Opinion: Forget the Grand Prix, cut Baltimore taxes
Steve Hanke and Steve Walters have an op-ed in the WSJ suggesting that next weekend's Baltimore Grand Prix represents what's wrong with the city:
Nine days later, on Sept. 13, voters will pick a mayor, and incumbent Stephanie Rawlings-Blake is betting that the auto race will draw thousands of free-spending tourists and stimulate the local economy, thereby demonstrating her vision and competence. In fact, it will be an economic dud, a money-loser even for its promoters, and a logistical nightmare for residents.The race exemplifies the city's development strategy: Subsidize big downtown projects with other people's money—in this case, over $6 million in federal stimulus funds for the two-mile race course—and proclaim an urban renaissance.
Comments
I haven't been following this farce much so when I read the statement "over $6 million in federal stimulus funds" it comes as news to me.
This is just outrageous.
---
How could the City have actually stimulated the economy with that money?
My first thought is the wholesale demolition of entire blocks -swaths of blocks- along with reorienting the utilities and a few roadbeds to accommodate the construction of actual middle class (income *and* re tax paying) homes. Developers would swarm to bid up the price of those building sites.
::sigh::
Posted by: MrRational | August 29, 2011 11:30 AM
Why not have both the Grand Prix and property tax cuts?
It's interesting how the Wall Street Journal is so quick to criticize Baltimore's taxes when NYC's taxes are similarly horrific. In fact, 40,000 people out of 8 million, pay 50% of NYC's taxes. What's Baltimore's big problem? No jobs? Or is it simply easier to commute into the city and live outside the city? If Baltimore cannot have a captured populace like NYC, it should do whatever it takes to make it attractive and fun to live in the city. The Grand Prix combined with lower property taxes would give things a fast start.
Posted by: taser54 | August 29, 2011 12:22 PM
While I am as anti-tax as any other self-respecting right-winger, I don't think Baltimore's high taxes are the reason that people are fleeing the city (still) after thirty years.
Its the fact that the city is a fundamentally dysfunctional political entity, and has been for a VERY LONG time.
The issue with tax rates has been and always will be perceived value. The suburban counties draw people in because there is a high perceived value received by taxpayers for the taxes they pay.
No one can honestly say that such a thing exists in the city.
Posted by: Gunpowder Chronicle | August 29, 2011 12:58 PM
Road work on Pratt Street, etc. was on the drawing board probably more than a decade ago. It's fair to object to the federal funding source -in general-, but not just because it happens to have been convenient for yet another tourist-attracting scheme (one that pales next to the public investment in sports stadia).
The partisan-conspiracy references are also forced. It might be "good" for Dem candidates for governor to have the reliable bloc of poor voters. It's not good for anyone else. They undercut their very worthwhile tax argument by oversimplifying the causes of the city being a collection point for the poor of Maryland.
Posted by: JFCanton | August 29, 2011 3:50 PM
you can argue that federal spending on stimulus projects isn't a great deal for the federal government, but it's tough to argue that $6m in federal dollars earmarked for infrastructure projects in Baltimore is bad for Baltimore city. Those roads didn't repair themselves, those were Baltimore jobs that put those up. Baltimore hotels are already sold out, Baltimore inner harbor will be buzzing with business.
A bad deal for the federal government? Maybe. A bad deal for Baltimore? Only in the op-ed pages of a New York newspaper.
Posted by: direwolfc | August 30, 2011 4:31 PM