Cardinal
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 10,080
- Points
- 34
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled that the Village of Mt. Horeb must put a referendum on the ballot which, if passed, would require a referendum on any municipal expenditure of over $1 million. The village had argued that the ordinance conflicted with direct legislation law. Don't we have a thing called representative democracy? Don't we elect people to make informed decisions?
To me, there are some serious implications to a referendum requirement. As an economic developer, I often work with businesses having very short time frames. I can't wait six months to tell them whether we will be able to provide the infrastructure necessary for them to build in the community. On top of that, consider how often the general public is poorly informed of the circumstances behind a referendum.
One project I worked on called for about $2.2 million in expenditures for roads, water main, sanitary sewers and land for resale. Of that, about $750,000 was provided by CDBG and state grants. The remainder was funded through a tax increment district, with the revenue to retire the bonds guaranteed by the tax increment generated by the project. On top of that, we netted 100 acres of land for further development (with future proceeds from its sale). Does the general public understand that CDBG is not the same as general fund (property tax) revenue and cannot be spent for other purposes? Does the general public understand the way a TIF works? Does the general public understand the benefits of acquiring land on which to attract industry? I doubt that many do.
I suspect a referendum on this project would have failed, we would have $11 million less tax base, and 800 fewer jobs in the city. Of course, it never would have gone to a referendum, as we only had from July to September (when they broke ground) to put the deal together. The referendum would have been held in November.
So is the direct involvement of the citizenry in fiscal decision-making a good thing? I vote "no."
To me, there are some serious implications to a referendum requirement. As an economic developer, I often work with businesses having very short time frames. I can't wait six months to tell them whether we will be able to provide the infrastructure necessary for them to build in the community. On top of that, consider how often the general public is poorly informed of the circumstances behind a referendum.
One project I worked on called for about $2.2 million in expenditures for roads, water main, sanitary sewers and land for resale. Of that, about $750,000 was provided by CDBG and state grants. The remainder was funded through a tax increment district, with the revenue to retire the bonds guaranteed by the tax increment generated by the project. On top of that, we netted 100 acres of land for further development (with future proceeds from its sale). Does the general public understand that CDBG is not the same as general fund (property tax) revenue and cannot be spent for other purposes? Does the general public understand the way a TIF works? Does the general public understand the benefits of acquiring land on which to attract industry? I doubt that many do.
I suspect a referendum on this project would have failed, we would have $11 million less tax base, and 800 fewer jobs in the city. Of course, it never would have gone to a referendum, as we only had from July to September (when they broke ground) to put the deal together. The referendum would have been held in November.
So is the direct involvement of the citizenry in fiscal decision-making a good thing? I vote "no."