Nuclear war, assessors and voters

November 3, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Following a nuclear holocaust, itâ??s been said, only cockroaches and township assessors will be left.

Now, assessors might finally meet their match in something more powerful than atomic weapons â?? voters.

The Legislature wiped out a warren of them this year when it consolidated 965 township assessors into single positions at the county level. On Wednesday, weâ??ll know if voters will consolidate the remaining 43 township assessors who oversee at least 15,000 parcels.

Supporters of the township ballot initiatives say itâ??s time the work is moved under a county-level assessor who can ensure consistency. Township assessors, who tend to be cogs in local political machinery, warn that county official couldnâ??t possibly understand real estate as well as they do.

How do you plant to vote on assessors?

Any other thoughts on the elections?
ADVERTISEMENT
  • My Smart Gov
    http://mysmartgov.org/

    Stop Governing Like This
    http://www.stopgoverninglikethis.com/
  • I absolutely voted for Prop 1.
  • I am ready for this thing to be over with, for the past several months I have been bashed, ridiculed (sp?), and fround upon for my views (even though they are not radical, but mainstream-middle of the road). Reupblicians see me as a hard core democrat, Democrats have seen me as a hard-core republician. Those assumptions are way off. I have been middle of the road this whole time and deciding canididates one by one who would be better for the job.

    I just hope that who ever gets ellected, He/She/They realize that partisian Politics will never work (even if their whole party gets enough to have run away politics). A divided Nation can not stand on its own. We all must come together and realize that we are not different from one-another. We all want the same thing, the difference is on HOW are we going to go about doing things. Lets give and take a little here and share ideas and keep an open mind.

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. You are correct that Obamacare requires health insurance policies to include richer benefits and protects patients who get sick. That's what I was getting at when I wrote above, "That’s because Obamacare required insurers to take all customers, regardless of their health status, and also established a floor on how skimpy the benefits paid for by health plans could be." I think it's vital to know exactly how much the essential health benefits are costing over previous policies. Unless we know the cost of the law, we can't do a cost-benefit analysis. Taxes were raised in order to offset a 31% rise in health insurance premiums, an increase that paid for richer benefits. Are those richer benefits worth that much or not? That's the question we need to answer. This study at least gets us started on doing so.

  2. *5 employees per floor. Either way its ridiculous.

  3. Jim, thanks for always ready my stuff and providing thoughtful comments. I am sure that someone more familiar with research design and methods could take issue with Kowalski's study. I thought it was of considerable value, however, because so far we have been crediting Obamacare for all the gains in coverage and all price increases, neither of which is entirely fair. This is at least a rigorous attempt to sort things out. Maybe a quixotic attempt, but it's one of the first ones I've seen try to do it in a sophisticated way.

  4. In addition to rewriting history, the paper (or at least your summary of it) ignores that Obamacare policies now must provide "essential health benefits". Maybe Mr Wall has always been insured in a group plan but even group plans had holes you could drive a truck through, like the Colts defensive line last night. Individual plans were even worse. So, when you come up with a study that factors that in, let me know, otherwise the numbers are garbage.

  5. You guys are absolutely right: Cummins should build a massive 80-story high rise, and give each employee 5 floors. Or, I suppose they could always rent out the top floors if they wanted, since downtown office space is bursting at the seams (http://www.ibj.com/article?articleId=49481).

ADVERTISEMENT