The South Bend Tribune pokes some holes in the favorite myth of Mitch Daniels and his cadre of GOP cheerleaders. As it turns out, his tax cuts have been tax increases:
It appears many taxpayers will actually pay more overall despite property tax reform, although the $70 million in savings could lessen some of the burden.
Statistics previously reported in The Tribune mentioned that a household with an adjusted gross income of $80,000, owning a Portage Township home assessed at $81,300, enjoyed a $581 property tax cut this year, according to an analysis by Crowe Horwath, the county's accounting consultant.
But under the proposed income tax hikes, they would pay $760 more in income tax per year. Add $155 more they are likely paying because of the state's 1 percent hike in the sales tax - which was a part of the property tax reform law - and such a household's overall annual tax burden would increase by $334.
Daniels loves to hang his hat on the property tax caps that he pushed through the General Assembly, but the result at this point has been limited to cash-strapped local governments cutting vital services, public schools facing the same, and a tax burden that has nudged up for middle-class homeowners while low-income renters face an even bigger boost.
Yet again, my journalistic friends, this was a tax shift, not a tax cut. Discussing it as such will help everyone understand what is going on around the state right now.
One of the biggest half-truths thrown around by the "Mitch in 2012" crowd is that the Guv has managed to go five years without a meaningful tax increase.
Not exactly.
Daniels' 2005 budget helped push property taxes higher by capping relief to homeowners across the state, he boosted the cigarette tax in 2007, he's advocated for multiple bills over the last few years advocating local county income tax increases, and he championed an effort that raised the state sales tax by 17%.
Need another example? Look no further than last year's property tax caps, which has effectively forced local governments to either slash public services -- and in many instances, this has included public safety -- or adopt a tax increases that more often than not will amount to political suicide.
And yet, here's Mitch, embracing his usual stance of willful ignorance.
Indiana's Governor says he's not the reason most homeowners have to pay higher property taxes this year. Mitch Daniels visited the Valley Thursday and said his new property tax laws are not to blame. "Talk to your local officials. We cut property taxes from the state level by, as I say on average one-third," said Governor Daniels (R- Indiana), who blames local government for property taxes going up this year.
As I've done in the past, I'll let st.allio summarize the Mitch Daniels approach to local taxation:
the reason the state has a surplus is because the governor "controlled spending" by simply deciding to stop paying for stuff, and mandating that local governments should pay for it instead. so state spending went down, local spending went up (because the state mandated it), and then the governor's office began mocking local governments because their spending went up. that's like me pushing you down into the snow and then laughing at your lack of balance.
One of the widely accepted but rarely discussed results of this year's property tax bill was the fact that on top of the 16% increase in the statewide sales tax, most counties are going to be forced to increase their county option income taxes in order to maintain anything resembling current service levels. The Governor led the charge on this issue, in many ways pushing the political trouble caused be his (in)actions on the issue off on the municipalities, a fact that has not escaped Fort Wayne's citywide leader, Tom Henry.
The state estimates Fort Wayne will not be able to raise $2.1 million in 2009 and $9.5 million in 2010 because of the caps.
Henry said that anticipated shortfall, combined with the council's $3.7 million property tax freeze for this year, hampers the city's ability to provide all the services residents expect. Because the law also allows communities to raise income taxes to curb the sting of the caps, Henry said the city has to examine that option.
Diversifying the tax base may be a good thing because it reduces the burden on property taxpayers, but Henry said he understands some people will end up paying more with the tax shift. He said the changes offer the city little choice.
"They (the state legislature) are essentially forcing our hand to diversify our tax base," he said.
At some point while I was on the road yesterday, it looks like the General Assembly passed a property tax restructuring bill.
Sen. Luke Kenley, the Noblesville Republican who negotiated the legislation with House Democratic leaders, said the plan is "going to be a revolutionary change not only for the taxpayer, but a revolutionary change for Indiana local government, and I think in the end one that will propel us into the 21st century as a leader across the nation in terms of how a tax system should be constructed."
Opponents, though, warned that the tax breaks come at a price: an April 1 increase in the state sales tax to 7 percent from the 6 percent, the likelihood of increased local option income taxes in many counties, and decreased funds for schools and local government.
Indianapolis Public Schools alone loses nearly $11 million in 2010 from funds that pay for such things as utilities, new technology and buses.
Sen. Lindel Hume, D-Princeton, has pushed for repealing property taxes in the past. He called the plan "a skunk" tossed into the legislature by Daniels and gussied up with some deodorant.
Only time will tell whether Hoosier taxpayers are content with the mix of sales and income tax increases that will accompany the dip in their property tax bills. And similarly, the effect that this legislation has on schools across the state will be something to watch closely.
The General Assembly will attempt to finish their work this morning, including a compromise bill that will make various changes to the tax structure in this state. The Indianapolis Star reporting team sets the stage:
"I think it's great," said a smiling Sen. Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville, a chief architect of the plan. "I think it's good for the taxpayer, and I think it's going to be permanent."
House Speaker B. Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, said the plan was the result of hard-fought negotiations.
"This bill is far from perfect," he said, "but it accomplishes substantial property tax relief."
Lawmakers had expected to vote on the bill, as well as the proposed constitutional amendment late Thursday. However, Senate Democrats asked for more time to consider the plan and its impact on taxpayers and local government.
One of the other bills we've been following is the wild stab at immigration policy reform that was mounted by state legislators over the last few weeks. Well, it looks like that legislation is dead.
A late-night attempt by bill author Sen. Mike Delph, R-Carmel, to resurrect the legislation with another compromise failed when conference committee member Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, refused to sign the deal.
"We put together a good bill and all they have to do is consent to it," said Pelath, referring to a House version of the legislation.
The immigration bill's apparent defeat came after months of debate. And it left Delph bitter.
"I'm a guest in the circus," said Delph. "It's corruption. And you can quote me on that."
All apologies for the late start this morning, but this week seems to be hectic for everyone. Of course, my stress level can't even begin to approach that of our state lawmakers, who are under the microscope as we move toward the final week of debate over property tax restructuring. Mary Beth Schneider sets the stage for us:
But the very size of the proposals -- the Democrats' plan is 53 pages, while the GOP version is more than 800 -- underscores the extent of the disagreement.
Democrats say they have developed a simpler plan that zeroes in on the core problem: distressed homeowners who fear losing their homes because of soaring property taxes. They want to use the sales tax increase, to 7 percent from the current 6 percent, to help fund a $1 billion supplemental homestead credit.
Kenley, though, said simplicity isn't necessarily a virtue when dealing with a complex system of property taxes and local government spending. What is needed, he said, is a holistic approach that gives relief to all classes of property taxpayers, while controlling local spending growth and reforming the assessment system.
The Governor has never shown himself to be a team-player in the past, but this week will provide him an opportunity to either make-or-break his image as a consensus builder on this issue.
In response to the Republican grandstanding from earlier in the week, House Democrats have put forth their own list of specifics on what they would like to see out of a tax restructuring plan this session.
House Democrats support capping homeowners' property tax bills at 1 percent of their homes' assessed values but don't want limits on bills for businesses and other property taxpayers. Republicans, including Gov. Mitch Daniels, also want 2 percent limits on rental property and 3 percent caps on business property.
Democrats said the state may not be able to afford to pick up the costs of several local levies, as Republicans have proposed.
"We are facing a recession," said Sen. Vi Simpson, D-Ellettsville.
A report released Friday shows the state collected $43 million less than expected in February. Since the latest revenue forecast was released in December, the state has collected $85.9 million less than expected.
The Republicans at the General Assembly seem to have bought wholesale the rose-colored view of our economy that Governor Daniels so proudly pushes around the state. These negotiations will continue feverishly next week, but I certainly think it's a valid point to ask whether a state government that is facing huge revenue shortfalls should be taking over so many critical local functions.
For those of you who missed it, yesterday saw one of those classic Brian Bosma press conferences, where all of the Republicans put on their best ties and American flag pins and stand on the steps while a few of them breathlessly explain that they have solved the state's numerous problems, and the only thing standing in the way of Hoosiers and the land of milk in honey is the evil Democratic leadership, which hates everything good in the world. It's always a great time.
GOP lawmakers pitched their plan as the answer to the state's property tax crisis by providing $950 million in immediate relief, placing permanent caps on tax bills and creating stiff controls on local government spending.
"If this isn't good enough for somebody, then they don't want to cap property taxes," Daniels said.
Ah, those powers of negotiation that Daniels picked up under President Bush haven't dulled over time, have they?
The Democrats were less than amused at having their negotiations suddenly break down into the song-and-dance routine that Bosma had going on out in the hall.
"I don't think negotiating through press conferences accomplishes good legislation or gets the job done," Democratic House Speaker Pat Bauer said.
[...]
Currently, key lawmakers from all four caucuses are trying to hammer out a deal behind closed doors to resolve differences in House Bill 1001, the property tax legislation.
Bauer said those meetings were going well, and he was confused by the public move to force the Democrats' hand.
"It's disappointing in a way after six or nine months of bipartisanship that suddenly there is a partisan interjection," he said. "Normally during discussions you don't have press conferences unless you want to blow it up."
The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette concludes their multi-part series on the property tax "crisis" in our state with a series of recommendations on the major components of the Governor's tax plan. The verdict? There's some good in there, but there are also a lot of questions that need to be answered.
What it should be: No increase - both versions represent a major tax shift, pure and simple. Lower-income homeowners get a small property tax break and a big boost in their sales tax bills; owners of costly homes get a major tax break and roughly the same increase in sales tax bills as lower-income Hoosiers. Renters get the increase without the tax break. In addition, Indiana's sales tax rate would surpass all its neighbors' rates. It's an unstable source of revenue and represents a regressive tax policy.
They also break down the tax caps, the local option income tax, and the referendums. Be sure to check it out.
The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette is braver than most. There's no denying that the "tax caps" being pushed by just about every state-level elected official in the state have become the rallying cry of many, but the dirty little secret is the simple fact that this may not be the best way to go about handling the property tax situation that has developed over the last few years.
In the end, the trouble with the circuit-breaker is that it's designed to address a problem without fixing the problem. It doesn't fix the broken assessment system responsible for the tax bill outcry in a handful of cities. It reduces spending by force, not by efficiency. It threatens to create even more problems with unintended consequences.
Taxpayers across the board would be better served if the General Assembly were to allow measures already approved to take effect and to concentrate instead on implementing many of the local government reforms recommended by the bipartisan commission headed by former Gov. Joe Kernan and Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall Shepard. It might not offer the immediate and permanent tax relief some elected officials foolishly promised, but it's a smarter approach in the long run.
I would definitely recommend checking out the rest of the piece.
For those of you who have been following some of the key bills in this year's version of the legislative assembly line, Bill Ruthhart of the Star puts together a quick guide to where those bills stand as they head toward the possibility of a contentious conference committee.
But with so much of the focus (and pressure) still squarely aimed at legislative efforts to "fix" the property tax problem, the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette offers some unsolicited bits of advice for our state legislators: We know that you're in an election year, but don't screw this up.
Too often in the past, legislators rushed changes into law to address narrow goals without attempting to study the broad potential ramifications of their actions. Members of the Indiana General Assembly should remember these unanticipated consequences before voting on a massive property tax overhaul that is sure to create new problems.
Lawmakers are reacting - some might say overreacting - to 2007 property tax bills, many of which were much higher than property owners expected. Some of the most egregiously high bills were in Marion County, where the media reaching the most Hoosiers are concentrated and where residents have close access to the doors of the Statehouse. In some other counties, including Allen, increases were lower, and rebate checks covered much of the increases.
The piece goes on to explain that it was some variety of "brave and bold" action that got us into this mess in the first place, most notably the rolling back of property tax relief by Governor Daniels in order to balance his books on the backs of local governments across the state. Revisionist history has been kind to him and the rest of the legislators who over the last five years guided us toward this moment, but their actions over the next few weeks will likely determine the legacy of all involved.
I'm curious: What do you all think of the tax plan currently before the General Assembly? Good? Bad? Couldn't care less?
For those of you carefully watching the General Assembly, yesterday was a big day. The Senate passed their version of property tax change, and the House inched closer to doing the same, with a final vote on SJR 1 expected on Thursday. The debate will head to conference committee with Democrats taking the stance that a 1% cap on assessed value will hurt schools, local governments, and those on a fixed income much more than their plan will, which revolves around a 1% cap tied to income.
The movers and shakers are starting to move and shake, folks.
Democrats, in both the House and Senate, want more help for low- and moderate-income Hoosiers to help offset the impact of the higher sales tax increase that is part of the bill. That increase would bump the sales tax to 7 cents on the dollar, up from 6 cents.
Sen. Luke Kenley, the Noblesville Republican who will be a key player in the coming negotiations, expressed confidence the differences can be resolved.
"We've gone 99 miles down the 100-mile road to property tax relief. We've got one more mile to go," he said.
It may be easy to say that there is only one mile left in the Senate, but a quick look over at the House reveals that there may be a bit more traveling to go.
That issue took center stage earlier Tuesday in the Indiana House, which on party lines voted against capping homeowners' property tax bills at 1 percent of a home's assessed value.
Instead, Democrats who control the chamber continued to push for capping homeowners' bills at 1 percent of household income.
As the architect of the income-based cap, Rep. Bill Crawford, D-Indianapolis, has said the provision is fairer to low-income Hoosiers who he thinks would be harder hit by the proposed sales tax increase.
I think the problems associated with the 1% assessed value cap are well documented, but the lack of comprehensive study on the income-based cap will make this extremely controversial until some hard numbers start rolling out. Even then, it will be up to the Democratic caucuses to sell this to Hoosiers, and there is no denying that the Governor already has one hell of a head start on this front.
If there has been one big surprise out of the General Assembly in this short legislative session, it has been the cool and collected way in which both parties and both chambers have worked harmoniously to move forward a tax restructuring bill with little to no substantial controversy.
Things were going so well.
Apparently, too well. Bill Ruthhart of the Star explains.
Since he first pitched his sweeping proposal in October, Daniels has pushed for homeowners' tax bills to be limited to 1 percent of their home's assessed value.
[...]
Instead, Rep. Bill Crawford, D-Indianapolis, pushed a proposal that would limit a homeowner's tax bill to 1 percent of their household's annual income -- meaning a family that makes the median state income of $44,806 per year would pay about $448 in property taxes. Under Daniels' plan, the property taxes on the median-priced home in Indiana, $104,833, would amount to $1,004 year.
The change was placed into Senate Joint Resolution 1, the legislation that would amend the constitution.
Crawford said he made the change to offset the increase in state sales tax -- to 7 percent from 6 percent -- that would pay for Daniels' relief package.
This came out of left field for me, so I don't have more than an initial reaction. In one sense, this move could possibly represent an actual tax cut for working families across the state, rather than the taxation shell game that the Governor's plan represents. I have no idea what the fiscal impact of this would be statewide, though, and apparently neither do the House Democrats.
That's going to make this really, really hard to explain, which makes me think that this is all just political posturing. On the other hand, perhaps they honestly are going to try and rush some fiscal studies in the next few critical weeks with an eye toward the conference committee negotiation table.
I know some of you have been critical of the tax caps as they were, and I have no doubt that some of you will be critical of this. Thoughts?
An update on the General Assembly's work on property tax restructuring, courtesy of the Indianapolis Star's Mary Beth Schneider:
Among changes the Senate committee made: The state would pick up not only the general funds of all public schools and child welfare costs, but also the cost of school debt service, juvenile incarceration, school pension debts and those police and fire pensions that are based on pre-1977 plans. Those pre-1977 plans total some $90 million statewide.
Another change would have county councils merely review and make recommendations on all budgets for local taxing units. Under the version passed by the House, county councils would have to approve all those budgets.
While Democrats on the committee voted for the measure, they also raised concerns that the proposal cuts funding for schools and also is more of a tax shift than a tax cut. Sen. John Broden, D-South Bend, said that in his city someone with a $60,000 home and a low to middle income would see their overall tax burden go up as both sales and local income taxes went up, while someone in a $600,000 home would see their taxes go down thanks to a hefty property tax cut.
For once, I'm inclined to agree with Abdul on this one: These votes are nice and necessary, but the real work on these issues is likely taking place behind closed doors.
For those of you who have been watching the debate within the general assembly over property tax restructuring, today will be a big day. HB 1001, which is the House bill containing various provisions key to the tax plan, is to be voted on at some point this morning by the Senate Tax and Fiscal Policy committee.
Many elements of the plan have already been approved by the Senate in other bills earlier this session, and can be expected to be incorporated into the bill. They include phasing in the so-called circuit breakers which cap homestead property tax bills at 1 percent of a home's assessed valuation; rental and agricultural property at 2 percent and business property at 3 percent.
[...]
In addition, the Senate already has approved requiring referendums for most local government building projects, including for schools, while the Democratic-controlled House had changed that provision to eliminate the need for voter approval for classroom-related projects but keeping them for recreational projects such as stadiums.
Ballard's average-guy persona, and even his sometimes-stammering method of public speaking, is in many ways refreshing in this era of smooth-talking politicians. It goes well with Ballard's back-to-the-basics pledge to focus on everyday issues such as crime and potholes.
That said, the tongue-tied routine doesn't work everywhere. It doesn't work, for instance, in a Statehouse hearing on a property tax bill that could shape the city's future. Indianapolis needs a strong and clear advocate in such an arena, and Ballard came to the hearing either poorly briefed or without a clear appreciation of the stakes at play. He needs to take such events seriously. A poor performance at the Statehouse -- or, say, at a meeting with business leaders or potential employers -- could cost the city dearly.
And even this!
The mayor promised massive cuts in spending. But he's given few details. He was elected more than three months ago and needs to let his constituents know what programs and services could be cut.
I heard Tully on Abdul's show last Thursday, and he was already shopping around his very valid point about the irony of lawmakers badgering a local official three months into a term when they have had years to address the property tax problem on their end.
True.
At the same time, Greg Ballard spent the latter half of last year promising big changes from a military-experienced mover and shaker. Voters were probably expecting more than what they saw on Monday, and the fact that the campaign promises that haven't been completely abandoned are still wallowing in the hypothetical world of rhetorical expression doesn't give the guy much of an excuse for his bad performance.
The biggest, dirtiest secret in town is the property tax "relief" being promised by the General Assembly isn't that at all. At its most basic level, it's a tax shift, with a 1% bump in the sales tax and countless bumps of local income taxes partially filling the funding void left behind by the politically palatable 1-2-3% cap plan. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it certainly not the picture of Daniels' plan that one gets if you listen too hard to the flowery rhetoric that flies out of the man every time he opens his mouth.
As Niki Kelly writes this morning, though, some legislators are beginning to warn that a simple cap on property taxes will not solve anything in and of itself.
"I'm still up in the air a little bit," said Rep. Dan Leonard, R-Huntington. As a Ways and Means member he has listened to the seemingly endless testimony against the circuit breakers and recognizes the effect they could have.
At this point he expects Senate Joint Resolution 1 either not to pass out of committee or to be altered dramatically.
"I want to do what our constituents want, but in order to reduce property taxes on the scale they want, it's going to take some cuts," Leonard said.
Rep. Win Moses, D-Fort Wayne, also said he is not convinced that he could vote for the constitutional caps at this point. He also concedes, though, that it would be hard politically to vote against it.
"I'm not sure who would be able to say no," he said. "It is popular, but upon examination it's a quest for the same services with less spending."
Daniels said Friday that he won't be happy with any package the legislature sends him without the constitutional caps.
The legislature will surely approve this. They have to, really. And that may ultimately not be a bad thing.
At the same time, I can't help but feel that the stampede toward political cover may preclude a serious discussion about the long-term implications of this proposal. Some of these funding shortfalls will likely be addressed in the next session, when lawmakers are expected to tackle a new budget and the suggestions of the Kernan-Shepard commission on local government reform. But at the moment, I get the feeling that some lawmakers are worried that this year's political pressure may force them to take one step forward and two steps back on the journey to true governmental reform.
Yesterday saw the parade of local officials before the House Ways and Means committee continue as the debate over property tax restructuring grinds onward. The message wasn't new, but it warrants a new post.
Tuesday, representatives from St. Joseph County warned of layoffs of sheriff's deputies and deputy prosecutors, the closure of parks and elimination of bus routes.
Johnson County officials warned of jail overcrowding and program cuts.
Howard County officials warned of the elimination of road patrols.
But the committee also heard from one county official who said homeowners need help more than governments need money.
Bob Harper, president of the Porter County Commissioners, told the legislators that though they'd heard from dozens of local government officials and lobbyists griping about the cuts, "you could fill this room 50 or 100 times over with taxpayers."
The bottom line is this: Local officials are pissed -- and rightfully so -- because the state cut off their funding spigot and now appears ready and willing to shift the burden of tax restructuring on to their shoulders. State legislators get to look like responsible problem-solvers while local officials are left with the politically-troublesome problem of what services to cut.
There was a lot of column space this morning dedicated to the current debate over property tax restructuring and school spending. With the final legislative committee hearings being held over the next week or so, it seems characteristically late to begin these critical discussions, but I suppose the General Assembly is what the General Assembly is.
For those of you who are still a little confused about the controversy, the South Bend Tribune provides another overview of the debate. The long and the short of it, financially speaking, boils down to this:
School systems would lose a projected $173 million statewide in 2009 and $171 million in 2010 if the property tax caps are enacted. The circuit breakers caps would be 1 percent for residential properties, 2 percent for rentals and 3 percent on businesses.
Up until this point, the argument has stood that many school systems across the state have dedicated millions of dollars to frivolous building projects, and the "Taj Mahal" rhetoric has served its users well.
Respected tax expert Larry DeBoer has a different picture to pain, though, and he thinks the reality of the current tax restructuring may be more troubling than legislators are willing to admit. The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette opines:
"There's an awful lot of the talk of why school debt service is growing so fast," DeBoer said in a recent Webcast presentation to school and government officials. "People have pointed to large football fields and natatoriums - I've heard several times someone builds a football field with an elevator to the press box. ... The referendum requirement is a response to that."
But those "Taj Mahal" projects, as they have become known, are the exception rather than the rule. Replacing the current remonstrance-petition check on building projects with a referendum seems inevitable at this point, particularly given the fact that 40 other states have an automatic referendum on bond issues.
But it's important for lawmakers to know the whole story because of other proposed changes in tax policy. The circuit-breaker measure that caps a homeowner's property-tax bill at 1 percent includes no relief valve for schools and local government. The tax credit for the property owner is simply lost revenue. For schools, that means about $170 million statewide next year - all of it lost from capital projects and other levy-supported funds left after the state picks up the balance of the general fund and transportation costs.
Despite the lobbying of many school systems, I'm not aware of much movement to address these concerns. My view is simply that if you want to reform the educational process across the state, you should do so with a bill specifically designed to address the problems you see. Simply slashing budgets and telling local school systems to figure out the rest seems a bit haphazard, especially when done so in the name of a "tax relief" plan a la election year.
Oh, and the "cookie cutter" school plan didn't exactly wow me over to begin with, but this admittedly-biased piece raises a few more questions I would want answered before we embark on that little escapade. Specifically, this one:
In 2006, only eight new schools were built in the state. Yet, lawmakers want to establish a new bureaucracy to create stock designs when only a few districts are considering building.
The debate over property tax restructuring is grinding slowly along, but the conversation as to what effect the proposed changes would have on school systems -- and what effect they should have -- has put educational leaders and legislators at odds in recent committee hearings. Niki Kelly of the Journal-Gazette reports:
"The circuit breaker has a disproportionate effect on children that live in poverty," Indianapolis Public Schools Superintendent Eugene White said. "I know that isn't the intent, but it is the effect.
"These cuts are completely indiscriminate. They are not related to the educational needs of the district."
White and others testified before the House Ways and Means Committee on Senate Joint Resolution 1. This would place circuit breaker caps into the Indiana Constitution limiting property tax bills in Indiana to 1 percent of the assessed value for homesteads, 2 percent for rental homes and 3 percent for businesses.
But the savings to taxpayers means less money for schools - about $170 million statewide starting in 2009, according to the latest estimate from the non-partisan Legislative Services Agency. That is about 5.6 percent of the schools' budgets that would remain on property taxes.
The bottom line is that the Governor and his GOP allies have waged a very successful campaign of thinly veiled attacks on school spending across the state. Just as Mitch Daniels was able to shift a good deal of blame for the current crisis on to local governments while absolving himself of any responsibility, the generalization that every school system has room to cut their budget is disingenuous at best. That's the danger of an across-the-board restructuring plan, which may not be avoidable, but how the General Assembly seeks to mitigate these problems will be telling.
After all, attacking schools isn't traditionally one of the most wise political maneuvers.
All logos and trademarks in this site
are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, and
all other site content may be used for any purpose
without explicit permission
unless otherwise specified.
