1988 Birmingham bond referendum

From Bhamwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The 1988 Birmingham bond referendum was a public referendum held by the City of Birmingham on May 10, 1988 asking voters to approve the issuance of $110 million in municipal bonds, to be allocated for capital improvements, infrastructure and economic development projects.

The bond issue, which followed closely a failed 1986 Birmingham bond referendum, was proposed as a way to replace revenues that had been lost as a result of cuts made by congress to Federal Revenue Sharing and Block Grants. The bonds were to be repaid by extending an existing 2.8-mill ad valorem (property) tax which had been previously levied for school construction and was set to expire in 1997, and increasing the city's overall ad valorem tax rate by 5 mills. The proposal came shortly after Jefferson County had reassessed property values, increasing valuations for most property owners by 12 to 15 percent.

The tax increases and allocation of funds raised by the sale of bonds was broken down into several individual propositions on the ballot. Specific projects mentioned as depending on the bond issue were two new proposed parking decks, air conditioning for all city schools, and the proposed Birmingham Civil Rights Institute.

The city formed an "Advertising Committee for the Bond Election", chaired by George McCoy which placed newspaper advertisements and mailed out leaflets promoting the bond issue, reading "Build a Better Birmingham — Vote FOR Progress on May 10 ... Vote FOR the bond issue and funding on May 10! ... It's a small price to pay for so much progress!." The advertisements included the endorsement of 34 "business, education and civic leaders."

Opposition

Former mayor George Seibels was one of the most prominent opponents of the overall plan, which he characterized as "frivolous, wasteful spending," though he had hoped that the tax for school improvements would be renewed. The Alabama Libertarian Party, led by Frank Monachelli, reported spending $8,000 in their campaign against the bond issue. As returns came in on Tuesday evening he hosted a victory party at the Birmingham Press Club.

Election

The result of the election was an overwhelming rejection of the proposed bond issue. Only 26% of registered voters appeared at the polls on May 10. An analysis by Birmingham Post-Herald found that turnout among white voters, who were more generally opposed, outpaced turnout among Black voters by nearly 2 to 1 (40% vs 20%). Predominantly white eastern neighborhoods opposed the measures by nearly 96% to 4% while "less conservative white voters" at the Highland Racquet Club went 60% to 40% against. In majority Black precincts, the issue was approved by about 85 percent of voters, but turnout was much lower.

  • 5 Mill Property Tax Increase: No, 24,450 votes (63.7%), Yes, 13,949 votes (36.3%)
  • Tax Extension for Schools: No, 21,723 votes (56.9%), Yes, 16,461 votes (43.1%)
  • Proposition 1 ($25 million for Birmingham schools): No, 21,084 votes (55.4%), Yes, 16,975 votes (44.6%)
  • Proposition 2 ($25 million for museum construction and improvements): No, 23,569 votes (61.7%), Yes, 14,652 votes (38.3%)
  • Proposition 3 ($10 million for public park improvements): No, 22,514 votes (59.2%), Yes, 15,514 votes (40.8%)
  • Proposition 4 ($10 million for parking): No, 22,929 votes (61.4%), Yes, 14,419 votes (38.6%)
  • Proposition 5 ($10 million for storm sewers): No, 20,446 votes (55.4%), Yes, 16,475 votes (44.6%)
  • Proposition 6 ($10 million for sanitary sewers): No, 20,228 votes (55.1%), Yes, 16,465 votes (44.9%)
  • Proposition 7 ($5 million for public library improvements): No, 20,363 votes (55.8%), Yes, 16,131 votes (44.2%)
  • Proposition 8 ($5 million for neighborhood revitalization): No, 21,211 votes (57.5%), Yes, 15,709 votes (42.6%)
  • Proposition 9 ($10 million for economic renewal): No, 21,910 votes (59.5%), Yes, 14,886 votes (40.5%)

Interviewed after the results were reported, Mayor Richard Arrington said "I simply have not been able to muster support for my programs... We did everything I know to do... I keep trying to tell this nation that Birmingham is a city on the move. In order for a city to progress the people have to have confidence in the leadership. I pride myself as an administrator, but I'm no magician." He concluded that, "It is a disaster in a way for me. I'm deeply disappointed."

Lawsuit

The Alabama Libertarian Party sought a federal court order in September preventing the city from ever again using its resources to encourage voters to approve of bond issues, on the grounds that such communications were a misuse of public funds and violated the party members' 1st amendment rights. The city argued that the referendum was not political, and that the communications were a lawful exercise of the city's power to promote the public good. Judge Robert Propst of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama found for the defendants.

References

Retrieved from "http://bhamwiki.com/w/index.php?title=1988_Birmingham_bond_referendum&oldid=197517"