Indy Tax Dollars

Four in a row

Reference is to four separate stories in the current issue of the Indianapolis Business Journal (IBJ) which have some relationship concerning the city’s use of tax dollars.  We’ll cover them in numerical order - by page number - and headline.

Page 1 - “IndyGo rethinks electric bus buy.”  We’ve been told in years of media hype about the planning that has gone into transit generally and the Red Line specifically.  Now, quite suddenly, a lengthy story tells us that other cities which have used the same type of electric buses have reverted to diesel because of unsatisfactory results with the electric ones.  How did all that study, research and planning happen to miss that information?

But even now IndyGo is going to plunge ahead and purchase them while at the same time buying more standard diesels as replacements.  In a previous post on this blog we raised the question as to the eventual possibility of handling these electric behemoths on streets not sufficiently prepared.  No response.

The penultimate paragraph of the story gives further cause for wonder.  Here’s the wording. “...one possibility is that they could be put into service on other routes and other IndyGo buses could serve the Red Line.”  Really??  Just for starters, what will it cost to buy new or retro-fit standard diesel buses to be accessible from either side, from raised platforms in mid-street as well as curb level, for space to include bicycles inside the vehicle, and for electronic control of stop lights for blocks ahead?  All proclaimed as advantages for a speedy Red Line.

Page 4 - “City-County Council rejects Mile Square tax proposal.”  This was a proposal for a new tax district in the Mile Square.  It did have the advantage of having given those property owners a vote up or down on the deal - admittedly a novel approach in this city.  In response to opposition to the idea, we got this kind of specific information.  Out of a projected annual revenue of $3 million, $585 thousand would go to “...‘enriching user experience’...”  Eliminating panhandlers??

Page 5 - “City to pay$1.5M to review downtown real estate needs.”   We’re only going to question one sentence in this item.  “The city will use money available from its Consolidated Redevelopment Allocation Fund to pay....”  (Our emphasis.)  What is the source of these dollars?  Is this a budgetary item approved by the city’s legislative body?  Or is this what we are now calling the TIF slush fund being handed out by the Redevelopment Commission?

Page 10 - “City officials must address perceptions about downtown.”   An editorial demanding action from city officials - primarily in response to item ”Page 4" above.  The last paragraph is the clincher.  “Maybe the Mile Square taxing district wasn’t the right answer to address the problems.  But we’re eager to find out what is.   City officials: Let us know soon what you have in mind.”

We’re pretty sure about only one thing.  If any of the “problems” mentioned are to be handled, new and/or increased taxation will be involved.   And we’re equally sure that the paper, editorially and through “news” columns, will be unquestioning and supportive. 

Once again, there will be no review of, nor recommendation to reduce, other expenditures to finance these additional dreams (nightmares?).

 

A roundup

A roundup

Due to personal problems of the author of this blog, some items of interest in the last few weeks have gone without comment. In order to bring our regular readers (all three of them) up to date, we’ll give a quick recap in this effort - in no particular order.

1) The mayor has a plan to get more students into and through college. The hope is to have a $2 million appropriation in the next budget for the “Office of Education,” a city agency which will then contract with “Employindy, the city’s “workforce development agency,” which will hire six new employees to run the program. We are told 25% of the annual appropriation will go to “reserves” “...to make sure the program can continue in perpetuity.” (Our emphasis.)
How’s that for openly establishing a permanent slush fund to be operated by one city agency - with additional employees - under contract with another city agency? Almost as good as TIF operations.

2) Known as the “Pacers Bikeshare operation, we’re going to put an additional 250 bicycles on the streets, apparently for the benefit of Indianapolis Cultural Trails, Inc.. The reference to funding is unclear to us. We are told of a million dollar federal grant, followed by wording that the city received a “similar grant.” We assume the first million went directly to the Cultural Trails folks. Then we note that the Pacers foundation is dropping in another $200,000. Considering the Pacers financial arrangement with the city, we would conclude that the taxpayers are on the hook for the whole $2.2 million. But the mayor is happy because this is being done “...at no additional cost to the taxpayer.”  (Our emphasis.)  We would pose two questions for the mayor. One, what is the source of the two million we’re going to get from the feds? Two, how many Indiana tax dollars have to go to Washington in order to get the two million back? (Interestingly, the mayor’s comment in the online version of this story did not appear in the print edition followup.)

3) A new Economic Improvement District (EID) will be set up for the downtown area to fund, in part, “...improved cleanup, a stronger police presence...” The bright spot is that these folks, mostly, are voting to tax themselves. The dark spot is the continuation of fiscal policy which requires new or increased taxation for a program, while denying any possibility that review of current expenditures just might cover the “needs.”

4) A new form of “incentive” has been developed in the state Economic Development Corp.. Instead of filling in for lost revenue, we’re going to hand Delta Airlines extra money for actually selling the seats - presumably at a price which covers the cost of providing them. With Delta filling a 211 seat capacity plane on a flight to Paris, the state is going to hand out $55 per seat, a neat little bonus of $11,600 for effective sales! Not bad for Delta, but we certainly see no reason for the taxpayer hand out the sweets. For one thing, we’d guess that an additional $55 on a ticket to Paris would generally have no effect on the sale thereof. And a very high percentage of those costs are most probably going to be written off as a business expense on a federal tax return.

There’s the story about the pollster asking a guy, “Which is worse for the country, ignorance or apathy?” The answer he gets is “I don’t know and I don’t care!” Is that now the Indianapolis motto?