The Capitol Project Sales Tax Ordinance: A case study in Transparency and Trust
Councilman Blount’s Newsletter 8-10-24
In the world of music, navigating complex contracts taught me the value of attention to detail. Armed with highlighters and a determination to understand, I learned to sift through layers of legal jargon to uncover the truth. So when it came to questions about transparency involving the Capitol Projects Sales Tax, I just went back to what I know.
On March 4th, during the Committee of the Whole meeting, we were assured that the Capitol Projects Sales Tax would be presented with an "extremely long ballot" listing every project to be funded. This promise was meant to ensure that citizens would have all necessary information at their fingertips before casting their votes.
However, despite the Commission's initial attempt to adhere to this directive, it appears that the process was marred by complications. County staff seemingly impeded the inclusion of comprehensive project details on the ballot.
In the May 13th Commission meeting, several crucial points were raised:
Ms. Stevens highlighted the Council's original request for full project disclosure on the ballot.
The Commission faced resistance when attempting to follow the Council’s directive, with responses that were either oppositional or inconclusive.
Mr. Howard inquired about whether other counties had provided full project lists, but his question went unanswered.
Efforts to place informational material at polling locations were discussed but have yet to be confirmed or verified. Given the current status, it remains uncertain if this plan can be effectively executed.
Why would County Staff suggest that the Council appointed commission not follow Council requests? That leads to an even deeper topic of conversation that I will save for another time.
The erosion of trust in government institutions in Greenville County can often be traced back to instances just like these. Instead of delivering on promises of transparency, we seem to offer a sales pitch that changes as it moves through the procedural system. This inconsistency not only undermines public confidence but also highlights a systemic issue with how we handle crucial information.
To restore trust, we must commit to genuine transparency and follow-through. Our constituents deserve more than just promises. They deserve clear, accessible information that allows them to make informed decisions. And they absolutely deserve a Council that does what it says.
As we move forward, I pray this be a reminder to Council of the importance of upholding our commitments and ensuring that our processes reflect the values of openness and accountability. - BBD19
A constant and growing reminder until November about the Capitol Projects Sales Tax:
Over 30% of paving projects are CUL-DE-SACS.
Over 31% of the paving mileage are STATE ROADS.
Guarantee of reimbursement from the State = ZERO.
Resurfacing roads such as Salters Rd, that was built just over 2 YEARS AGO.
Handles road congestion by DECREASING lanes on Wade Hampton?
All items said to be on the ballot per Committee minutes = FALSE
Promise of having all projects provided at the polling locations = UNVERIFIED (and likely illegal)
It requires new County Budget line items to create a new department to handle the projects. The department CANNOT BE FUNDED WITH SALES TAX.
***That means they will have yet another reason for more future property tax increases. If not, how do they magically find the money, and if they can, why did they have to raise your taxes over the last two years?***
"Those members" of County Council and "that staff" will do this - they will make a vague appeal for a tax increase and not include specifics and then threaten the citizens in this way: you either vote for this tax increase or you suffer with bad roads. There is no in between for them. They will attempt to blame the voters if the tax increase does not pass. The truth is that if they truly needed this extra money, they would make a strong case for its implementation. If they do NOT make a strong case for it, including providing the voters with an exact list of the roads they want to improve, then they communicate to the voters that they don't care a whit about roads to begin with, Or they communicate a complete incompetence for their position. Neither of those options are good.