Atlanta tax hike: Profiles in cowardice
June 29, 2009 at 6:51 pm by Scott Henry in News
Jim Maddox, caught between naps
The Atlanta City Council voted today to raise property taxes by 3 mills, an outcome we’d been predicting for weeks. But the actual vote count — 8 to 7 — was closer than anyone expected it to be. Not because Council members believed the tax hike was a bad idea. Hell, with only one or two possible exceptions, even those who voted against it were privately praying it would pass.
No, the vote was so close because several of our Council members possess, as Teddy Roosevelt once said, “the backbone of a chocolate eclair.”
Exhibit A is Jim “40 Winks” Maddox, the self-proclaimed “Dean of the Council” because he’s warmed a chair in City Hall for more than three long decades. Today, Maddox shocked his colleagues by voting against the tax hike and the $541 million budget. This is a guy who, two months ago, said publicaly that he didn’t think Mayor Franklin’s proposed 3-mill increase was big enough!
“I’m prepared to approve a tax increase to end the furloughs for all employees,” he announced at a budget hearing at the end of April.
But that was before he picked up three challengers for his beloved Council seat. So, today, without giving anyone a heads up, the lily-livered Maddox cravenly hung his colleagues out to dry.
Here’s guessing the next Council retreat is going to be awwwkward.
The other ‘no’ votes came from likely sources — Clair Muller, Mary Norwood, Howard Shook and Lamar Willis — and a couple of unlikely ones — Kwanza Hall and Cleta Winslow. Shook’s district is in Buckhead, ground-zero in the anti-tax movement, and Muller, Norwood and Willis are all running city-wide, meaning they need to win votes in Buckhead. Winslow, however, is reportedly sore at Franklin for closing Fire Station No. 7, while Hall likely chickened out when he realized the Mayor already had the eight votes she needed.
Arguably, the swing vote came from Ceasar Mitchell, who’s running against Muller for Council president. Mitchell says he realizes a tax increase is risky in an election year, but argues it was the only responsible action to take for a city that had already cut its annual budget by $100 million over the past two years and was still facing a $56 million shortfall.
“If someone’s going to vote ‘no,’ they should at least explain why or offer alternatives,” he says. By voting to support the increase while some of his courage-deficient colleagues were running for political cover, Mitchell says he “took one for the team.”
(Photo courtesy of City of Atlanta)
June 29th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Hall and Maddox are playing politics with people’s lives. Neither offered an explanation for their votes or alternatives.
Shame on them.
While I disagree with the Buckhead Republicans – Norwood, Shook, and Muller – at least they stand for something. Hall and Maddox should be voted out in November.
June 29th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Face it, not one of the 15 has the courage to face down the developers and ensure that taxes fund city operations rather than drain away to support boondoggle abatements and tax allocation districts.
June 30th, 2009 at 9:19 am
I am shocked at these allegations of yellow bellied cowardice leveled toward our distinguished Atlanta city councilors!
June 30th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Maddox is so worthless and pitiful it is not even worth doing a post about him.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:34 am
Political courage has nothing to do with raising taxes again on the evil wealthy people in Buckhead. Instead, political courage would include ending the jobs program that is city hall and implementing at least some of the points of the Bain Report: http://fctf.org/media/Bain-Report.pdf
July 1st, 2009 at 10:03 am
Hey SA, please explain to us – using real city numbers – how your favorite one of the Bain report ideas would generate enough immediate cash today to pay the cops and firefighters to go back to full-time work this month.
Then explain how you are going to privatize your way out of annual pension obligations that have soared from 35 to 100mm in the past few years.
Then tell us what service business – e.g., private colleges, healthcare – operates on lower revenues today than six years ago.
Then report back on how the jobs program at City Hall is actually going. How many employed in General Fund work in 2002 and how many employed today?
If you do all that you’ll see why it’s more fruitful to chase down the massive diversion of taxes that has kept Atlanta’s revenue stagnant in a period of rapid growth. That is forcing ordinary taxpayers to cough up much more for a lower public safety service level.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:02 pm
First off, Jim dozes as a result of the medication he takes for Diabetes, so lay off that. And the ones that voted no are the real heros, whatever their reasons. It takes a lot of courage to stand up to the mayor. And there were options given, but Shirl wasn’t interested in them. I’ve heard that 500 people have already been let go. Yes, that is sad. But the city still has more people on the payroll than it did in ‘96 and I’ve seen only a dimuntition in services, not an improvement. (Kind of like the ACJ which gets smaller and smaller and costs more and more.) Bottom line – raising taxes during a recession, especially one as big as this, is Just Plain Stupid.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Doug, I appreciate your empathy for Maddox. If he made worthwhile contributions to the Council between his bouts of shut-eye, I’d be more inclined to cut him some slack.
But I disagree with your take on the tax vote. To me, it’s an act of political courage to vote in support of the best interests of the city, even if doing so doesn’t serve the best interests of the politician — whether that involves raising taxes, lowering them or holding the line.
In this case, virtually every Council member privately agreed — for right or wrong — that a tax increase was in the best interests of the city, but several of them voted against it because they were more concerned about their own best interests.
That’s why I called out Sleepy Jim for cowardice.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Bingo, Scott. Well said. Or written. You know what I mean.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Funny how it seems that the only ones voting for the tax increase come from districts where the average rate hike will be minimal. The council members who voted against the tax comprised the districts who will face the brunt of the taxes. It is easy for the other council members to vote for tax increases that other districts will pay. That is not the definition of political courage.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Well, AJ, you know what they say: Discretion is the better part of valor.
Admittedly, there was an understanding among Council members that the political fallout for a pro-tax vote would certainly be more severe for those who have to run in wealthier districts, so some of those folks were effectively given a pass — as long as everyone else ponied up the necessary 8 votes.
July 8th, 2009 at 4:21 am
Average Joe last I checked the 3Mil increase is going to be applied to every property owner, excuse me, every resident.
I think its funny how you see that as any different for you than it would be for me without us even comparing incomes or property values or geographic location.
Now if you compared the amount of personal income that the increase equates to I think you will find that the impact to be a little more than ‘minimal’ for those who are against it.