• Bribing seniors does not help the labor shortage
• The city has lost touch with productive citizens
• Homeowners should take advantage of flexible, political principles

The City of San Antonio (CoSA) wants to change that by offering seniors a break on their property taxes.  While total elimination of this odious tax is the best idea, any reduction of it in the interim is good. 

There are a few problems with this proposal though.

One thing that enables us to volunteer is our prosperity. Despite declarations by some politicos, things are shaky right now.  In addition to the eyewatering price of gas, and other residual effects of the government lockdowns, we’re experiencing continued labor shortages.

This credit would exacerbate that problem.

In a recent interview, councilwoman Melissa Cabello-Havrda (D6) asserted that the program is aimed at those “already” volunteering.  The council consideration request (CCR) implies otherwise. 

It cites a “Social Isolation and Loneliness in Older Adults” study, and how getting them out of the house can stem cognitive decline, among other negative effects associated with aging. 

As a consequence of essentially luring them into public sector work, they’re pulled away from the private sector, where some seniors feel they “still have more to give.” Regardless of the modest size of the credit, seniors could still lose their home!  Over 3,000 are already more than two years late paying the taxman. 

Given that CoSA itself seeks to be an “’employer of choice’ in our community”, it’s distinctly possible they don’t see the link.  This leads to an underlying concern: the degree of disconnectedness that exists at City Hall.

In its “Financial Impact & Conclusion,” the CCR declares that “The City’s General Fund revenues performed well.”  The wording is consistent with the fact that the vast majority of CoSA staff and elected representatives favor a more active government.

Respect for individuals, and independent wealth-creators subconsciously takes a backseat.  The media add to this chorus by characterizing exemption savings to taxpayers as what the “city loses.”

As it is, the property tax system amounts to little more than a social engineering tool.  CoSA can dictate “the maximum number of participants and the maximum … reduction participants can receive,” protecting their own “so as to not adversely impact CoSA operations.”

“If the program works well,” they reserve the power to determine “other populations that may be vulnerable to rising property tax burdens.”    

As Bexar County’s chief appraiser Michael Amezquita points out later in the same KLRN episode, it’s also a mechanism for cronyism given how inequitable is the favoritism shown to commercial property.

The only time politicians extend such favor to homeowners is when the state compels them to.  Ironically, it’s the Texas constitution that permits levying this tax in the first place. 

Cracking that nut is another task altogether.

For the time being, to paraphrase a Chris Rock, just because the city can do it, doesn’t mean they should.  Alas, we keep getting the Will Smith treatment.  There might be a political opening however, that can be used to stop this annual smackdown. 

Councilwoman Havrda said “my vote is based on the needs of my constituents.  And what they’re telling me right now is that they need property tax relief.”

Too often elected officials twist this “belie(f) in representative government” as a way to take from some to give to others.  The paid sick leave ordinance is a recent example. 

Citizens should exploit these flexible principles, and the newfound religion the council seems to have (see D8 councilman Manny Pelaez), and insist on abolishing this antiquated seizure for good.

The post Manipulating Seniors and Holding Us All Hostage from the Commanding Heights of the Dais first appeared on Infuse SA.

• The government lockdowns as an “opportunity (for) transformational change.”
• Turning failed government education policy into government jobs.
• A preview of what’s in store for bond debt-funding.

Back in 2008, with the country in the throes of a mortgage meltdown and onset of the Great Recession, incoming White House Chief of staff Rahm Emanuel pounced: “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

So began an explosion of government spending and regulation.  A similar occasion has materialized over the last couple years, with some of the outlays raining down on municipalities.  The latest installment just so happens to coincide with a billion-dollar bond proposal.

City Council is currently trying to figure out how to spend $88 million from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA).  It’s nominally earmarked to “determine what impact the coronavirus pandemic had on San Antonio in areas ranging from small business to mental health.” 

There’s no way to ever know that though, because the fallout wasn’t totally related to the virus.  What they will find out is the destruction that followed in the wake of government lockdowns. 

Businesses were ordered closed, some never reopened, and people (especially those with families to support) stressed out over the jobs they lost.  Where’s the mystery here? 

Ahh but wait: the city has received dozens of “unsolicited requests from groups and agencies seeking” 4-times what Uncle Sam has bestowed upon us.  Wiper blades are needed to clean the computer screen of the drooling over who will get what.

Councilwoman Melissa Cabello-Havrda (D6) strikes an opportunistic tone, claiming the pandemic gave us the chance “to improve our communities.” 

If the pandemic gave us a chance for anything, it was to find ways to navigate this new virus that was spreading amongst us.  And we were starting to do that: wiping counters and doorknobs, having more hand sanitizer available, using bandanas and handkerchiefs as masks, etc. 

Whether out of fear of the virus, fear of poor emergency planning, or fear of being seen as not “doing something,” authoritarians snuffed out the adjustments citizens were making. They brought the bureaucratic hammer down on us instead.  We all remember the hysteria, grocery shortages, and strife that ensued.

Given Uncle Sam’s loose spending standards, it’s not a stretch to say they, and their special-interest and academic cronies saw this “opportunity” coming.  That may be why they fell in line with state and federal officials rather than stand with their constituents.

One could be forgiven for thinking that this kind of gravy train is connected to the repercussions of politicians’ continually pumping more taxpayer funds into higher education: a greater number of college grads possessing degrees of diminished value. 

When kids who might otherwise have explored vocational careers, are instead lured to a university by artificially easy loan terms, you’ll see a shortage of labor in the former, and a surplus in the latter. 

It’s leading some to push for unionization, which tends to suppress economy dynamism, and therefore depress prosperity.  Or worse: to ‘careers’ in lobbying, the kind that depend on government spending for their livelihood. 

Never let it be said that government doesn’t create jobs. 

Concerns have been aired about making sure these ARPA funds are used for their intended purpose, and that we avoid commitments that would put pressure on future city budgets, etc.  That’s beside the point though. 

When you have folks like Councilwoman Phyllis Viagran (D3) who believe the arts are “an economic driver,” or that it’s possible for the public sector to spend “a bucket of money … efficiently and effectively” like the private sector, as Councilman Manny Pelaez (D8) does, there’s a disconnect.

Moreover, when Councilwoman Havrda (D6) feels the aforementioned opportunities “to improve” exist because they had “previously been underfunded,” doesn’t that imply that citizens have been undertaxed?  Given their reaction to recent property tax appraisals, they probably disagree. 

If voters don’t deny the council the $1.2 billion gusher of bond debt they’re so enthusiastic about, while at the same time demanding the property tax be eliminated, this cycle will continue regardless of the source of funny money.

Somewhere Rahm is smiling.

The post The Gravy Train Leading Devalued Degrees to Government ‘Work’ first appeared on Infuse SA.

“(K9s for Warriors CEO Rory) Diamond blamed the low dog transfer numbers on the nonprofit not having a completed brick and mortar facility in SA until last fall, and said he is confident that the 200 dogs/year figure can be obtained if the program is provided bond funding to expand its SA footprint.”

Sounds like the same erroneous “if you build it, they will come” reasoning that produced the Alamodome. But hey, when you’re dealing in “dogs/puppies,” “veterans,” or “the children” for that matter, you can pull BILLION$ worth of heart strings, no?

This story corroborates what a couple of us at Infuse SA heard from another concerned citizen last week who similarly filed an open records request to check into this.

Think about it … how many readers have taken the time and/or gone to the expense, to train a dog? One of us here put a 5YO German Shepherd through training for a second time recently. It’s not easy the later in life they get.

Why would K9s for Warriors pull rescue dogs for this purpose? Dogs who not only are likely older, but have suffered some sort of trauma, whether physical and/or otherwise. Some of us at Infuse SA speak to this from experience, because we’ve taken in rescue pets.

This is just the latest example of inefficiencies BUILT-IN to government programs! And they want us to go in hock for $1,200,000,000 … which are > 40% from the 2017 bonds, which themselves were > 40% increase from 2012?!?

As much as we aim to keep the media straight, props are due to KSAT for this story.

The post Manipulating ‘Vets’ and ‘Puppies’ for Ea$y Money first appeared on Infuse SA.

• 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.

“Now that we can venture back out … let’s go back to stores. Where there seems to be an Amazon or UPS truck on every block, many deliveries are using up a lot of the world’s resources. This is great for Amazon (Jeff Bezos is burning up our money going to the edge of space) and gives employment to local drivers — and to a great many underpaid, overworked warehouse workers with little to no benefits, most of them in other states.”

While much of the above passage is problematic …
– comfort with government ‘giving us permission’ to go out …
– the odd implication that 10 people driving to shops consumes less energy than 1 truck hitting 10 houses …
– the poo-pooing of employment as his heart bleeds in assumption that the conditions agreed to are horrendous …
– and no mention that many Amazon employees work here in Bexar County and San Antonio
… he makes a good point about the value of actually going out to shop.

Still, one other sentiment in the above passage belies a couple problems with society: the one about “space.”

At the risk of splitting hairs, we work to exchange our earnings for other things we want. Presumably, we do so in the most rational way: lowest price, best quality, most convenient, etc. Once we make that transaction with whomever, and we’ve traded our money for the good or service, it’s no longer ‘our money’.

Also, so what if he’s going to space! Who cares if he goes to Vegas and blows his money on gambling and prostitutes? Jeff Bezos/Amazon have done a lot of good for society as evidenced by how large they are. If they weren’t satisfying customers, they wouldn’t have attained such size!

There’s much envy inferred in such statements, a sourness about one’s own inability to achieve the same. This wouldn’t be a problem if it didn’t translate into votes for attention-hungry politicians who would love nothing more than to get into office, seize back some of “our money,” and redistribute it to a bunch of causes favored by sore folks like Mr. Brandon who couldn’t do it himself.

Will he and others get raw when Holt Truck Centers bring greater wealth to our area (see other InfuseSA post today)? Will he still be whining when regular folk can travel to space thanks to the ground laid by Bezos and Elon Musk, who literally had the resources to burn (pardon the pun) to push into that frontier?

#wordsmatter#noBSzone#noslantinformation#whatsyourbeef#bexarcounty#sanantonio#bipartisan

The post Words Matter, Swap Envy for Respect, Appreciation first appeared on Infuse SA.