Chitwood says: Thaw the freeze, keep the freeze, whatever

Watch what you say about the tax freeze referendum:

“Election supervisors are urging voters to read ballots ahead of time if they plan to vote on four state constitutional amendments and a special referendum on Columbus’ so-called ‘tax freeze’ on owner-occupied homes. Some find the referendum language confusing, so remember that voting ‘yes’ means eventually eliminating the tax freeze; voting ‘no’ means keeping it as it is.”

That’s how I described the ballot question a week ago, when I got this email from Tyler Townsend:

Tim,

I would like to respectfully ask you to review the characterization of the special election vote in your recent article. I’m copying others from your organization that are familiar with this wording and can more directly provide you with further insight. You state “so remember that voting ‘yes’ means eventually eliminating the tax freeze; voting ‘no’ means keeping it as it is.” This implies that someone voting yes will eventually lose the Freeze and that the only way to keep the freeze is to vote no.

The fact is that voting yes keeps the Freeze exactly as it is for as long as you own your home. The ballot language is very specific that the Freeze is only eliminated for purchases after January 1, 2017. I suggest the following as a more accurate description: “so remember that voting ‘yes’ eliminates the freeze for purchases after January 1, 2017 while keeping the Freeze for all current homeowners. Voting no does not change the tax system.” I know your error was inadvertent, but this is the exact misinformation and fear the opposition is intentionally spreading....

OK, so

“Eventually” makes what I wrote correct, technically, but I was not about to tick off technicalities with Tyler Townsend, so I went online and tweaked it:

“Some find the referendum language confusing, so remember that voting ‘yes’ means ending the freeze for those who buy homes after Jan. 1. Voting ‘no’ is to favor maintaining the freeze for all homeowners, old and new.”

Because the words “tax freeze” technically are not on the ballot, I repeated “’so-called’ tax freeze’” in a follow-up. That provoked this comment:

“I like the way Tim Chitwood phrased the Special Referendum as Columbus’ SO-CALLED Tax Freeze on owner-occupied homes. The way he presents it as so-called should draw suspicion! Vote No on November 8th or before!”

Why the ballot question’s confusing is beyond me: How could voting “no” mean killing the tax freeze? I guess those tricky politicians we keep re-electing could try:

“You DO want to keep the tax freeze, right? Because we want it eventually to end, so let us know if that’s OK with you.”

We’re lucky the word “freeze” isn’t on the ballot, lest that be manipulated:

“Do you want to drink warm beer and grill spoiled meat or do you want to keep the freeze?”

I can think of some other questions we could be asking:

“Would you attend a ‘Thaw the Freeze’ group-therapy session?”

“Would you go to a so-called ‘tax freeze’ debate in a high school auditorium?”

“Would it be OK if Mayor Teresa Tomlinson and former state Sen. Seth Harp dropped by your house to go over the pros and cons? No? What if they brought snacks?”

Titled “Special Election” at the bottom of the ballot, here’s how the measure reads:

“Shall the Act be approved which eliminates the current base year assessed value homestead exemption for purposes of Muscogee County school and consolidated city-county government ad valorem taxes for homestead property acquired after January 1, 2017?”

Voting “yes” means that if you buy a house here after Jan. 1, the city annually will reassess it for property taxes. Vote “no” and its tax value won’t change.

This story was originally published October 23, 2016 at 4:02 PM with the headline "Chitwood says: Thaw the freeze, keep the freeze, whatever."