I'm sure there's some technical reason why I'm not allowed in court to call these "taxes"
I understand that your conservative ideology prevents you from understanding that governments can impose charges on businesses that are not taxes. But on that note, welcome to the world of capitalism. Governments are market participants too now. And as previously stated, these franchise fees are charged to ISPs in exchange for them getting the right to utilize public rights of way. It's not a tax because it's a business transaction: money in exchange for access. ISPs are free not to pay these franchise fee, and in exchange for not paying the free jurisdictions are free to deny them access to the public rights of way.
Each dollar in that line item literally offsets a dollar of property tax levy
This is false. In 99.99999% of American municipal budgets, property tax levies are separate from fees levied on businesses. They are independent pools of revenue that don't offset each other. Perhaps you live in the rare business-hostile jurisdiction where business fees offset property tax revenue? (On the tax front, red states are actually phenomenally hostile to businesses; what they don't charge in income taxes they more than make up for through a variety of other taxes and fees on businesses. My employer, for example, pays almost as much to Alabama for "other business taxes" as we do to California or NY, where we have several times the revenue and actual physical nexus, for income and business taxes collectively.)
you'll see a line item for the revenue collected from these fees,
Yes, of course fees are characterized as revenue. It's basic accounting. What else would they be characterized as? Funny Money?
Here's a newsflash: the service fees on your internet bill are also revenue to Comcast, both the pass-thru fees and the additional made-up service fees that Comcast adds to pad the bills. And again, those made-up fees are the reason that Comcast and AT&T are opposing this mandate, because it would reveal that the "service fee" charge on your ISP bill is mostly a made-up service fee imposed by your ISP and not imposed by your local government.
I don't have to care about this distinction
People who proudly proclaim their ignorance are the ones least suited for being involved in local government, especially when those distinctions are fundamental to an issue they're arguing about.
I understand that your conservative ideology prevents you from understanding that governments can impose charges on businesses that are not taxes. But on that note, welcome to the world of capitalism. Governments are market participants too now. And as previously stated, these franchise fees are charged to ISPs in exchange for them getting the right to utilize public rights of way. It's not a tax because it's a business transaction: money in exchange for access. ISPs are free not to pay these franchise fee, and in exchange for not paying the free jurisdictions are free to deny them access to the public rights of way.
Each dollar in that line item literally offsets a dollar of property tax levy
This is false. In 99.99999% of American municipal budgets, property tax levies are separate from fees levied on businesses. They are independent pools of revenue that don't offset each other. Perhaps you live in the rare business-hostile jurisdiction where business fees offset property tax revenue? (On the tax front, red states are actually phenomenally hostile to businesses; what they don't charge in income taxes they more than make up for through a variety of other taxes and fees on businesses. My employer, for example, pays almost as much to Alabama for "other business taxes" as we do to California or NY, where we have several times the revenue and actual physical nexus, for income and business taxes collectively.)
you'll see a line item for the revenue collected from these fees,
Yes, of course fees are characterized as revenue. It's basic accounting. What else would they be characterized as? Funny Money?
Here's a newsflash: the service fees on your internet bill are also revenue to Comcast, both the pass-thru fees and the additional made-up service fees that Comcast adds to pad the bills. And again, those made-up fees are the reason that Comcast and AT&T are opposing this mandate, because it would reveal that the "service fee" charge on your ISP bill is mostly a made-up service fee imposed by your ISP and not imposed by your local government.
I don't have to care about this distinction
People who proudly proclaim their ignorance are the ones least suited for being involved in local government, especially when those distinctions are fundamental to an issue they're arguing about.