Mike Jensvold wrote:
Rich people and corporations do everything possible to avoid paying
taxes. They move, go "offshore," or threaten states and
municipalities with leaving unless sweetheart deals are cut.
This is precisely why we need to be careful about pushing too hard for
"social justice" at the city level. We should be wary of things like
a commuter tax advocated by ward 10 councilmember-elect Ralph
Remington, and the newly passed minimum wage law for city
contractors. They will raise taxes further and serve mostly to drive
people away.
It's pretty difficult to expect that any social justice issue will
proceed from the top down. The nature of social justice issues is that
they bubble up from the bottom. Those doing the pushing are going to
look to every venue and concentrate on the ones they think they can
move. Moving a city is easier than moving a Congress of the US.
The city I grew up in had a 2% income tax on anyone who worked and/or
lived in the city. That city's reasoning was/is that everyone who comes
into the city puts wear and tear on it. Those who come every day put the
greatest strain on it. To make it fair, income tax it. Everyone who
lives and/or works in the city pays the city income tax. It is allegedly
less subject to the vicissitudes of the economy than property taxes for
basic services.
The best way to bring decent government back in power is to show that
the moderate left can also be fiscally responsible while taking a
strong stand for the greater good.
The moderate left or right, either one, is going to have a really tough
time pulling that off. Whoever gets into office, most of the bills are
going to rise unless state and federal actions can be terminated or
redesigned, yet again.
By the time Fraser left office, SSB was walking into a mine field of
delayed maintenance, neglect, and redlining that had driven down tax
collections and a rising crime rate that was connected to the years of
redlining. She was going to have to make some bills in order to bring in
more revenues. At the same time, business interests were screaming that
the loop needed to get with the program and become a destination for
lots of people with money in their pockets or we would die on the vine.
Whether SSB did the prudent thing, or not, I'm not the one to say.
But ask yourselves, how can we afford to allow huge sections of the city
(nine neighborhoods for sure and some that were on the edge between
really bad and more do-able and a quiet downtown) go to ruin when the
tax base is our income? How do we jump start the economies of parts of
the city which were, in effect, rust belts because they had been driven
and supported by early 20th century development--the railroads, farm
machinery, grain, transportation, cartage. Minneapolis used to build
streetcars, one plant was right on Lake St.
Neglect by the engines of the economy is tailor made for developers,
both big and little. Sometimes I think neglect of city areas is a
planned obsolescence scheme created just to keep developers in business,
since Roman records show it was going on during the time of the Ceasars.
It probably went on in Ur. But the bigger truth is that a city is a
piece of geography into which you invest to make money. Like any
business, upkeep keeps customers coming back. It's the first purpose of
a city's existence.
My sense is that the cost of keeping a city economic engine is driven up
by developers because they make pronouncements about what will "work"
and they don't know what they're talking about. What they are saying is
that if the real estate values are low enough, it's incentive for them
to buy them up and put something on the land that pays better rents, at
least for awhile, if they guess right about what needs to go on that
spot, if the economy is bullish, if, if, if. It's spitting into the wind
to listen to developers on one level.
I'm not sure "fiscally responsible" quite fits what any elected official
can really control locally. On the local level, they get reelected based
on constituent service and bringing improvements, businesses, and
amenities into the ward and keeping them in order, all of which cost
money. Improvement is development. But if they ignore problems to keep
taxes lower, they're do nothings. If they deal with issues taxes get
higher. A new library, repaving Lake St., fixing the freeway, taking
down houses and rebuilding, bringing in light rail. I'm not pretending
to have an answer, but I do think that shorthand sound bites like
fiscally responsible don't say anything real.
WizardMarks, Central
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If
you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
