| I tend to agree that it is problematic to embed so much power into local governments. They are ill equipped to handled the research required to make those choices meaningfully. The smaller and poorer the towns, the less equipped they are to be informed. There is a kind of loop that happens in this debate, though. 1. we want progress,
2. progress requires money,
3. money requires growth
4. growth requires change
5. change is not always progress... Whether or not you agree with the premise of any items on that loop, it seems to happen that the loop is the refrains of all small governments (and maybe large ones?) who need to fund all of their actions out of current and future receivables. Without changes that increase property value (and therefore taxes), many small governments in the US have few levers for progress. If they levy higher taxes in other forms, it puts a regressive burden on their poorest members, if they do nothing then they can't be progressive. I tend to think of the shortcomings as a matter of debt, mostly. Debt is the ultimate anti-progressive force, since it sticks around long after mistakes have been made. many municipalities have increased levels of debt to keep up with the levels of progress they require, but the debts need to be funded by future revenues, which means growth in future revenues. An uncomfortable conclusion of this is that even if our smaller governments acted with the best of intent, They will be left paying for their mistakes for many years to come, and that those financial commitments to projects which did not pay off in hindsight may cripple their ability to make correct choices now. edit: source on State and Local Debt: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11502 |