Doggie Drug Abuse–Public Policy Had a Hole Chewed Through It

PrescriptionsSurprisingly, Governor Scott Walker signed a bill this week, March 13, 2013, to exempt Wisconsin veterinarians from the state Prescription Drug Monitoring Program requirements of

1. Collecting data outlined in the state PDMP law, Pharm 18.

2. Submitting any PDMP data collected since the law took effect on Jan. 1, 2013.

I am torn on how to feel or what to think. On one hand, they are claiming this burden on veterinarians would have cost $7 million a year to the industry, ultimately passed on to the consumer of veterinary services. So kudos to the Wisconsin Veterinary Medical Association for protecting their members from the costly burden of recording and reporting and for protecting the consumer against increased costs of veterinary care.

On the other hand, the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) was introduced by the Pharmacy Board division of the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services, formerly the Department of Regulation and Licensing, to protect the public. “The Wisconsin Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) is a tool to improve patient care and safety and to reduce the abuse and diversion of prescription drugs.” The duty of this department, which licenses all professionals in Wisconsin except attorneys, is to protect the public–the consumer and their property/animals–not the veterinarian.

Continue ReadingDoggie Drug Abuse–Public Policy Had a Hole Chewed Through It

Ending Agricultural Use Assessment Abuse

Agriculture is one of Wisconsin’s most important industries, and various state laws are intended to protect existing farms from urban encroachment. For example, Wisconsin, like many other states, assesses agricultural property for property tax purposes based on its use value rather than its market value. Assessing farmland by its use value protects existing farmers from forced sale of their land when urban encroachment raises the market value of the farmland.

Existing farmers are not the only ones benefiting, however, from agricultural use assessments. Both local and national media outlets identified a growing problem: agricultural use assessment abuse. [See here ; here ; and here.] Wealthy developers and property owners put their property to agricultural uses so that the property benefits from a use value assessment instead of a market value assessment. The use assessment often results in considerable tax savings. Most coverage of the issue criticizes the practice, but either describes the practice as a loophole or implies that local government units are powerless to do anything about it.

Most coverage fails to recognize, however, that local communities can put a stop to much of the abuse. Many new agricultural uses implemented simply for the tax benefit violate existing local zoning ordinances. The Wisconsin Department of Revenue says that tax assessors must assess agricultural land by its use value even if the agricultural use violates local zoning ordinances.

The Wisconsin Department of Revenue also says that local communities can stop the abuse by enforcing zoning ordinances. There are various reasons why communities choose not to pursue enforcement. Communities may fear that an enforcement action could bankrupt a developer which would then prevent the completion of a stalled project. Local leaders may not want the political risk involved in taking on wealthy developers or residents. Regardless of the reason for avoiding enforcement, communities are not powerless to reduce agricultural use assessment abuse.

Agricultural use assessment abuse is not a victimless transgression. Illegal agricultural use assessments harm other property owners by either shifting the tax burden to other property owners or forcing local governments to reduce services. During these difficult economic times, local governments must make many difficult choices. Local governments should not, however, allow illegally obtained tax breaks.

Continue ReadingEnding Agricultural Use Assessment Abuse

An Analysis of the 7th Circuit’s Wisconsin Act 10 Anti-Public Sector Collective Bargaining Law Decision

On Friday last week, the 7th Circuit in Wisconsin Education Association Council vs. Walker (7th Cir. Jan, 18, 2013), affirmed in part and reversed in part the Western District of Wisconsin’s decision in the same case.

The case involves the now-infamous Wisconsin Act 10, which came to international prominence in February 2011 when Wisconsin Governer Scott Walker, under the pretense of a budget crisis, sought to attack public unions by passing legislation which would deny collective bargaining rights to most public sector employees in the state.

That only “most” public sector workers in Wisconsin were covered by Act 10 – most general public sector employees were, but most public safety workers were not – became the basis of the federal constitutional challenges under the First Amendment free speech clause and the equal protection clause in this case.

The Western District of Wisconsin held that Act 10’s distinctions between different types of employees passed constitutional muster as far as the general anti-collective bargaining measure because it met the low-threshold rational basis review standard (there was a legitimate reason for such distinctions). On the other hand, the District Court struck down the anti-dues checkoff and punitive recertification provisions of the law as being without any legitimate basis.

Continue ReadingAn Analysis of the 7th Circuit’s Wisconsin Act 10 Anti-Public Sector Collective Bargaining Law Decision