Richmond was not selected for a $2 million federal highway grant that would have paid for rebuilding a portion of South E Street, thus ending the argument but hardly the issue of whether local Economic Development Income Tax (EDIT) dollars was an appropriate use of those funds to a achieve a required federal match.
Nor does Mayor Sally Hutton’s deferential posturing settle anything, as when this week she announced she would simply let council decide how future EDIT dollars get allocated.
The mayor, working with council, needs to be an active participant in leading that discussion on behalf of all Richmond residents.
Should the local EDIT tax be used largely for the purposes it was approved by the state and local government; that is, to promote economic development and, specifically, measurable job creation?
Yes, of course. Most would agree that would be the highest and best use, honoring the legislative intent for creating such a tax, regardless of how the state subsequently relaxed use of EDIT fund guidelines.
As we noted here last month, “Taxes, such as EDIT, were passed with assurances to taxpayers that the monies would be used for specified purposes ... any spending should be justified by jobs-created criteria. A state — and local region — starved for jobs has every right to impose that expectation.”
And impose that kind of
spending discipline.
…
It is becoming
increasingly clear at all levels of government that attention should focus less
on the political gotcha of shared sins of the past, than on the needed
discipline of future spending promises honored.Whether, as some would argue, the survival or our republic depends on it, a better future for our children, grandchildren and their children most certainly depends on it.
http://www.pal-item.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012307060003
