George Will today, recounts a story about subsidized development in Phoenix as though it was a new thing. Apparently, Mission Viejo, California, where I live, is well ahead of Arizona in imaginative ways to spend taxpayer money. Mission Viejo has a shopping mall somewhat similar to the one in the Phoenix story. It was remodeled about ten years ago and the city agreed to subsidize the parking structure with city guaranteed bonds. This was controversial but the City Council at that time was dominated by a small group that was cozy with developers.
All this is due to the unhealthy attachment of small cities to sales tax revenue. Many years ago, cities were funded by property taxes. In California, the voters passed Proposition 13 in 1978 that froze property taxes by freezing assessment increases and by limiting the tax rate to 1 1/4 percent of assessed value. This action, which is often blamed for the reliance on sales tax revenue, did not occur in Arizona so it cannot be blamed for Phoenix’s subsidy of the shopping mall. In fact, 20 years ago, Arizona did not have a sales tax.
What we see is the compulsive need for any government entity to spend money. Why would anyone sit on a city council merely to preside over a stable budget and fiscal responsibility ? Instead we see council members naming new public buildings after themselves. We finally got an ordinance barring the practice for sitting officials but it took a hotly contested election to do so. We see council members doing favors for friends who just happen to contribute to their campaign funds. Sometimes they overrule their own planning commission to do favors for friends from church or other social groups. That happened here a few years ago after weeks of work and public hearings by the planning commission. All for naught. It doesn’t make the newspapers, at least the real story doesn’t, so the stories cannot be linked here.
If this where new public officials learn their politics, no wonder the country is in the shape it is.
>>>>What we see is the compulsive need for any government entity to spend money.
That pretty well sums it up.
This reminds me of the public funding of sports stadiums. I’m a sports fan, but I don’t see where it is fair that non-fans have to foot some of the bill. I suppose the argument is that everyone benefits, but I don’t believe it.
I would add that we have lots of citizens lining up to squeal for their take of the loot.