The guys at Politico have done a great piece on the most idiotic campaign rumors and why none of them are real stories. I suggest some of you read this and go relax for a while.   Trust me, you’ll feel better.

In the interest of full disclosure, I work for MySmartGov.org, a bipartisan group dedicated to promoting the Kernan-Shepard recommendations and making local government more efficient.

I was talking to a Republican friend yesterday who was extolling the benefits seizing “classy” moments in politics. We were in total agreement.

That doesn’t mean avoiding rough-and-tumble campaigning or backing off your goals, but when you have an opportunity to, as Mama Wags would say, “do the right thing,” you do it.

Mayor Greg Ballard and former Mayor Bart Peterson get big “classy” points for coming together today to support the elimination of township assessors.

Now, I wouldn’t be a partisan hack if I didn’t give Peterson way more “classy” points. He is, after all, going to be standing next to the guy who unexpectedly beat him last year.

And there are plenty of old-timey Democrats who are not-so-quietly griping about his support for new-fangled, efficient government that will severely dent the political patronage system both parties have relied on for decades. (If we’ve learned anything from Barack Obama, who kicked lobbyists to the curb and raised boatloads of money from average Americans, it’s that you can change the way things have always been by inspiring people who thought there was no reason to care.)

Peterson believed in this cause when he was Mayor, and he believes in it now. He pushed several times for consolidation at the Statehouse, and he managed to make significant changes at the local level that saved taxpayers millions and made government more accountable.

I’m no fan of Ballard, who has been wholly unimpressive in what will soon be his first year as the city’s leader, but he should get props aplenty for continuing Peterson’s efforts. Heck, it might even be the start of a long-overdue vision for the next three years, an issue he could partner with Mitch Daniels on at the Statehouse.

I’m sure there will be folks who ask, “Whose idea was this? Who approached whom to get these two guys behind the same lectern?”

The answer is a rarity in politics: You’ve got two people from opposite sides of the aisle who truly, honestly and passionately believe in and are willing to fight for one issue.

That — and the ballot referendum they’re coming together to promote — is something we should all vote “yes” on.

Here is this week’s Capitol Watch. We discuss our predictions for Tuesday’s election, including the IPS bond issue, and Abdul’s continuing fantasy involving Halle Berry.

Enjoy, and give your comments and predictions below.

Current Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard and former Mayor Bart Peterson are having a news conference today to promote the consolidation of the township assessor functions into the county assessor.  So in that spirit, I’m reprinting a letter  a listener to my morning radio show sent me in support of consolidation.

Consistency Trumps Accuracy in Assessing Property

Don’t let the Township Assessors confuse the issue, on the matter of consolidating assessing duties, with their claims of better accuracy.

The most important factor in fairly allocating the property tax burden is CONSISTANCY of assessments.  For example, it is better to have a single assessing official over assess every property by 100% than to have 10 assessing official with some over assessing by 10% and others under assessing by 10%.   Fair allocation of the tax burden depends ENTIRELY on assessment consistency.

Granted, if every property were over assessed by 100%…that would generate other problems…particularly a flood of appeals…but you get the point!

Finally, the other important benefit to eliminating Township Assessors is it is a step toward aggregation of taxing districts.  Frankly, I’m not sure how much can be “saved” by reducing the number of elected officials and there offices…but I don’t really care!  What I care about is reducing the number of taxing districts!!!  Too many taxing districts carves the tax base into too many small pieces.  These small pieces often distort tax burdens…some districts with tax rates that are much too high (others too low).  Larger taxing districts provide a  more robust tax base and, generally, allow gov’t services to be funded at a more “reasonable” tax rate for all.

There is no defensible logic behind the current taxing district structure that has property tax rates inside the IPS school district nearly 50% higher than the property tax rates outside the IPS school district.  There are many reasons for this differential…but this result is fundamentally flawed on its face.  This is why the property tax caps are not only good politics…but good policy.

I’ll be more than happy to print the township assessors’ point of view if they send me one.