Capital Rants

Beware of where you buy your wine

So, it’s New Year’s Eve. You’re heading home from your job in Maryland and figure it might be a good idea to stop at that liquor store you pass every day and pick up a bottle of wine for the party you’re going to later in the evening.

Think again. In Pennsylvania, you can be cited and fined for transporting a single bottle of alcohol into the state.

That being the case, state Rep. Steve Nickol figures his Hanover-area House district is filled with otherwise honest lawbreakers. He’s been trying for years to get the state to lighten up just a tad on its out-of-state alcohol rules.

Nickol’s proposal would allow someone to buy up to 128 ounces of wine — that’s about five standard bottles — outside Pennsylvania and bring it across the border.

He said last week he figured getting such a bill passed would be a reasonable goal. Add hard liquor to the proposal, and it would probably be a tougher sell. Add beer, and he’d have tavern owners and beer distributors lobbying against it.

Then came a hearing before the Liquor Control Committee earlier this year. The proposal got shot at from both sides, Nickol recalled. Some didn’t think it went far enough. Others seemed to fear that the slightest chink in the state’s control over the flow of alcohol would bring the great walls of the Liquor Control Board crumblin’ down.

It’s a microcosm of the frustration Nickol said he sometimes feels when pushing for what he considers common sense change in Harrisburg. There seem to be as many obstacles to change at the state capital as there are liquor stores conveniently located along the border of key commuter routes into Pennsylvania.

Nickol’s bill isn’t dead. It could still pass before the end of the legislative session, which will be Nickol’s last as a state rep. He announced earlier this year he wouldn’t seek re-election.

But it certainly won’t pass in time to help folks who want a single of bottle of wine to help celebrate this New Year’s, and aren’t fond of the idea of having to drive out of their way to a state liquor store to get it. And Nickol isn’t overly optimistic of its chances in the year ahead.

“Everyone acknowledges that it happens every day,” he said of folks buying alcohol out of state and taking it home. “But getting that reflected in state law seems well nigh impossible.”

Legal ads or legal gibberish

A bill has been introduced in the state Senate that would allow government agencies to take public notices out of newspapers and instead post them online.

The advertisements cover a wide range of topics — announcements of upcoming public hearings, notices about zoning changes that have been requested, alerts that local government is about to adopt some sort of new regulation.

They’re designed to keep residents informed. To keep local governments from adopting changes that affect constituents without those constituents knowing what’s about to happen.

Co-sponsors of the electronic publication legislation include state Sen. Michael Waugh, R-York. His rationale seems to mirror that of bill sponsor Sen. Robert Robbins, R-Mercer. The bill, he says, would modernize a decades-old requirement, making legal notices readily available to residents. The bill, he says, would save local governments money because they wouldn’t have to pay to post the advertisements.

There are some obvious flaws in the proposal. The most obvious … well, take Waugh’s district. It includes 45 municipalities. When I checked last week, I couldn’t find Web sites for 22 of the 45. Two others had Web sites that clearly aren’t active.

But let’s look beyond the flaws in the proposal and at the legal ads themselves for a moment. Bottom line: Too often, they’re legal gibberish that serves no one.

For instance, earlier this month, Yoe advertised that council planned to meet to set the property tax rate for 2008. Nowhere in the legal announcement was it mentioned that council was considering a tax hike of 1 mill. Which would be rather significant since the borough’s 2007 tax rate was less than 2 mills.

I dare you to read the legal advertisements municipalities are placing in newspapers to explain the changes in the $52 job tax. The changes are pretty simple. The name of the tax is changing. It won’t be taken from paychecks in one lump sum at the start of the year. Folks earning $12,000 or less are exempt. But the ads sure aren’t simple. It’s almost a textbook example of how to write so that no one will understand what you’ve written. Some conveniently omit the new exemption.

Here’s one of my recent favorites, a minor classic courtesy of York Township: “Within 60 days of the date hereof, the York Township board of commissioners will consider for passage an ordinance amending the code of the township of York to provide for additional stop intersection and speed limitations.”

Say what? Does that mean new stop signs will be placed and speed limits changed? If so, where? If I’m a resident, how in the world do I know if I’m affected?

So here’s my advice for our state senators — Robbins, Waugh, et al (for crying out loud, now they’ve got me writing legalese).

Let’s postpone the debate over where legal ads are published. Let’s first make sure the public notices that are published serve their intended purpose, that they truly notify the public of what’s happening.

Because now, far too often, that isn’t the case.

The reality of tax relief

By MARK FRANKLIN

Yippee yay! Tax relief is on the way.

That’s the word from the governor’s office.

But don’t yay too loudly. Wild celebration isn’t in order. And any claims from state officials about the monumental success of the slots-parlors-for-tax-relief tradeoff is certainly premature.

Here’s the reality of what taxpayers can expect in one local school district.

The state’s tax relief fund — its share of money people have lost playing slots — sits at $506 million. If the fund hits $570 million as expected by April, $400 million will be used for tax relief, the rest held in reserve.

In the West York Area School District, that would mean tax relief of $105 per homeowner.

Coincidentally, West York just adopted its proposed budget for 2008-09. It calls for a 5.4 percent tax hike, which would take the district’s tax rate from 17.32 mills to 18.26 mills.

Hmm. Let’s do some quick math.

According to figures compiled earlier this year by the York County assessment office, the median value of the approximately 6,000 homes eligible for tax relief in the West York School District was $118,620.

If the proposed tax hike becomes reality, the owner of a $188,620 home in West York would face a tax hike of about $111.

That’s right – a tax hike $6 higher than the tax relief that same homeowner would receive.

Little wonder most York area lawmakers seem unimpressed by tax relief measures taken by the state Legislature so far.