Niki Kelly has an article about some disgruntlement among legislators about how the Department of Local Government Finance is applying the homestead rules. The amusing part is that the DLGF is apparently applying the homestead rules exactly as they always have — and that has some legislators upset.
Tax rates are set differently for homesteads. The DLGF has apparently defined a homestead as being one house, one garage (attached or detached) and up to an acre of land. These are subject to the most favorable taxing rates and capped at 1% of the property’s value by recent legislative action. But, where there are more structures (pools, gazebos, barns, additional garages) or more land that fall outside the definition of “homestead,” the DLGF continues its practice of taxing them under other regimes — agricultural or business (which have higher caps of 2% & 3% respectively under the recent legislative action.)
Technically, one parcel of land could have three property tax caps applied.
For example, a homeowner with a house and a pool on five acres could have the house and one acre capped at 1 percent; the remaining land capped at 2 percent if it is farmed; and the pool capped at 3 percent.
And this, apparently, has been the way the law has been applied for years.
Jeff Espich’s reaction amuses me.
But Rep. Jeff Espich, R-Uniondale, said he is tiring of the Department of Local Government Finance taking hard-line stances rather than considering legislative intent.
He said the financial effect might not be much per homeowner – a few hundred dollars at the most.
The department “acted casually and without regard to our intent,” Espich said. “It’s terrible.”
He said he hopes to work with the administration to find a non-legislative solution because it’s impossible to write the law to account for every contingency.
In other words, “ignore the law we wrote, and do what we meant. We’re far too busy to get bogged down in details.” When I was working for the legislature, I came across any number of legislators — and by way of disclosure, none of them was Rep. Espich in particular — who just couldn’t or wouldn’t slow down enough to have the details explained to them. And, not so incidentally, this highlights why it would have been a bad idea to incorporate this legislation into the Constitution. With unintended consequences still being discovered, it’s not a good idea to enshrine the language permanently into the Constitution.
During my tenure as a state employee, I witnessed the struggle with the agency attempting to understand legislative intent because the intent (sorry Doug) is not always clear. Sorry about my ignorance, but aren’t there states that keep records of the legislative debates so one could have more insight into legislative intent. Maybe that would resolve this situation as well as court cases — presuming of course that the debate is not occuring out in the hallways of the Capital.
In the case at hand, if the legislature had a particular definition in mind, the homestead law should have been codified with that definition.
Doug, from one of our exchanges some time ago, I’m aware of your opinion that this business of “what the legislature intended” is not nearly as simple as most folks, including our legislators, think it to be. Our Indiana Supreme Court and the lower ones it leads tends to pay almost no attention to what lawmakers claim they meant, either before, during or after a law is passed, but focus almost exclusive on the words themselves and in the end, what the justices conclude they mean.
It’s ironic that many of the same folks who yell and scream about “unelected activist judges” making law instead of just interpreting it often create sloppy language leaving it to those very same black-robed rascals to use their own judgment.
It’s bad enough when we’re talking about ordinary legislation. In that instance, at least, if the legislature feels a court missed what it intended, there’s always a do-over option, and if urgent enough, it can be done is a special session.
Not so, as you say, when such language having the capability of causing unintended consequences gets enshrined in the Indiana Constitution. Remedial efforts can be paralyzed for up to four years, if not more, while legislatures wrangle over an acceptable “fix” that they have to pass in the same form in two separately elected two year sessions.
The so-called “Marriage Protection Amendment” to Indiana’s Constitution is another prime example. Its sponsors, many of whom even disagreed among themselves as to the meaning of the first version, called SJR-7, ultimately scapped it in favor of something in many ways even more ambiguous. Who really knows the dividing line between “marriage” and something “substantially similar” to marriage? What’s the legislative intent here, and what are those “unelected activist judges” going to do about it?
A tough enough question. Put it together with the fact that the scope of the new version, called variously SJR-15 and some other numbering, was expanded so that unlike before, our legislature couldn’t even pass civil union or comprehensive domestic partnership legislation even if the changing sentiment of the voters favored such a measure.
The mainstream media ought to pick up more on this whole “legislative intent” thing, as well as the real story on why some want to do more than just attack the judiciary.
Sometimes the legislators don’t realize the full effect and possible interpretations of legislation. Perhaps not all possible interpretations are considered until a problem comes up that wasn’t anticipated. Other times, language is intentionally broad to include varying circumstances. If laws were always clear and precise, there would be little need for attorneys and courts. :)
True enough, Pila, and the fact that even when close attention is given to crafting language that reflects intent, unanticipated things occur, reinforces the thought that ordinary legislation is almost always to be preferred over constitutional amendments.
As to your second point about language being made intentionally broad to cover varying circumstances, that may be perfectly reasonable. What bothers me, though, are legislators who duck their responsibility to take a stand and agree to fuzzy language knowing well that this shifts the blame away from them and onto those demonic “unelected activist judges” who supposedly make law instead of interpreting it.
(When a judge comes up with my interpretation, he’s interpreting. She comes up with the opposite one, she’s a lawmaking activist!)