On property tax caps, Part II

I greatly appreciate The Whistler's thoughtful criticism of my "anti-property-tax-caps" post; the criticism is available at Rob Port's Say Anything blog, sayanythingblog.com/entry/tom_dennis_north_dakota_state_should_just_keep_the_checks_coming/

Here's a response.

Hmm ... "Keep the checks coming"? Well, I don't know if that's an accurate characterization.  My basic point is that if taxpayers in Grand Forks or anywhere else are upset about local property taxes, then those taxpayers should throw the rascals out.  Voters should send packing the local school board, City Council and other officials who're making their taxes go up.  

And isn't that a better and fairer method of disciplining those officials than the one being debated in Bismarck, in which state lawmakers will "channel" taxpayers' supposed outrage and limit city and school-district tax-and-spenders from on high?

In my view, the basic question that tax-cap advocates leave unanswered is this: If local property taxes are such an outrageous burden, why do North Dakota voters so consistently elect "status quo" council and school-board members?  Why isn't there a majority of tax-cut advocates on the Grand Forks School Board, the Grand Forks City Council or anywhere else?

Well, it could be that running for local office is such a burden that only candidates with a certain background or level of wealth can get it done.  But, c'mon. That's obviously untrue, given that recent Grand Forks elected officials have included not only a doctor and two lawyers, but also a letter carrier, a UND student, two radio personalities, a public-relations exec, some business owners, a swim coach, a phy-ed teacher and so on.  That's a broad range of occupations, and it suggests that any person who is basically a responsible and upstanding citizen and wants to run for local office can do so and stands a fair chance of being elected. 

Given that fact, why do voters send "status quo" candidates to office again and again?

Here's a radical notion: Because voters like the status quo.

Right?  That's the simplest answer, and Occam's Razor isn't the only factor suggesting that it's correct.

Grand Forks is a pleasant and growing city with a low crime rate, low unemployment, fine schools, reasonably prompt snowplowing, a decent park system, a fair array of other services -- and, importantly, little corruption, as far as I know.   (Do residents run for the Grand Forks School Board because they know that, if elected, they can hire their relatives to be public-school teachers?  That was the reality in northeastern Pennsylvania, where I used to live.  It's virtually unknown here.)

What more do taxpayers want?

Moreover (and this is an important difference with Minnesota), North Dakota's "right to work" laws limit the power of public-employee unions, especially teachers' unions. So, public schools here educate students as effectively as in Minnesota but at significantly less expense.

As evidence, here's a link to The Tax Foundation's latest (2006) missive on the subject:

www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/48.html

The headline reads "North Dakota's State/Local Tax Burden Among Nation's Lowest." North Dakota is 37th in the nation; Minnesota, in contrast, ranks as No. 10.   Even at that, I'd rather live in Minnesota than in Mississippi (No. 48), Alabama (No. 49) or Oklahoma (No. 50).  Wouldn't you?   (Granted, I'm a northerner born and raised and like the North Country culture.)

I don't think most taxpayers here value low taxes as the be-all and end-all. I think most taxpayers here value useful and necessary public services that work -- that succeed and operate effectively and without unreasonable waste.   I think most North Dakota institutions deliver that kind of value, on average.  I think most North Dakota voters agree.

And that's why I think tax-cap advocates have to go over the heads of local officials in order to get the tax-caps done: Because a majority of local voters like things pretty much the way they are.  That should be a point of pride, not shame, for the citizens of our state.

Posted by: tdennis on 3/29/2007 at 1:40 PM | Comments (4) | Permalink