Killing The Small Towns Won't Save Iowa Redux

Last week I wrote on the regional government plan that the state
legislature has been working on. And as I got to thinking more about
it, I realized some things that I didn’t touch on in last week’s
column, so with your forgiveness, I’m going to talk about that issue
again.



To
recap, the plan calls for regions to be set up by the existing 15
community college districts. A state board would be created and
eventually, there would be a series of meetings with regional leaders
to determine which services could be shared. These proposals would end
up on voter’s ballots in each community for approval. If the
communities do not approve sharing plans within 6 years, they would be
penalized. These penalties include not being able to raise property
taxes, and not being eligible for some state grants.



In other
words, voters of communities would have to approve sharing plans with
regional governments. If they didn’t approve a plan in 6 years, they
would be “penalized” by the state. One of the penalties discussed is a
freezing of property taxes at the current rate.



And this
is where it gets interesting. If the “penalty” is a freezing of
property taxes where they are now, isn’t that actually an incentive for
the voters to not share?
I mean, wouldn’t the voters take a fixed rate as opposed to a variable
when it comes to property taxes? There’s certainly no guarantee that
property taxes will go down as a result of the sharing. In fact, there
are examples showing that sharing services doesn’t necessarily save any
money.



What
this plan really comes down to is the state legislature is punishing
local governments. When the voters do not approve a sharing plan, local
governments will not have the ability to raise the funds needed to
provide the services their citizens demand. If they are not able to
provide those services, the smaller communities will have an even
tougher time attracting people to their communities and eventually they
will cease to exist; and at that point the state legislature can
declare mission accomplished.



The
state legislature likes to blame local governments for rising property
taxes. Well, in north Iowa, where the population is dwindling, perhaps
the rising property tax rates are at least partly due to a smaller base
of taxpayers to spread out the costs. And perhaps the dwindling
population is due to the lack of any real strategy when it comes to
bringing high paying, good jobs to the region. We won’t get into what
is happening to Iowa’s air and water.



The
legislators in favor of the plan will argue that local governments
shouldn’t have the ability to continue to raise property taxes beyond
what is reasonable. I agree, and there are already limitations in
place. And those same legislators will argue that state has to deal
with declining revenues and so should the local governments. And those
same legislators, in the face of declining revenues, continue to pass
tax cuts and loopholes that don’t make any sense. I guess it’s
difficult for me to have sympathy for those who impose hardship on
themselves.
 

Enacting
this plan will further enable the incompetent approach we are taking to
economic development and rebuilding our rural economy. I said this last
week, but it bears repeating: our local governments serve important
roles. Consolidation will only make services more difficult to provide.
Our state government should be focused on improving the overall health
of the state without trying to murder the small towns.