Newspapers / The Charlotte Post (Charlotte, … / Feb. 16, 2006, edition 1 / Page 5
Part of The Charlotte Post (Charlotte, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
wmm 5A OPINIONS/tCtt ClwrUitte $a«t Thursday, February 16, 2006 D,G. Martin New money for the state this year, but not for you For those folks hoping that the North Carolina General Assembly will appropriate money for their favorite causes this year, there is some good news and some bad news. By the way, folks hoping for a legislative appropriation this year have lots of company State employees and teach ers are demanding the significant raises that have been impossible during the last few years. Other proposals for ftmding the growing needs of education at all levels were postponed during the last few tough budget years. The legislature has deferred state assistance for other cherished projects during the recent bad times. All of them will be back on the table this year. Hundreds of other proposals for wor thy programs and projects of local govern ments and non-profit groups will be on the table. Now, what is the good news for these folks? Speaking to a group of lawyers last week, Norma Mills, the chief of staff for state senate leader Marc Basnight, explained that state revenue receipts were coming in above projections-about $200 million more than expected. In addition, there will be about $630 million available in funds that the legislatuio set aside last year to spend on “anticipated needs” for the coming budget year. So, more than $800 million “extra money” will be avail able for the legislatui'e to meet the state’s needs. Surely this is very good news, especially after so many years of state government shortfalls and budget crises. But then there is the bad news. Part of the bad news has to do with the “anticipated needs” that the $630 million was set aside to meet. These needs are ones that the state legislature “traditionally” funds even though it is not obligated to do so. Here are some examples: funding to meet the growth of students in the university and community college enrollments, bonus es for teachers who meet certain goals, upgrading the state’s information technology systems, setting aside some moneys in a “rainy day” fimd, minimal funds for repair and renovation of state buildings, some small salary increases, and other “anticipated needs” that the legislature typical ly funds if it possibly can. Put another way, all new spending proposals have a lower priority than these “anticipated needs.” How much money are we talking about? According to Mills’ estimate, the total is at least $740 mil lion. So instead of the $800 million plus that seemed to be available for new spending, there may be less than $100 million to address such challenges as raising teachers’ pay to the national average, paying the increasing cost of Medicaid, meeting pressing transportation and infi-astruc- ture needs, and all unmet public safety, environmental, and other state responsibilities. “But, what about the lottery money?” one of the lawyers asked Mills Mills acknowledged that there would be “new” money fiom the lottery But, she ^cplained, the legislature is oblig ated to use that money for particular purposes, mostly for education. So the lottery funds, while they may help pay for specific state pixjgrams, are not available to the legisla ture to fund general programs. In summary, according to Mils, those people hoping to persuade the General Assembly to approve new programs that reqiiire additional spending are probably goii^ to be disappointed. There are only three ways to get more money on the leg islative table. First, the revenues fi*om casting taxes could be even higher than cuirently anticipated. It could happen if North Carolina’s economy continues to improve. But the experts are still very cautious. Higher tax receipts are not some thing anybody can count on yet. Secondly, the legislature could get money for new pro grams by cutting back on existing spending commitments. Surely there are possibilities for savings. But, during the hard times of the past few years when the legislature had to make numerous cuts to balance the budget, it became tncreasin^y difficult to find substantial savings. The third possibility is for the legislature to increase taxes. Mills explained the realities of any possible tax increase this year: ‘Tn an election year, if you’re not talking about cutting them, you’re not talking about them at all.” Bottom line: There will be some extra money in the leg islative till this year, but probably not enough to fund your favorite project. D.G. MARTIN is the host of UNC-TV’s “North Carolina Boohvatch,” which airs on Sundays at 5pm. Ron Walters Bush Bush budget is anti-human rights We have come out of a period of national mourning for several legends of the civil ri^ts movement which has included the solemn words and actions by the president of the United States, all meant to give the impression of respect for their legacy But how ever much one acknowledges this show of respect fiom the White House, it is in the doing that one really respect the legacy of their life work. So, as we head toward the Gary Convention on March 9, the opening of a new session of Congress and the start of the campaign season, it is wisel to see how policy proposals in the president’s new budget lives up to the human needs legacy raised by the justice movement. Presidents put flesh to their policy ideas by proposing to spend real money The recent State of the Union speech by George Bush was given by a president so low in the polls that the White House staff* should all be dancing the limbo. He began with his long suit - the "war against terror" — for one half of the speech and devoted the second half to a menu of small initiatives, some of which could have been fielded by lib erals. Now comes the fine details in budget and the picture gets real u^y. Basically, what we get fiom the massive $2.7 trillion budget is a promise by the Bush administration to cut the soaring deficit (esti mated to be $521 billion) in half by 2009. a year after he leaves office. lb get there, we are presented a set of optimistic assumptions that just don’t add up. For example. Bush and his successor would have to cut $38 billion fiom the budget and even experts fiom the conservative Heritage Foundation are skeptical that will happen. The Bush administra tion grew spending by 42 percent since it came into office and now faces massive challenges of Iraq War and Hurricane Katrina — and possibly other hurricane damage coming. The administration, however, only proposed to spend $50 billion on the War in Iraq annually, but it set the same amount aside last year and has had to increase it by another $70 billion, totaling $120 billion so far. The fi*antic moves of the administration are seen in its rejection of a $30 billion package for spending for Katrina, down to possibly $18 billion. He proposes to cut 141 pregrams “that were not work ing” (I wonder who made that judgment and what was the crite ria). But while he plans to realize savings of $ 14.5 billion, last year Congress only cut two-thirds of that figure, saving $6.5 billion as a result. The big news is a cut of $35 billion in Medicare spending over the next five years; but this is an election year, and it’s unlikely that the middle class will tolerate beginning to make deep cuts in this program. So, where will Bush get the $60 billion he will need to expand health savings accounts, fund aiergy initiatives, and other proposals? A lot of what he has proposed seems unrealistic, and not just to people fike me. Meanwhile, he makes matters worse by pushing to make the tax cuts permanent. This proposal would reduce government revenue over the next 10 years by an estimated $1.4 trillion say economists Alan Auerbach of Berkeley, Robert Burch and William Gale and Peter Orszag, both of The Brooking Institution. They find tax cuts to be the m^or source of declining government revenue since Bush has been in office. Moreover, in this budget Bush raises spending for Defense by 6.9 percent and 9.8 percent in Homeland Security, both big ticket items. Do you begin to get this picture? Big increases for Defense, Homeland Security and the war in Iraq. However, since federal revenue is decreasing, in order to cut the deficit. Bush must hold the line on increases in healtii care spending and offer modest spending for Katrina relief, while cut ting the heck out of “discretionary spending” for social programs (the 141 list). This the formula. It is amazing that in 2001, when Bush came into office the fed eral budget was projected to have a surplus to 2011, estimated to be $5.6 trillion. Now, there is an estimated deficit for the same period of $2.7 trillion. In actuality, the Bush budget scenario probably may not turn out as scripted, because the focus on cutting middle-class entitlements is likely to slip down to the poor substantially This is a likdy recipe in an Section year because the middle class has political clout and poor people don’t vote or protest as much. Nevertheless, driving down the deficit now means driving down spending for the social and economic needs of citizens in this coun try This is the budget position Republicans have wai^ted to create all along and the so-called "war against terror” has helped them achieve it. This must become an increasing part of Black econom ic thinking and a cause for political action. RON WALTERS is the Distinguished Leadership Scholar, Director of the African American Leadership Institute, Professor of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland College Park. Connect with $oslt Send letters to The Charlotte Post, P.O. Box 30144 Charlotte, NC 28230 or e-mail editorial^thecharlottepost.com. We edit for grammar, clarity and space. Include your name and daytime phone number. Letters and photos will not be returned by mail unless accompanied by a self-addressed, stamped enve lope OUR VOICES What to do about eminent domain claim By Keenya T. Justice SPECIAL TO THE POST It has been six months since the controversial Kelo V. City of New London decision. In it, the United States Supreme Court decided that-in excliange for ‘just compensation”-private, non-blighted propeity can be forcibly taken fiom its owner and given to another private citizen or entity to develop.. .if that person or eiitity could utilize the property to genei’ate more tax revenue. The theory being tliat, milike tlie existing single family homes, the new project would employ p)eople and increase the tax base thus benefiting the public at large to the detriment of the homeowners who had lived there for decades. The debate continues as to whether redevelopment projects of this type actually create the desired outcome. This is a fiightening thought indeed, as it means that any one of us could find ourselves the victims of eminent domain, because arguably all property could be put to a moro productive use for society as a whole. The public’s visceral roaction to the Supreme Court decision is not surprising. In fact, the Winston-Salem based bank, BB&T, recently amioimced that it will not finance certain commercial development projects if the land to be developed was acquii'ed tlirou^ the use of eminent domain. The bank is the first iiifyor financial institution known to adopt such a policy and BB&T executives stated that they ai-e taking a moral stand with the hope that theii* pohey will sway law makers in favor of placing restrictions on the state’s use of eminent domain. Connecticut’s eminent domain law allowed it to take private property under the circumstances described above and the Supreme Court decided not to interfere with, or curtail, tlie state’s power. The increasing population of many North Carolina cities strains public resources such as schools, roads, water treatment arid power plants. Municipalities will like ly be forced to exert their power of eminent domain to acquire the property needed to provide these basic public services. Currently, North Carolina’s eminent domain statute gives condenmors (state entities such as the Department of IVansportation or municipalities as well as private entities such as utility companies) the authority to exercise their power of eminent domain for the public use or benefit. Eminent domain has become an important issue in this state; so much so that a special conmiittee of the Norlh Carolina House held its first meeting on Jan. 5 to review the state’s eminent domain laws. The Fifth Amendment of United States Constitution states, in part, “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” North Carolina is, of course, bound by this constitutional r’equirement. However, the amount of “just compensation” North Carolina property owners receive varies greatly One of the le^t fair aspects of North Carolina’s emi nent domain law relates to property upon which a business is located. In particular, ‘just compensa tion” awards cannot currently include payment for reduced or lost profits resxrlting fiom the cessation of business conducted on the property, a diminished cus tomer base, business intemiptions or goodwill. Clearly, a successful business owner who is forced to relocate his or her business-or woi'se-close the doois permanently, would lose a significant amount, if not all, of his or her profits. Business owners who find themselves in this situa tion have the greatest need for professional guidance so they can be compensated to the fullest extent allowable by law. If you find yourself forced by the state’s power of eminent domain to involuntarily sell your property for the public good, take caution and avoid making the common mistakes that result in less than ‘just” awards. If you are like most people, your home or business is your most valuable asset. Chances are you Eicquired your home and/or developed your busi ness with the aid of a professional, such as a licensed real estate agent, banker or an attorney When you are forced to involuntarily divest your principal asset for the public good, you should use every resource at your disposal to help ensure the compensation award you receive is equitable and just. KEENYA T. JUSTICE is principal of The Justice Firm, a Charlotte hosed eminent domain law firm. Phone: (704) 377- 4747: internet: wwwjhejusticefinnrom.
The Charlotte Post (Charlotte, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Feb. 16, 2006, edition 1
5
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75