> The use of "allow" caught my attention. Here in Colorado things are basically the exact opposite.

TN could have a setup similar to California's, where property taxes are largely controlled by the state government rather than local governments. The money is collected by counties but then kicked up to the state capitol, which then disperses it back to local jurisdictions. Counties don't really have much freedom to set their own property taxes, as property taxes are capped at 1% of the assessed value of the land and don't increase unless the land is sold or significantly modified to trigger a new assessment (e.g. previously undeveloped land is developed).

We went to this weird system in large part because of a California Supreme Court ruling in the late '60s (maybe early '70s) that said it was against our state constitution to spend unequally on schools. The state was given the task of making sure that each school district received roughly equal funding per student per year. Since property taxes are historically the major source of income for school districts, the state had to reapportion property tax money among the state's districts. In the 1970s the voters decided to basically eliminate property tax hikes, and ever since local governments have had their hands tied when it comes to taxation.

I think CA has the most stringent anti-tax laws in the nation when it comes to local taxes. Any general tax increase -- be it a bond for new schools, an increase in sales taxes, etc. -- proposed by a local government has to be put to a public vote, where it must pass by more than two-thirds. Does CO's law require a simple majority or a two-thirds vote for new taxes?

Ste "Low property taxes but high sales and income taxes make for a weird state" phen