Omaha taxpayers already bent over from the heavy yoke of property taxation will face an additional property tax hike burden, if Mayor Fahey convinces the City Council to vote YES on funding and other mechanisms to begin construction of an unneeded new baseball stadium downtown. Though the Mayor and his Big Business supporters try to scare Omahans that the NCAA will move the College World Series to another locality, if we do not support the Mayor's initiative, the NCAA publicly has stated that it will readily accept a renovation of Rosenblatt Stadium, if the city government offers such alternative. Nevertheless, Mayor Fahey insists that the majority of Omahans genuinely opposing his plan are a mere noisy minority rabble. Read the bullet points below for information you need to lobby your councilman to vote NO on stadium funding:
· The Mayor carefully appointed a study committee of several community leaders, most of whom are his acquaintances, to take a “fresh and unbiased” view of the situation, but he included no taxpayer watchdogs!
· Consultants to the committee, including HDR, an architectural engineering firm, and HOK, a sports architecture firm, could win huge tax-funded contracts to help construct a new stadium.
· The Mayor refuses to allow a citizen vote, believing it “divisive” to the community. Actually, he fears a huge majority vote to retain Rosenblatt Stadium and distrusts the public. A June, 2007 WH poll found that 81% of respondents wanted the College World Series to remain at Rosenblatt.
· The Mayor pledged that he would not propose a new stadium without a signed 20-year contract from the NCAA to keep the CWS in Omaha, but such contract does not exist.
· The Fahey plan would raise our hotel/motel and car rental taxes highest among the 50 largest convention cities, which then will attract tourists and conventions that would have come to Omaha, depriving Omaha merchants of many consumer dollars spent.
· Anticipated stadium project revenues would pay for revenue bonds issued. If insufficient revenue appears, property taxpayers will have to pay the tab! Omahans would pay increased taxes to build and operate a new facility and additional taxes to demolish Rosenblatt Stadium.
· The Mayor declares that he would use property taxes only as a last resort to fund his stadium. We heard similar pledges from former Mayor Hal Daub, who promised no hike in property taxes to pay costs, but homeowners became yoked with a heavy property tax liability for his convention center/arena.
· To replace $2.4 million in Douglas County keno revenues snatched by our Mayor, the county would raise our property taxes. All Omaha property taxpayers reside in Douglas County and would pay higher taxes.
· A possible parking garage next to a downtown stadium and parking at other sites were not factored into the cost equation.
· The market analysis and resulting financial analysis done by Barrett Sports Group (BSG) was limited in scope, because the study did not conduct general public or corporate surveys or use focus groups. BSG admitted difficulty in identifying comparable markets because of the unique nature of the CWS.
· BSG made significant assumptions related to downtown ballpark operating revenues and expenses. Its study implies the possible need for additional funding sources, such as sales or property taxes.
· BSG admitted basing its work in part on information provided by unrelated sources that it could not assure us as accurate. Because of rapid changes in external factors, actual financial results might vary significantly from estimates presented in its report.
· Case studies prove that such new sports facility has a very small, sometimes a negative effect, on overall economic activity and employment. No recent similar facility earns a reasonable return on investment. No such facility has become self-financing regarding impact on net tax revenues. Stadium vicinity spending by consumers only displaces spending that would have happened elsewhere.
· The Mayor cannot guarantee that revenue gained from naming rights, advertising, seat taxes, and leases would pay off 20-yr. general revenue bonds used for stadium construction.
It is imperative that you call, email, or write a letter to your Omaha city councilman today, because special interests already are applying hard pressure to them!
OMAHA CITY COUNCIL EMAIL ADDRESSES
District 1: Jim Suttle 444-5527 jsuttle@ci.omaha.ne.us
District 2: Frank Brown 444-5524 fbrown@ci.omaha.ne.us
District 3: James Vokal 444-5525 jvokal@ci.omaha.ne.us
District 4: Garry Gernandt 444-5522 ggernandt@ci.omaha.ne.us
District 5: Dan Welch 444-5528 dwelch@ci.omaha.ne.us
District 6: Franklin Thompson 444-5523 fthompson@ci.omaha.ne.us
District 7: Chuck Sigerson 444-5526 csigerson@ci.omaha.ne.us
Address mail to: Councilman __________________________
Rm. LC-l
Omaha Civic Center
1819 Farnam Street
Omaha, NE. 68l83-0100
We must reach more citizens! Help us distribute fliers in your neighborhood. Email netaxpayers@cox.net to assist in this effort!
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Protect Our Petition Rights in Nebraska
Everyone who values his or her petition rights in our state immediately should contact their state senator to vote NO on LB 39. In recent years, it has become difficult, almost impossible, to wage a successful initiative petition campaign because of additional requirements placed on petition groups by the Legislature. We must contend with a nebulous single subject petition requirement and a doubling of the number of petition signatures. A proposed constitutional amendment cannot go to voters by initiative petition more often than once in 3 years.
Paying petitioners by the signature offers incentive for them to collect a maximum number of signatures, as a commission would offer incentives for employees in a private business. Those who complain about the supposed aggressiveness of petition circulators ignore use of physical obstructive tactics by petition opponents towards circulators exercising their constitutional privilege. Under LB 39, some but not all circulators would have their names, addresses, and phone numbers included in campaign reports. This information becoming public knowledge would subject these circulators to harassment. In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Nebraska cannot force petition campaigns to file monthly reports identifying paid circulators and expenses paid to circulators, acknowledging the vulnerability of circulators to harassment. Passage of LB 39 certainly would subject the legislation to a court challenge. LB 39 would require circulators to be only NE residents of voting age. We believe that learning about the petition process is a valuable educational experience for our youth. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1996 ruled invalid the NE requirement for all petition circulators to be registered voters.
Nebraska has no 2nd House. The original sponsors meant the initiative petition process to give Nebraska citizens a powerful tool to balance the Unicameral, and we are losing this right. Much of the necessity for requesting assistance from out of state entities stems from the current eroding of our petition rights that makes it much more difficult to launch petitions within the State. Our group has attempted in recent years to place several petitions on the ballot, and we have found it increasingly more difficult to do so because of impediments placed in our way. We regard this latest effort by State Sen. Schimek as sheer revenge against those who promoted the Stop Overspending campaign in 2006.
If you need help locating your state senator, email netaxpayers@cox.net, and we can help you.
Paying petitioners by the signature offers incentive for them to collect a maximum number of signatures, as a commission would offer incentives for employees in a private business. Those who complain about the supposed aggressiveness of petition circulators ignore use of physical obstructive tactics by petition opponents towards circulators exercising their constitutional privilege. Under LB 39, some but not all circulators would have their names, addresses, and phone numbers included in campaign reports. This information becoming public knowledge would subject these circulators to harassment. In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Nebraska cannot force petition campaigns to file monthly reports identifying paid circulators and expenses paid to circulators, acknowledging the vulnerability of circulators to harassment. Passage of LB 39 certainly would subject the legislation to a court challenge. LB 39 would require circulators to be only NE residents of voting age. We believe that learning about the petition process is a valuable educational experience for our youth. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1996 ruled invalid the NE requirement for all petition circulators to be registered voters.
Nebraska has no 2nd House. The original sponsors meant the initiative petition process to give Nebraska citizens a powerful tool to balance the Unicameral, and we are losing this right. Much of the necessity for requesting assistance from out of state entities stems from the current eroding of our petition rights that makes it much more difficult to launch petitions within the State. Our group has attempted in recent years to place several petitions on the ballot, and we have found it increasingly more difficult to do so because of impediments placed in our way. We regard this latest effort by State Sen. Schimek as sheer revenge against those who promoted the Stop Overspending campaign in 2006.
If you need help locating your state senator, email netaxpayers@cox.net, and we can help you.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
STATE SENATORS MUST ACT ON ILLEGAL ALIENS
Illegal aliens are inundating our state, as nearby state legislatures in Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma pass laws to restrict the employment and residency of illegals. Word gets around fast. Nebraska is a welcoming state for illegal aliens. Free K-12 education for the kids. Resident college tuition for young adults. Lots of flophouses to live in. Plenty of jobs at low pay, to undercut businesses and deprive lawful Nebraska citizens of employment. El Welfare galore: free goodies for the anchor babies, and food stamps too! Nebraska is fast becoming a safe and cozy haven for a flood of illegal aliens pouring in from nearby states. A friend of mine in Tulsa, OK., reported to me that hundreds of illegals were leaving Tulsa like rats leaving the proverbial sinking ship. Nebraska taxpayers are paying an increasing load for these unlawful invaders. Yet, we have not found one state senator to introduce a comprehensive bill in the 2008 legislature to deprive illegal aliens of all the benefits they now receive. Shame on our state senators! Who do they represent? Taxpaying citizens or those who prefer to send their money back to their home countries, depriving our consumer economy of these dollars? Contact your state senator today to introduce a bill! Email netaxpayers@cox.net for senator contact information and prospective legislation.
Friday, March 02, 2007
NEBRASKA TAXPAYERS VOTING RECORD
The NTF Congress Watch team has completed our 2006 voting records for our Capitol Hill delegation, and there are no surprises. Congressman Lee Terry from the 2nd District scored 88%, a “B+,” but he would have won an “A” rating had he voted more with conservatives on illegal alien issues. Rep. Jeff Fortenberry held down the fort again with his 83% “B” rating. Cong. Tom Osborne, who continually hawked his supposedly conservative credentials during his 2006 run for governor, scored a paltry 74%, a “C” grade.
On the other end of the Capitol, Sen. Carlos Hagel, ever the champion of illegal aliens, scored a disappointing 79%, only 2 points above Sen. Ben Nelson, who, despite his constant yammering that he is a good fiscal conservative, rated only 77%. Nebraska taxpayers are stuck with Ben-occhio for another 6 years, because they shunned a real fiscal conservative challenger, Pete Ricketts. Nebraskans angry with Sen. Hagel for his stance on illegal immigration, his opposition to Bush’s War, his obvious presidential aspirations, or his tendency to chase the Liberal Media for photo-ops and sound byte commentary*, may wish to join the NTF “Show Hagel the Gate in 2008” project. Email us as shown below.
Those who wish to have a copy of the above voting records can email ntf2@netaxpayers.org.
* Current joke on Capitol Hill: What is the fastest way to get run over in Washington, D.C.? Answer: Get between Chuck Hagel and a TV camera!
Sunday, January 28, 2007
LIBERAL STATE SENATORS TRAMPLE PETITION RIGHTS
In 1898, Nebraska became the first state to allow statewide initiative and referendum petitions. Nebraskans subsequently have used the petition process as a useful political means to gain reforms when the legislature has refused to consider them and to repeal unpopular legislation.
Now, two bills and one resolution introduced into our 2007 legislature are poised to trample our petition rights. LB 39 would prevent petition campaigns from paying petition circulators per signature collected and require them to be Nebraska registered voters. Such law would make it more difficult to recruit circulators and cost campaigns additional regulatory expense and paperwork. LB 40 would force petition circulators to wear numbered badges, though a Colorado court invalidated such a law because of privacy and harassment concerns. Failure to wear a badge would constitute a misdemeanor. Wearing such badges would cost campaigns an added expense and expose circulators to increased harassment. During the Stop Overspending campaign, which our taxpayer group supported, goons harassed and intimidated circulators to stop them from collecting signatures and intimidated those wanting to sign. LR 8CA would require 15%, instead of 10%, of state registered voters to sign initiative petitions for proposed constitutional amendments, making it almost impossible to place grass-roots issues on the ballot. These proposals constitute mere revenge by those who fear fiscal issues like Stop Overspending placed on the ballot by petition and want to guarantee their future failure. Instead of punishing out of state entities that assist Nebraska petition campaigns, critics will only punish Nebraskans by gutting another freedom.
The single subject clause already inhibits placing an initiative on the ballot, because the enacting amendment never defined single subject, so courts can conjure whatever definition they wish. A main reason why citizens place more than 1 subject in a petition is because the topics are related and because it is so difficult and expensive to obtain the 110,000+ verifiable signatures to place an issue on the ballot. In 1994, a Nebraska Supreme Court ruling almost doubled the number of signatures required for fulfilling initiative petition requirements. Finding it more difficult to muster sufficient volunteers to gain the newly-required number, plus other restrictions, petition campaigns increasingly resorted to hiring paid circulators and out of state companies to assist. Then came a requirement that a proposed constitutional amendment could not go before voters by initiative petition more often than once in 3 years. Accumulating hurdles have made it impossible in many instances to rely on a pool of volunteer circulators, much needed in this labor-intensive activity. So difficult is waging a successful venture that obstacles dissuade some from donating or circulating. Campaigns must raise huge war chests to pay circulators or forego petitioning. Ironic that petition critics condemn paid circulators and out of state logistical assistance, both resulting from their previous victories in curtailing petition rights. As restrictions have increased, more petitions have failed ballot access, e.g., two taxpayer initiative petitions in 1996 and 4 taxpayer petitions in 2004. Criticism of a surfeit of petitions is tantamount to declaring that there exists too much involvement by citizens in the political process. I believe that state senators by increments have eroded our petition rights to suffocate the petition process that checks their power. Eradicating this freedom will only encourage them to snuff another.
We must restore our petition rights to the setting envisioned decades ago by progressives, who granted us these rights to redress grievances on taxation and other issues, to act as the virtual second house of our legislature as promulgated by Unicameral advocate Sen. George Norris, as a safety valve for citizen discontent.
If unable to petition for redress of grievances, etc. via petition, we will have lost a lawful means of political expression. Restoring the process to make it easier for Nebraska citizens to circulate petitions as volunteers, instead of extinguishing the petition process, would offer them incentive to become politically involved and keep elected officeholders accountable to the electorate.
Make an effort today to lobby your state senator to vote NO on the above 3 travesties. Freedom does not come free!
Now, two bills and one resolution introduced into our 2007 legislature are poised to trample our petition rights. LB 39 would prevent petition campaigns from paying petition circulators per signature collected and require them to be Nebraska registered voters. Such law would make it more difficult to recruit circulators and cost campaigns additional regulatory expense and paperwork. LB 40 would force petition circulators to wear numbered badges, though a Colorado court invalidated such a law because of privacy and harassment concerns. Failure to wear a badge would constitute a misdemeanor. Wearing such badges would cost campaigns an added expense and expose circulators to increased harassment. During the Stop Overspending campaign, which our taxpayer group supported, goons harassed and intimidated circulators to stop them from collecting signatures and intimidated those wanting to sign. LR 8CA would require 15%, instead of 10%, of state registered voters to sign initiative petitions for proposed constitutional amendments, making it almost impossible to place grass-roots issues on the ballot. These proposals constitute mere revenge by those who fear fiscal issues like Stop Overspending placed on the ballot by petition and want to guarantee their future failure. Instead of punishing out of state entities that assist Nebraska petition campaigns, critics will only punish Nebraskans by gutting another freedom.
The single subject clause already inhibits placing an initiative on the ballot, because the enacting amendment never defined single subject, so courts can conjure whatever definition they wish. A main reason why citizens place more than 1 subject in a petition is because the topics are related and because it is so difficult and expensive to obtain the 110,000+ verifiable signatures to place an issue on the ballot. In 1994, a Nebraska Supreme Court ruling almost doubled the number of signatures required for fulfilling initiative petition requirements. Finding it more difficult to muster sufficient volunteers to gain the newly-required number, plus other restrictions, petition campaigns increasingly resorted to hiring paid circulators and out of state companies to assist. Then came a requirement that a proposed constitutional amendment could not go before voters by initiative petition more often than once in 3 years. Accumulating hurdles have made it impossible in many instances to rely on a pool of volunteer circulators, much needed in this labor-intensive activity. So difficult is waging a successful venture that obstacles dissuade some from donating or circulating. Campaigns must raise huge war chests to pay circulators or forego petitioning. Ironic that petition critics condemn paid circulators and out of state logistical assistance, both resulting from their previous victories in curtailing petition rights. As restrictions have increased, more petitions have failed ballot access, e.g., two taxpayer initiative petitions in 1996 and 4 taxpayer petitions in 2004. Criticism of a surfeit of petitions is tantamount to declaring that there exists too much involvement by citizens in the political process. I believe that state senators by increments have eroded our petition rights to suffocate the petition process that checks their power. Eradicating this freedom will only encourage them to snuff another.
We must restore our petition rights to the setting envisioned decades ago by progressives, who granted us these rights to redress grievances on taxation and other issues, to act as the virtual second house of our legislature as promulgated by Unicameral advocate Sen. George Norris, as a safety valve for citizen discontent.
If unable to petition for redress of grievances, etc. via petition, we will have lost a lawful means of political expression. Restoring the process to make it easier for Nebraska citizens to circulate petitions as volunteers, instead of extinguishing the petition process, would offer them incentive to become politically involved and keep elected officeholders accountable to the electorate.
Make an effort today to lobby your state senator to vote NO on the above 3 travesties. Freedom does not come free!
Monday, January 02, 2006
TERM LIMITS SHOULD STAY
State Sens. Ernie Chambers, Dennis Byars, and Marian Price have joined to file a lawsuit in District Court in Lincoln, NE. to overturn the term limits clause placed in our state constitution by a majority of Nebraskans, who have voted 3 times to restrict state senators to 2 terms. These 3 senators show the typical liberal attitude of thinking that they know better than us rabble who go to the polls. They seem insulted that we refuse to acknowledge them as our bosses. These term limits toxins are only wasting taxpayer dollars by requiring our Att.-Gen. to defend term limits in court. Now is the time for angry taxpayers to show their entitled contempt for these tax & spend senators. Write a letter to your local newspaper, call in to a local radio talk show, or simply write or email your opinion to these 3. See our web site at www.netaxpayers.org for more details about how you can contact and defend term limits from the arrogant elitists.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
No Pay Raises for State Senators
Once again, liberals want to raise the salaries for state senators, from $12,000 to $21,000 annually, a 75% pay increase. How many of us have received 75% pay hikes lately?? Proponents now make the same argument they made for their case during the last pay hike campaign, that an increased salary would bring us better qualified and more dedicated candidates. Yet, taxes and spending both have exploded since that time. We must fight this pay grab until state senators rein in spiraling taxes and spending. From 2004 to 2005, Nebraska rose from 14th to 8th highest taxed state in the nation. Nebraska in 2004 ranked next to highest among all adjacent states in appropriations per $1,000 of personal income and per capita. Career politicians have not served taxpayers well. Senators purposely placed the pay raise proposal on the 2006 primary ballot, knowing that fewer citizens vote in primary elections.
Citizen legislators should offer public service, even at a financial sacrifice, for only a few years and then return to live under the same laws they themselves have passed for others.
Citizen legislators should offer public service, even at a financial sacrifice, for only a few years and then return to live under the same laws they themselves have passed for others.
Sunday, August 14, 2005
Bully on the Block
Not content with suing the taxpayers of Nebraska in order to find a friendly judge to order the State to ladle out more state aid for its wanton spending, the Omaha Public $chool board now threatens to sue local government in an attempt to bite off large chunks of neighboring school district territory. The OP$ public relations machine, as usual, wraps its aggression in warm phrases like, its "for the kids," to allow all the children within the city limits of Omaha to share in a wonderful environment of multiculturalism, non-sexism, and a sorry curriculum that produces the lowest standardized test scores in the metro area. Board members are seemingly oblivious that thousands of Omaha parents have voted with their feet to reside in other-than OP$ school districts. Transparent is that OP$ motivation stems from 2 objectives, 1) to gorge itself on property valuation-rich territory to fuel more tax revenues, and 2) to raise its overall test scores, so that it does not lose federal funding under the No Child Left Behind requirement that financially penalizes persistent low scores. Contact your state senator today to pass legislation prohibiting annexation of other school district territory without a vote of the people.
Sunday, April 24, 2005
TAXPAYERS BETRAYED
During many years in politics, I have survived both verbal and physical attacks, but, just like the Energizer Bunny, I keep on hopping along. What really hurts me most in politics is when a candidate or politician is disingenuous with me or lies about his intentions regarding taxes and spending. A recent prime example is Omaha City Councilman Franklin Thompson, who in 2001 solemnly pledged himself a fiscal conservative, someone who would be a “change agent” for budgetary responsibility.
Safely elected, he proceeded to suggest a library tax, garbage tax, and public safety tax. He engineered an infamous budget compromise that offered inflationary city employee raises conveniently delayed until after the next election. All burdens on property taxpayers.
Obviously not a fiscal conservative, Thompson showed his true character colors in his shameful memo to fellow Councilman Frank Brown, in which he tried to cut a sleazy mutual deal for council leadership positions: boasting about his support and votes for liberal causes, a deal to deflect criticism from his white, West Omaha Republican constituents. That he would have to “use” his future votes to regain credibility. That he may switch to the Democrat Party. Hardly an agent for change, Thompson has proved himself a deceitful, untrustworthy politician. Not someone worthy of re-election.
Email ncf@phonet.com for directions to see the entire memo.
Safely elected, he proceeded to suggest a library tax, garbage tax, and public safety tax. He engineered an infamous budget compromise that offered inflationary city employee raises conveniently delayed until after the next election. All burdens on property taxpayers.
Obviously not a fiscal conservative, Thompson showed his true character colors in his shameful memo to fellow Councilman Frank Brown, in which he tried to cut a sleazy mutual deal for council leadership positions: boasting about his support and votes for liberal causes, a deal to deflect criticism from his white, West Omaha Republican constituents. That he would have to “use” his future votes to regain credibility. That he may switch to the Democrat Party. Hardly an agent for change, Thompson has proved himself a deceitful, untrustworthy politician. Not someone worthy of re-election.
Email ncf@phonet.com for directions to see the entire memo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)