I know nothing about the US, but in New Zealand our centre-left Labour-led government is proposing to give local government considerably wider powers. I'm not sure how that effects the ability to tax, but it seems to be modelled on the activities of the City Council in Christchurch (where I live) which was dubbed "The People's Republic of Christchurch" by the right-wing Business Roundtable (which has been worn as a badge of honour by the city since then). That was because, while other councils were going the way of the neoliberal central government of the 80's and 90's, cutting back services and privatising everything else, Christchurch was a haven of relative enlightenment, compensating for the cutbacks to some degree, preserving (and enhancing) council-owned services and firms, becoming the largest landlord in the country with low-cost housing, initiating local economic development programmes, financing art festivals, etc. To do this it had to stretch the rules and the new laws legitimise such behaviour.
The widened powers are being strongly opposed by business interests such as the Roundtable because they are worried that they will be used by local government to back out of the neoliberalism of the past two decades and expand the role of local government. So much so good. There are some flies in the ointment. Firstly, while the new law bans privatisation of many services (such as water), it still allows public-private partnerships for up to 15 years, which is the cause of considerable opposition, based on experience here and abroad. Secondly, the minister responsible for the bill, Sandra Lee, stepped down before the election that was held last weekend. That is part of a much messier story about the bust-up of the left party, the Alliance, which was in the governing coalition. Bill Bill Burgess wrote: > I've scanned the footnotes and definitions for data for US local > government finances, but can't figure out: > > Do state and the federal govt. pay property taxes to local governments > in the US? Or, do they pay a grant in lieu of property taxes (as in > Canada), and if so, is it included under property tax revenues (as in > Canada), or under intergovernmental transfer revenue? (I'm aware > that District of Columbia is a special case.) > > There is currently a big campaign underway in Canada to give municipal > governments more fiscal (and even constitutional!) power. It is > usually motivated as necessary for cities to become more 'competitive' > locations in the world market, especially as federal and provincial > governments withdraw or download service responsibilities to local > governments. The US is being cited as a **positive example** of the > ability of (some) local governments to tax local income, sales, > payroll, hotel rooms, etc., while in Canada local governments are > (generally) restricted to taxing only real property. I'm trying the > show that more fiscal power for individual local governments generally > means more disparity in the public goods and services local > governments provide. > > Thanks in advance to anyone who can help. > > Bill Burgess >
