Container Tax

A proposed $10-a-ton surcharge on the disposal fee at landfills and incinerators may not generate enough revenue to offset the beverage container tax, the City Council has learned.The council is looking at the surcharge as a substitute for the beverage tax, which generates $6 million annually. Council members are under pressure from the beverage industry and retailers to terminate the container tax during the current fiscal year, which ends June 30. The council has resisted efforts to repeal the container tax until a substitute revenue source is ready.

Du Burns' principled opposition to the controversial container tax is, no doubt, genuine. But as a candidate for mayor in the Democratic primary, there is certainly also a political dimension to the Schmoke-bashing ads in which Burns has been appearing recently -- ads, incidentally, which the beverage industry, not Burns or his campaign committee, is paying for.Burns' charges in the ads that the container tax is unfair. That certainly is within the bounds of responsible debate. But the fact that the ads are paid for by the beverage industry is suspect.

Consumers who do their shopping in the city could find themselves paying slightly more for such items as refrigerators, kitchen stoves, disposable diapers and auto tires under a bill being prepared for consideration by the City Council.The legislation would add a wholesale distributor tax to these items and others and could generate approximately $3.5 million in new revenue for the city.These items, most of which are not recyclable, end up being dumped in municipal waste disposal sites. The tax would, in effect, offset the cost to the city of collecting and disposing of the items.

Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke, seeking to reassert authority over the proposed city budget, vetoed a City Council bill yesterday that would have repealed Baltimore's beverage-container tax.The mayor said he vetoed the bill because he was "nervous" that repeal of the 2-year-old tax would eliminate $6.9 million in revenue at a time when the city is imposing wage freezes and other austerity measures. He said he wanted to be "emphatic" that the city could not afford to lose that money."In view of that," Mr. Schmoke said, "I had to veto the repeal."

The head of a taxpayers' group says the organization will press for a 10-cent reduction in Baltimore's property tax rate, the highest in the state."Even acknowledging this is a tight budget, we are still going to press for a 10-cent reduction in the tax rate," David B. Rudow, president of the Baltimore City Homeowner's Coalition For Fair Property Taxes Inc., said yesterday.The coalition includes about 200 community and business groups.Rudow said the city can achieve the reduction by scaling back or eliminating altogether non-essential services and paring the work force even more.

Can Baltimore afford to cut its property or beverage container tax this year?Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke says definitely not.City Council President Mary Pat Clarke says she isn't sure.The two rivals in September's Democratic mayoral primary voiced their views in separate interviews after yesterday's meeting of the Board of Estimates, where Mr. Schmoke's preliminary budget for the fiscal year beginning in July was officially unveiled.The $2.3 billion operating and construction budget calls for 111 new police officers -- of which 96 are paid for by federal grant money -- and 50 new teachers.

Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke's $2-billion spending plan for Baltimore City is a proverbial glass that is either half-full or half-empty, depending on your point of view.It does not contain any reduction in the property-tax rate, for instance. But a four-percent assessment cap translates into an effective three-cent tax cut for residential property owners. And while no election-year salary increases are proposed for the 26,602 municipal employees, there won't be any lay-offs, either.So how bad is it?

To Dave Pivec, the solution seemed simple enough. He called Bill Kidd and Robert Russell, both sports enthusiasts. They had both already had the same thought. And by 11 o'clock yesterday morning, a $5,000 check for the Craig Cromwell summer basketball league was on its way to City Hall."We're pleased to make a small contribution to a big cause," read a note from the Baltimore Area Toyota Dealers.They weren't the only ones, who after reading their morning newspaper yesterday, decided that they too could help bail out the inner-city basketball league that saw its funding dry up in a political tussle over Baltimore's controversial tax on soda bottles and cans.

It is difficult in an election year for some members of the City Council to resist the urge to pander for voters' affections. Such a temptation almost led to council approval of another nickel reduction in Baltimore's property tax Monday night. Fortunately, that did not happen.There has been no evidence that such a small tax break -- $9.18 for the average Baltimore household -- translates into fewer people leaving or moving into Baltimore. But it would cost the city at least $4 million in basic services.

Curtis Howard and his wife don't have a car that would allow them to shop for groceries outside the city. That means they're unlikely to avoid paying Baltimore's tax on beverage bottles and cans anytime soon.Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke and City Council President Mary Pat Clarke have launched separate efforts to have the tax repealed. But Mr. Schmoke's proposal, tied to budget relief from a state takeover of the city Circuit Court system, appears headed for failure."It doesn't look like that is going to happen," state Sen. John A. Pica Jr., sponsor of the takeover measure that would save the city $6 million a year, said yesterday.