Indy Tax Dollars

Wheels for "big" wheels...

...but what about the "little" wheels?   A recent news story prompted us to do some "research" in our clippings "file."  A few items came to our attention, all appearing this year.

We found an article dated January 27, which discussed plans for rebuilding part of I-69 in Hamilton County, and I-465 from Meridian Street around to 56th Street on the northeast side of the city.  As nearly as we could tell, the cost estimates for these projects amounted to about $965 million.  Timing estimates are a little shaky but apparently will run well into, or beyond, the next decade.  (Do costs ever decrease as time alloted increases?)

Then we came across an item of February 18 covering the possibilities of a commuter rail system serving northeast Marion and Hamilton counties.  This still highly speculative project looks at a possible cost of $1 billion, depending on the route, type of equipment, etc..

A story on July 28 went back to the highway situation, this time indicating the financial cost and economic disruption which would be caused by the proposed widening of I-465 near Shadeland Avenue.  Businesses on the east side or residences on the west side of the highway will suffer, with an estimate of $22 million for the real estate involved.  (A loss of $22 million from the property tax base?)

On September 22 - back to commuter rail ideas - we learn that the "basic start-up costs" of such a system is estimated at between $160 and $200 million.  A very interesting map was a part of this presentation, showing that approximately the northern half of the proposed rail system would parallel I-69 and Binford Boulevard, almost within spitting distance in many areas.

We're still bemused by proposals to spend hundreds of millions - or billions - of dollars on systems which closely parallel and would seem to compete with each other.  Nor is there any apparent thought given to the idea that both are designed to alleviate foreseeable problems accepted when people decided to live in those areas.  To paraphrase the old saying, "Some of my best friends live out there but,..." I feel little responsibility to to help pay for a solution to their transportation problems.  (Where does it end?  After all, we're already subsidizing million dollar condos downtown for people who don't want to travel at all.  Frankly we'd prefer to make this a financial one-way street and stop all the pandering.)

Then, of course, came the news item which set this whole train of thought (no pun intended) in motion.  The October 3 headline read, "IndyGo plans to cut routes, increase fares."  This apparently in the face of increased rider usage resulting from high gas prices.

We readily admit to knowing nothing about the operation or financing of a public transportation system.  And we understand the pressure to fulfill the wants of the affluent folks in the suburbs who wish to ride or drive in comfort between home and office - or maybe to a football game.

But we do believe that, if the use of taxpayer dollars is appropriate for such programs, then strict prioritization is in order.  At the top of any such list should be concern for those residents of the city who have no alternative to public transportation in order to make a living. 

Surely this is an area where the needs of city residents should be a more important governmental expenditure than the convenience of voluntary commuters.

An old friend...

...has a column in the current issue of the Indianapolis Business Journal (IBJ) which we found quite intriguing - so much so, in fact, that we will quote several parts for those who may have missed it.

The headline is "No numbers equal bad decisions."   The column reads, in part, as follows:

...

"Democrats and Republicans have had their turns exercising executive and legislative powers.  Both parties have reason to be proud of their achievements.  Yet neither party can claim to have defeated, even deflected, the forces that created our economic afflictions.

"Why?  Policymakers often do not put today into the context of yesterday.  (Our emphasis.)

...

"The lack of information shapes myth; it should not shape policy.  (Our emphasis.)

...

"Neither political party calls for better information about our economy; both say data are not sexy."

...

We like to think our readers will know where we are headed with this.  It seems so obvious to us that these sentiments - though they are directed at Washington - apply equally to Indianapolis.

Congress is making no apparent effort to acknowledge any blame for - much less to reverse - legislative action contributing to the current fiscal fiasco by promoting the making of loans to individuals who never had any realistic chance to repay them.  With the exception of the recent announcement by the mayor of Indianapolis of his intention to review the use of TIF districts, local officials show no sign of trying to determine the full effect on municipal revenues of a quarter century of subsidies and property tax abatements.

On both a national and local level, we seem always to throw the taxpayers' money at the effect, without any serious effort to find and eliminate the cause.  We'd like to see these priorities reversed.

There is a saying that those who do not know history are destined to repeat it.  We're not repeating history.  Locally at least, we're just dragging it along with us!    

Two peas...revisited

A week or so ago, we commented on seeming similarities between Indianapolis and Washington, D.C., with reference to potential financial problems and panic-driven solutions.  Now that Congress has made its move, more comment might be appropriate.

In Indianapolis early predictions were made that the presence of a football team would mean a direct net revenue increase to the city of more than $1 million per year.  Plus the additional tax revenues the increased economic activity downtown would provide.  25 years later the city is facing major fiscal problems.  We're not blaming the football team for those problems, but it does appear that their residence has failed to come anywhere near supplying the projected funds.

Then, after all these years, we were given the double panic treatment.  The convention center drastically needed expansion if the city was to maintain that business.  Just coincidentally, that meant tearing down the RCA Dome.  And of course we cannot afford to lose the football team so we must have a new stadium - a stadium which has to include every available bell and whistle to keep the team happy.

Equally necessary, apparently, was giving the football team the benefit of virtually every revenue stream derived from the stadium.  Having done all that, we now face the a need of an unanticipated additional $20 million annually to operate the new stadium.  So, all the activity and expenditure still results in future financial questions.

Now, back to Washington.  Some years ago political types decided that banks and other lending organizations should be required, in the name of fairness and equity, to make mortgage loans to people who were, in ordinary terms, unqualified.  Apparently, this then led to huge numbers of unsophisticated borrowers winding up with loans they had no hope of repaying.

Unscrupulous individuals in the lending business manipulated questionable paper transactions.  When the "crack in the dike" started to show up, members of Congress - many of whom were recipients of large political contributions from these same businesses - blocked any efforts to rein in the unwise and unethical practices.

The result is the current situation.  And once again the taxpayer has been fed a diet of panic.  A world-wide financial collapse is imminent if the taxpayer doesn't "bail out" the situation.  True or false?  We think there are questions that should have been asked - questions the answers to which would be very interesting.

If the original bill, defeated in the House, was in fact a realistic answer to the problem, why did the majority party insist on having a sizable vote from the minority in order to "share the blame?"  It would seem they would have been happy to take full credit for coming up with the solution.  Did they know something they weren't telling us?

A second version of the legislation has now been passed by both houses of Congress.  We have no idea what is in it.  But it seems obvious that enough "earmark pork" was added to insure sufficient vote switches - in both parties.  Is this legislation going to leave the nation searching for still more money in months and years ahead, just as Indianapolis seeks funds for the future operation of the football field?

Was there really a reason for panic?  If not, why was such a huge and costly program rushed through?  On the other hand, if speed was indeed important, it is shameful and very depressing to see the complete failure of the Congress of the United States to set aside demeaning and outright nasty political practices, in the face of economic danger to the nation.

We once suggested a bumper sticker reading, "Vote NO on the incumbent."  The current activities could indicate the need for something more succinct.  Maybe, "Throw the bums out!"