In the end, it's always about the money. It's Journalism 101, not to mention basic deduction: Want to get to the bottom of a controversy, a suspicious collusion of people and events, a politician's motivations, a massive spike in the government's use of private contractors? Follow the money. ***image2***
A lot of times, though, we can't be bothered. Sure, a small, select group of people may be getting wealthy off of what amounts to war profiteering, while the funding for Federal transportation aid and other practical, everyday needs of the people quietly disappear, but we've all got our own bills to pay in the meantime and it's tough to get a lock on the big picture when nothing is immediately threatening. Our country is occupied and policed by credit cards and insurance conglomerates; guns and armored vehicles are only needed for less sedate populaces.
Lately, Americans have been content to vote for doctored personalities, to become sidetracked on vagaries and manufactured details while substance slips away. But then again, if we wanted something other than a republic in which a "mandate" equates to the creation of a personal (and financial) legacy via free reign with the government's checkbook, we'd stop caring so much about who we vote into office and start demanding the right to vote on how our taxes are spent. I think most folks, given the option to dig into the federal budget, would scale back a little on war and good ol' boy subsidies, especially once a look at the balance sheet revealed how far back we're falling on basic necessities.
Fortunately, even those of us who look at the federal government as little more than an annoying, if horrific, yoke can get spiced up about spending at the local level.
Take, for example, the $27 million bond for park improvement and maintenance.
The park problem right here in lack-of-river city has been evident for well over a decade. As the south side population has exploded, the development of new parklands and trails has struggled to keep up and the maintenance of existing resources has lacked the necessary funds. A comparative study with other cities of similar size reveals that Santa Fe dedicates approximately 65 acres less to downtown parks than our average municipal peer. This is one reason the Railyard Park and Plaza (finally under noticeable construction, complete with landscape star-chitect Ken Smith lurking on the perimeter and squinting at progress through his designer eyeglass frames) is being built. When the master plan for the Railyard redevelopment was created we, the people, demanded a park. We have our heads on straight. We don't even mind paying for parks, as a recent poll conducted by the city concluded and as a feverish series of editorials and articles in the Santa Fe New Mexican last week intimated. The poll indicated that a majority of Santa Feans would support a property tax increase to fund the $27 million bond.
The example widely cited is that a property valued at $300,000, with an annual tax of $1,800, would pay an additional $83, give or take.
Of course, there's been no real talk of the pitchforks and torches that would suddenly appear en masse if the County Assessor's Office actually hiked property values to anything approximating a market rate. Also, some property owners get cranky about paying for facilities that people who, you know, rent, are allowed to use. But rising tides really do raise all ships and the sooner we all (city and county government, average citizens, property owners,
business owners and mobile home renters alike) consider some significant spending of tax dollars to be an investment in our quality of life-and by extension our economic viability-the sooner that tide can rise.
All of this begs the question: Why, if the city (with help from the Trust for Public Land) is going to conduct a survey of people's willingness to fund a parks bond, is everyone still afraid to talk about a quality of life gross receipts tax? Enabled by the state Legislature in 2005, such an initiative undertaken by Santa Fe as a municipality would mean a one quarter of 1 percent increase in city gross receipts tax transactions (a GRT is used throughout New Mexico, rather than a sales tax). Like a bond, it would have to be approved by voters in a general or special election. Estimates indicate that such a slight increase can generate up to $12 million annually. The tax also has a 10-year sunset provision in the event that we, the people, are not satisfied with its use. In the meantime, that's $120 million, over a decade, to improve the quality of life for Santa Feans.
The legislation, which enables a quality of life initiative, does restrict the funding to "cultural programs and activities," but leaves open a broad
means of interpretation, and specifically includes some odd potential categories such as "humanities" and "zoology."
While counties that take advantage of the legislation are prohibited from spending the money on capital or "bricks and mortar" projects, no such restriction is stipulated for municipalities. What is required is sensitivity to "cultural diversity," and if one person's cultural temple is a museum and another's is a public park, who are we to judge?
Actually, "we" are the people and, if such a tax were passed, we would be the judge: A quality of life initiative requires the creation of a citizens' panel to approve spending and to determine what qualifies for support under the tax. Libraries if we want. An interpretive trail and park along the river if we want. Bonfires and free tacos in the street outside the new State History Museum if we want.
So, while a property tax-funded bond is a good idea for getting our parks up to par, the only reason I can think of for not also investigating a quality of life initiative is the fact that we, the people, rather than the City Council, would get to spend the money. And if we took the cash out of their wishy-washy little hands, it would almost be…democracy.
