A local group says that not everyone will be raising a glass to a lowered alcoholic drink tax.’ … A local group says that not everyone will be raising a glass to a lowered alcoholic drink tax.’ Citizens Against Raising Property Taxes is challenging drink tax opponents in order to avert a possible hike in property taxes. ‘It may not have as much public appeal as, ‘Let’s go have a beer and fight the drink tax,” said Shawn Flaherty, CARTOP organizer. ‘But our goal is to make voters fully informed.’ Flaherty, a business attorney and managing partner at Flaherty Fardo LLC, formed the group of mostly lawyers, realtors and business leaders in an effort to have voters associate a lower drink tax with higher property taxes.’ His primary concern lies in the wording of a ballot referendum proposed by Friends Against Counterproductive Taxation, a group of bar owners and restaurateurs that aims to ask voters if they want the tax lowered from 10 percent to 0.5 percent. ‘It’s a horrible question,’ said Flaherty. ‘It’s designed so even a 4 year-old would vote in favor of it.’ Fellow CARTOP member Duffy Hanna also argues that FACT’s ‘Whisky Rebellion II’ campaign hasn’t given the community the whole story. ‘They’re appealing to people’s Boston Tea Party mentality,’ said Duffy, the vice president of Howard Hanna Real Estate. ‘But really, if you put it back in one pocket, you have to take it out of another.’ In terms of the technicalities of the FACT referendum, Flaherty said the proposal is a de facto removal of the tax, eliminating the ‘spirit of the law’ while keeping it legal by avoiding complete abolition. But the legality of the referendum is still being disputed. ‘ ‘ ‘ Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato has challenged the question based on the wording of an administrative code that bars a referendum based on ‘the fixing of the subject of taxation.’ He has also said that, if carried out, the proposal would violate the county’s home rule charter by creating an unbalanced budget. The majority of the Allegheny County Council agrees and has submitted its own referendum question that reads: ‘Shall the county enact an ordinance to increase real estate taxes in order to repeal the alcoholic drink tax?’ At this stage, both referendum questions have been submitted to county solicitor Mike Wojcik, who will be issuing an opinion sometime today to the county board of elections. From there, based on the solicitor’s opinion, the elections board will decide within a week whether both referendum questions are legal and ready for ballot.’ While Flaherty said he believes FACT’s question is the worse of the two, he still believes a better question is in order. ‘Let’s not hoodwink the voters here,’ he said. Flaherty thinks the question should go further, offering voters more options than just ‘one or the other.’ He suggested a referendum that provides the option of decreasing the money put out for county services ‘mdash; a solution that would require less revenue streams from things like property or alcohol taxes. Susan Hansen, a Pitt political science professor, also doubts the fairness of both questions. However, her focus is more on the root of the issue.’ ‘What about PAT funding?’ Hansen asked. ‘That’s the elephant in the closet.’ She points to the fact that the drink tax was enacted, along with a $2-a-day tax on car rentals, to fund the county’s $30 million subsidy of the Port Authority.’ Hansen thinks getting rid of the taxes that provide this funding will have the biggest effect on transit riders. ‘The students and workers that actually ride the bus ‘mdash; that’s who will face the consequences,’ said Hansen. Hansen said she has seen people on her bus routes with petitions in favor of the drink tax and that she willingly signed. The Port Authority confirmed that it is in no way involved with this activity, but neither Hansen nor Port Authority officials could identify who was spearheading the petition campaign. While Hansen said she wishes the state legislature had come up with a different plan to generate funds, like a statewide tax that didn’t involve ‘sticking it’ to the localities, she thinks the measure was necessary.’ Neither Hansen nor Flaherty foresee the referendum making it to ballot because if the elections board approves it, CARTOP plans to dispute it in court.’ And what if the FACT referendum were to pass and voters were to approve it? ‘Fine, I’ll get 40,000 property owner signatures,’ said Flaherty of the raised property taxes that would likely result. Flaherty said he’d do exactly what FACT has done to protect the interest of its particular sector, ending in another wiped-out tax with a government looking for where to turn next. ‘The logical extension of this referendum is catastrophic for the future of county government,’ he said.