Don’t Approve HMR Tax Change

Posted by JGreene | Fayetteville, AR, Politics | May 05, 2010

5 Comments

(Guest Post by Jay P. Greene via jaypgreene.com)

The City of Fayetteville, like many local governments, is facing a budget squeeze as revenues have declined without a commensurate reduction in expenditures.  In those instances, responsible public officials should explain to voters that either certain services will need to be cut or taxes raised.

We don’t have that kind of public official in Fayetteville.  Instead, our local officials seem to fancy themselves as slick politicians in the minor leagues, honing their skills at the art of public manipulation so that someday they may get called up to the big leagues of deception and lording over other people.

To offset the shortfall in the city budget, Mayor Lionel Jordan and his backers have proposed grabbing money from the hotel, motel, and restaurant (HMR) tax that is currently dedicated for park development so that they can use it to cover park maintenance and then redirect the general operating funds currently devoted to park maintenance to other parts of the city budget.

Jordan and friends are saying they want voters to approve changes in the HMR tax so that the revenue can be used for things other than the development of parks, giving the city more “flexibility.”  This is just doublespeak.  The flexibility they want is the flexibility to reduce park development spending so that they can keep other city operations unchanged.

Personally, I prefer the development of more parks and the cutting of other city services.  Our parks and public bike trails are some of the best things about Fayetteville.  But I could be persuaded that we needed to defer additional park development to avoid cuts in other services if they presented the trade-offs directly and honestly.  Make the case that additional park development is less important than other city services that would be continued.

But no.  Our local public officials refuse to treat us like grown-ups and have to use deception rather than presenting us with difficult choices straightforwardly.  This is the same kind of doublespeak nonsense we saw with the business license proposal. That wasn’t really about “helping promote local business.”  That was about facilitating the taxation and regulation of businesses while helping the Chamber of Commerce effectively compel membership.

And don’t buy the fall-back argument on the HMR tax change that says we are in danger of developing so many parks that the cost of maintaining all of them would be prohibitive.  If this were true, advocates for changing the HMR tax would need to present facts about rising park maintenance costs.  They haven’t.  Park maintenance costs have not been growing at a significantly faster rate than the city budget.  In addition, park maintenance only costs $1.9 million out of a total city budget that exceeds $120 million.  The HMR tax dedicated to park development generates about $2.3 million per year.

And also don’t buy the argument that we are just correcting a “mistake” from when the HMR tax was initially adopted.  It may well be that city officials meant to include maintenance and development as potential uses of the tax, but that’s not what was on the ballot and what voters ultimately approved.  We can’t know whether voters would have approved the measure if it had permitted the funds to be used for park maintenance as well as development.  And voters are under no compulsion now to allow the money to be redirected for other purposes.  If city officials want to convince voters to approve the measure, they need to make the case that those new bike trails we are developing are less important than other uses for the same money.

Update: The NWArk Times is endorsing the tax change (subscription required).  They say a lot, but don’t offer up many good points.   I think the question is simple: If you really want more parks and trails in Fayetteville, and you think there are other places where the city could cut funding before they cut park development funding, then you should vote against this change.–BK

Riff Sharing:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Twitter
  • RSS
  • email

Comments (5)

What would you propose to cut?

It’s not “double-speak” to say you can only develop so many parks before the maintenance costs overwhelm your ability to pay for them. We may not be there now, but we can be in the foreseeable future.

It IS double-speak to compare the amount of dollars spent in park maintenance to the entire City budget. Many budget funds are restricted and cannot be moved about willy-nilly.

The park maintenance budget comes from the General Fund, budgeted for 2010 at $34,426,600. So it’s NOT $1.9 million out of $120 million. It’s $1.9 million out of $34.4 million. That’s about 5.6% of the total General Fund. The Public Library expenditures are only 4.7% Looks a little different now, huh?

So, if we’re to continue to fund and increase the amount spent on parks maintenance every year so it consumes more and more of the General Fund what are we going to cut? Fire Dept? Police? The Library? City Attorney’s Office? Something else? What would it be?

Just my opinion. To which their own everyone has the right.

Monroe,

I think you missed the point of my post. It is double-speak to say that you want “flexibility” when what you really want is to cut park spending. As I said, I could be persuaded that we needed to cut parks before we cut something else, but you’ve made more of a case for doing so than any public official has. Perhaps you should consider running because at least you would be willing to treat voters like grown-ups and explain trade-offs and argue for why one thing should be cut rather than something else.

This being said, I’m not fully persuaded by your argument that parks need to be cut as opposed to some other part of the budget. It is true that, in theory, we could get to a point where we build so many parks that we cannot maintain them. It is clear that we are nowhere near that point. We do not currently have that many parks and I (as well as many other voters) would like a whole lot more. And the amount we currently spend on maintenance, whether as a share of total spending or General Fund spending, is not consuming a large share of city budget. I should also note that the General Fund is not the only possible source of cuts.

As to what we should cut, I confess to not knowing. It might have to be from the parks. But I don’t want to agree to that until my public officials have carefully considered and explained all of the options.

[...] I was sympathetic to the column I read by Jay P. Greene at Mid-Riffs. [...]

[...] any taxes and won’t reduce the amount of A&P funding dollars, but there are some who are against it accusing the city of “doublespeak” and worrying that the maintenance money might eat up [...]

I just voted, and I gotta say, the ballot wording for the HMR change was completely misleading. According to the ballot, one was either voting for park “development, construction and maintenance” or against park “development, construction and maintenance.” This is shameful.

You can see the ballot here, page 6:

Fayetteville Ballot -courtesy of the League of Women Voters