The claimant of this title authors an essay in the latest IBJ about why she favors the new tax referendum. She is identified as managing partner of a major local law firm.
Most of the text is the usual wording about how much improved mass transit will mean to millennials and to the poor. Quite frankly, we have not seen many arguments or statements opposing those thoughts.
(Although we have much more sympathy for the needy than the unhappy millennials. Aren’t they the young folks who have the good jobs, and can use the plethora of parking facilities we’re already subsidizing downtown?)
In her last paragraph she insists the referendum "...is not about the Red Line which is being built with federal money." We would suggest that a "fiscal conservative" should be so at all levels, and ought to question a federal allocation of $75 million to a local problem by a government already $19 trillion in debt.
She also fails to point out that the plans include skimming several millions off the new tax revenue to operate the Red Line.
Her general support of the referendum gives no answer as to why - financially and chronologically - the highest priority is given to construction and operation of a bus route on a straight line through the center of the city which will give little or no relief to the mass of current and potential riders who would like to be able to get across town, but will still be standing on a corner somewhere. (Hitch hiking?)
For the benefit of a "fiscal conservative" who has undoubtedly never read this blog, we’ll reiterate our thought that the city of Indianapolis is disbursing millions upon millions of tax dollars in areas and for projects which are not necessary for the well being of its citizens.
We believe a true "fiscal conservative" should be demanding an audit or review of those policies and expenditures before recommending any additional financial burden on those citizens.