Dogma or Pragmatism?

Before embarking on my last OpEd http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/112008/11092008/422493 on workforce housing I had to consider the question of making use of taxpayer’s dollars to intervene in the private sector and reconciling that with my, “less government is better,” philosophy. In the end I wrote it and will work to achieve the goal outlined in the piece.

Like any business local governments have to face escalating costs. Like business local government should look at all options to address those costs beyond just the traditional solutions of cut spending or raise taxes with the only results being reduces services or just increases cost. Any business that operated under such constraints would not be open long.

Local government’s biggest expense is personnel and we are in a competitive market. And unlike private business we are subject to state/federal madates. Where a business can hire and fire based on market forces local goverments do not have as much flexibility.

In the case of our region we are not in a position to compete with the jurisdictions to the north when it comes to salaries. There is also the reality that the cost of living in this region continues to go up and to just say hold the line flies in the face of this dynamic. Such a position also comes with a cost in having to rehire, retrain, and disruption in services as people go north for higher pay. In either case, tax or not tax, there are costs.

The use of taxpayer’s dollars to intervene in the local housing market gives me pause but I am not prepared to dismiss the opportunity, or any opportunity, on purely philosophical grounds. Rather I am must, in my role as an elected official, look at the cost and benefits to the residents of Fredericksburg, and our region.

In this case, by way of federal legislation, funds have been made available to purchase foreclosed homes. While I may have issues with the decision the funds are now there and for me the question becomes can these dollars be used to achieve our shared goal of providing good services at a reasonable cost. In this case I believe we can.

By taking these funds and acquiring properties we have an opportunity to provide housing for our employees. Employees that live in the community they serve are less likely to leave. In providing this housing, we also obtain equity and, through charging a reduced rate of interest, can acquire funding to support other programs such as down payment assistance, rental assistance, etc. In the end, we have a self sustaining program that provides a benefit that most employees would like to have thereby reducing the upward pressure on local costs.

If you do not believe that this is the direction we should be going in I am prepared to listen to alternatives. Just saying no is not an alternative. Political dogmas such as cut spending or services are not enough. Comments that ignoring the realities that local governments face such as, reduced state and federal funding, more mandates, and increased demand for services do not help. I am not interest in hearing what we can’t do but rather what we can do to achieve our goal of providing services to our residents in a cost effective manner.