwells marketing
September 17, 2024 7:36 a.m.
Events
250 X 250 AD