The City Abstract Is A One-Sided Document And Should Be Revised or Abolished

All real property owners in the County, whether they live within or outside the City, pay to the County of Onondaga a tax based on the value of their property. They also pay a real property tax to support the government of the City of Syracuse. Furthermore, each City landowner pays approximately $300 in addition to the County than does his suburban and rural counterpart by virtue of an oddity known as the City Abstract.

The origin of the City Abstract is said to go back some thirty years. The County charges the City for certain services the County claims enefit only City residents. In the 2003 budget, the following charges were imposed upon City real property owners: about a million dollars representing the City's share of the cost of maintaining the Public Safety Building, some five million dollars computed to be the County's cost tp operate the City branch libraries, four million dollars to reimburse the County for housing City prisoners prior to arraignment, and roughly another two million for the City's share of the cost of the Syracuse/Onondaga County Planning Association, the City-County Youth Bureau, the Commission on Aging and the cost of collecting Abstract charges.

The charges the County imposed on the City in the 2004 budget year is increased as the City begins making payments on its 49.6 percent occupancy of the 28 million dollar new downtown Courthouse on S. State Street. The first yearly payment the City iss making amounts to some 1.7 million dollars. The City will also pay the County for the major portion of the cost of the County-operated crime laboratory amountiing to 1.6 million dollars a year. This is said to be justified because some eighty one percent of the lab's cases come from the City.

What is wrong with the imposition of this added tax upon those who live in the City? Let us look at the formula for sharing the cost of maintaining the downtown builidings utilized for criminal courts and the housing of prisoners awaiting arraignment. Expenses arising out of these functions amounted last year to some five million dollars which amount was passed on to City residents on the Abstract. A larger amount is being imposed onto the City in the present budget year. Admittedly, many more crimes are committed in the City than in the towns and villages. No one can doubt that this fact contributes greatly to the utilization and cost of operating the community's criminal justice facilities. However, the higher crime rate can be traced to the fact that a much larger proportion of poor and socially disadvantaged persons inhabit the City than any of the the surrounding towns. This is borne out by the 2000 federal census. The per capita income of Syracuse residents was $15,168 per year. The average per capita income of individuals living in the nineteen towns was $23,685, a difference of $8,518 per year.

So when the County charges the City for what amounts to costs attributable to poverty, it is in effect relying on geographical boundary lines to unfairly surcharge the City for social costs that should be shared by the wider community. Stated another way, the City, in the process of housing the poor, loses much of its tax base due to the low assessment value of its many run-down neighborhoods. Yet it is obliged to underwrite a larger police force than would be necessary if it were dealing with a more stable and affluent population.

I believe the City Abstract is a one-sided document for other reasons. It cannot be disputed that City taxpayers pay for a Sheriff's Department that makes no arrests in Syracuse, a County Transportation Department that repairs only roads in the towns and a County Parks Department that maintains none of the City parks. Why then should not the many millions of dollars paid out by City taxpayers to the County for governmental services for which they receive little or no benefit appear on the City Abstract as a credit in favor of City residents? The present City Abstract formulation denies City residents Equal Protection of the Law. If the County Legislature is unwilling to corrct this injustice, perhaps the City of Syracuse should consider turning to the Courts for justice.

SOME THOUGHTS ON THE LACK OF COMPETITION FOR THE OFFICE OF COUNTY EXECUTIVE

Incumbent Onondaga County Executive Nick Pirro will run unopposed for reelection this year. This is unfortunate because, whether you are or are not a supporter of Mr. Pirro, the voters are entitled to a choice. It seems no one wishes to take on the job of challenging such a well established incumbent who is blessed with a healthy campaign treasury and a cadre of County workers who will bring out the Republican vote on election day. The result is no competition for the top job and the perpetuation of one-party County government. None other than a Republican has held the office of County Executive since it was established in 1961.

Whether or not Nick Pirro will run again in 2007 is any one's guess. There is no term limit restricting the tenure of the occupant of this office. In any event, the Democrats must find a way to be competitive for County-wide offices. Money to wage an active campaign is an essential ingredient and a fund-raising plan to collect the kind of dollars required should be developed. Perhaps a sensible percentage of the proceeds of every party fundraiser conducted over the next four years could be set aside and placed in a lock box, to be utilized in 2007 for the historically under-financed campaigns for County Executive, District Attorney, Comptroller, and members of the County Legislature. Strategies successfully employed on the national level by such individuals as Howard Dean and John McCain to raise funds using the Internet could be adopted locally. The concept of money obtained to advance the cause of promoting competitive County-wide elections, if properly presented, is capable of receiving a positive response. Not only political partisans but others with no party commitment will agree that one party domination is the enemy of good government.