A Crisis Caused by an Ambiguous Map: Utah's District 57 (Update)

For the past fortnight or so, the residents of Utah's House District 57 (a newer portion of Cedar Hills in Utah County) represented by Craig Frank and to a smaller extent the state at large, has been perplexed by an accidental discovery by Frank that he didn't live in his district according to state records: a requirement stipulated by the Utah Constitution.

For me¹, there has been a plethora of confusion over this dilemma as reported in the media which seems to have been finally put to rest by the information in the video below, from the District 57 group of voters "Our Vote Counts":

The video highlights that the state was relying on an oxymoronic map showing conflict between the words "city boundary" and the drawn city line whereas the county went with the city boundaries. The city boundaries were certified through several cycles of elections and Lt. Governors (who in Utah serve as Secretaries of State as we haven't that position). These points highlighted in the video and the group's website seem to be rather ignored in the Utah mass media which hasn't helped to alleviate my personal confusion and frustration over the matter.

It seems however, in light of Frank's resignation on Friday (Daily Herald) that there is working another solution as discussed on yesterday's Red Meat Radio (KTKK, 630AM): with a 2/3 supermajority required in both houses, pass SB 113 which would define the boundary for District 57 as the one which everyone has been happily using for the past decade. On the program, Rep. Hughes (R-51) cited concerns about the bill due to lawsuit concerns and appearances of gerrymandering.

Hughes' lawsuit concerns by Democratic operatives were balanced out during the program by the point that the residents of District 57 are threatening a lawsuit to protect their vote. Having been an early outspoken critic on the importance of non-gerrymandered results on upcoming reapportionment (Nacilbupera, Nov 2010) let me say this: declaring (or moving, whichever be your position) the lines for district 57 contains NO FORM of gerrymandering, but rather righting what has been supposed and incontrovertible all along. Indeed, it seems that any alternative other than this could be considered gerrymandering or at minimum deprecating the will of the voters.

Has anyone speculated if Matheson would still be in office if the lines that the state now upholds were enforced? In 2002, liberal Democrat Matheson won a squeaker against John Swallow and District 57 is staunch and loudspoken conservative. Surely numerous dilemmas such as this could be posed. Without diminishing the plausibility of other solutions, I wholeheartedly support SB 113 and with the state legislature convening tomorrow, urge its passage.

A Time to Reconsider the Residency Requirement

An interesting related issue to all this is to note that while federal Congressional leaders can live outside their boundaries, according to the Utah State Constitution Utah state lawmakers cannot. Last October, I blogged about my opposition to Utah Constitutional Amendment B because it put increased requirements for state legislative office:

If the citizens feel like someone is being a carpetbagger, then let the citizens have freedom through our competitive caucus system to elect someone else.

Although Amendment B passed by nearly 85%--a larger margin than any of the four proposed Amendments--it was widely dismissed as a positive which should be passed. In fact the voter information pamphlet even lacked a "Argument Against" to give voters a pause to think about the consequences of extending residency requirements. Perhaps the crisis surrounding Frank's eligibility may help to demonstrate that there can be unforeseen and unwanted consequences to having a residency requirement for legislators as part of our state's Constitution.

++++ Update: 6pm:

Found today's Daily Herald Editorial (h/t Joel Wright) "Honor in Resignation" which helps clarify that Frank resigned specifically for the passage of SB113. The editorial also links the Laura Cabanilla issue here in Provo to which as a resident I concur: Cabanilla definitely should step down. To quote the Herald: "Elective office is not a right or a personal possession."

¹ As some setting disclosures, while I am not a resident of District 57, in a few months my son will be a registered voter of the District. I like Craig Frank as a legislator and agree with him on most political issues and would most likely vote for him were I to live in the District. Conversely, I am not a Frank partisan whereby I feel it my duty to uphold Frank over law because of my regard for him.

Provo's Prop 1: The Recreation Tax

On November 2nd, Provo residents will have to decide whether or not to raise property taxes on themselves, their neighbors, and their future neighbors for the next 20 years. The tax hike cause isn't even to balance the budget as "bearded marxist" Delaware Senate Candidate Chris Coons did in his New Castle County Administration times, but to provide increased taxpayer-funded entertainment during the economic blight of a recession.

I am disgusted we are even talking about me having to fork out an estimated $77 per year to fund someone else's entertainment, but the pro-Prop 1 folks--who include city elected officials John Curtis and Laura Cabanilla though lacking their titles in supporting (note full list of sponsors)--think through their support of this recreation tax that they know that that is better for me than using that money to pay down my credit card and get out of debt (or whatever my family's needs may be). How is it we are a city of Repbulicans at the national level jointly decrying socialism, yet when a socialistic notion hits home we think somehow it's OK?

I am further disgusted by the misinformation by some in the pro rec-tax crowd such as Dave Olpin in the "Local Opinion" section of today's Daily Herald. Under Mr. Olpin's section "Financial" he purports:

The average homeowner of a $195,000 home would see a small increase of $2.61 per month in property taxes (less than the cost of a gallon of gas a month)

The problem with this statement isn't that it's untrue, but that it is a half truth--or better stated a 3/20th truth. As the graph available at the city's website shows below for the first three years taxes go up $2.61 a month ($31 annually) for an average $195K home; but for the remaining 17 years it skyrockets to the $77 annually I mentioned above.

Another massive piece of misinformation opined both by Mr. Olpin and Provo City is a user frequency statistic:

A recent survey indicated 78 percent of Provo residents would use a new recreation center at least monthly. (Olpin, 10/6/2010)

78% Will Visit A New Indoor Community Recreation Center Monthly ("A New Community Recreation Center in Provo", Provo City Website PowerPoint Presentation, page 5)

The problem isn't that the 78% is incorrect from the survey, but rather it is miscited. In the actual 29-page survey the wording reads: "Seventy-eight percent of respondent households would visit a new indoor recreation center with the features they most prefer at least once a month." (emphasis mine) Although the survey did try to define what those features were, it is a huge leap to omit this "most preferred feature" wording. Consider what might quickly happen to this 78% rosy statistic when you factor in the following:

• Your most preferred feature isn't offered in the rec center?
• Your feature were offered, but not at a time convenient to your household?
• Your feature were offered, but not all the features needed for other household members?
• Your feature were offered, but the user fees limited your visits?

In population terms, implying that 78% of our population will be at the rec center at least once a month breaks down to over 3,000 daily unique visits from Provo residents (not counting any repeat visits during the entire month) every day if the rec center were open 6 days a week. I'm going on record right now that you need to throw out that 78% number because it's not happening; it's simply not realistic, in my opinion.

Some argue that the Rec Center will be a community asset we will all share the benefit of. I counter that it is Provo's low tax rates we share the benefit of in inducing home ownership and to retaining and attracting business--and speaking of business, the tax burden is nearly double that of individual home owners ($141 vs $77 on properties of equal value). Rental rates on small businesses will inevitably increase as landowners pass those costs on to their tenants.

A property tax is quite possibly the worst form of tax. If you can't pay this recreation tax, you will lose your home; and how many neighbors have we been witness to in this housing-bubble devastation all across our city. Is it worth risking your home over some rec center? No!!

Here's how the rec center tax proponents won't frame their tax-increasing ambition: Suppose someone came to your door and said, for $77 a year (plus user fees) we will give you access to a beautiful new rec center in downtown Provo for the next 20 years. However, if you default on your payment, we will come and take your home from you. I think most any wise church leader or financial advisor would council heavily against you accepting such a deal. The risks of losing your home, albeit small, are far too great for you to take for such an unworthy cause.

Over a third of our citizenry surveyed wants not a single penny of taxpayer funding for the rec center (Survey, page 25). Neighbors: do we have the tyranny of a democracy where a majority votes tax increases on the minority to put their property at risk of confiscation of the government? I beseech you, even if your household has that kind of money to afford a Rec Tax to take a stand against such tyranny and to not raise my and your fellow neighbors who oppose such taxes.

Say no to the Recreation Tax: Vote NO!!! on Prop 1.

+++ Revision: 10/06 7pm

Curtis tonight graciously offered a correction that he is not using his title as Mayor to support the tax increase and I have correcting this entry to reflect this truth. This said, while he reiterates his private support of a tax increase, I feel could have and should have as Mayor spoken out against the tax increase; thus I don't hold "Mayor Curtis" blameless. It also smacks as a political caviat to say he didn't vote to raise taxes, he just promoted the project and left the citizenry to fight amongst each other over one neighbor's swimming lessons vs. my pocketbook. So much for "city unity."