Sunday, October 12, 2008

Listen To Bart Peterson

Those are four words I never thought I would utter. Former Mayor Bart Peterson pens a viewpoint column in today's Star urging Marion County voters to support a referendum abolishing township assessors and rolling their duties into the county assessor's office. "It means better government, and it also means momentum for more sweeping reforms going into the 2009 legislative session," Peterson writes. And he's right.

9 comments:

HOOSIERS FOR FAIR TAX said...

Gary? Did hell freeze over last night?

Indy4U2C said...

I can't believe the King of TAX AND SPEND advocates eliminating unnecessary government!

What would that do to the Ghetto Mafia? -It could me the end!

Vox Populi said...

Township assessors should only be the start. Townships serve little purpose these days. All township services should be centralized.

Concerned Taxpayer said...

Actually, what it means is that peterson feels like it will always be a democrat assessor in Marion County from now on.

True Conservative said...

Vox populi
Haveyou ever practiced in small claims or superior court? I have been told by a judge (not small claims) that the plan is to move them all downtown and have 2 superior court judges handle the cases. This would be a nightmare. The small claims not only pay for themselves but also help fund other things. A typical small claims session has around 100 cases set. 9 townships so 900 now this may be a little off but if anything it may be low. Most small claims court have sessions 2-3 days a week. Most superior court judges do not hear that many cases in a year. So maybe township assessors are redundent your statement paint with a wide brush.

mackenzie197 said...

True, there is no such "plan." It would involve a major change in the law to do that. Maybe somewhere talked about doing that or suggested it, but to indicate it is some sort of "plan" in the works is a bit of a reach. That's like saying because a legislator introduced a bill to make some sort of change, the legislature was "planning" that change.

iPOPA said...

Mackenzie 197:

I have it on pretty good authority that Chief Justice Randall Shepherd wants to get rid of small claims courts. This makes sense not only because you arguably have duplicate taxpayer costs to lease a bunch of buildings but also because small claims courts are not courts of record. As the "Chief Justice" is one of the "chief architects" of government consolidation, you tell me how likely it is that he'll succeed in getting what he ultimately wants.

Vox Populi said...

True Conservative,

I think there should be satellite courts (for easier access) but they should all be part of the same system. I don't mean centralize as in geography, but in terms of management. And yes, I think several of our small claims judges are a complete joke.

True Conservative said...

ipopa
Do you think in any way that 2 superior courts can handle 9 small claims dockets? Also where are they going to put them? They pay rent for the city county building. Also Superior court judges are paid substanially more than the sc judges. You are not exhanging 9 for 0.

Also Mac 197. I know when politicains start talking about creating more political positions it happens. I remember when the no trash buring ordinance was being pushed years ago and the local councilman told me over a beer that the real reason was to fill the landfills as some big wigs wanted to force the building of a trash burning facility to sell steam and make them richer. That facility is at the corner of Hardning and Raymond.