Caddo Parish voters will face one boondoggle and a subset additionally will deliberate about a search for relevance in their making decisions next month about two tax propositions.
On the ballot Nov. 3 will appear a measure that authorizes the Caddo Parish Commission to blow $70 million on a sports complex. As previously noted, it’s a bad idea that’s not even totally funded – the issue would be only up to $60 million, with $10 million more to be found elsewhere preferably by donations – which rests on pie-in-the-sky hopes of attracting tournaments (which will have the effect of crowding out less-affluent families from having children participate in sports) in an area with plenty of all of government, nonprofit, and for-profit venues. It would waste a lot of money with little return even on the account of amorphous “quality of life” and doesn’t even guarantee that property taxes won’t rise to find it as it only disallows raising the rate for the first year of issuance.
Shreveport voters will have a crack at another one, an item that on the surface begs to renew. The city’s quasi-independent Downtown Development Authority has 9.04 mills – 1.05 mills higher than the expiring levy, due to a decline in the value of downtown properties in aggregate – ready to ramp up in 2028 for 25 years. That funds the agency that many may think doesn’t cost them anything, as the tax is levied only on commercial properties in the district for administration, operational expenses, acquiring property, project expenses and/or the retirement of bonds or other evidences of indebtedness.
But it does cost the general public, at least those members who conduct any business downtown as merchants will pass on the costs to consumers that they must bear in higher rent. And as the aggregate property values have decreased to foment the increased levy (keeping the annual collection around $700,000), that’s not a very good sign that the DDA’s efforts have amounted to much if properties lose their values or get demolished.
Whether the DDA needs this source of income is questionable. Last year’s financial statements peg the proportion of revenues the tax produced at nearing half of all sources, but these outpaced expenditures by about $150,000. And a recent announcement by the district suggests it could cut back on expenses even more as to rely less on the tax.
The DDA will chip in half of a $200,000 contract to fund private security details to roam downtown for the remainder of the year. Unarmed, these won’t do much but can help out in discouraging aggressive panhandling, open container violations, and marijuana use, as well as detain people who appear to have engaged in more serious crimes up to an hour for police to arrive. Described as a pilot program, it could continue if the DDA can corral money from other government sources.
Of course, the timing is very interesting given the looming DDA tax vote, as if the initiative acts as a full-court effort to show the DDA does more than trim foliage, put up decorations, and aggravate those who park vehicles, for the money siphoned to it. And it begs the question that if the DDA has enough wherewithal to fork over the equivalent of $400,000 annually to a low-return operation, somewhat less perhaps as technically the organization is getting a rent-free office in return in the badly-underutilized Red River District although the equivalent rent is mere pittance compared to the DDA initiative outlay, and implies this is not just a pilot program, does it really need as much as it says from taxpayers?
No comments:
Post a Comment