Are Conservative Cities Better?

[GBCW 397]

Welcome to Mesa, Arizona—the land of Goldwater, Arpaio and a new kind of urbanism.

By ETHAN EPSTEIN
September 17, 2014

Across the country, Republican cities are building new infrastructure and even embracing trendy liberal ideas like “new urbanism”—all while managing to keep costs in line and municipal workforces small and cost-effective. As the great, Democratic-run cities across the country—Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles—face fiscal calamity, America’s conservative cities are showing that there’s another way.

...

“Everybody [in Mesa] is going, ‘We don’t just want to be a big suburb,’” Richins says. That’s most apparent in the city’s squat downtown, essentially one long drag, which is being re-born. “We’re going through the same evolution as every other town in America: revitalizing downtown, adding transportation and pedestrian and street options, looking at compact development,” he says. The centerpiece of Mesa’s developing downtown is the strikingly post-modern Arts Center, opened in 2005, which is home to four performing arts venues, making it the largest such complex in the state of Arizona. Light rail, which will connect Mesa to Tempe, downtown Phoenix and beyond, is wending its way into downtown Mesa now as well—a new station is slated to start operating there next year. “Transit-oriented development” of the new urbanism school (which promotes walkable communities and population density) is already taking place. A five-story, income-restricted senior citizen apartment building recently opened downtown—a far cry from the seniors-only trailer parks that stretch out across much of eastern Mesa.

...

The flair for new, pedestrian- and transit-friendly development extends beyond downtown. All through the city, Mesa is pursuing development policies that are downright crunchy. The city is undergoing a “road diet,” cutting one six-lane road to two, expanding sidewalks and adding bike lanes. “[We’re] trying to set the table for a more pedestrian-friendly environment,” says Richins, who has served on the City Council since 2008. A sprawling new park, adjacent to where the Chicago Cubs are building a new spring training stadium (another development that Smith spearheaded), has recently opened.

...

Notably, Mesa’s generally tightwad electorate—it rejected imposing a primary property tax in 2011, by a vote of 60 to 40 percent—has been repeatedly willing to open its wallet to finance these developments. The arts center was partially paid for thanks to a 1998 bond issue to the tune of nearly $100 million. It passed with 56 percent support. Ten years later, 67 percent of Mesa voters approved a $170 million bond package for new public safety facilities and street repairs. More recently, in 2012, Mesa residents agreed to a $70 million bond for parks, which even included a secondary property tax. And last year, Mesa voters approved more public safety and street bonds at a cost of $130 million.

So what accounts for Goldwater Country’s willingness to pony up for these projects? After all, “you would think a truly conservative city would never tax itself on anything,” says Councilman Richins. “But … folks that live in Mesa want a high quality of life.” Vice Mayor Chris Glover, whose City Hall office is festooned with a Ronald Reagan bust and Barry Goldwater paraphernalia, agrees. “We are conservative, but we are also pragmatic,” he says. “We want to have a very aesthetically pleasing downtown.”

It also helps that bond issues go to specific projects, and cover only a specific amount of money. That’s different from funding a social program, or simply forking over higher taxes and hoping that the extra funds go where the government says they’re going. “People are OK with investing in their communities,” says Smith. “People don’t trust programs. They trust … tangible results.” And because the bonds are earmarked to specific projects, even skinflint Mesa residents feel OK about voting yes.

...
While it’s willing to make investments, Mesa is also lean in ways that more bloated liberal cities can’t boast. Take the City Council. Despite Mesa’s hefty population, council members are part-timers who have day jobs in fields from education to copper mining. City leaders also pay themselves considerably less than those in other cities do. Mesa City Council members make only $33,000 a year, and the mayor is paid only $73,000.

...

The entire municipal workforce stands at only about 3,200 people, down from approximately 3,600 before the recession, and only the firefighters and police officers are unionized. (The school district is separate from the city.) The city doesn’t hand out the fat union contracts that make infrastructure projects in blue states so outlandishly expensive (and thereby reduce support for infrastructure spending, period).

...

As a result of its efficient government, Mesa is not only able to invest in infrastructure, but also has the distinction of being the only municipality in the area with no primary property tax—any property taxes are tied to specific bond issuances. Mesa instead relies heavily on a 1.75 percent consumption tax on everything purchased in the city—your average Cato Institute economist’s dream—to fund its everyday operations.

Mesa’s traditional fiscal rectitude, coupled with its new interest in smart development, seems to be paying dividends. From the liberal arts colleges to the new Cubs stadium, the city can point to some real successes in recent years.

...

Oklahoma City is probably most similar to Mesa. It too has Republican leadership—yet it too has been making serious capital investments. Since 1993, the city’s voters have agreed to hike sales taxes three times, at a total cost of $1.8 billion. Those funds have been plowed into major projects, including new schools and a shiny downtown entertainment district geared toward pedestrians. City leaders credit those public investments with attracting private dollars, particularly the downtown development that brought the Seattle Supersonics to Oklahoma City and re-christened them the Thunder.

“I think the citizens of Oklahoma City have begun to differentiate between the type of government they don’t mind paying for and the type they don’t like to pay for,” the city’s mayor, Republican Mick Cornett, said on a recent edition of Meet the Press, “I think they like capital projects that they can go up and touch and feel and they know they’re going to be long-lasting.” Sounds a lot like Mesa. And as in Mesa, the only unionized workers in OKC are in public safety—that helped in keeping construction costs reasonable.

Indianapolis is a similar case. From 2010 to 2013, under the leadership of Republican mayor Greg Ballard’s RebuildIndy campaign, the city made more than $500 million worth of infrastructure repairs. Ballard funded these projects not through the traditional liberal route—raising taxes—but by selling the city’s water and sewer systems.

...

Colorado Springs ... is arguably be the city that went too far, offering the most radically libertarian version of city governance seen in recent times. In late 2009 and early 2010, as the recession hammered the sales tax receipts that were used to fund most government operations (the city’s property taxes are some of the lowest in the nation), Colorado Springs was forced to drastically cut its operations. Pools were closed. Trashcans were removed from parks. Bus service was gutted. A third of the city’s streetlights were turned off. When the city’s voters rejected an initiative in 2010 that would have hiked taxes to restore many services, Colorado Springs embarked on a remarkable experiment in fee-for-service government. Instead, of paying taxes, residents could elect to have their streetlights turned back on—if they were willing to pay $100. This model didn’t stop at streetlights: One group of neighbors pooled $2,500 to “adopt” their local park. Once the city received the cash, the trashcans and sprinklers were returned. Colorado Springs remains very libertarian—bus service, for example, has never really recovered.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/mesa-arizona-are-conservative-cities-better-111069.html

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What's a conservative city? One where they ration the water, gas and electricity?

[Rob L 3,811]

Notably, Mesa’s generally tightwad electorate—it rejected imposing a primary property tax in 2011, by a vote of 60 to 40 percent—has been repeatedly willing to open its wallet to finance these developments. The arts center was partially paid for thanks to a 1998 bond issue to the tune of nearly $100 million. It passed with 56 percent support. Ten years later, 67 percent of Mesa voters approved a $170 million bond package for new public safety facilities and street repairs. More recently, in 2012, Mesa residents agreed to a $70 million bond for parks, which even included a secondary property tax. And last year, Mesa voters approved more public safety and street bonds at a cost of $130 million.

They they go again. tax and spend Red staters coming to the recognition that investing in your community is good for everyone..

[eieio 1,594]

The best thing about conservative cities.............less liberals.

[OriZ 3,157]

The best thing about conservative cities.............less liberals.

lol...expect the "peanut gallery" as roxy calls them to be all over you soon.

[JohnR! 5,495]

It's the place where common sense went to die.

What's a conservative city? One where they ration the water, gas and electricity?

[Curmudgeon 227]

Cities run along purely ideological lines? Yeah ,nonsense. Everyone wants their city to be fiscally responsible, that's not a conservative ideology, that's common sense. Welcome to the twilight zone, where if your neighbor doesn't vote for the right candidate, he's your enemy.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Tightwads, cheapskates, skinflints, and fiscal rectitude! What's not to love.