Government Will Never Be A Money-Making Proposition By Jeff Smith GETTING SOMEBODY to come out foursquare for more government is about as hard as persuading anyone to admit he picks his nose and wipes it under the table, but vile as these impulses may be, there are those who will stoop to them. I suspect there are desperate knots of nose-pickers behind the mania for incorporating cushy subdivisions and squalid cells of urban sprawl throughout Pima County into overnight cities. Each with its own brand-new government. As exercises in self-delusion go, these rank right up there with peace in our time and the War on Drugs. The engine that drives these delusions, ironically, is the native American distaste for large and intrusive government, goaded by disingenuous--if not utterly dishonest--ringleaders who stir the passions of the great unwashed by convincing them they can save tax dollars by taking a do-it-yourself approach to government. And guess who gets to be the lords of the new fiefdoms? The spanner in these works is the fact that government is not a profit-making enterprise. Despite its high costs--and despite what most American taxpayers fervently believe and bitterly resent, we are nowhere near as severely taxed as are most other civilized nations--government still just manages to scrape by. Oh, now and again here in Arizona we come up with a budgetary surplus, which might lead one to believe there's gold in them thar hills, but analyze the realities for a moment: Our state perennially ranks near the bottom in care for the mentally ill, pre-natal care for the poor, education, various forms of social welfare, and environmental protection...so is the cash that appears to be on hand every few fiscal years actually surplus, or is it money we should be spending to make Arizona a better place to live? And what inevitably happens when these putative surpluses are discovered? Is the money channeled to any worthy purpose? No, the opportunistic governor of the moment pisses it away on a tax cut that nets the average taxpayer perhaps a cheeseburger and an order of fries for the year, but endears the cynical politician to the deluded voter. On one point both liberal and conservative should be able to agree: The best government is the least government. One philosophical camp may want less intrusion into their personal lives and freedoms; another may wish less intrusion into their wallets, but we all ought to be fervent minimalists when it comes to maintaining the framework within which we function. Clearly the proliferation of little municipal governments runs counter to this philosophical wisdom and practical reality. No matter how tight-fisted a new municipal government intends to be, as it starts life, there are certain minimum investments that have to be made. And they will be duplicating other such infrastructural costs already in place in the jurisdiction that the new government is seeking to supplant. Put it this way: You gonna have a city, you gotta build a city hall. And it never ends there. Because just as much as your typical American hates big government and big taxes, he loves smooth asphalt, good water, rapid response to emergency, and sewers that get the turds out of his neighborhood and out to Marana where they belong. All of which costs money, and either you build the plants and hire the crews to do it with your own new government, or you sub the job out to Pima County. Which, according to the familiar bleat of the incorporationists, is so poorly run and crooked that it forces incorporation upon them. Which, if you engage its services for sewers, public safety, whatever, is going to charge you full pop. Gee. Suddenly the $500-a-head cost of service you were floating doesn't look likely to cover the senior citizens' center or the bike paths or the botanical gardens, golf courses, squash courts and equestrian trails you secretly lusted for. Suddenly all you realistically can hope for from government is that something wet comes out the tap when you turn the handle, and a big red truck eventually shows up when your house catches fire. And for this you're paying more than you did before your address read "Casas Adobes." Welcome to civilization. Me, I live outside of civilization, down in rural Santa Cruz County, where nothing works quite the way it was advertised in civics class, and nobody really expects it to. The nearest municipal government is the Town of Patagonia, which is presently in the midst of a crisis which could be instructive to all these chunks of political turf in Pima County seeking to become cities or towns. Patagonia does not offer a huge deal by way of urban amenities, and for many of us this is its beauty. We have no McDonalds--hurrah--but we have a shitload of cops and a civic center and some senior citizens' housing and a butterfly garden. And an expensive new lawn tractor. Little as we have, it's taxing our municipal budget beyond its meager capacities, and still we're faced with the imminent need to upgrade and expand the sewage plant. And we don't even have our own fire department, and the council seems loath to support the volunteer bomberos who put out the fires and put on a hell of a steak-fry every summer. This is all pretty typical of small-town government and would not be much to worry about, were it not for the fact that a neighboring foreigner, a man of considerable means, blue-blooded birth, royal title and a modest prison record, has subdivided the south end of his ranch, at the town's northern boundary. This new subdivision will be the preserve of the very rich--lots are priced close to 10 grand an acre, for 40-acre chunks--and will be, at least for now, more or less rural in nature. Which means that homes there will be expensive (highly taxable), but will not require sewers, paved roads, town water mains and all that costly infrastructure. Nor, one might suppose, would residents of such aristocratic means and quality be likely to intrude upon the tranquility of the local constabulary. Just the sort of thing that tends to get desperate politicians and bureaucrats salivating over the prospect of annexation. Which is what certain members of the Patagonia government are doing. Drooling. If we don't, they say, the town will go broke and have to disincorporate. I say: bullshit. If the town ropes these rich guys in, pretty soon the rich guys and their lawyers will own the Patagonia Town Council, and just that quick they'll be demanding a level of town services and urban amenities that will tax all the old-timers and marginal earners right out of town. We'll become Sedona, and we'll be taxed through the nose for it. And still government will not be a profit-making enterprise. Patagonia is already a town with its own government, and it's not making it. And it won't until it realizes that you can offer people only as much in the way of service as taxes will pay for...and no more. And Casas Adobes, Tortolita, Vinegar Douche and Dismal Seepage would do well to study the Patagonia model.

Home | Currents | City Week | Music | Review | Books | Cinema | Back Page | Archives

		© 1995-97 Tucson Weekly . Info Booth