I hope you are happy….
Tax assessors scratch Jindal’s back, he scratches theirs.
See, the Blanco tax commission sided with taxpayers, requiring assessors to take obsolescence and depreciation into effect when determining when determining the amount to tax your home. In doing so they listened to the testimony of taxpayers and assessors and made a decision after giving both sides the ability to argue their points.
So in the election, the assessors endorsed Jindal. Jindal appointed new people to the commission to do his bidding…. and it seems his bidding was to reward the assessors for their loyalty.
In a meeting with no public input, Jindal’s new tax commission overturned that ruling, sided with the assessors, and now they can decide the level, if any, of obsolescence your house has and can adjust accordingly. I am sure that such decisions will be made with sound judgement and will not be based on anything political… this is Louisiana after all. (Since you can’t see it, my eyes are rolling as I type).
Seems to me that Bobby Jindal, instead of appointing independent people who would make the best decision for the people of Louisiana, has instead used more of his appointments to pay off his political debts. Seems like he has just proved, yet again, that he is a typical politician.
Just sayin….
Oh, and one more point. The Bayou Buzz article states:
On February 29, 2008, Governor Jindal announced his five appointments to the commission. On the same day they took their oath of office, the new commission, on rehearing and without any public discussion or explanation, reversed the obsolescence policy in favor of the assessors.
Is that commission not subject to the open meeting law? As such, wouldn’t proper notice have been required? Wouldn’t them meeting on the day of their appointment to change a policy constitute a violation of the open meetings law (since there is no way the new committee could have given proper notice)?
March 31st, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Did you see The Advocate’s article this a.m. on the Chouest deal? I knew something about that, but seeing the numbers and machinations in print were a stark reality for me. That one looks like some SERIOUS backscratching. I blogged about campaign finance reform, but I am trying to figure out what the heck has actually changed in this supposed revolution. Other than political ideology, it looks like the same old same old to me.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:25 pm
I was planning to link to Mike Stagg’s analysis of the Chouest deal in another post in a little bit.
Nothing substantial changed in campaign finance reform under Jindal. I never expected him to push for any change that would effect his ability to campaign the way he did… which includes 1/3 of all his campaign contributions coming from “bundled” donations. The end line of my next entry will probably be something like “Isn’t it ironic that the person hailed to fix the ethical problems of our state is the person who exemplifies the problems in the first place?”.