news-record.com

The Guilford County Tax Department says it will notify residents of property revaluation results next month.

Many of us might find that the value of our property is down.

Forsyth County is a year behind in this process but commissioners there had a discussion yesterday about the expected impact of lower property valuation (Winston-Salem Journal report).

"County tax assessor John Burgiss said Thursday that if the current trend in real estate sales continues, the tax value of property in the county could drop from $33.9 billion to about $31.6 billion when the next revaluation is complete in 2013 — a drop of about 7 percent.

"With other revenues expected to be flat, the result is that county commissioners could have to raise the tax rate by 7 cents for the 2013-14 fiscal year to close the gap — or else drastically reduce spending. ...

"Under the current tax rate, the owner of a $150,000 house pays $1,011 in county property tax.

"To keep property tax collections 'revenue-neutral' after revaluation in 2013 — meaning the county takes in no more and no less revenue from property taxes — the tax rate would increase to 71.08 cents and the taxpayer would have a county tax bill of $1,066.20."

The bold type is mine. It's my way of saying beware revenue neutrality.

It's a term you hear often, and it sounds innocuous.

And in some cases, it probably is.

But not so much when talking about property taxes.

What revenue-neutrality means on a county level is, if property values slip, as we know they have in the last few years, the tax base declines. If property is taxed at the same rate, it will generate less revenue. Therefore, the tax rate should be raised enough to produce the same amount of revenue for the city and county as before. You have revenue-neutrality. And neutrality means no harm is done. There's no real tax increase.

The first caution about that is that this is a matter of neutrality on average. Property values don't all change by the same amount or in the same direction. Some may drop 10 percent, some 20 percent. Some might hold steady. So changing the tax rate won't affect all property owners equally. Some may end up with a smaller tax bill, some a larger one. Only the average guy will experience neutrality.

Except maybe he won't, either.

See, the property tax is really based on your wealth as measured by the real property you own. For many people, their home makes up the bulk of their net worth. Your wealth, as measured by your property, determines how much property tax you pay. If you own a million-dollar property, you're pretty wealthy and you will get a hefty tax bill. Fair enough.

But if your property value drops, say 20 percent, you're not as wealthy anymore. You've just taken a big hit to your net worth.

To use another term, you have not gotten off with wealth-neutrality. So, if you are asked to contribute to revenue-neutraily by paying a higher tax rate, it means you've got to kick in a considerably larger share of your wealth to do it. Fair? It's hard to make that argument. It certainly goes against the notion that the wealthy should pay more and the less wealthy deserve a break. Everyone whose property value drops is less wealthy, yet none will be promised a break if the guiding principle is to maintain revenue-neutrality.

Instead of that term, taxpayers might want to focus the conversation on wealth-neutrality.

"I shot it with confidence, and God put the ball in the rim" — Austin Rivers.

If that were true, Presbyterian would have beaten Carolina, too.

Will our smaller fighting force be stronger, man for man, when more of the men are women?

Greeks want to go down fighting.

Unfortunately, they're not the 300 Spartans.

Holden Thorp holds out for common sense at Carolina, at least for now.

"The proposal would have allowed students of any sexual orientation, gender or self-identified gender to live in the same room in UNC's residence halls."

Starting college can be confusing enough as it is.

Sen. Kay Hagan joins "One Million Strong for Women," stating in an email today:

"Our opponents continue to launch attack after attack against women's rights, women's health and women's economic security — and we've got to fight back every single day.

"The next battle over the Obama administration's decision to make contraception more affordable under the new health care law is already underway."

In this one, however, "our opponents" are Catholic Democrats ... and Obama is ready to back down, according to news reports this morning.

---

An email from the Obama campaign:

"Five years ago today, a few thousand of us gathered in Springfield, Illinois, to launch an improbable campaign for president."

Indeed it was improbable. On Feb. 10, 2007, Barack Obama was 45 years old and only two years and one month into his first term in the U.S. Senate. He had no legislative accomplishments and no executive experience. There was no way he should have been able to compete against Hillary Clinton. Somehow, he did, winning the Democratic nomination and going on to a strong victory over Republican John McCain, a widely respected veteran senator and war hero, in the November election .

Now, some have written off his re-election chances as equally improbable. But, because history is an excellent teacher, we all should know better than to believe that.

 

Sam J. Ervin IV doesn't play up his family legacy, or back away from it.

It's just part of who he is.

He is the grandson of the legendary "Senator Sam," Sam J. Ervin Jr. -- but doesn't mention that in the bio on his campaign website.

Nor does he note that his father, Sam J. Ervin III, was a state Superior Court judge and federal appeals court judge.

(Here's a photo of three Sam Ervins.)

In his hometown of Morganton, Sam IV was known as Jimmy, a nickname that is still used sometimes.

(His son, Sam. J. Ervin V, goes by Jamie.)

But Ervin isn't trying to hide the connection. He lives in the family homeplace that sits within walking distance of the Burke County Courthouse. He recalls dinner-table discussions about legal issues and cases. And, make no mistake, he's running for a seat on the state Supreme Court as Sam Ervin IV.

His grandfather served on that court from 1948 to 1954, when he accepted an appointment to the U.S. Senate after the death of Sen. Clyde Hoey.

Ervin IV was elected to the N.C. Court of Appeals in 2008. That followed work as a member of the N.C. Utilities Commission and private law practice in Morganton. He's a graduate of Davidson College and Harvard Law.

Ervin calls himself a middle-of-the-road judge, meaning he carefully follows the intent of the constitution, the law and legal precedent. He says he has the ability to think through complex cases without applying an ideological bias.

He's running for the seat held by Justice Paul Newby, who is seeking re-election.

Newby, who grew up in Jamestown, was in Greensboro last week to announce his campaign. Ervin dropped by my office yesterday for a conversation.

Filing begins Monday, and it's possible other candidates will enter the race ... but I doubt it.

The election is nonpartisan but, as the state's political establishment knows, Newby is a Republican and Ervin is a Democrat.

Partisan observers will say that the balance of the court is up for grabs this year. Of its seven current members, four are Republicans and three are Democrats.

That's what was said in 2010, when Barbara Jackson ran against Robert C. Hunter.

Guess what? Almost all of the court's full opinions last year were unanimous. Some political divide.

The Court of Appeals is similarly nonpartisan in its work.

It will take a deeper look to find distinctions between Ervin and Newby.

Ervin is not running on his name, but it is not a bad name to have.

Tom Terrell on what passes for "ethics" in our state legislature:

Practically anything, it seems.

---

And Sam Spagnola on President Obama's decision to embrace Super PACs, which he labeled "a threat to democracy." No room for principles in a campaign ... or was this ever a matter of principle?

Thanks for a restless night, Austin Rivers, watching you hit that 3-pointer over and over in my sleep.

The University of North Dakota defies the NCAA, which threatens sanctions if it continues to use the Fighting Sioux nickname.

What about the other UND? Why is Fighting Irish acceptable to the NCAA when Fighting Sioux is not?

His campaign ended in 2008. It owes repayment of $2.1 million in public funding. And it spent more than $800,000 last year on things that look like personal expenses.

Who else but John Edwards, one of the great political con men of our time?

It makes sense to delay filing for Guilford County Board of Commissioners seats until the legal issues surrounding the screwed-up district plan are cleared up in court.

Anita Earls of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice told Joe Killian they will seek an injunction.

Meanwhile, Republican Sue Myrick of Charlotte became the third member of Congress from North Carolina to opt out of running for re-election this year. Democrats Heath Shuler and Brad Miller are bowing out, too.

As for the state legislature, Greensboro Democratic Rep. Pricey Harrison says she'll file for re-election Monday. Redistricting has put her in the same district with fellow Greensboro Democrat Maggie Jeffus. If Jeffus runs, they'll have to compete in a primary.

High Point City Councilman Latimer Alexander says he will file Monday in the redrawn Senate District 27. He's a Republican, and he'll have company. Libby Hill Seafood President Justin Conrad has announced his candidacy, and Greensboro City Councilwoman Trudy Wade appears to be ready to launch a bid.

Wade's candidacy raises a strong question of why she ran for re-election to her District 5 council seat last year. She's clearly not interested in it, having run for the state Senate unsuccessfully in 2010 and now trying again.

Alexander's term on the High Point City Council is up this year, so he's making the choice of giving that up to shoot for higher office. Wade can stay in her city seat, but at this point you have to wonder about her commitment to it.

With a clean sweep last night, Rick Santorum has now won Republican primaries or caucuses in four states — Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado.

Mitt Romney has taken three — New Hampshire, Florida and Nevada.

Newt Gingrich grabbed South Carolina.

Ron Paul ... well, there's just not a state in the union that wacky.

Santorum's victories Tuesday didn't push him into the lead in the overall race. He's still running third. But they add more doubt that Republicans are excited about Romney.

It's a mess for Republicans, whose ability to beat President Obama and his super money machine looks more doubtful. The Democrats may be as happy this morning as Santorum.

Today's same-sex marriage decision from the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in California was narrowly decided, both in its 2-1 ruling and in the issues on which it hinged.

"We therefore need not and do not consider whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry, or whether states that fail to afford the right to marry to gays and lesbians must do so," the majority said. "Further, we express no view on those questions."

In that regard, its impact seems to fall only on California, where a state constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage is now overturned -- pending possible appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Yet, the reasoning on which the majority judges built their decision could influence the debate here in North Carolina, where a farther-reaching proposed constitutional amendment goes on the ballot in May.

How so?

Today's court stressed two key points:

* The California constitutional amendment, enacted with voter approval of Proposition 8 in 2008, actually eliminated an existing right to marry for same-sex couples. This right existed for a total of 143 days, and had been created by the state's high court, which nullified an earlier voter initiative placing into law language that restricted marriage to one man-one woman. The federal panel found it a violation of equal protection to adopt a constitutional provision singling out same-sex couples for the deprivation of an existing "right," regardless of how long that right had been available.

* Same-sex couples in California, before and after the adoption of the constitutional marriage ban approved by Prop 8, were entitled to recognition as "domestic partners," a designation that granted identical rights and privileges of marriage, denying only the label. Yet, the court said, that label is powerful. Given all the same rights and responsibilities, however, there could be no rational reason for granting marriage to opposite-sex couples and domestic partnerships to same-sex couples.

This second point pulls the discussion all the way across the country to North Carolina. The proposal being put to a vote here does more than restrict marriage to one man-one woman, it states that this restricted marriage is the only domestic relationship recognized by North Carolina. If approved, it would block any form of state-sanctioned domestic partnerships for same-sex couples.

Did the authors of this provision anticipate today's decision in California and push their proposal the extra step to prevent such a ruling by a federal court? I don't know. But it does cast the measure in a different light. What appeared to be a gratuitous overreach now might be presented as a pre-emptive move to prevent the kind of incremental progression that courts use to move from Legal Point A to Legal Point B, to C, and so on.

The Ninth Circuit court is right, probably on both counts but certainly on the assertion that granting legal equality to domestic partnerships for same-sex couples while trying to deny them marriage is irrational and indefensible. In fact, the only way to guard against such an untenable position may be to deny domestic partnership rights -- which is exactly what the North Carolina proposition seeks to do.

Today's ruling does not assert that same-sex couples have a right to marry under the U.S. Constitution -- not even under the Equal Protection clause of its 14th Amendment. As the majority said, it did not seek to answer that question.

Rather, it says that where states have stepped forward, they really can't step back again.

North Carolina has not stepped forward, which leaves open the possibility that it can step back. It is for the voters to say.

Stephen Payne, a spokesman for Feld Entertainment Inc., wrongly accuses letter writer Teresa Merner of Gibsonville of distorting the November 2011 settlement with the U.S. Department of Agriculture regarding the care of circus animals.

Merner accurately quoted a statement by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack: "This settlement sends a direct message to the public and to those who exhibit animals that USDA will take all necessary steps to protect animals regulated under the Animal Welfare Act."

She correctly noted that Feld, which operates Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, agreed to pay a $270,000 fine. She referred readers to the USDA website for more details.

I'll help you find them.

Here's the USDA news release about the settlement.

Here's the settlement agreement.

Here are actual inspection reports.

The reports don't  appear to show gross violations. Here's a sample from the Nov. 18, 2011, report: "In particular, the licensee's records show that Sara (a 9 yr old Asian elephant) has had chronic lameness since early 2009, and that the licensee has not conducted adequate diagnostics, developed an adequate treatment plan, or ensured that the elephant received prescribed treatments."

In his letter today, Feld spokesman Payne wrote, "The settlement was a business decision to resolve open, and in many instances disputed, inspection findings. It was not an admission of any violation of the Animal Welfare Act but allows us to move forward to provide the best in animal care and live family entertainment."

It's an odd "business decision" to agree to a $270,000 fine when you're providing "the best in animal care." It sounds like spinning.

Feld indeed did not admit to any violations, but as far as disputed findings, it agreed to waive any hearings. In other words, it chose not to formally dispute the inspectors' findings.

It further agreed to "develop and implement annual Animal Welfare Act compliance training for all personnel who work with and handle animals ..."

Certainly there are "activist groups" that pursue an "extremist agenda" when it comes to animal welfare issues. The circus is a big target.

There are also legitimate philosophical concerns about whether it's appropriate for animals like elephants and tigers to spend their lives as circus performers. Personally, I would rather see large captive animals in natural-habitat zoos or sanctuaries. People can reasonably disagree.

There should be no disagreement about proper care. USDA inspectors raised concerns about that, which led to a major settlement agreement. Letter writer Teresa Merner described that agreement accurately.

An odd assertion was posed to me a couple of weeks ago about the new Guilford County commissioners district plan, which appears to leave 43,000 residents without a representative from December 2012 until December 2014:

It is that Kay Cashion will be their representative because she currently serves District 6, and the new district in question has been designated No. 6.

I immediately dismissed that idea as making no sense.

Then the High Point Enterprise endorsed the notion in an editorial yesterday:

"Those 43,000 county residents in District 6 will have a representative on county commissioners — veteran Commissioner Kay Cashion, who was appointed to the board in 2004, won election in 2006 and re-election in 2010 to a term that doesn’t expire until 2014. We’d say those 43,000 residents are in pretty good hands.

"Granted, with the redrawing of district lines, Cashion no longer resides in District 6. But that situation violates no law. In our view, Cashion is District 6’s representative until her term expires in 2014. At that time, those residents of the newly designed District 6 again will have the chance to vote in a county commissioner race for District 6."

This is just wrong on the facts.

First, it's not correct to say Cashion "no longer resides in District 6." She has not moved. We're not talking about the same District 6. Much of the District 6 she serves, and the part where she resides, will be the new District 3.

The redistricting law abolishes all the current commissioner districts on the first Monday of December 2012. It creates new districts as of that date. So, to say the commissioner who represents the current District 6 will become the de facto representative of the new District 6 is not right. There is no translation of districts from the old plan to the new, 1=1, 2=2, etc. For one thing, there isn't even the same number of districts.

But, just to be sure, I asked Cashion herself this morning whether she is going to represent the new District 6.

"Nobody's told me," she said.

There is one precinct in common between the old and new District 6, but Cashion doesn't live in it and she doesn't intend to move. If it's Sen. Phil Berger, the author of this redistricting, who came up with this idea, she added, "I'm not quite sure what the senator's thinking about. I don't know how I could be just assigned to represent the new District 6."

Of course she couldn't. The law makes no such assignment. This idea doesn't make sense and it wouldn't be fair.

"I think the people who live there would prefer to have somebody they elect to represent them," Cashion said.

Certainly. In fact, they're entitled to have someone they elect represent them. The law should have allowed an election in that district this year, but it didn't. That's just a small legal issue legislators forgot when they created this problem, and now it will be up to a judge to fix it for them.