• An increased debt-load is falling on a shrinking property taxpayer base
• Freeing up homeowners’ savings would genuinely boost area economic prosperity
• Politically-directed spending is inherently less efficient and effective than market-driven investing

Next month San Antonians will go to the polls to vote on $1.2 billion in bond proposals.  It’s a whopper of a debt-binge that includes funding for unfinished projects authorized by prior bond elections, some of questionable legality, and others representing wasteful jurisdictional overlap.

Also on the ballot will be two constitutional amendments, both aimed at reducing property taxes.  The issues are related.

Part of the tax we pay on the investment we put into our homes goes toward paying off that debt.  The city’s ability to continue tapping that source is subject to a couple of cross-currents.

One is soaring property appraisals by Bexar County.  This allows the city to pull in more revenue without raising rates.  Unfortunately, they opt to spend this windfall rather than cut those rates, or at least raise exemptions.

Texas has been picking up the slack on the latter.

In addition to the ones on the ballot in a few weeks, a couple more exemption-raising constitutional amendments were approved in November.  Any reduction in this damaging tax is progress, and it puts citizens on more equitable footing with businesses that get favorable tax treatment.

But only some taxpayers benefit.

To state the obvious, this is unfair, and it increases the burden on the remaining, shrinking tax base, some of whom may eventually say “to heck with this” and move outside city limits. 

Mayor Ron Nirenberg on the other hand, believes this exodus is happening due to a lack of “affordable housing,” and prospective homebuyers “losing … bidding wars … to outside investors.” 

The fact is, those investors are driven to these safer assets by poor monetary policy in Washington D.C. 

City council practically salivates at the opportunity to take advantage of this, and other federal largesse, to spend on their pet projects.  However, they can’t bring themselves to modestly raise exemptions on property taxes without the state compelling them to?       

During the last effort to raise exemptions a year ago, Councilman Manny Pelaez (D8) said the savings to homeowners of the proposed exemption hike to 5% would be “meaningless.”  We agree.  That’s why we believe eliminating the whole scheme would make it meaningful. 

The reaction of most politicians, regardless of jurisdiction or political party, is typically “but how will we fill the revenue hole in the budget?”  Whether that’s due to lack of respect for citizens, envy or ignorance is anyone’s guess. 

We tend to give them the benefit of the doubt that they just don’t know any better.

For one, taxpayers will not simply stuff the reclaimed $400+ million in tax seizures under the mattress.  They’ll inevitably go shopping, thereby pumping up sales tax revenue.  Or even better, some might use it to launch a business venture, hiring more sales tax-paying employees. 

Maybe in addition to appealing to residents to “buy local,” our elected representatives should also urge them to “invest local.”

They could also show more respect to enterprising individuals and businesses by eliminating city programs that are better- and/or already handled by these folks.  As it is, they appear to have more faith in their ability to spend taxpayer money than they do in that of the taxpayers’ themselves.

For example, rather than expanding control and increasing subsidization of “food access” programs, how about removing obstacles to its development, and selling plots of city-owned land to urban farmers? 

Members of council who have owned a business should know all of this.  If not, they’re more prone to cronyism.

If all this is a bridge too far for their ego, they could just add another percentage or two to the city’s sales tax rate.  If they agree with Councilman Pelaez’ aforementioned sentiment, one would assume they’d feel the same about consumers paying a few more dollars for say, another T.V.

If citizens are serious about stopping municipal versions of federal omnibus spending bills, it is critical to also demand the elimination of this coercive tax.  It would bump up the GDP portion of our state–high debt/GDP, which itself calls into question how much more we can take on with a handicapped ability to pay for it.

Shifting to the most efficient form of taxation would force the city to depend on the health of the economy for its spending, rather than on devalued dollars.  It would have more incentive to clear excessively burdensome hurdles to commercial activity.

Otherwise, they can count on us wasting valuable time protesting appraisals, putting on workshops to teach others how to do the same, numbing ourselves to it all by outsourcing the escrow process to our mortgage lenders, etc. 

How much more debt are YOU willing to take on, and how much more debt CAN the city take on?!   The bonds only raise those bigger questions about the tax burdens we already carry, and the burdensome solutions of increasingly higher taxes the city keeps falling back on.  Force the city to look for answers.   

Next month, citizens can put a stop to the city borrowing like a teenager who stole his parents’ credit card.  We should also put them in a timeout until they stop plundering our bank accounts.

The post A ‘No’ on the Bonds is Hollow Without a ‘No’ on Property Taxes first appeared on Infuse SA.

• Increased government involvement in the housing sector will drive up input prices
• More homeowners will be taxed to fund the personal preferences of other homeowners
• San Antonio taxpayers will be left with the tax bill when the housing market settles down

A good friend of ours recently quipped about how she wished she had a good product or service idea to go along with her immense analytical and organizational skills.  No doubt if she did, she’d have little trouble finding financial backing.

All government needs though, is a captive tax base.  Politicians like to refer to these taxpayers as “investors.” 

San Antonio mayor Ron Nirenberg used some form of that word five times in laying out his case for proposition F, the $150 million housing bond on the ballot here in San Antonio in a couple weeks. 

When voluntary investors in the private sector put their resources behind a new or improved gadget, they generally get a return if those who buy the gadget get a big(ger) bang for their buck.  That’s the hope of proponents here, to “fill affordability gaps” in the local housing market.

In reality, politically-directed “investment” tends to exacerbate current problems and/or create new ones.

Rather than “spurring … resources” by intervening in the market, the city is more likely to spur prices of inputs by competing with builders already busy trying to bring 20,000-to-30,000 new units online. 

That’s to say nothing of the organizations he cites (some publicly-funded) that are already working to alleviate this problem, such as it is.

A recent report in the San Antonio Express-News cites people “seeking apartments … after returning to the office, finding a new job, breaking up with a partner or simply wanting their own space.”

Additionally, Mayor Nirenberg implies that some homeowners have a right to stay put if they want to. 

Why is it the responsibility of other homeowners to subsidize these varied groups’ personal preferences?  Make no mistake, they will, because all this debt gets billed to them in the form of the property taxes they’re forced to pay.  Recent appraisals are already sending shockwaves across the area.

The mayor also believes that people are living “farther away from job centers … due to a lack of affordable housing options.”  Odds are just as well that they’re moving out of city limits to avoid being conscripted benefactors for the whims of city council. 

The pressure on those who remain will only intensify as more segments become exempted from this coercion.  It’s yet another reason the whole property tax scheme should be uprooted and scrapped (the subject for a forthcoming column).

At the end of the day, this effort, should supporters convince voters to swipe the city’s credit card, will have about as little effect on local housing prices as the oil market will feel from President Biden tapping the Strategic Oil Preserve for 180 million barrels of crude. 

That’s ironic because both problems are (partially) caused by a similar policy choice in Washington D.C.: a weak dollar.  If the mayor is curious at all why “prospective homebuyers” have been “losing to outside investors,” that’s it. 

The housing market will inevitably come back down to earth when the dollar strengthens, whether due to a president finally standing up for it, or investors fleeing other currencies because of a global downturn (see the Great Recession). 

At the end of the day, these ‘affordable’ housing bond projects will require ongoing subsidization to be kept afloat. They are a terrible financial risk for the city, and a looming  drain on every taxpayer with no end in sight.  VOTE NO to this unwise housing bond proposal.

The post ‘Affordable’ Housing: The Easiest Bond to Vote Down first appeared on Infuse SA.

Newspaper editorial pages generally lean one way or another politically.  Given that they’re made up of individuals with their own leanings, this is no surprise. 

However, even though the New York Times and Wall Street Journal tend to sway left and right, respectively, each have columnists that go against that grain, providing some semblance of balance.  If that characteristic has trickled down to local outlets, it missed us here in the Alamo City.

What we have is a media that leans one way, unchecked.  They leverage this to essentially promote government programs, and sugarcoat their inevitable failure.  History is no guide to them.    

The latest example revolves around San Antonio’s “Train for Jobs” (TfJ) program, which itself is a precursor to the “Ready to Work” (RtW) initiative.  The San Antonio Express-News editorial defending it contains slants, omissions, and the failure to connect some dots.

The Slants:

“When COVID-19 brought San Antonio’s economy to a standstill …“

The popular narrative, from the international level down to the local, is that the coronavirus/COVID-19/pandemic caused the massive recession last year.  That is not the case, and we’ll never know for sure the extent to which it was responsible.

Businesses were starting to stock (more) hand sanitizer.  Those in charge could be found wiping down door handles.  People were making adjustments.  It was the primitive government lockdowns that sent society and the economy into a tailspin. 

Whenever we hear of Wall Street gyrating because of a new variant, it’s not the virus they’re reacting to.  From Warren Buffet to the casual day-trader, people putting their resources at risk do so with the utmost diligence.  They’re generally not dumb people.

Most of us, investors or not, know from life experience that viruses mutate, especially as we adapt to them, bolster our immune systems, update vaccines, etc.  What is more difficult to predict is the collective wisdom, to use a term loosely, of officeholders that today’s politics tends to produce.   

The reaction of governments at every level to the coronavirus, regardless of the political party in charge, is merely the latest example of what usually causes such a “standstill.”

“That said, a Dec. 15 city report offers optimism. More than 16K people have expressed interest in the program, more than 9,500 people have completed the intake process, and more than 4,400 people have enrolled.“

A right-leaning publication might just as easily have substituted “cause for concern” for “optimism,” and rounded the figures up to the nearest thousand in order to use “less than” rather than “more.”  “Roughly” would have been the most objective word here.

The Omissions:

”Consider the cost of the status quo — unemployment …”

“The job training was launched in the middle of the pandemic, in spring 2020, when 140K city residents found themselves out of work.  It’s a different job market today. “

The EN does not elaborate on this last point, so we will:

The employment situation in San Antonio is approaching where it was before the government shutdowns.  As the EN reports, roughly 900 of those jobs can be attributed to the TfJ program.  The disparity is obvious.

What explains it?  Actual job creators do, not to mention the pre-existing educational infrastructure.  The former already “invests in people” via training, while the latter regularly “revamps our workforce.”   

Nevertheless, despite the early, lackluster returns of the federally-funded TfJ, San Antonio mayor Ron Nirenberg led activists in convincing three-quarters of voters to commit a portion of sales tax revenue to the RtW program. 

Why?  Do they believe the efforts of employers and schools, with whom they’re reportedly partnering in this venture, to be inadequate?  Was it simply a quest for a ‘political victory’? 

Do they believe in government dependence i.e. “wraparound services”?  Was it redirect more taxpayer money to other public institutions (colleges) as a favor?  In this case, it arguably adds fuel to the tuition-inflation fire.  Shouldn’t leaders, not to mention the press, know all this?

The result is a huge deadweight loss to society to benefit the well-connected.

Connecting the dots:

”The city also was slow to set up it (sic) internal structure and only hired a permanent director … in August.”

”Be critical of the city’s workforce efforts, but also be patient.  Generational change takes time.”

Government faces next to no threat of going out of business, even when it encounters competition.  It lacks the incentive that drives their stiffest rivals (postal delivery, education, book stores) to succeed: the profit motive. 

Private entities in these sectors have found a way to deliver higher quality at acceptable prices even as their customers continue to be poached via taxation to finance the public options.  That’s how inadequate the latter are.

Nonetheless, since these public bodies aren’t going anywhere, they face less pressure to deliver a valuable service in a timely manner.  And the people running them know it.

So do others eager to jump on the gravy train.

Lifetime politicians, bureaucrats and activists who advocate for/run government programs have little inclination to promote private alternatives.  They have every motivation however, to convince voters to pay a ‘tiny’ fraction more in taxes for another government program. 

An objective media would point all this out.

The post Local Media Does Citizens Disservice By Avoiding Balance first appeared on Infuse SA.