Springville Journal from Springville, New York • 2

SPRINGVILLE JOURNAL Thursday, February 24, 1994 Page 2 Editorial 5PMMSttS WA THB Courtly. Towrt Of? VlUAje CAV fV ALL TUB PotHoLEL'S Editor: David Pierce OfficeProduction Manager: Donna Randall TypesetterCirculation Manager: Sandra Dashnaw Advertising Manager: Maureen Stockdale Sports Editor: Rick Adamczak Staff Reporter: Patricia Ball News Correspondents: Cynthia Dayton Maureen Stockdale Bob Riedel Production Assistant: Marlene "Bucky" Meyers Proofreaders: Holly A. Lawton Bob Riedel The Springville Journal (USPS 513-080) is published each Thursday by Publications, Inc. Send address changes to Springville Journal, P.O. Box 99, 33 East Main Street, Springville, New York 14141.

Phone 592-4550. roo tm OQyS PUBLISHED WEEKLY SUBSCRIPTIONS $17.50 Single Copy 50 Hours: Thurs Fri. 9-5 Wednesday 9 Noon Entered as Second Class Matter March 8, 1879 at the Post Office at Springville, N.Y 14141 Thursday, February 24, 1994 under Act of March 3, 1 879. THE fit JS oe wtf IF THeu Would just CALL, THe A)c p0-tuoLg Tfey wUL Siop 4fEvfitf eve Serving the Village of Springville, the Towns ofAshford, Boston, Colden, Collins, Concord, East Otto and Sardinia, and the Springville-Griffith and West Valley Central School Districts. oVgf one.

8'''Al iv VD T. Ion r)OA The cartoons which appear in this space are the sole creative property of the artist and don't necessarily reflect the views of the Journal. Dems have been AWOL on Medicaid Public by Ray Herman A public vote Some of the residents of a proposed 179-parcel Colden public water district want the Colden Town Board to reconsider its Feb. 10 rejection of the plan. If the residents succeed in obtaining petition signatures from property owners representing 51 percent of the assessed valuation within the plan's boundaries, the board should rethink its position.

There are many valid reasons why a public referendum of affected property owners, rejected by the board, would have been the best course of action. One of the most compelling reasons is the very real need of many of those residents for adequate water. They currently must use wells which provide insufficient or poor quality water. Some have lived under these circumstances for many years. In fact a town public water committee has been working on the problem for 10 years, has surveyed residents to demonstrate a need, and even won approval to drill test wells in the hamlet area as a possible public water source.

Another reason is money. In voting Feb. 10 not to let the affected residents vote on the issue, the board also rejected $950,000 in federal grant funding for the project. This is far and away the most funding made available during the past decade. Though similar grant funding could possibly be available in the future, there are no guarantees.

A public vote would have also put the issue squarely before the affected property owners, those who would shoulder the tax burden and reap the benefits of public water. Those living in the proposed district who currently have sufficient well water and don't want to share the expense of a district, may someday experience a water problem of their own. But if they have confidence in their wells they could have still registered their views at the polling booth. The town's engineering consultant erred in not clearly stating last month its projected $365 annual cost per parcel under the water plan was based on a projected two percent annual growth over the first 10 years. A conservative projection or not, residents have every right to know the details and to know the possible maximum cost per parcel if the growth doesn't materialize.

But it is just plain wrong to point to hidden motives or allege some sort of plot to deceive people. The project proposal was put together in a manner similar to other water districts throughout the state. The maximum total project cost, once approved, has the force of law. And even if the voters had approved the plan, state Audit and' Control would have been responsible for reviewing and approving the cost figures. It's unclear whether the town board, after rejecting the proposal Feb.

10, can legally vote again to put it before the voters. But members should seriously review and consider the idea. With perhaps a touch of malice, let's go slumming in some of our more noteworthy political precincts. ITEM: Erie County Democrats want Gov. Mario Cuomo and Sen.

Pat Moynihan to attend a public hearing here in order to tell us how Erie County would drown in a sea of red ink under President Clinton's health care plan. A cavalcade of New York pols, headed by Cuomo, have for months been denouncing the Clinton plan which, according to estimates, would hike the Medicaid tab to a point where county property taxes would skyrocket by anywhere from 33 to 50 percent. Medicaid already costs nearly $5,600 per recipient in Erie County and chews up 81 percent of the property tax levy. Since Cuomo and others have long been in revolt against the Clinton plan, would it be insensitive to wonder whether the publicity-addicted local Dems are simply looking for a local media event to place themselves on the side of the taxpayers regarding the Medicaid rip-off? If I were a newspaper editor or broadcast news director, I'd avoid the "public hearing" like a bad habit. Most local Dems have been AWOL on the Medicaid issue for a generation.

ITEM: Erie County residents who are worried that some beady-eyed assessor may hike the assessed valuation on their homes for tax purposes should be heartened by a group of Long Island homeowners who are proving that the issue of owners represent bottomless pools of revenue for local governments and school districts. A taxpayer revolution struck Amherst three years ago when homeowners, who were hotter than doughnut grease, convinced town officials to drop a reassessment. The foundation of the tax code rests on progressivity. The income tax is the soul of progressivity. It's based on a person's ability to pay.

The nature of a person's home, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily connote an ability to pay as is the case with many fixed income seniors, many of who are driven from their homes by mounting property taxes. And how about those who don't own property, including transients and renters, who escape with virtually every hair in place. The property tax boondoggle has rekindled efforts in Albany to replace the property tax with a locally imposed income tax as a means of funding local governments and school districts. This issue should be center stage in all future Erie County elections. ITEM: The news that a local group, including a 93 GOP Buffalo mayoral candidate Richard A.

Grimm HI, will mount a petition campaign to slap term limits on Buffalo city officials should be greeted with fireworks and champagne. Officials would be shown the door after eight consecutive years in office. The term limits movement which (Continued on Page 6) escalating property taxes doesn't always end in tears. More and more New Yorkers are successfully challenging inflated assessments on their homes. A homeowner's property tax bill is determined by the local tax rate multiplied by a home's assessed valuation.

On Long Island, an area where local budgets grew hog fat on soaring home values during the eighties, homeowners are winning about 80 percent of the assessment appeals now that the real estate market has gone south. And homeowners who don't file assessment appeals are now being stuck with rocketing property tax bills because elected officials are hiking tax rates to make up for revenue losses triggered by those who successfully appealed. Unless one has the IQ of a turnip, the word is APPEAL or forever live in the House of Wounded Feelings. The Long Island experience, which is being repeated elsewhere in the state now that homeowners are taking full congnizance of the sloppy, cut-and-paste assessment system, is triggering a taxpayer revolution with a harsh spotlight being cast on the baying pack of standpatters who feel that property.