Tax cut Irrationale #8 -- Mesa Edition

In today's East Valley Tribune, the lead article on the front page is "Groups gird against Mesa tax." The article tells of a number of anti-everything groups who have come out against Mesa being a fiscally responsible city. Upon reading the article, a couple of things stood out.

First, there doesn't appear to be a single person under the age of 60 in any of the photos printed with the article. This wouldn't matter except for the fact that retirees, especially those on fixed incomes, don't like paying for things like schools and roads and Arts Centers. Representatives of these groups, it appears, think cutting taxes in a city with potholes in the roads, dilapidated school buildings and underfunded police and fire departments are what's needed instead of raising revenues from other sources, since their tax base is declining.

Second, because their kids are out of the public school system, they don't care about quality of education or paying for new school buildings. Their kids don't have sports they want to play so they could care less about improvements to parks and recreation facilities. That means they don't care about the roads on which people drive to any of the above or to jobs because they don’t work.

The argument against any need for more revenue is blown out of the water further down on the front page in an article titled “Combs swamps Q.C. high.” People are complaining about growth in the size of J. O. Combs school district and how there is no room at any of the Queen Creek schools to take on the increased population. No one knows what to do. It strikes me as comical that those leading the charge against the tax increase can’t see in this single article the practical ramifications of their anti-growth sentiments and what happens when cities don’t have enough money to support growth.

Former Mesa council candidate Bob Hisserich says in the article “Every time the city needs money, the solution is to go to the taxpayer. The solution is to bring business to Mesa. It’s a simply solution.” Now I know why he lost for he cannot see the contradiction in his own statement. For one thing, it’s simply false that “every time” Mesa “needs money” they go to the taxpayer. It hasn’t and it’s just dishonest to say it has. More importantly, though, this sentiment is the source of the predicament Mesa now finds itself.

You have a community growing not only in a school-aged, family population but also older citizens and retirees. Those opposing the tax increases are seniors who have received their benefit from the community yet refuse to pay for those things the City of Mesa needs to support business and families. Unfortunately, those are exactly the same things needed to attract business, which was Mr. Hisserich’s desire. Put another way, maintaining and building an increased capacity to serve modern families and business is what will attract both to Mesa. To ignore those needs is to point them in the direction of other cities that are more pro-family and pro-business. Cities like Chandler and Tempe.

Growth costs money. Bills must be paid. Roads and sewers must be built and maintained. I'm constantly amazed at the shortsighted views taken by many that those things that make a community worth living appear out of the blue and have no cost. There is nothing wrong with opposing excessive taxation when that’s the problem. But excessive taxation is not the problem in Mesa. Population growth and infrastructure wearing out is the problem.

When it gets to the point that opposing “excessive taxation" means opposing anything that keeps the city on sound financial footing while maintaining services, that is taking the "high taxes, big government" mantra to a simply unrealistic and detrimental levels. The problem Mesa has right now proves my point.

Mesa’s citizens have a decision to make. Do they want to be the only city in Maricopa County in financial decline, the only city with degrading roads and schools, the only city with grossly under-funded police and fire services, the only city not to attract jobs to their community? Or do they want to join the rest of the Valley in unprecedented growth and improvement by having schools and jobs that attract and retain families? If they want the former, then vote against the two measures on the ballot. If you want the latter, then vote for one or both of the measures.

It’s that simple.