Letter: Your Vote Counts ‒ in the 2013 Election

The following letter to the editors comes to us from Richard Gideon. –Tom

If the past is prelude to the future, approximately 75% of registered Mt. Lebanon voters will go to the polls this coming election day, 6 November 2012. Presidential elections always seem to draw the biggest crowds, as a study of election data freely available on the Allegheny County web site will attest. "Your vote counts," we are told, and that phrase is pounded into us from elementary school and beyond. But in a recent article in REASON magazine entitled "Your Vote Doesn't Count," managing editor Katherine Mangu-Ward writes, "In a 2012 Economic Inquiry article, Columbia University political scientist Andrew Gelman, statistician Nate Silver, and University of California, Berkeley, economist Aaron Edlin use poll results from the 2008 election cycle to calculate that the chance of a randomly selected vote determining the outcome of a presidential election is about one in 60 million." Clearly, the odds of any one person's vote affecting the outcome of this year's presidential race is just north of zero.

But there is an election wherein each individual's vote is more important by several orders of magnitude; the 2013 so-called "off-year" elections. Up for grabs in Mt. Lebanon are the commission seats of Matt Kluck (Ward 2) and David Brumfield (Ward 4), and the Mt. Lebanon School Board "at large" positions currently held by Josephine Posti, Dale Ostergaard, Mary Birks, and Daniel Remely.

In many respects, these local elections are more important to the fiscal well-being of Mt. Lebanon residents than what may happen at the Federal level. Although one should not downplay the effects of Obamacare and other taxes that will begin to hit us in 2013, local property taxes, fees, and intrusions into individual liberty are often more pernicious at the local level because the people who exact such tribute are closer at hand, and sometimes more intimidating. But the history of off-year elections reveals a foolish consistency; that being a low turnout at the polls. In 2011, for example, 36.51% of eligible Mt. Lebanon residents bothered to vote. In 2010 that number increased to 57.4% due to a U.S. Senate race, and in 2009 ‒ another "off-year" ‒ it was 29.2%.

Although there has been no formal effort to discover the reason for this situation as it applies to Mt. Lebanon, it certainly is not an uncommon circumstance across the nation; a quick Internet search for "turnout in off-year elections" shows this to be a common complaint from sea to shining sea. Reasons given nationally vary from "not important" to "no choice" to "what's the use?". Locally in 2011 the "no choice" lament may have had some validity. Despite an eleventh hour bid by a handful of write-in candidates, Mt. Lebanon voters were given almost no choice in the school board election, as the majority of candidates cross-filed on both "major" party labels and ran on "platforms" virtually indistinguishable from one another. (It was suggested to me by a Blog poster that Mt. Lebanon residents who do not vote in off-year elections are satisfied with the candidates who are elected by those residents who do vote, and therefore don't feel that it is necessary to go to the polls! Not only is this totally illogical, but it assumes that the majority of Mt. Lebanon voters trust a small vanguard of people to make their decisions for them ‒ an insult to anyone with a mind.)

Mt. Lebanon residents should not "sit out" off year elections, as those who govern us locally set the fees for residency in "Club Lebo." In 2011 a local family with a median income of $75,000 and owning a house assessed at $225,200 paid 9.43% of its income for property taxes to the Mt. Lebanon School District and the Mt. Lebanon Municipality. This is on top of the 1.3% Earned Income Tax that is unevenly split between the Municipality and the District, and does not count County, State, and Federal taxes.

If local residents do in fact believe that they have little to choose from in the way of candidates then it is time to change that situation. What is wanting are viable, young, candidates for the Commission and the District who are completely independent of the two major political parties. Perhaps once we have a slate of actual choices the voters may come out of their heavily taxed homes to cast an intelligent vote during an "off-year" race. Mt. Lebanon residents deserve "choice" at all levels in their lives. If the same people run again and are reelected then so be it, but it should not be because there were no other options on the ballot.

There is a "perfect storm" of debt coming due in this country. Mt. Lebanon residents should not think that their little six square mile village will not be affected by it, thus leaving the people who comprise the local municipal and school district governments free to spend as they see fit. The Municipality and District are both in debt, and while they may be manageable debts now they aren't the only bills being laid at the feet of the local taxpayer. It would be refreshing to see some local candidates in 2013 who understand this basic premise.

Letter: Re-thinking the McNeilly property

The following is a letter to the editors of Blog-Lebo. It comes from Richard Gideon. —Tom

Gentlemen:

Over the past several days I have had a spirited exchange of E-mail messages with four of the five members of the Mt. Lebanon Commission concerning the municipality's role in providing entertainment to its residents in general, and McNeilly Park in particular. The majority of these conversations have been with Mr. Miller, who has provided me with some interesting background on the McNeilly property. While I don't agree with Mr. Miller on all subjects, he has been a real gentleman and I am happy to say so publicly.

I would like to address two points that keep coming up from various members of the Commission: 1)parks (and other “facilities”) attract new, younger residents into Mt. Lebanon, and 2)parks increase property values.

As to the first point Commissioner VanKirk writes, “In order to stay a viable community, we have to have the facilities that attract young families. These families, who buy homes, pay taxes, and use local businesses are the future of Mt. Lebanon.” There is certainly some truth to this, but why is it necessary for the municipality to own “the facilities that attract young families?” I adduce the town of Sandy Springs, Georgia, which since 2005 has managed to outsource and privatize almost everything except police and fire service. (Believe it or not, Chicago has privatized some of its ROADS.) In this current economic climate how many young families are flocking to Mt. Lebanon because of our parks and recreation facilities? Is there a study available to prove this? Of course, McNeilly Park is a strange situation, given that it cannot be sold and was acquired without an access road. Which leads me to discuss the more interesting second point.

“McNeilly Park...will increase property values.”

Who benefits from increased property values? This is not as strange a question as it might seem. The first and most immediate beneficiaries are Mt. Lebanon and the Mt. Lebanon School District. It is in the special interest of those who derive income from local taxes to keep property values as high as possible – higher property values mean higher taxes; higher taxes translate into more money for teachers and municipal employees at contract renewal time. It also means more money for infrastructure repairs and upgrades. The second beneficiaries are property owners – with some very strict qualifications. It needs to be pointed out that an increase in property value is not immediately accessible to the property owner! You only access the “equity” in a home if you a)take a loan out for it (go into debt), or b)sell it. But does the McNeilly property necessarily mean increased property values? The answer is alluded to, ironically enough, in a National Parks Service white paper entitled “Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors.” On page 15 NPS states the following (I retained government spelling): “The effect on property values of a location near a park or open space has been the subject of several studies. Statistical analyses have been a common method of attempting to measure this effect. These analyses attempt to isolate the effect of open space from other variables which can affect property values, such as age, square footage, and condition of homes. Isolating the effect of open space can be difficult and results have been varied. Nevertheless, many studies have revealed increases in property values in instances where the property is located near or adjacent to open spaces. Most studies have addressed traditional parks or greenbelts (large open space areas), though a few studies are available for greenways.” Then on page 4 we have the following: “The effects of proximity to open space may not be as simply quantified as in the above studies. Many studies (Brown and Connelly; Colwell, 1986) have found the potential for an increase in property value depends upon the characteristics of the open space and the orientation of surrounding properties. Property value increases are likely to be highest near those greenways which: 1) highlight open space rather than highly developed facilities; 2) have limited vehicular access, but some recreational access; 3) have effective maintenance and security.”

The bottom line, according to the National Parks Service, is that homeowners living withing 3200 feet of a park with quiet, open spaces, walking trails, benches, and maybe a bike path are more likely to experience increase property values. Conversely, property owners living within 3200 feet of a “nuisance” park – described as a highly developed property – could expect a decrease in the value of their properties, with the amount of decrease assuaged by distance from the park.

As one might expect, the National Parks Service is a huge supporter of parks and is a cheerleader for parks as a means of increasing property values. But, to their credit, they do note that not all parks are good things; and they say so.

Baseball fields and concession stands aside, perhaps Mt. Lebanon should re-think how best to use the McNeilly property.

Richard Gideon