Although I’ve heard and read very little or nothing about Texas or local politics in recent months-I am tempted to say over the last two years- because of the election, I have seen signs for months urging voters to vote for Proposition 2, and last week I saw a sign urging voters to vote against it. Since I couldn’t vote on the proposition while voting two weeks ago, I decided to investigate the propositions this week and have vowed always to be prepared when I go to the polls.
I consulted KVUE website (http://www.kvue.com/news/top/stories/101708kvue_prop2-cb.121983946.html) and a proposition 2 website (http://www.stopdomainsubsidies.com/?page_id=6). Steve Alberts, a respected newscaster for KVUE, reported the facts of the story without advocacy at 6:21 PM on October 17th, 2008. My second website is an advocacy website for the proposition and shows a pro-advocacy bias. The audience, of course, is Austinites. Proposition 2 bars the city from giving developers tax abatements according to the agreements of the City Council of 2003. If repealed, the present existent abatement agreements would no longer be honored by abatement sales tax or any others in the future.
The classical argument between big national business and small and local businesses has ensued. The Austin Chamber of Commerce is against the proposition and has collected $ 250, 000 to advertise and lobby against Proposition 2. On the other hand, five hundred small Austin businesses, such as the Alamo and Opal Divine’s, are for Proposition 2. The arguments of big business are standard. National chains and corporations bring capital and jobs to Austin. Further, they attract investment and other corporations, thus growing the economy. Austin mayor Will Wynn worries that the city’s bond rating would be affected and there would be millions of dollars worth of law suits. However, Brian Rogers realized that the agreement would cost 65 million dollars and saw it as a bad deal. He initiated and won the law suit and regarding this matter and got a ruling that the city could walk away from agreements at any time without recourse from the businesses involved and without damages. So Will Wynn is fibbing and manipulating the public like a good politician. However, a citizen can see his legitimate worry over bond ratings and the growth of the city through investment and national corporate involvement for the general economic welfare of the city. Big business is good for the city of Austin.
On the other hand, citizens, small businesses, and other proponents argue that home grown businesses are being hurt and also create jobs without getting large government tax breaks. They feel that it is a pity to subsidies a high end and upscale shopping center like Domain. Opponents argued that Domain, Endeavor Development, and Simon Properties, the largest such entity in the world, is unnecessary. Proponents feel that distributive justice is not being served. Does this sound like the conflict between the republicans and democrats or the same basic ideological debate?
However, the argument of the proponents of the debate do make some cogent points which make reasonable the suspension of subsides at least in the short term. Tax abatements can help the economy. In this case, proponents argue that because of budgetary problems the city has cut 50 positions, raised the solid waste fees, has a problem with fees for road construction, and has instituted a rolling closure of public libraries, the abatement agreement should be amended. I add that the economic crisis will make thing worst for the city. Perhaps, this is not the time to give a 65 million dollar tax break to a luxury mall.
No comments:
Post a Comment