Indy Tax Dollars

Consistency?

Or, who/what do you believe?  We thought 3 recent news items - appearing in the last couple of days - deserved some comment.

The first is a somewhat long editorial offered by House Republican Leader Bosma.  The headline said, "Republicans join taxpayers against more spending."  In nearly 17 inches of column space, Bosma's point is represented by these words: "We will stand firm for Hoosier taxpayers.  They deserve nothing less."

The column makes no mention of the CIB bailout which apparently calls for an increase of state funds diverted to that body.  Nor is there any reference to the inclusion of the bailout provisions being included in the budget bill itself - a tactic specifically designed to prevent votes against the bailout.  Do local tax increases included in the bill not count, Mr. Bosma?

The second item referred to the mayor's plan to "save" the CIB.  He asks for increases in three specific taxes, plus 3 years of loans from the state.  Strange.  We thought, and would have given long odds, that the mayor was elected on the Republican ticket.  Are city Republicans not related to state Republicans?  Or were Mr. Bosma's remarks meant only for the out-state editions of the paper?

The third item is almost "off topic" - but not really.  It concerns the monitoring/regulation of work by off-duty police officers - a subject to be introduced for consideration by the City-County Council by Councilor Vernon Brown.

At the outset, we admit to knowing absolutely nothing about how these matters are handled - how many people are involved - what the cost to the city might be - whatever.  (We are in favor of adequate income for our officers, including "moonlighting" if that seems to be necessary.)

The point bothering Brown appears to be, according to the paper, "Should the public be footing part of the bill for businesses to use department employees and equipment?"

If Brown is truly concerned about excessive use of public funds for private businesses, we suggest he take a long, hard look at the hundreds of millions of dollars he and his council compatriots have voted to hand to two downtown private businesses.  We doubt the cost of off-duty cops patrolling Broad Ripple reaches that financial category. 

Question.  May we look forward to your "NO" vote on all increased subsidies for the Pacers and the Colts, Mr. Brown?

 

STOP, dammit!

We feel impelled to repeat a suggestion we made recently concerning the CIB "crisis."

If the financial situation of this profligate organization does in fact constitute a crisis, time must be taken to determine just how we got here, and then to create - and present to the public - a truly appropriate, long-term resolution.

The important word here is "time."  Panic-driven, ill thought out proposals should never be an option.  There is at least one way to prevent that from happening.

The mayor ought to call on the Colts (and the NFL?) to take over all maintenance and operating costs of the stadium for a period of not less than one year.

Hopefully, these pillars of civic pride would be willing to do so at their own expense, considering the sugary contracts they have.  An acceptable, but unhappy, alternative would be that the funds be an interest-free loan to the city.

Refusal of these terms by the team owner would trigger the alternative of the city officially notifying both the team and the NFL that the CIB does not, in fact, have the money to operate the stadium.  The Colts would then have the option of declaring this a breach of contact, and deciding to play their games elsewhere, temporarily or permanently.

There may well be better suggestions than this.  We fervently hope so.  But we will continue to believe that proposed solutions entangled in local and statewide political contention, and stampeded through a desperate special legislative session, will find us plowing this same ground again in a very few years.  

Unrelated items - except for taxpayers

Two stories in the IBJ hitting our mail box today drew our attention.  We'll be brief in comment.

The first reports another "public/private" development scheme downtown.  The financial proposal looks a little "smoke-and-mirrorish," but we won't go into that now.  (Though maybe it would be appropriate to prepare large signs for city officials' offices carrying definitions of the words incentive, subsidy and bribe.)

Officials are quoted as liking the project because it will "...give the city control of enough parking to support the future development of the Market Square Arena site..."  Has that been the problem?

The MSA site has been off the tax rolls for 35 years, including 10 years since the building was razed.  This project apparently will add another $18.5 million (present assessment ?) to the unknown but huge total value of untaxed, city-owned real estate, increasing the burden on individual homeowners.  Is that a situation needing expansion?

The second item is a letter to the editor signed by two men promoting federal legislation and describing the advantages of wind and sun as energy sources.

They say, in part, "This country spends hundreds of billions of dollars annually importing foreign oil....We believe that money should stay here in the United States and be used to put Americans to work."

We agree.  We do wonder why the men so easily miss - and fail to mention - the thought that drilling our own oil reserves could significantly take care of both problems, at least until proposed alternative sources are proven practical and capable of being significantly self-supporting.  Nor do they make any mention of the potential benefits of nuclear energy.

They do refer to "...energy-efficiency ideas ready to be unleashed with the incentives contained in this bill.  (Our emphasis.  See above reference.)

The letter is signed with business titles indicating direct interest in "sunshine" companies.  We'd like to see some of that light turned on the "incentives"  - tax dollars - being handed out, currently and prospectively, for windmills and sunshine traps.

Again?

Under the headline "NFL gives city a Super Bowl pep talk," yesterday's local paper unloaded some more misdirection.  We'll comment on only 2 specific thoughts presented.

We're told the NFL's traveling cheerleader "...visited the intended site of a practice facility that promises to transform the Near Eastside."  This "practice facility" will be a huge new structure for indoor workouts which the NFL requires to city to furnish for the benefit of the visiting team.

We don't have at hand the cost of construction, but the article says it will be turned over "...to the Indianapolis Public Schools as a community asset once the game is over."

In light of the current situation, we wonder what consideration has been given to operation and maintenance costs for this monstrosity, once the game is over.  Whatever that cost, where will the already financially troubled Indianapolis Public School system get those dollars?

Are we trading a day in the "glow" of the Super Bowl for a permanent increase in (property?) tax levies for a new "school building?"

The second thought referenced in the article is this quote from the NFL's advance man, a Mr. Supovitz.  "You (the city) have the opportunity to build memories for people, who come to the game as a realization of their own dreams as fans.  That's a weighty responsibility."

As a matter of governmental philosophy, Mr. Supovitz could hardly be more wrong.  Not even by stretching a public welfare clause to its outermost limits, can the claim be made that a municipality has a responsibility to pay for football fans to "build memories" or to realize their "dreams as fans."

Such an idiotic statement can rise only in the thoughts of those receiving the millions of dollars flowing to the bank accounts of the greedy NFL owners from taxpayer pockets.

P.S.  If the whole thing is such a cornucopia of monetary, civic and social benefits, why were we bidding against only 2 other cities in a league of 32 teams?

Apology

Due to computer problems, we have been offline for about a week.  As a result, these comments are not as timely as we would have liked.  We have not, however, seen the thoughts addressed in the media - nor in a quick scan of the usual blogs.  So we'll post anyway.

The new bailout plan proposes consolidation of the CIB and the County Building Authority into a new body - the Facilities Management Board (FMB).  We see this as a very questionable, if not in fact dangerous, move.

The CIB has served as a source of direct subsidy for professional sports.  We wonder about the psychological effect of placing this operation in the same relative position as the operation of the City-County Building, the County Jail, the Juvenile Justice Complex and all these other legitimate governmental functions.

Is the implication that the stadium or fieldhouse will now, or in the future, have the same claim on public funds as these other operations?  Would property tax funds now used for elevator repair in the C-C Building, for instance, become available instead for greasing the wheels of the stadium's mobile roof?

What provision will be made for separability of revenue streams to prevent this kind of fiscal sleight of hand?  Might it even work the other way?  Would the governor be so willing to increase diversion of state taxes if he thought the funds might find their way into the jail instead of the fieldhouse?

There seems little reason not to believe that, given decades of precedent, whatever the form of the new agency, it will be in the control of the downtown power brokers who always have been in charge.

Frankly, it looks to us like even more opportunity to play the downtown smoke and mirrors games, only with more shells under which to hide the pea!