Two bills, minor in and of themselves, when opened to debate the
rhetoric concerning them that flows shows that, despite recent progress in
extinguishing this attitude among public servants, the statist mentality still
hampers Louisiana public policy-making.
SB
479 by state Sen. Mike Walsworth
would allow the state to trade out as economic incentives surplus property. It
would follow the current legal procedure of the Department of Natural Resources
reviewing whether property is surplus and, if so, getting it appraised, but
then instead of auctioning it, the Department of Economic Development with the
approval of the Commissioner of Administration would get to use it as an
incentive to attract a business and its concomitant economic boost as a result
of successful recruitment.
The House Natural Resources and Environment Committee approved the bill
but not before tacking on an amendment that would require any specific project
utilizing this feature to return to it and its Senate counterpart for vetting.
DED opposed it, arguing this could take agreements made with confidentiality
out of the running by use of this tool.
With this option unlikely to be used more than rarely in any event and the
added oversight a legitimate method to reduce the tendency to sweetheart deals
to the detriment of the people, this provision is not obnoxious enough to make
the bill unmeritorious for passage. But what was obnoxious was the implications
of comments made by panel members supporting the amendment. State Rep. Sam Jones said
of it, “I
don’t want to be putting these things out there as carrots,” while state Rep. Stephen Ortego
opined, “We are elected to be stewards of the public property.”
Note the underlying attitude
behind these sentiments: that it should not be the job of the state to dispose of
property not used or with any reasonable chance the state would need it for
some public purpose in the not-distant future. Instead, it’s not the purpose of
government to be a holder of idle taxpayer resources, but to control as few
resources as possible and enable an opportunity for the citizenry to hold as
individuals, groups, on in collective organizations outside of government in
private ownership as much of this as possible. This means exactly that the
state should be maximizing its efforts to have “out there … carrots.”
And while it is a goal as an
elected official “to be stewards of the public property,” it is one far less
important than to be purveyors of public property whenever a compelling reason
is absent for government to possess it. As long as there’s nothing unethical
about a deal, the task is not to decide whether to keep the property, but to
divest of as much of it as quickly as possible. To state being a “steward” as a
primary reason to veto a transfer of surplus property in this context shows a
misunderstanding of the role of an elected representative and of the purpose of
government. Worse would be if this thinking leads to supporting the amended
bill precisely to render it practically inoperative in order to keep as much
property in the state’s hands as possible.
But while this bill in its present form is salutary, even if the
amendment discourages divestment of surplus property, another
one that discourages this even more and reflects a general aggrandizement to
the state but specifically to elected officials comes in the form of SB 106
by Sen. Rick Gallot. This would allow
a legislator to receive office space declared “surplus” in his district for use
as a district office, if approved by the Commissioner of Administration.
(Although it was even worse prior to amending; originally, it said “vacant”
space.)
This creates yet another potential perquisite for legislators to enjoy
and additional costs to the taxpayer. While one could argue that this might
make for more convenience for constituents for office visits, few districts in
the state are so spread out that this would really matter and staffing resource
constraints are such that multiple district offices could have none of them
staffed full-time unless the legislator wants to do it himself. This is more
than offset by the extra maintenance, upkeep, and utility costs that another
occupied suite would impose on taxpayers. Let’s face it, this is mostly about
feeding egos by elected officials getting more stuff from the taxpayers than in
any additional value brought to serving the people.
Like the other, this bill is about to get to the floor of the other
chamber from which it originated. Unlike the other, this one needs to be voted
down because it is not cost effective and might provide a disincentive for
shedding surplus property, as legislators enjoying free space might do what
they can to prevent it from being sold out from under them.
No comments:
Post a Comment