"City needs more options beyond raising income tax." That's the headline on the editorial - the reader can guess which paper. For us, the word "beyond" suggests something after tax increases. We will continue to insist that there are options to be considered "before" tax increases.
Just two weeks ago we posted an item on this website enumerating 6 separate possibilities for direct savings or revenue increase to the city. The editor was notified, as usual, that our post had been made. We don't know if he read it but we think it not too presumptuous to hint that if the city is in the dire condition he believes it to be, even our "outrageous" proposals ought to be looked at.
One sentence in the editorial reads as follows: "Local voters will be happy to judge the wisdom of local spending decided locally." We'd be happy to second that motion - if the voters actually had ever been asked what they thought about specific program expenditures.
If he really wants local voter decisions, would the editor support a referendum asking voters the following questions?
1. Should public safety operations - manpower, pay and equipment - be guaranteed to receive whatever is needed from any new or increased revenue for the city, with specific priority over the estimated additional $10 million for operation of the new stadium?
2. Should the city continue to offer property tax abatements for private, for-profit businesses such as hotels, condos and public entertainment?
3. Should the city subsidize the internal amenities of private properties, such as a 60,000 square foot ballroom in a hotel?
4. Do you favor an analysis of property tax records to determine how much real estate now off the assessment rolls is being used by profit-making enterprises?
5. Should financial agreements - leases, etc. - between private businesses and the city for use of said real estate be public information?
6. Do you favor giving the football franchise non-football revenues from the new stadium?
7. Should the city share in football generated revenues such as naming rights, food and beverage sales, special seating arrangements, etc.?
8. Should the basketball franchise pay more than $1 per year rent for Conseco Fieldhouse and also share non-basketball revenues with the city?
9. Should the city immediately sell and return to the tax rolls such non-governmental properties as Union Station and the Market Square Arena site?
10. Should there be an immediate moratorium on all programs of subsidies, grants, loans, establishment of new TIF districts, etc., while a complete study of the city's financial structure, including debt issued by all public agencies is made by an independent agency?
When the editor agrees that these questions (and others we could think of) must be put to the voters of Marion County, we will begin to think about "local control" of expenditures as a feasible option.
The first sentence of the last paragraph of the editorial says: "Peterson could get ahead of the game now by compiling a long list of tax options for next year." Well, what the heck! We give up. Maybe the mayor will put these ideas at the head of that list. How about $5,000 per ton on newsprint; $250 per barrel of ink; and a separate income tax on advertising revenues?
Shouldn't it be appropriate to levy special taxes on those who so eagerly propose and support tax increases (like tobacco taxes) on others?
Comments