On Monday August 11th, 2008 the public gallery at the monthly meeting of the Yates County Legislature was unusually filled to near capacity. The reason became clear as, at the invitation of Yates County Chairman Robert Multer, a string of people stood to make their protests about various aspects of the newly imposed Yates County Occupancy Tax. Various reasons for opposing the tax were put forward, most of which centered around the competitive disadvantage at which the unique way in which the tax has been imposed in Yates County puts private cottage rentals compared to surrounding counties and the almost certain negative effects of this tax on Tourism – a vital industry to the Yates County economy.

An air of astonished disbelief filtered around the meeting room as Chairman Multer explained that he had heard from “many cottage owners” that they supported the tax because “they did not like the way renters behaved with loud parties, inconsiderate behavior which sometimes needed the Police” etc. As a reason for supporting a tax, this is cutting off ones nose to spite ones face as tourism is the major employer and source of revenues in the county and takes no account of the benefits and money tourists bring and spend locally. His claim was vapid, particularly in the light of the considerable opposition by members of the public to the tax as evidenced by the various campaigns including the “No Bed Tax” and “Repeal Bed Tax” signs, a Petition (with over 900 names) and litigation.

Chairman Multer then said he personally, along with the rest of the Legislators, supported the tax because it would provide an income stream to support tourism without raising Property Taxes – a proposition which was refuted by one speaker who pointed out that studies had shown the negative effects on overall revenues arising from the imposition of such taxes. Legislator Taylor Fitch (Chairman of the Yates County Finance Committee) then claimed the Occupancy Tax would provide “2 ½ % relief on Property Tax” – a ridiculous claim in the light of the tiny expected revenues from the Occupancy Tax when compared to the Property Tax expenditures.

The air of disbelief turned to astonishment as Legislator Fitch, obviously upset at the continued opposition to the Occupancy Tax, then vented at several members of the public for their “attack on their Chamber” [Yates Chamber of Commerce]. In a furious and personal rant, irrelevant to the subject under discussion, he accused several members of the public of a “destructive, disgusting and appalling” attack on the local Chamber of Commerce. Several people responded in a much more reasonable and studied tone that they had tried everything possible to get the Chamber to represent their [majority] view with no success, that they had asked repeatedly for meetings and support and that the Chamber had reneged on its own recorded actions and promises.

My impression of this meeting was of a group of Legislators who were taken by surprise at the opposition to their plans and who did not know how to deal with that opposition, despite several significant clues such as the recent litigation against the tax by a group of concerned locals. Their responses did nothing to demonstrate concern for the views of the many citizens, who made the effort to attend at a time when they would normally have been at work, while showing more a weak effort to placate or avoid responsibility for an obvious lack of research and attention to detail. Nor was there any acknowledgment of the many hundreds (over 900) of locals who had signed a Petition against the tax.

As with the recent massive opposition to a proposed Library improvement, voters in the area are fed up with profligate local government spending resulting in “exorbitant” (to quote a member of the Finance Committee) Property Taxes and appear ready to take action to shake the present members of the Legislature out of their apparent complacency. Members of the Legislature should take note and act to reduce local government spending radically or they are highly likely to face formidable opposition when they come up for re-election.