IBJOpinion

EDITORIAL: State can't afford to keep townships

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
IBJ Editorial

Yogi Berra said it best: It’s like déjà vu all over again.

Indiana lawmakers are gearing up for another legislative session, and as IBJ reporter Francesca Jarosz reports on page 1 this week, township government reform will return to the lineup. We hope proponents can finally hit a home run.

We have made the case against township government here more than once, and the evidence keeps piling up. With property-tax caps putting a strain on local government—and estimated savings that surpass $400 million a year—Indiana simply cannot afford to hang on to this bureaucratic relic of the bad old days.

Townships collect tax money and deliver hyper-local services, including emergency poor relief. But that has a very real cost. The Indiana Department of Local Government Finance has said Marion County townships, for example, spend $1.32 for every dollar provided. That kind of overhead is unacceptable.

Then there are other, less obvious costs. As IBJ has reported, in Marion County’s Center Township—where about a quarter of residents live in poverty—the trustee’s office owns a $10 million portfolio of mostly vacant properties, keeping them off the tax rolls.

Townships also have drawn criticism for accumulating cash reserves—unspent taxpayer money. IBJ reported in 2008 that Center Township’s surplus over the previous seven years ranged from $4 million to $10.4 million, depending on expenses. In 2009, the other eight Marion County townships had a cumulative cash balance of $41.3 million; Center’s total was not available.

Eliminating township government would free up funding for cash-strapped counties. Sure, they’d pick up some expenses along with the township duties, but consolidating services almost certainly would allow for some savings. Just ask the for-profit businesses that tout “economies of scale” when gobbling up competitors.

Indeed, a 2007 statistical model estimated abolishing township government would save near $425 million a year. How can lawmakers say no to that?

Sadly, they have found a way in the past. Despite vigorous debate and some incremental progress, widespread reform has failed several trips through the General Assembly.

Apologists tout townships as the unit of government closest to the people they serve. Still, even the most involved citizens likely would be hard-pressed to identify their township trustees—let alone members of the paid advisory board—despite the fact that they’re elected.

This is an example of politics getting in the way of common sense, of politicians being more concerned about keeping one another happy than making the best use of taxpayers’ money. That may have been acceptable in the days of smoky back-room deals and two-martini lunches, but it’s not OK now. Legislators need to step up to the plate and swing for the fences.•

__________

To comment on this editorial, write to ibjedit@ibj.com.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT