The Dexter Leader
A Heritage Newspaper
Weekly Publication
Letters to the Editor
PUBLISHED: June 26, 2008
To the Editor: In the May 29th Dexter Leader "Letters to the Editor," a writer second-handedly stated, "the 'Leadership for Scio' group will try to take it (Scio Township) back to the 19th Century." If by the 19th Century he means returning to the respected values that made our country great: smaller government (along with slashing $90,000/year of our own salaries to fund additional deputies and better police and fire coverage), protecting our history by saving Gordon Hall and the Delhi Bridge, and aggressively promoting a green future, then, thank you.
Advertisement
We accept your compliment because we believe there is something honorable in practicing fiscal responsibility while simultaneously defending the beauty of Scio Township and bettering the environment.
We understand these values. We understand you want your tax dollars to be spent on police and fire services and not on elected officials' salaries. We understand we work for you and not the other way around. We understand you want change. We are change you can believe in.
Leadership for Scio: Spaulding Clark, Gordon Darr, Dick DeLong, Jean Ledwith King and Dorothy Lynn Phillips
To the Editor: OK, I am a news and political junkie. I admit it. But, I have a preexisting bias that the mainstream media - in order to maximize profit - often fails to deliver meaningful content (and at times results in misleading rather than informing in the process). And, therefore, my following the news intently is more of a survival technique - in order to make proper, informed choices.
Every one of us has a corresponding responsibility to figure out the important details for themselves, rather than being passive recipients of media content. With the 2008 election process well underway, getting the right information needed to make informed choices is critical to the future success of this country.
On June 12 on ABC's Good Morning America is a perfect example of how poorly a national "news" program informs many Americans on a key Presidential election issue - taxes. On June 11 the non-partisan Tax Policy Center (TPC) released an independent assessment of all the tax proposals of the two presumptive nominees (Obama and McCain). ABC barely makes a mention of this, but I wish they had not mentioned it at all, because what was provided was distilled down to useless garbage.
In a nutshell, they stated that he average results of the TPC findings in that the average American's tax burden would decrease by $160 under Obama's proposals and by $1,195 under McCain's proposals. Moreover, the two dollar amounts were shown in a graphic behind the news anchor along side each candidates name.
Upon hearing it, I knew the information was garbage as the proposed tax impacts under each candidate varies dramatically by income level, and in this instance there is no "average" person to which this information would apply. Sadly, many Americans may now assume that they will see a $160 drop in taxes under Obama and a $1,195 drop in taxes under McCain.
If the goal were to inform, then ABC should have shown its viewers a chart taken directly from the TPC report. Yes, this would have taken a bit more time to explain and may not have fit into a nifty, simple graphic. But ethics would dictate to do it right or not at all. And clearly how each of us would fare under these tax proposals highly depends on our income levels, and indeed the average values are not meaningful to anyone as this person does not even exist.
Under McCain, every tax bracket sees an average tax decrease, whereas under Obama, all but the three highest tax brackets see an average tax decrease. The reporting of the overall average by ABC provides absolutely no useful information and is 100 percent misleading.
Now here is the catch. Do not stop here and assume you know the whole story; you need to look this over specifically with respect to your own case. The results do vary if you are married and if you have dependents. Also, an individual proposal might affect you disproportionately and the values shown above by income range are still averages within that bracket. Lastly, some of the candidate's proposals are not perfectly clear, and assumptions had to be made.
The TPC results are provided by tax reporting status (e.g., married and single), and the report includes a description of the individual tax proposals, clarifying communications made with each campaign, and any final assumptions. You will want to see these details.
Isn't the issue important enough to warrant a little examination of your own? After all as the soon-to-be-former President used to say "it's your money."
Jeremy Heiken
Dexter
To the Editor: The question of cityhood for Dexter is being pushed by a subset of the Dexter Village Council. This issue has not arisen from any desire by the residents of Dexter to become a city. It is plainly and simply a grasp for much greater power over people and resources within the village and outside of the current boundaries of Dexter.
Annexation is the major new power that the Dexter Village Council wants with cityhood.Annexation hurts not just those being annexed, but in reality will hurt everyone sooner or later as Dexter Village looses its semi-rural village character and becomes a densely packed, faceless and generic, high-tax suburb of Ann Arbor. The Preserve Scio 2008 slate (Nielsen, Ream, Shindell, Warner, Douglas and Bulley) stands unequivocally against annexations of any property in Scio Township.
One of the main points about this grasp for greater power is that it will remove Dexter Village from any possible oversight by Scio Township. This is a dangerous step to take because the Dexter Village Council will have much greater ability to assess and to tax at will. The most disturbing component of that power would be the ability to condemn any property they may choose.
If any resident doubts the council would not be so bold as to condemn private property, one only has to drive their car down
Forest Street where many home owners have found their front yards turned into municipal parking spaces since their properties were re-zoned commercial. These home owners learned about this after the fact, and were given no opportunity to redress the issue.
The quality of any given home matters not to the council. All they see is a revenue source and a boost to their egos. Another unfortunate angle to cityhood is the ability to assess an income
tax. No matter how much they might dismiss this possibility, if existing revenues don't meet their expectations, the income tax would be introduced - so very reluctantly, of course. The truth
is that there is no benefit of cityhood to the residents of Dexter. A miniscule truth is being advanced to cover an enormous deception. The Scio Township portion of the Dexter resident's tax bill, which
future city residents would no longer have to pay, is the smallest amount they pay to anyone. It covers services (e.g., for assessing, for tax collection, for elections, etc.) that would become the responsibility of the future City of Dexter. The Dexter Village
Council explains the cost for these services will be far less than what the Village residents pay to Scio Township today in property taxes. This is very hard to believe. What are they not telling us?
Remaining part of the township is the better alternative for village residents since township taxes are spread across a larger population than would be the case for any tax burden on a smaller (city) group.
The 2000 Census lists Scio Township having roughly 16,000 residents while the Village of Dexter (resting as it does in both Scio and
Webster Townships) is listed as having roughly 2400 residents. Many Chelsea residents now wish they could return to village status since they have seen the costs (and fees!) rise for City provided services.
In matters such as this issue of cityhood, the Dexter Village Council members are subject to subtle manipulation by the persuasive powers of a single individual. Too much emphasis is being placed on reduced taxes as a selling point for cityhood.
At the June 19, 2008 Town Hall Meeting there seemed to be little support for cityhood other than a few pre-arranged comments by some ex-members of the City Study Committee asked to be in the audience.
It is quite clear that some on the Council, including the village manager and treasurer, feel they have something to gain by cityhood. Many assurances were given that, no, there are no plans to increase
taxes, to instantiate income taxes, to condemn property, and to annex unrelated neighboring properties. But be sure, some of them say, to
give us those powers anyway. Additional powers are being sought - to be used, of course. It reminds one of the old fable of the spider and the fly.
The so-called "outsiders" who appear to be interfering in Village affairs would be more than happy to remain outside, and only are now
involved in this situation because they feel they've been forced into it - forced by the past words and actions of this Village Council. It is possible, that someday in the far distant future, the Dexter
residents might decide to embrace cityhood, but one hopes fervently, not with the current makeup of the Dexter Village Council.
Deborah Bulley, Candidate for Scio Township Trustee
Not all stories are guaranteed to appear
online. The Web edition contains a reasonable
sampling of the print edition stories.
For the most complete news coverage, we invite you to
subscribe
to the print edition of the paper.
Expanded
Web
Coverage
TOP JOBS
