OPINION: The 1A problem

Backers of ballot Issue 1A want voters to approve the tax increase in order to "create, attract and retain primary jobs," and market Colorado Springs. Signs promoting the tax don't even include the ballot title, saying only "Vote yes, jobs now."

Nobody should quibble with the value of new jobs and economic development. If Colorado Springs grows and prospers, city residents will enjoy a higher quality of life. Work and prosperity are good, and those seem to be the heartfelt goals of the well-intentioned people and organizations in support of 1A.

Unfortunately, 1A is so poorly defined that it's impossible to support. The ballot question begins: "Without raising additional taxes, shall the existing .665 general property mill levy tax be extended from its current expiration of December 31, 2009 through December 31, 2025 to be used exclusively to create, attract and retain primary jobs, market and promote Colorado Springs..."

In fact, 1A is an "additional" tax. It is a tax increase, during one of the most difficult recessions our country has faced. The .665 mill levy tax was approved by voters specifically to extend and improve Powers Boulevard. That tax has served its purpose, and is due to expire. In substance, 1A proposes an entirely unique .665 general property mill levy tax for something considerably more nebulous than improvements to a road. It promises "jobs."

It's not the role of government to create private sector jobs, and nobody supporting this measure has produced a solid idea of how the money might accomplish the goal. Would the money be limited to jobs training and infrastructure projects, such as extension of utilities to prospective employers, or would it be used for cash incentives up front or in the form of rebates? Voters have absolutely no idea.

The money could be used however the City Council, advised by a "Job Opportunity and Business Sustainability Committee," sees fit.

Voters could rely on promises from council members as to what the money would or would not be used for. But promises and intentions of today, even from the most sincere public servants, have little bearing on use of proceeds from a tax that won't sunset for 16 years, long after today's council members have left office. To "create, attract and retain" jobs can mean anything. It could mean hiring new employees at City Hall. It could mean paying for a giant blue bear sculpture downtown "to attract and retain primary jobs."

A greater concern, however, is that money from the tax would be used for direct incentives to attract glamorous, high-tech, out-of-state companies to move to Colorado Springs. Incentives of that sort are egregiously unfair to the city's more important economic base, which consists of thousands of businesses that have been here for generations and have never been given a dime. When taxes pay for incentives, the community's existing employers pay to fund a few "winners" chosen by the city to have the unfair competitive advantage of subsidized overhead.

A variety of 1A supporters, in meetings with The Gazette's editorial board, all but promised the money would never be used for incentives. Rather, they said, it would be used for incubation projects, employee training, and to mitigate the costs businesses incur by moving here. The Gazette's editorial board - which highly values business growth and economic development - considered supporting the measure, despite the open-ended nature of the ballot language. As conversations progressed with various parties, however, some of the intentions and promises began to sound more like semantics than substance. Arguments in favor of "incentives," even direct cash incentives, became more fervent and frequent. It seemed clear that by any terminology, the money would be used to somehow pay employers to come to Colorado Springs. The main justifications: "everyone else does," and "unfortunately, it's the rules of the game today."

Nearly all great businesses in Colorado Springs and throughout the country were built from scratch, never receiving taxpayer subsidies. Genuine business, the kind Colorado Springs should desire, is about creating wealth by selling what customers want and/or need. Serious business strategists, with plans for long-term success, would waste little effort shopping for a city that rewards certain behaviors, such as "hire 25 employees by 2012," with tax money. Wise executives seek revenues from trade, not taxes.

Voters in Colorado Springs aren't stingy, and fully understand that some of what makes a community great is organized through City Hall and paid for with taxes. They understand the value of investing money for future return. Voters in this city have a long history of agreeing to tax requests made with specific parameters and goals. Ballot Issue 1A does not fit that mold. It's too vague and open-ended for anyone to honestly promise a "yes" vote equals "jobs." There are better ways to pay for amenities that make our city attractive to employers than this vague proposal. Vote no on 1A.