We had not planned to voice, again, our concerns about the two sets of municipal bonds that Burlington leaders have placed on the November 5 ballot. We generally avoid making editorial comments on political issues in the week before an election.
But Burlington officials just don’t seem to be able to stick to their word about being neutral on the bond packages. As a result, we cannot hold our tongue, or our editorial page views, about the incredibly biased, unfair, and quite frankly, illegal, actions the city is undertaking in its efforts to promote the bonds.
Instead of any balanced or fair description of the bonds, the city’s most recent radio propaganda includes only descriptions (and glowing ones at that) of the projects that would be financed by the $68.5 million in bonds. There is not a word, not one iota, about the significant additional costs taxpayers will have to bear if the bonds are approved.
The newspaper as watchdog for the public
This newspaper’s publisher appeared before the city council back in July, reminding city officials that state law requires strict neutrality in providing information about the bonds – and drawing attention to some of the city’s initially one-sided descriptions that amounted to an endorsement and promotion of the bonds.
Included elsewhere in this edition is an ad from the city which outlines some of the facts about the bonds. The sample ballot, also reprinted nearby, provides the exact wording of the ballot initiatives.
Included in the city’s ad, on the city’s website, and in the text of the bond questions, is the fact that the packages, if both are approved, would cause a tax increase of 5.7-cents, or 11.79 percent, on top of the city’s existing tax rate of 48.36 cents per $100, to finance the debt on the bonds. One bond, for $47 million is for parks and recreation and another, for $21.5 million, is designated for streets and sidewalks.
The city doesn’t actually mention the percentage increase, 11.79 percent, but only the 5.7-cent tax hike. But at least that is some attempt at objectivity. A percentage increase, however, would help contextualize the actual tax impact on Burlington residents.
The city’s materials give only one example of the impact: that the owner of a $100,000 home would pay an additional $57.00 per year in Burlington property taxes. Other examples, perhaps more realistic ones for most home and business owners, are: a property worth $200,000 would be taxed an additional $114.00 per year; the owner of a home valued at $300,000 home or property would owe $171.00 more per year, and so on, ad infinitum – $57.00 more each year for every $100,000 of value that a Burlington taxpayer owns.
One-sided propaganda from the government is illegal in North Carolina
State law, and court precedents, make clear that “A municipality shall not use public funds to endorse or oppose a referendum, election or a particular candidate for elective office.” (N.C.G.S. § 160A499.3. Limitation on the use of public funds.)
This newspaper’s publisher warned in July that city officials would inevitably be tempted to cross the line between “educating” and “informing” – which are historically allowable, ostensibly neutral purposes for government spending on bond issues – versus “promotion,” “advocacy,” and “propaganda,” which are most certainly not.
We were worried that city hall wouldn’t pay much attention to the difference – although it’s the fundamental distinction between legal and illegal.
But we were subsequently assured that city officials would correct the early abuses and stick, strictly, to neutral, objective, factual portrayals about the bonds.
Instead, this newspaper’s publisher heard a radio ad this week that is entirely lopsided in its presentation. The ad had wonderful, even rapturous, descriptions of some of the bond projects but with absolutely no mention whatsoever of the tax impact on residents.
City officials lamely claimed that the radio ads had been “reviewed” by the city’s bond attorney.
We’ll grant we don’t have a law degree, but it doesn’t take one to understand plain English and the lack of even any semblance of balance or fairness.
TV and radio listeners are accustomed to the rapid-fire disclaimer often comes at the end of some commercials for pharmaceutical and certain other products.
But the city’s commercials don’t have any disclaimer whatsoever, at any speed.
One of the city’s propagandists told the newspaper, “Obviously, the time constraints with a thirty second radio ad necessitate the referral to the city’s website for a more detailed description of the bond proposals and the financial implications of each of the two bond(s).”
City manager Craig Honeycutt amplifies that deception: He thinks the city can hide – our word, not his – behind having hired an outside firm to “manage” the city’s “informational campaign.”
“The City has attempted to utilize varied available local media sources, including your weekly newspaper, in an attempt to educate the voting citizenry,” Honeycutt said in an email to the newspaper.
“Inherently, with limited timeframes of 15, 30, 45, and 60 second spots” Honeycutt says, “radio ads do not lend themselves to communicating details. Thus, the focus of our radio pieces has been to inform the citizenry of the two bond issues on the ballot and to refer them to the City’s website where the details are available for review…we believe these radio spots are educational and informational in nature, and not advocating.”
Air time limitations notwithstanding, that’s not what the law says.
That’s not what court precedents in the state require.
The city could just as easily have included equal time for the caveats about costs, trimmed the propaganda about the projects, and told listeners to “refer to the city’s website” for more information on those.
But, no, it is always a one-way street, to the detriment of taxpayers and the advantage of big government.
An important cornerstone of American democracy is that the government, itself, maintains a strict neutrality in elections. The fairness and integrity of the election process demands that government entities not attempt to “tip the scales,” so to speak, in an election by advocating or promoting a position on an issue that its elected members, or other city officials, support – or may devoutly wish to see enacted.
Instead, the city is putting not just a finger on the scales, but a whole hand and elbow, totally jettisoning any pretense of objectivity in its series of radio ads that purport to provide “information” about the bonds, but which really provide only a very slanted presentation that is unmistakable in its bias in favor of the bonds. This is not the “clear and honest” presentation that is required by national court precedents.
It is “election interference” of the worst kind to have governments trying to influence the electoral decision(s) of its citizens.
Why are the bonds really necessary?
We’ve felt since the city’s discussion about a bond package began that it was a terrible time to be asking the taxpayers to tax themselves even more.
City council members already foisted an 18 percent tax increase on Burlington voters last year when they hiked taxes far beyond the “revenue neutral” level after the countywide revaluation. Another almost 12 percent rate hike will present Burlington residents with an almost 30 percent increase.
What city officials certainly will not want to discuss, anywhere, is why these bond issues are really being proposed.
In essence, city council members squandered millions of tax dollars that could have been spent on these projects on other – one could say less important – projects over the past few years.
Most notably, in our judgment, all manner of allegedly “urgent” expenditures were added to the city’s budget mid-year: Astroturf for some of the soccer fields at Springwood Park ($3.6 million); a fancy new entertainment venue at Burlington’s baseball stadium (at a cost of $2.6 million); another expansion at the Paramount Theater (although that $11 million expense is now being re-routed into the bond referendum); plus a slew of pickleball courts (23, all told, with a price tag of $4.7 million).
Maybe the city council should have asked voters, through a bond referendum, whether they wanted to spend money on each of those projects.
If Burlington taxpayers want to burden themselves with even higher taxes, that is certainly their prerogative. But they’re not being treated fairly when presented with only part of the information they need to evaluate whether either or both bonds are worthy of a favorable vote and their increased taxes.
It’s not too late for the city to revise its materials in order to comply with state law’s requirements for strict neutrality. Otherwise, the city may find its propaganda commercials formally ruled illegal.