Editorial: Meddling with local autonomy

More than 400 miles away in Carson City, the state Assembly felt the need last week to rebuke the Las Vegas City Council. In the eyes of the Legislature's lower house, the City Council deserved to be punished for scheduling a vote Monday to raise property taxes 2 percent, an increase that would allow more parks to be built. So the Assembly voted 27-14 on Wednesday to defeat a bill in the Legislature that would allow municipal governments to impose impact fees on new homes to pay for fire stations and parks.

The bill in the Legislature had already passed unanimously in the fiscally conservative, Republican-controlled Senate. So Las Vegas officials, who advocated Senate Bill 457's passage, were dumbfounded when the Assembly suddenly defeated the bill.

Some assemblymen said they opposed SB457 because they believe impact fees don't work and only raise the cost of a home. But there's more at work here than just a philosophical objection. As the Sun's Cy Ryan reported Friday, there also was some political jockeying going on, with all 14 Republicans voting against the bill and other Democrats opposing the legislation over the fear of being portrayed as tax-and-spend liberals.

It's not as if there hasn't been a demonstrated need for more parks in the Las Vegas city limits. City lobbyist Dan Musgrove notes that the Southern Nevada Strategic Planning Authority has set a goal of 2.5 acres of park land for every 1,000 residents. Even if the property tax is increased, Musgrove said to meet this goal the city would still need to develop an extra 550 acres, provided the population stayed at its existing level of 470,000.

The proposal before the City Council would raise the property tax by 1.75 cents per $100 of a home's assessed valuation. This translates into an extra $4.69 per year for a home valued at $100,000, which is about the cost of a meal at a fast food restaurant. The increase would generate about $2.5 million a year to buy land for new parks and maintain existing facilities.

What this episode does illustrate is the need for state legislators to stay out of the business of local governments. After all, local governments meet throughout the year while the Legislature meets just once every two years for a four-month period. Local governments should have more flexibility, not less, when deciding what services their constituents want.

archive