Paying For Progress - With Or Without Home Rule

It was during the Great Depression 75 years ago when Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes explained to plaintiffs that “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.” It requires a wide range of public services, such as police protection, schools, roads, parks, and clean water, services for which fair-minded residents will want to pay. Yet, paradoxically, “Of all debts, men are least willing to pay the taxes,” as Ralph Waldo Emerson observed already 160 years ago.

When asked, many Jacksonville residents will stress their patriotism and their eagerness to see the city’s administration provide reliable public services, attract more industry and commerce, and make the community grow quantitatively and qualitatively. Yet, more than a few of the same self-styled patriots are also determined to oppose even the slightest tax increase.

Jefferson was obviously right when he noted that “The purse of the people is the real seat of sensibility.” As soon as there is a rumor that local taxes might be raised, the tax haters find all kinds of reasons why more taxes for the development of their community must be opposed. Any increase in taxes, so the perennial whiners assure us, will ruin their businesses, will be unfairly assessed, and will be wasted by inefficient and corrupt officials.

Established by the 1970 Illinois Constitution, home rule shifts greater responsibility for local government decision-making from the state level to the local level in order to give communities more self-government. Why would we not want to enjoy more control over our local affairs--unless we do not trust our own and our elected leaders’ judgment?

Home rule units may, for example, regulate cigarette taxes, taxes on retail sales of new motor vehicles, parking taxes, reductions in mandatory fire and police retirement age, land dedications for schools and parks, zoning landfill sites, mobile home parks, and low-income housing developments. If the people of Jacksonville were to vote for home rule, the city council would get more leeway to change the mix of local taxes. It could, for example, eliminate the utility tax and introduce a sales tax.

With regard to the potential levying of property taxes, a study published in the Journal of Public Economics compared 134 home rule communities with 104 non-home rule communities. The finding surprised the home rule foes: “Property tax rates levied by non-home rule communities prior to the adoption of tax caps rose 61 percent faster than rates levied in the home rule communities over the same period of time.”

Home rule communities, moreover “are less dependent on property taxes for their revenues than are non-home rule communities.” All available evidence shows that home rule has not led to excessive rates of taxation. It is simply not true that home rule was only designed for the purpose of raising more money.

No community in Illinois has repealed home rule since Rockford did so in 1983. When subsequently Rockford’s property taxes went down, so did the quality of its municipal services. That in turn led to five referenda to raise property taxes again.

Several neighborhoods in Jacksonville are noticeably deteriorating, due to neglect sometimes caused by drug-addicted, and/or poverty-stricken renters and home owners. Residents unable or unwilling to contribute economically, financially struggling enterprises, and business closings hurt the very economic climate needed to attract new business and generate growth. People who oppose necessary financial investments in community improvements tend to ignore that failure to stop deterioration will lower the value of their own properties, too.

To reverse decline and improve the business climate, the mayor and the city council would be greatly aided by the increased flexibility that home rule provides. If the voters reject home rule, the city will continue to be hamstrung in its efforts to regulate and prosecute the code violations that so much impact upon the city’s economic rating.

Wolf D. Fuhrig

Home

03-27-05

Paying For Progress - With Or Without Home Rule

Wolf D. Fuhrig	Home	03-27-05
Paying For Progress - With Or Without Home Rule
It was during the Great Depression 75 years ago when Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes explained to plaintiffs that “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.” It requires a wide range of public services, such as police protection, schools, roads, parks, and clean water, services for which fair-minded residents will want to pay. Yet, paradoxically, “Of all debts, men are least willing to pay the taxes,” as Ralph Waldo Emerson observed already 160 years ago. When asked, many Jacksonville residents will stress their patriotism and their eagerness to see the city’s administration provide reliable public services, attract more industry and commerce, and make the community grow quantitatively and qualitatively. Yet, more than a few of the same self-styled patriots are also determined to oppose even the slightest tax increase. Jefferson was obviously right when he noted that “The purse of the people is the real seat of sensibility.” As soon as there is a rumor that local taxes might be raised, the tax haters find all kinds of reasons why more taxes for the development of their community must be opposed. Any increase in taxes, so the perennial whiners assure us, will ruin their businesses, will be unfairly assessed, and will be wasted by inefficient and corrupt officials. Established by the 1970 Illinois Constitution, home rule shifts greater responsibility for local government decision-making from the state level to the local level in order to give communities more self-government. Why would we not want to enjoy more control over our local affairs--unless we do not trust our own and our elected leaders’ judgment? Home rule units may, for example, regulate cigarette taxes, taxes on retail sales of new motor vehicles, parking taxes, reductions in mandatory fire and police retirement age, land dedications for schools and parks, zoning landfill sites, mobile home parks, and low-income housing developments. If the people of Jacksonville were to vote for home rule, the city council would get more leeway to change the mix of local taxes. It could, for example, eliminate the utility tax and introduce a sales tax. With regard to the potential levying of property taxes, a study published in the Journal of Public Economics compared 134 home rule communities with 104 non-home rule communities. The finding surprised the home rule foes: “Property tax rates levied by non-home rule communities prior to the adoption of tax caps rose 61 percent faster than rates levied in the home rule communities over the same period of time.” Home rule communities, moreover “are less dependent on property taxes for their revenues than are non-home rule communities.” All available evidence shows that home rule has not led to excessive rates of taxation. It is simply not true that home rule was only designed for the purpose of raising more money. No community in Illinois has repealed home rule since Rockford did so in 1983. When subsequently Rockford’s property taxes went down, so did the quality of its municipal services. That in turn led to five referenda to raise property taxes again. Several neighborhoods in Jacksonville are noticeably deteriorating, due to neglect sometimes caused by drug-addicted, and/or poverty-stricken renters and home owners. Residents unable or unwilling to contribute economically, financially struggling enterprises, and business closings hurt the very economic climate needed to attract new business and generate growth. People who oppose necessary financial investments in community improvements tend to ignore that failure to stop deterioration will lower the value of their own properties, too. To reverse decline and improve the business climate, the mayor and the city council would be greatly aided by the increased flexibility that home rule provides. If the voters reject home rule, the city will continue to be hamstrung in its efforts to regulate and prosecute the code violations that so much impact upon the city’s economic rating.