Contemporary
observers and most voters believed that Proposition 13 was a reaction to an
inefficient and excessively expanding government. But looking
back from the 21st century, the concerns that led to Proposition 13 may have instead
been a warning that we were rapidly building a world we couldn’t afford to
maintain.
StrongTowns argues that our experiment with drivable suburbia, which began in earnest after World War II, was funded for its first 35 years with accumulated capital. The next 35 years, up until today, were funded with debt. The bill on the debt is now coming due, which explains the increasing problems with infrastructure maintenance and looming municipal bankruptcies. Major dislocations may be in our near future.
But
dislocations would have also occurred 35 years ago at the transition between capital-financed
and debt-financed growth. Which was just
about the time of the taxpayer revolt.
The concurrence
is reasonable. In the late 1970s, taxes
would have been increasing as government was looking for ways to maintain all
the new stuff that we’d built and to provide services to our newly far-flung
and still growing cities. At the time, there
would have been two options. We could
have reached the conclusion that we’d built too much stuff. Or we could have decided that government was
inept.
Into the moment
of history stepped Howard Jarvis. (For
those who weren’t alive during 1978, which to my chagrin may include a great
many readers, Jarvis was a key instigator behind Proposition 13, which is also
known as the Jarvis-Gann Initiative.) By
all accounts, Howard Jarvis was a decent, clean-living individual. He also came pre-wired with the assumption
that government was grasping and fundamentally flawed.
Had Jarvis
been a more thoughtful, curious person and one less likely to automatically put
the cloak of evil on all government workers, he might have looked deeper in the
tax issues of his time and realized that the problem was actually how we were
building our world. But that wasn’t in
the nature of Howard Jarvis. He assumed that
government must be flawed and the taxpayer revolt was on.
One result of
the revolt was the proliferation of financial measures, such as impact fees, by
which government gets near-term revenues in exchange for long-term unfunded
obligations. It is one of the debt
mechanisms to which StrongTowns refers.
It’s interesting
to speculate what might have happened had Jarvis been slower to jump to his
conclusion and had instead let the facts guide him to a different conclusion. Perhaps new urbanism would have been given an
earlier kick start, much to the betterment of our world. But what is more likely is that Jarvis would
have been deposed from his role in the taxpayers’ organization and someone else
with less intellectual curiosity would have taken up the reins.
In the era
of the taxpayer revolt, the general public wasn’t ready to believe that our
pattern of land use was deeply flawed. Today,
there are hints that more people are willing to be educated, but there’s still
much ground to cover. At the same time,
we need to stifle the new Howard Jarvis’s offering simple but wrong and
ultimately harmful solutions.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
Very insightful! This concept that we overbuilt and can't afford the maintenance is what is fueling my desire to see Green Streets policy implemented in Petaluma. Visit http://petalumawatershed.com for more information and a very good short video on why we need Green Streets and Clean Water.
ReplyDeleteBest,
Tiff
Tiffany, thanks for the comment. I certainly concur with the aim of Green Streets. However, I have questions. Are you arguing that a Green Streets approach, funded by homeowners, reduces the financial burden on cities? Or are you arguing that cities can afford to assist homeowners with a Green Streets approach and still spend less money for the same result as the historic approach? - Dave
Delete