City of Champaign Township Supervisor Linda Abernathy is asking for another tax increase referenda.
City of Champaign Township Supervisor Linda Abernathy said she's considering pushing for a November tax increase to help the cash-strapped township, after city voters on Tuesday indicated they strongly support helping adults living in extreme poverty.
The question Tuesday asked whether township voters should urge the town board to restore general assistance levels to help people living in extreme poverty. It passed with 70.6 percent of the vote.
"I think it is an absolute victory for the poor in our town," Abernathy said. "I think it does speak to the will of the people in our town. It was incredibly encouraging."
In fact, Abernathy said she's now likely to ask the town board, whose members also make up the Champaign City Council, to place a tax increase on the Nov. 4 ballot. She said she would likely seek to increase the township's tax rate by 5 cents per $100 of assessed valuation. The township's tax rate in 2007 was 3.57 cents per $100 of assessed valuation, the lowest in the area. Cunningham Township's tax rate, by comparison, is 19 cents.
Good for her. I doubt it will pass, given concerns about her ability to administer the funds she has. And I also wonder why she thinks there's any correlation between overwhelming support for Tuesday's referendum, which did not mention a tax increase, and support for doubling the Township's tax rate. The last tax-increase effort she led was defeated overwhelmingly. I see no reason, absent administratve improvement in her office, why a future effort would be any different.
As someone who supported and voted for ensuring the program is better funded, I'll absolutely vote against any tax increase that leaves doubt in my mind over the administration/efficiency of the funds and/or if the tax increases may be excessive/unnecessary. If they can get the job done with the current funding or a much smaller tax increase I'll oppose any unnecessary expansion that'll do little to help the intended beneficiaries but instead help a poor administrator with their budgetary dilemmas. The program generally appeals to me as getting help through State agencies can take months or years of fighting the SSA on disability claims if you don't otherwise qualify for help. When I was really hurting... this program could have helped. A poorly administered program that doesn't get the job done wouldn't have helped me anyways though... so if they're going to demand our money, I'm going to demand they use it efficiently.
I'm generally annoyed with the local spending lately, especially the spending that has appeared a bit more than wasteful, and we all know another school district tax increase is on the horizon as the consent decree pressures continue. I'm not a home owner but I've watched my own rent go up every year for the last few years as costs have increased for property owners. I'm a small/limited government supporter as we get up to larger government bureaucracies up to the central. But my support of local government and programs to deal with social issues is matched with my demand and the ability of holding it accountable for doing it right. I'm all ears on both ensuring this program is available but is also run properly.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Am I mistaken or did this program used to use vouchers, and issue IDs to make sure the monies were going where they were supposed to?
Assuming this is correct, could someone explain to me why this administration chose to change that process? Specifically to issuing cash instead of vouchers and not issuing IDs .... or am I misinformed?
I thought the question on the ballot screamed "tax increase." Who else was going to pay for it? Maybe voters really want this? From the article: "Abernathy also slashed the number of people receiving township assistance from 130 to about 50 by no longer allowing able-bodied adults to receive assistance. " How hard is it for an able bodied individual to find work in Champaign County? I've never had too much trouble, but maybe I've just been lucky?
"I thought the question on the ballot screamed "tax increase." Who else was going to pay for it?"
Abernathy has also been demanding a bailout from the City Council ever since her first tax increase referendum went down in flames. She's had no better luck there, partly because her presentations to the Council have been so amatuerish.
I would hope a taxing body asking for a bailout from another taxing body after the voters told her no would fail on principle grounds... Quality of presentation aside
It's only a few bucks. I can afford it and we all have an obligation to help the poor. I'll vote for it.
"It's only a few bucks. I can afford it and we all have an obligation to help the poor. I'll vote for it."
We all have an obligation to help the poor without wasting money on an administrator who cannot or will not be accountable. I prefer to continue to help the poor in other more effective and efficient ways.
Anon-I am so glad you're happy to pay for everyone, since we are helping already.
That is why the Kingdom of Heaven awaits me. I do not judge the merits of helping the poor by my personal feelings about the administrator who may be dispensing that relief.
Jesus never said, "Do not give to the poor if you do not agree with the administration". He did not say, "Didn't we used to give them vouchers and now we give them cash? What a travesty!". He did say; "Judge not lest you be judged."
Give to the poor, support the township. Then organize and vote out the administrator you don't like and vote in an administrator you do like.
One can be charitable and politically responsible at the same time. Even conservatives can do it.
My soul is at peace. Is yours, or does your wallet or your political dogma outweigh what Jesus has told us and what Judeo-Christian dogma commands: "Love thy neighbor".?
Forcing others to be charitable through majority vote in democratic systems is very unlikely to save anyone's soul... and I doubt such a scenario was directly covered two thousand years ago. Nor would such a thing make much sense if it is in support of a program that does little good due to inefficiencies and poor management. Giving to private charities would be a better option for both secular and soul-based advantages.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I do love my neighbor and I am at peace, you seem to be the one who is casting stones because some don't agree with your political view.
My political view is to help the poor. It is not to remove or install one politician over another. To withhold charity when I can afford to help those less fortunate than me is morally the right thing to do. Politics does not guide my morality.
It does for some others and they may so choose. I prefer the teachings of Jesus, even if the "scenario wasn't directly covered two thousand years ago".
"That is why the Kingdom of Heaven awaits me. I do not judge the merits of helping the poor by my personal feelings about the administrator who may be dispensing that relief."
I judge helping the poor by helping them as much as possible by avoiding waste wherever possible. I see no moral obligation to help the Champaign Township Supervisor squander money that well-meaning taxpayers have intended for other purposes.
Why are you OK with your "charity"/taxes being wasted rather than being used to help the poor?
How has the money been "wasted"? Has it gone to the well-to-do, or has it gone for sea cruises for someone, or has it been burned in the furnace?
Maybe the money has not been spent as you would see fit, or perhaps with the strings attached you would place, but please describe the "waste", which is different from giving it to people you don't think should have it, all of whom, I suppose, are in much more dire circumstances than you are?
Did Jesus have a "means test", or did he say, "love thy neighbor"?
"How has the money been "wasted"? Has it gone to the well-to-do, or has it gone for sea cruises for someone, or has it been burned in the furnace?"It has been wasted on unnecessary administrative expenses, and because the Supervisor cannot or will not account for it. Go review the
"Maybe the money has not been spent as you would see fit, or perhaps with the strings attached you would place, but please describe the "waste", which is different from giving it to people you don't think should have it, all of whom, I suppose, are in much more dire circumstances than you are?"
Where did I say that I disagreed with helping those on Township Assistance? Are you injecting your political biases into this discussion again, by assuming that I somehow hate the poor?
No I do not assume you hate the poor. I am not injecting politics. The politics is: is this elected person spending money the way I would have them spend it? The morals are: should we give more (in this case tax money) to the poor?
As I said early on, I can afford it, I believe the poor need help, so I will support it. It is the Chistian thing to do.
Others inject politics by saying,"The elected person is not doing what I want done. Therefore, I will not support the programs. While I do not take issue with the program, I take issue with the administrator. So, I will withhold support for the program until the person running it changes". THAT is politics.
And I do not see how poor accounting equals waste. Also, I have yet to get specifics on the "waste". How is the money wasted? New cars, fancy offices, just what? Please tell me what the administrative expenses are that you consider wasteful. Do you have line items, or just a queasy thought about it? I really hate to ask, but since this has now turned political, what are your facts?
And to set the record straight about my politics, I would rather vote for Tony Rezko than Linda Abernathy. It is a real shame the local Republican Party is so incredibly weak and disorganized that Linda Abernathy won the office easily. But back to topic: in dollars and places, where is the administrative waste? Has the township broken ground on too big of a building, too big of a new copier bought from friends with kickbacks coming, strech limos, padding the payroll with family members and friends, just where?
"As I said early on, I can afford it, I believe the poor need help, so I will support it. It is the Chistian thing to do."
You're free to help the poor how you see fit. It's not fair, though, to label those as unchristian who choose to help the poor in other ways, due to concerns about efficiency and/or waste.
Giving more money to the Township is not the only way in this town of helping the poor. It is certainly not the most efficient.
And, of course, the Township would be happy to accept your donation to their General Assistance fund. If you feel that is the most effective way to help the poor in this town, you need not wait for a tax increase to support it. You can put your contribution in the mail today.
I will continue to help the poor in the ways that I see fit, without enabling inefficiency and waste. You can call that un-Christian if you like.
"It's not fair, though, to label those as unchristian who choose to help the poor in other ways, due to concerns about efficiency and/or waste."
Amen to that!
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I'd also like to add that I look forward to the Supervisor campaigning for a tax increased based on a refusal to account for spending and a blanket labeling of those opposed as un-Christian.
If that's her plan, this referendum will be defeated even more soundly than the last one, when her only message was a refusal to account for spending.
Is this an elected position or appointed? It's been a while since this office came up but I remember being very disatisfied with it at the time and wanting a change in leadership for it. If it's an elected position, when is it up for grabs again? If it's appointed, who do we harass to replace her?
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
It's an elected position, and it's on the ballot in February/April 2009.
I'd love to see Abernathy propose a tax increase referendum for the same election at which she'll need to run for re-election.
I never labeled anyone as unchristian. I merely believe Jesus would not count "inefficient" as a reason to withhold charity. Property tax is the most fair way those of some means, owning real estate, can help the poor. If the Assessor is doing a poor job then replace her. It is an elected position. If you can put someone else in there, good, but if you can't, because see has received the majority vote, then she is doing what the public wants. Withholding funds because you have been in the minority is probably not what Jesus would want us to do. Just my guess, based on his teachings. The Sermon on the Mount is perhaps most illustrative.
How you may view the teachings of Jesus, and whether you wnt to follow them, is up to you. I choose to assent to a minor tax increase, you do not. Politically, we must bear in mind you (IP) don't even live in Champaign Township, but your opinion is valued regardless of how discounted it may be by your non-resident status.
I am pleased you contribute your time and money to the poor around town. I look forward to running into you sometime helping the poor.
"I never labeled anyone as unchristian."
You said: "My soul is at peace. Is yours, or does your wallet or your political dogma outweigh what Jesus has told us and what Judeo-Christian dogma commands: "Love thy neighbor".?"
"I merely believe Jesus would not count "inefficient" as a reason to withhold charity."
Nobody is withholding charity by not supporting more money for Linda Abernathy. I would gues that very, very few considers taxes paid to the Township as charity.
"Property tax is the most fair way those of some means, owning real estate, can help the poor."
Disagree very, very strongly.
"f you can put someone else in there, good, but if you can't, because see has received the majority vote, then she is doing what the public wants."
Her referendum failed overwhelmingly. Giving her more money is clearly not what the public wants.
"Withholding funds because you have been in the minority is probably not what Jesus would want us to do. Just my guess, based on his teachings. The Sermon on the Mount is perhaps most illustrative."
Again, you're making assumptions about motives and labeling people un-Christian. If that's the most persuasive argument for throwing more money at Supervisor Abernathy, her next referendum will be beaten even more decidedly than her first effort.
The government forcing people to give money to the poor is not charity; it's a political belief that a government agency can do a better job helping the poor then Restoration Urban Ministries or Safe House. I think you can choose which program you would like to support or all three, I don't have a problem with that but don't tell me and others that we are not properly following God because we have a different view on how to help the poor. I like Linda, there is nothing in Bible that requires me to support this government program.
"Render unto Caeser what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" I believe was Christ's response to "Should we pay taxes?" I can give to the poor in better ways than "giving it to Caesar". For examples: The St Vincent dePaul Society, Urban Ministiries, The Eastern Illinois Food bank... and by doing so, I can KNOW that %90 of every dollar, Or MORE, will get to those for whom it is intended..
How can I know you might ask? Because all of these charities make their books public, and transparent.. And you can be sure that none of them hand out cash ( which can be spent on drugs and alcohol or gambling etc.) they use vouchers when cash would otherwise be used.
When the poor become "Caesar" I will gladly pay them with my taxes..... until then I will remind Anon... that he who speaks openly about what he gives already has his reward, and he who gives in secret will be rewarded by the Father who sees what is secret.
So I believe Christ's teaching was, give and don't brag about it, and before you seek to remove the speck in your brother's eye, remove the moat in your own.
As (I think) the only one who is close enough to a theologian here, let me explicate precisely what Jesus' teaching is on helping the poor.
I'm guessing you are citing Matthew 25:31- :
Several important things... judgement is personal, not communal. People are judges as individuals not according to what group they belong to. Here, Jesus is speaking of what individual people did or did not do. "Did *you* feed the poor", etc. The Pharisees, so often the brunt of many of Jesus' rebukes, gave their tithes and alms to the poor. They were quite public about it. What they did not do, however, was ever associate with the poor. Jesus did not command us to throw money at a problem (or make others throw their money at a problem), He commanded us to get involved with the poor directly. Jesus Himself earned no small amount of criticism for dining with sinners, touching lepers and seeking a relationship with them. He judges us on whether we follow this example or not. There are important reasons that such lines of thinking that we should simply pay taxes "as charity" is not entirely inline with Scripture also. Namely, by simply throwing money into a bucket somewhere and demanding some accountable face "handle the problem" we are casting out the needy and their concerns from the community and into a foreign body's hands. **WE** should be meeting these needs, not some indifferent body. Communities, churches, civic organizations, et al, are better suited to meet the highly individualized needs of the destitute because they can respond flexibly to their needs and not according to some highly bureaucratized regulatory regime. We should seek to build community that INCLUDES the most desperate, not casting them out by saying "it's not our problem because I paid my taxes".
Lastly, there is the virtue of prudence involved. We should take those actions which do the most good with what we have. There is nothing Christian about wasting money. It certainly is in bounds to question what the best use of our resources is and to allocate accordingly to which can do the most good and respond to the most in-need. This line of argumentation that voting yes is the Christian thing to do is simply faulty theology and appears more to rely on emotional arguments than rational ones. It's a tool used most often to defend the indefensible.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I favored the last tax increase.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
This kind of discussion is exactly what Abernathy wants to see--I am tired of hearing her whine "it's all for the poorest of the poor" without having to substantiate or support her request for an increase. One of the reasons why her budget jumped was because they went from vouchers to handing out cash--at least that was an explanation I was given. Also, the previous supervisor required applicants to apply for and then appeal SSI--I've heard Ms. Abernathy say that is demeaning to her client. We never heard any more about the reason why money was missing from her office safe--what happened to that? And I understand that she spent township funds for t-shirts for her staff. Now, I'm sure that some of you will say that is a small amount, but if she's truly concerned about the poor, she will knock off stuff like that before she asks the taxpayers for more. What we need is a strong challenger to her in the next election.
Over the weekend, people begain receiving another increase in their assessments. I wonder how much more our local taxing bodies believe we can pay. Frankly, I am tired of the incessant complaining by our local taxing bodies--county, city, Unit 4, MTD, etc--this is a tough year for taxpayers, and instead of trying to hold the line on spending, we see nothing but incessant requests for more. My advice to the local governments: suck it up and learn to live within a budget like everyone else.
I voted against the initiative, not that I don't think the township should do whatever possible to help the poor, but because I expected its passage to lead to exactly what is happening -- claims that the initiative is somehow a mandate to raise taxes. I certainly don't begrudge giving poor people $200 a month instead of $100, but how about rearranging city priorities. I've about had it up to here with being gouged to help real estate developers, and then being gouged again to pay for the infrastructure to support the new developments.
I also don't know how anyone can take the position that the measure that passed is somehow a mandate for more taxes. It was advisory and said something like: Should the City do everything it can to help the poor? That can mean such things as helping them apply for jobs. This is just another attempt by Abernathy and her buddies at AWARE to get more money for their programs which are, quite, frankly, not very well administered, or her presentations and books would be better. The City Council, as the Town Board, should stop accepting her lame excuses and explanations--saying That's a good question, or staring at the ceiling for divine inspiration just doesn't cut it anymore.
I read the article again, and I think where she is going with this is to ask the City to use its time, staff and money to do all of the work, and put this on the next ballot--my question is what is the Mayor thinking of in terms of his favoring putting this on the ballot? i want the Town Board, ie the City Council, to start asking some tough questions of the Township Supervisor--they let her get away with an incredible amount of babblespeak. Before they agree to use my City tax dollars to put this on the ballot, I want them to require the Supervisor to account for her money and explain, in language that we can understand, where the money is going and why they need more, and more importantly, why she changed her policies, and why she thinks its insulting to her "clients" to appeal SSI denials, etc. What good is it to elect these so-called conservatives if they ask no questions and either pass every spending bill that the City staff puts in front of them, or goes along with stuff like this. WHERE ARE THE FISCAL CONSERVATIVES ON OUR CITY COUNCIL?
If the people being served by the township are truly the, "poorest of the poor," then I assume that they qualify for other state and federal assistence programs. I'd hate to think that they are trying to survive on the $100/month received from the township.
Here are some questions I'd like to have answered. How many residents of the township are eligible for the program? How many are currently receiving assistance? How much money is needed to assist all those who need or want it?
I've been a homeowner in the township since about 2000. Each year my assessment goes up a little bit, which means that my property taxes also go up a little bit, each year. If this is generally true for every home- and business-owner in the township, then doesn't the township get more revenue each year, and thus more funds for the assistance program? If so, then what is the need for a tax increase? Is there some rule or regulation that prevents the money from being put into the assistance program?
SEB--you are correct that they are receiving more money from increased assessments, and if the assessor got off his rear end and reassessed those neighborhoods that he hasn't been in in the last 15 years, I'm sure they'd be receiving more from that as well. So far, I've heard a lot of talk from the assessor, but does anyone know if he's actually doing anything to correct the problem, or will those of us who live in the easy neighborhoods just see our annual increase without explanation?