Guest Editorial -- An Essay on Taxation Without Representation in Utah

Utah’s on the same destructive path with RDA’s as English Parliament was in 1765 with the Stamp Act.

-Steve Huntsman

In Feburary 1765, 240 years ago, the minister of finance, George Grenville, persuaded the English House of Commons to pass a controversial bill called the Stamp Act. The bill passed, becoming law on Feburary 13. As a result, and from that point on, the American colonists were required to:

“Purchase government-issued stamps to be placed on all legal documents, newspapers, pamphlets, almanacs, advertisements, and many other articles which were sold or distributed in the colony’s”

As most American’s today know, what followed as a result of the stamp act was only an embryonic seed to the list of grievances, which led ultimately to the Declaration of Independence and a Revolutionary War. Why? What principle or human rights were violated?

Merely, taxation without representation by an arbitrary governing body.

Benjamin Franklin, who had been sent to England by the colonist Assembly to defend the colonies against this act, wrote a full 12 years prior to the revolutionary war about the act, “A total separation….will be the final consequences” and that America “may suffer at present under the arbitrary power of this country (British Parliament)….and the (colonists) think them (these resolutions) unconstitutional and unjust.” Italics added.

Following the Stamp Act, the enraged colonists in addition to rioting, began ignoring the stamps themselves altogether, and completely boycotted many British goods.

In time, the colonist’s actions had the desired affect; in short, the British (currently at war with France) had their tax coffers ruined, and the British merchants began begging Parliament to repeal the act. This act was eventually repealed, but the fight; well it was just beginning. Reader, keep this principle above in mind as I move to present day.

Applying correct historical principles to today

While I am not speaking for North Ogden City, I am one of their local elected representatives at present, and for those interested, I do, without delight, have the power granted to me by the Utah Legislators to raise, and yes to also lower, North Ogden citizens property taxes, that is with a majority Council vote and following due process, which includes public hearings, etc. I do not bring this up for adulations, but quite the contrary as the statements in this article would be considered suicidal by most politicians seeking office. So why do I boldly bring this up, that is, by not using a fictitious pen name with fictitious examples?

Because, it is important for the reader to recognize the proper procedure for a municipality in Utah to both raise and allocate its taxes on its citizens; to legally collect the tax, and in turn to use the tax to pay for roads, police and fire protection, and infrastructure and other public services deemed appropriate and made legal by the State legislators.

In fact, most citizens will normally submit to paying their portion of the property tax, without the threat of force, because they can generally see some benefits from it. I am not arguing for, or against property tax on real-estate property. However, what I am arguing is that taxation in this case above is done with representation. The citizens of North Ogden and Ogden who elect, have to make a tough choice in two years. They can keep us, or toss us out in favor of a better and hopefully wiser group. This is not arbitrary government. This is proper government, and local legislators who decide to levy and in turn spend the taxes of their citizens must answer for their choices in the voting booth every 2 to 4 years.

While most of us, myself included, dislike and oppose taxing our real-estate property, we continue to pay it and continue to re-elect those willing to provide those services, but not those who abuse these sacred tax funds. Local taxes are for our mutual public benefit and safety.

This is the intent of what our founding fathers envisioned when they penned the constitution and amendments. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the constitutionality of taxing your home and property, the fact is, it is taxation with representation, and most people decide they are willing to pay it, and public force is generally applied with justice only to those who decide not to pay. People willingly do this for good police and fire protection, good roads and good infrastructure and a good military.

Applying this in-correct principle to today

Suppose North Ogden City decides to build an aquatic center by spending the taxes from other citizen’s property tax (those outside our city). Let’s choose to spend taxes for those who live in say, Weber County. Most wise and trusting people believe this would not happen. Believe it or not there is a law in Utah currently under legislative moratorium which allows this very thing to happen today.

Most of us believe and have faith in our method of taxation because we are represented. However, if most citizens understood, which I fear many do not, that there was a loophole in the law which has been allowing municipalities to violate your rights with arbitrary government controls (that is, acting without representation) you would want to repeal that law would you not?

That law in Utah Code is the Redevelopment Agencies Act (U.C.A. 17B-04), commonly referred to as an RDA. When a local city, let’s take North Ogden, or Bountiful, or Sandy or Ogden for instance, decides by their own local control mechanisms to spend your taxes on their own recreation centers like Ogden’s, a luxurious and rarefied townhouse rental project, a BDO industrial park or any of their other ($186 million worth of) non-essential municipal infrastructure business assets, they are spending a portion of your tax dollars on their own cities local and arbitrarily chosen projects.

All around us we read about the repercussions of RDA projects. Just this year, Weber Country had to raise its property taxes (already the highest in the State) citing municipal RDA projects as one of their main reasons for the libraries and other essential government tax shortfalls.

The State School Board of Education has published figures near $100 million which they will lose because of statewide RDA projects. The facts are; the people who live outside Ogden cannot vote in Ogden city’s municipal elections, but must bear a portion of the burden of paying the tax and associated tax debt on their arbitrary projects. This is in fact, taxation without representation. And as such, despite being now legal in Utah, the RDA law is, if I’m not mistaken, unconstitutional law, and is unworthy of our mutual respect and support. I would ask then, shall justice be denied the people forever? Or is this taxation without representation an embryonic seed of what is to come? While some say; this is 12 years prior to “A total separation….will be the final consequences” of this act.

A pro and con argument

Some might argue that while we do have representation with the State Legislators on RDA law, this would therefore not be considered a “taxation without representation” case. To a point I agree, as today we are blessed with the opportunity to vote in, or out, or to persuade the thinking of the State Legislators. And Ogden City also agrees, because they recently hired a lobbyist at $45K per session to persuade the lawmakers to vote with them on continuing the use of eminent domain and the funding of RDA’s.

Not to get off the point, but let’s discuss roads to round up this discussion. Let’s specifically consider the case of the gasoline tax for the sake of reason. The fuel tax in Utah is a defined and exact percent tax, levied legally by the state to promote the general welfare; it is also defined to be used specially for road purposes. Each city and county as well as UDOT is allocated a portion of these collected statewide fuel taxes, based upon population, to either repair, maintain or install new roads in a city or county under the state guild lines and discretion. I have no right to vote for or against a neighboring city’s pot hole repair plans, nor do they mine, so are they and I not therefore taxed without representation?

Not really. Because the state has determined and most people agree, that putting in roads is a legitimate government function which we must all pay for and all benefit from. The funds are not to be used on any arbitrary project, such as a building or baseball diamond, but only on roads to promote our mutual free commerce and for the transportation good of the people.

In the case of the RDA, the legislator’s original intent and purpose of why RDA’s were started was to remove blight. Municipalities and cities jumped on the band wagon of this taxing tool to further promote any good project the city might come up, that is to “promote the city” welfare. The law was changed over time, year after year until the law got so mystified and projects so rarified, that our legislators stepped back and put a one year moratorium on RDA use in the 2005 legislative session. In addition, the new law has outlawed recreation centers and sports complexes after the end of this year as well as removed the tool of eminent domain to build a Wal-mart or other such commercial retail projects. Thank you legislators. And my goal in penning this is to further convince the state lawmakers to support RDA reforms.

I am of the opinion that if this act is not repealed or reformed again in this 2006 legislative session, there will eventually be a rebellion by the people, because of this arbitrary control, of supporting unprincipled taxing use, as well as using capitalistic controls to support one business over another. This is again; accomplished using the tool of taxation without representation on a city to city basis, which only pits one city’s economic goals against another. This is a zero sum game for the people and the associated tax coffers.

Is following the colonist plan by boycotting another rarified sports complex, and plot for another repeating and doomed mall disaster to stop these arbitrary government actions the best approach? Or is free enterprise starting today a better solution?

I feel compelled to call this law what it is. In the words of a wise sage who once gave this short maxim;

“If laws be made of polished marble, then the dirt thrown on them will not long adhere, but dirt thrown on a mud wall may stick and incorporate.”

What say ye gentle readers?