On Sunday, Dec. 8, the Mirror inched closer to endorsing reassessment with an article titled "A long time coming."
This article contained a suggestion that read: "The most logical time to initiate reassessment might be after the 2015 primary."
This nasty political trick would be effective.
It would tie the hands of a future board of commissioners and pre-empt the will of the voters. The general election that followed would then become one of resentment.
The article then implies that voters are equally divided over reassessment by citing retired commissioner Donna Gority's support for reassessment and her successful re-election in 2007 as an indication of voter division.
Gority's success, over her anti-reassessment opponent, hinges on the fact voters are only allowed to pick two candidates out of four for three commissioner seats in the general election.
If voters were allowed to vote for three candidates for the three commissioners seats, Gority would have lost because of her pro-reassessment stance.
The county commissioners' race is the only election with this electoral disparity.
Here is where the back of adversarial partisan party politics, at its crass roots - and I mean crass, not grass - should and could be broken.
This electoral disparity inhibits the majority in realizing its will with confidence, allows the judicial system to intervene with litigation, and gives political parties the opportunity to distort and sacrifice majority will to special interests.
Another tactic is to have a school district bring a lawsuit against the county. Remember this: The school districts, unlike the county, have no millage cap.
Thus enters the next excuse for reassessment - you might as well do it, because the courts will order it.
Given the courts' silence on these dirty political tricks, their complicity is obvious and the legitimacy of an order would be a suspect in criminal political conspiracy.