How It Works
Jul 1st, 2005 at 7:28 am by Susie
But the five justices in the majority on this decision clearly know little to nothing about local government.
The majority noted that “economic development” has long been considered a public good.
“Jobs, jobs, jobs,” is the eternal cry of the economic development lobby, which always stands to profit from whatever abomination is about to be foisted on the public. I’m not arguing that bigger is better or worse, I’m arguing that local governments are likely to seize on any chance to increase their tax base. We’ve got places in Texas that beg for prisons, chemical complexes, even nuclear waste dumps. What it doesn’t mean is a better place to live, which I gather is what the Supreme Court majority had in mind with this decision. Those who naively trust local governments to make wise decisions clearly haven’t been paying attention. The main difference between the feds and the locals is that it costs more to buy the feds. And I don’t like cynics. Many, many “economic development” decisions are made after an all-expenses-paid jaunt for local officials to the home location of a corporation, or after a pleasant discussion over lunch after a round of golf at a country club. Too cynical for you?
Look, a Wal-Mart brings in more tax dollars than 10 mom-and-pop stores. A chemical plants brings in more than the local shrimpers, especially after it kills off all the shrimp. Just like Monopoly, your property is worth more with a hotel on it than a house. Sure, you can get fair market value for your house — although fair, as was the case with George Bush’s baseball stadium — is often in the eye of the beholder.
If you can convince any elected official in Texas that there is a higher good than “a healthy bidness climate,” you let me know about it. The rivers and bays, the aquifers, the air we breathe — none of that has ever stood in the way of economic development in this state. People have the most remarkable ability to convince themselves that what they are doing is for the greater good if they are also making a great deal of money out of it. Or, as Upton Sinclair put it, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”







What does this do to those initiatives where private groups buy up wild land to preserve it? Sierra-club owned forests and such. I guess now that means nothing.