Fast-forward to 2008. Montpelier Mayor Mary Hooper announces her House candidacy and Anderson comes in a weak third in the Democratic primary. Anderson's total time in office: just shy of two years, a time when he was almost totally ineffective because of his choice to alienate the entire Democratic caucus.
Now the newest Democratic House member is about to take office in what is going to be a very difficult legislative session. I don't know Robert Krebs, I've never met him, and I really know nothing about his politics. Floyd Nease is saying that he's a good guy, which is definitely worth something.
Still, especially given what things are going to be like in Montpelier this year, I predict that people will be paying close attention to his votes this year.
Montpelier's re-appraisal process has been extraordinary, to say the least. According to state law, a town-wide appraisal (for purposes of setting property taxes) is mandated when it is estimated that the grand list is less than 80% of the actual value of the town's property. Montpelier continues on a bit of a real estate "boom" track, and hasn't been hit by the housing sales recession in play in much of the rest of the state and nation, so prices are still up, up, up.
But the result has been a shock to many, with average appraisals going up by nearly 40%. My own house went up by about 80%. Many others have seen increases of more than 100%. All this while commercial properties have seen their appraisals stay level or even drop significantly. National Life has had its property evaluation drop by a staggering $11 million, leaving the residents to pick up the slack in the budget. Presumably this means that the average non-commercial increase was far higher than 40%.
In the theoretical, this has spurred renewed discussion of the inherent problems with the property tax (at least on primary, non-mansionesque homes) as a funding source, both in terms of fairness and practicality. But there are likely to be more immediate, more concrete repercussions for the town, as well as next years elections, when you consider the sheer totality of the mess created by the process and its mishandling:
There was no information sent out with the new assessments on taxation; that is, people were left wondering how a doubling of their assessments would affect their tax bills. Would they too, double? (they wont, but if your assessment when up by more than that magic 40%, they will go up)
In the narrow, two week window of opportunity to appeal one's assessment, city staffers were reported to have been rebuffing questions, reportedly comparing such requests to a judge advising a criminal how to beat the rap. This left confused residents with questions, no recourse but to file an appeal to have an audience - except for the fact that residents were specifically told the appeal process was not for q&a, and had to meet the textbook definition of a proper appeal. A classic catch-22.
The assessor did not take into account land condition on the assessment because she did not feel qualified to. This despite the fact that it has been considered in the past. Residents with a high assessment and a cliff in their back yard are at a disadvantage if they don't read the fine print.
The assessor opted to use new software, which required data to be hand entered. Reportedly, the new system is replete with mistakes.
The assessor changed the way by which business properties were taxed, basing it largely on their potential rental income. Former city councilor Chris Smart received clamorous criticism a few years back at his suggestion that residential and commercial property should be considered differently, yet this appraisal represents a unilateral, bureaucratic change in appraisal methodology that massively benifits commercial properties (again, at the tune of $11 million for National Life) at the financial expense of homeowners.
It's hard to find anyone who hasn't filed an appeal in Montpelier - including members of the Board of Civil Authority, which sits as the final appeal arbiters (appealing members will be recused), suggesting a paperwork and procedural backlog unprecedented in the city.
It's a mess which could have implications beyond Montpelier's borders, by echoing into next year's legislative election.
Legislative Democrats had their chances for a significant power shift increase dramatically today - and they have Jim Douglas to thank for it.
Despite an enormous, broad-based push on its behalf, the Governor has made it clear he will veto the climate change bill, which has become less and less controversial the more members of the media, the legislature and the public have had time to familiarize themselves with it. legislative leaders have scheduled an unusually late July 11 special session to attempt an override - presumably to allow plenty of time to muster support.
Still, an override remains a long shot at best - even with its prospects improving daily. But the Governor just made another decision that opens up a strategic vulnerability; his veto of the new campaign finance bill.
This veto should surprise no one - with a few high-profile exceptions, there's nothing that bugs the GOP machine like campaign finance reform legislation. Both they and their constituency groups can't stand that stuff.
But in adding another potential override to the plate, Douglas may have given an out to some of the more conservative or vascillating Dems that will be under enormous pressure to tow the party line in July. A way to vote with the Governor on the most high-profile issue, but vote against him on the other. Freshman Democratic Representative-appointee Jon Anderson of Montpelier has done little but piss off the Democratic leadership since his arrival (voting with the Governor on a previous veto-override vote, but also in particular on campaign finance, where he sided with the Vermont GOP and Right-to-Life on a key amendment vote), and is very much in the Douglas camp on most issues. However his vote for the impeachment resolution and subsequent comments in the Montpelier Bridge publication indicate he is very concerned about winning re-election as a conservative in liberal Montpelier.
Such a twofer would enable Anderson and others in similar situations to vote for their man Douglas on the high-profile climate bill, but vote against him on campaign finance in order to try and claim political and intellectual independence before their constituents (and the caucus leadership). This isn't necessarily good news for climate change, but it's still good news for Dems, potentially. Why?
Because if a Douglas veto -any veto - is overridden, that'll be the headline in all the papers the next day. And the perceived power shift will have the potential to send shockwaves into the next session, as well as the next election season.
