Edited by: Tom Rask
Posted by TBG2016 on MARCH 21, 2021
What is a county’s responsibility when a
citizen initiative puts a tax increase on the ballot? Hillsborough County may
be in the process of finding out the answer to that question. Last week saw a
flurry of activity in the matter of the 1% sales tax hike, largely to fund
transit. The Florida Supreme Court struck down the tax as unconstitutional on
February 25th, over two years since it went in to effect.
Attorney Chris Altenbernd, representing Stacy White, filed this response the next day saying that the county’s “motion should be denied as procedurally unauthorized” and that the county “is seeking to hijack this case to become the plaintiff in an action for declaratory relief.”
Altenbernd
wrote 1,400 legal opinions during the 27 years that he was a
Florida appeals judge.
In its motion, the county also claimed that
the case management conference would include government agencies “and other
affected parties.” But Altenbernd responded that “not a single person who paid
the tax is a party to this proceeding except for Mr. White….He is not willing
to be, and cannot properly be, a class representative for the people who paid
this tax.”
Which brings us to the other legal action last
week. This class action lawsuit was filed in Leon
County against DOR and the county on Tuesday seeking “a permanent injunction
against further administration, collection, and enforcement of the Surtax” on
the grounds of its unconstitutionality.
All this legal wrangling will certainly cost the taxpayers of Hillsborough County a lot of money, but it also raises the question: what legal responsibilities did Hillsborough County’s have in this citizen ballot initiative? Note that the tax referendum was placed on the ballot through citizen initiative, not county commission action.
Simply put, the county has a fiduciary duty to
citizens to only take lawful action, to take no action in
support of unlawful action, and to protect taxpayers from any
unlawful actions. All For Transportation (AFT), the campaign in favor of the
tax backed by Lightning owner Jeff Vinik, publicly represented that it had obtained
independent legal opinions that their tax was constitutional. But that turned
out be a lie.
I
Even if AFT hadn’t lied, once White’s lawsuit
was filed, a prudent county would have obtained its own independent legal
opinion as to the lawfulness of the tax. We have made a public records request
of the county for any such independent legal opinions.
“The County apparently relied upon that
assurance [from AFT] to levy the tax rather than to ask this Court to delay its
collection,” Altenbernd wrote in his motion. “If anything, the County should
seek to obtain reimbursement from these entities for the expenses that they
have caused the County in this matter.”
Whether the county would ask reimbursement
from AFT for the expenses it has incurred in this AFT-created mess is
unclear. We will ask the county commissioners and report back to you,
just as we will let you know if the county obtained its own legal opinion on
this tax.
As always….the Guardian reports and our readers decide. Like our
Facebook page to find out when we publish articles.
READ THIS POST AT: Tampa Bay Guardian
This
post is contributed by the Tampa Bay
Guardian. The views expressed in this post are the author's and do not
necessarily reflect those of the publisher of Bay Post Internet or any
publications, blogs or social media pages where it may appear.
Cross Posted with permission from: Tampa Bay
Guardian
No comments:
Post a Comment