Director’s Notes

YVONNE TAYLOR | SDML EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

“Fiscal responsibility” is certainly a flag we can all rally around, but when did the definition of that become “oppose new or increased taxes and cut government?” To my mind, a blind adherence to either of those is the opposite of responsible.

For example, there is not much question that a lot of our infrastructure needs repair or replacement. For every year we put off repair, we will spend exponentially more to get it replaced in the future. Is it “fiscally responsible” to say we won’t raise a tax or fee to fix things even if that refusal means it will cost more to do it in the future? It reminds me of Popeye’s Wimpy who will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today, or a shopaholic who puts all their purchases on a credit card without considering the responsibility to pay later. Neither is the model we want our governments to follow.

Some of the blind followers of “no tax/cut government” definition of fiscal responsibility also cite the state budget, and the fact that it is the largest it has ever been. So what? Is that really the only factoid we need to know? Our state population is the highest it has ever been; our average income is the highest it has ever been; our land prices are the highest they’ve ever been. The questions true fiscal responsibility asks are “Does the money spent by government provide necessary services in the most effective way possible?” and “Is adequate revenue being raised to provide necessary services?” I’m not paid to defend state government, but similar statements are made daily about municipal budgets. Just saying “no taxes/cut government” isn’t addressing the potential, and the costs, associated with a growing state and a healthy economy.

A giant part of the state’s economy is based on growing, healthy cities. We sometimes hear jabs about our cities “getting everything” as though the municipal sales tax were money put down a rat hole. Instead, our cities and towns are home to more than 72% of our population; they provide the environment where those people are employed; they provide services to the schools, court houses, and other government providers; they provide the climate for businesses to start, grow, and thrive. We are clear that cities and towns do not create economic development – that is the private sector. But municipalities absolutely provide the environment where economic development can either thrive or flounder.

When cities invest in their economic development, it is good for the entire state, and when the state clamps down on municipalities’ ability to control their own tax structure, it doesn’t just hurt our cities – it kills the ability of the state to grow and prosper.

The people who define “fiscal responsibility” as “no tax/cut government” have a political agenda. Perhaps the definition we need to look to is the one for “investment” found in Webster’s dictionary, which is politically neutral: “Invest: to make use of for future benefits or advantages.”

Let municipalities control their own tax destiny – it is an investment from which the entire state will benefit.

Until next month, remember we are always available at 1-800-658-3633 or yvonne@ sdmunicipalleague.org. ■