LGA finances cities' 'pet programs'
We don't need a special session and don't let the Bemidji Pioneer editorial that appeared in the Park Enterprise fool you. The overwhelming majority of local government aid in the tax bill was targeted to Minneapolis, St. Paul and the bill virtually gives no tax relief to the average taxpayer.
Property taxes are a local tax. The importance of a local tax is that if it goes up you have no farther than your local government to ask why and hold them accountable. The problem with Local Government Aid (LGA) is there is no accountability. Cities are free to spend and when this money is reduced or dries up, guess what? They raise your taxes - but this is not free money for a moment.
A small business, a family, an individual are not able to count on another unrelated small business, family or individual up in Duluth, Bemidji, Grand Rapids or Minneapolis for money, so why is it their mayors feel other cities' property taxes should help fund their city spending?
Ultimately, controlling and eliminating LGA is the only way to hold down local spending above and beyond core responsibilities: police, fire, roads, sewer, etc. Instead of paying for greenhouses, greenways and all these cities' pet little programs. This leads to transparency in both taxing and spending and allows citizens to hold their local government accountable.
ADVERTISEMENT
When residents do not directly bear the full cost of programs, they are less likely to exert control of costs. Officials who do not need to go to the taxpayers to justify costs are less likely to look for more efficient ways of providing services. Thus a lot of LGA funding is really spent on non-essential services. So when LGA is cut, the result is cities raise your taxes to say they are restoring essential services and leave the other spending unchecked.
Good public policy would dictate that reforms to LGA should look at clarifying its purpose and creating measurable results. Priorities should be set to determine how much funding is really needed to meet those redefined purposes without encouraging and rewarding increased spending.
David Anderson
Lonsdale
