IBJOpinion

HICKS: Muncie's status quo is high taxes, poor service

Mike Hicks
July 13, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Mike Hicks

Muncie’s current debate over the Local Option Income Tax, or LOIT, is ripe for journalistic musings.

Property-tax caps, as well as a dwindling population and commercial base, have left the city in the uncomfortable situation of cutting budgets. Since the bulk of costs are related to fire and police salaries, few options are available. The city has turned to the short length of rope the Legislature offered amid the debate on property tax caps—the LOIT.

On July 6, hundreds of folks descended upon city hall to argue for and against the new tax. I’d love to relate it in detail, but to do the event true justice requires an accomplished playwright.

It had all the parts of high drama and farce: a threatening and psychotic voice-mail orchestrated by the firefighters and sent to the mayor; a conspicuously absent city councilman (also a fireman) under multiple indictments related to election fraud; and the UAW very publicly siding with the citizens taxpayer group against the firefighter union.

And as with any good drama, a touch of farce was present in the form of a community group spinning itself as the broker of fresh ideas, when what it really was hawking was more of the same failed politics that have idled the city for too long.

What struck me most throughout the two-hour session was that so few in the hall seemed to understand Muncie’s greatest threat—the status quo.

City government can really affect two things about itself: tax rates and quality of public services. Residents and businesses choose to locate in places based upon taxes and the quality of those services.

Some people and businesses prefer low taxes and few services. Others are willing to pay higher taxes in return for better services. The past few decades have seen growth in communities that balance the two, be they high or low. While low-tax/high-quality services are rare (and attract lots of new residents), high taxes and poor public services are all too common. These places stagnate and dwindle.

Muncie, like a good many midsize cities in the Midwest, is losing population, commerce and options. Simply “getting by” is the fastest road to ruin. Cities like Muncie have to listen more closely to the faint voices of two largely forgotten groups—those who have left the city and those who have chosen other locations outside the city.

The leavers constitute one out of every 25 families since 2000, while more than half of those who are newly hired by the city’s leading employers choose somewhere else to raise families. Muncie’s status quo is high taxes and poor services. The status quo is long-term disaster.

Because of a poorly designed law, the city gets to levy a countywide LOIT. Ironically, this will only serve to exaggerate the public-service-quality rift between Muncie and the surrounding communities where dollars have been spent far more wisely.

At least the road out of town will be well-paved.

___

Hicks is director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at cber@bsu.edu.

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. If I were a developer I would be looking at the Fountain Square and Fletcher Place neighborhoods instead of Broad Ripple. I would avoid the dysfunctional BRVA with all of their headaches. It's like deciding between a Blackberry or an iPhone 5s smartphone. BR is greatly in need of updates. It has become stale and outdated. Whereas Fountain Square, Fletcher Place and Mass Ave have become the "new" Broad Ripples. Every time I see people on the strip in BR on the weekend I want to ask them, "How is it you are not familiar with Fountain Square or Mass Ave? You have choices and you choose BR?" Long vacant storefronts like the old Scholar's Inn Bake House and ZA, both on prominent corners, hurt the village's image. Many business on the strip could use updated facades. Cigarette butt covered sidewalks and graffiti covered walls don't help either. The whole strip just looks like it needs to be power washed. I know there is more to the BRV than the 700-1100 blocks of Broad Ripple Ave, but that is what people see when they think of BR. It will always be a nice place live, but is quickly becoming a not-so-nice place to visit.

  2. I sure hope so and would gladly join a law suit against them. They flat out rob people and their little punk scam artist telephone losers actually enjoy it. I would love to run into one of them some day!!

  3. Biggest scam ever!! Took 307 out of my bank ac count. Never received a single call! They prey on new small business and flat out rob them! Do not sign up with these thieves. I filed a complaint with the ftc. I suggest doing the same ic they robbed you too.

  4. Woohoo! We're #200!!! Absolutely disgusting. Bring on the congestion. Indianapolis NEEDS it.

  5. So Westfield invested about $30M in developing Grand Park and attendance to date is good enough that local hotel can't meet the demand. Carmel invested $180M in the Palladium - which generates zero hotel demand for its casino acts. Which Mayor made the better decision?

ADVERTISEMENT