Volunteerism as a Substitute for Government

Over the past 25 years, the Federal government has been systematically pushing service provision to the state level, funding less and less of the services we demand.  The states, in turn, have increasingly pushed the responsibility of government provision to the local level.  Basic services are funded increasingly by local revenues alone.

Conversely, residents in many states, including Texas, have pushed hard against tax increases.  Most recently the Texas Legislature cut school property taxes by one-third in response to growing pressure from constituents across the state complaining about their tax bills.

These opposing realities are putting the squeeze on local government resources.  While arguably creating a leaner, more efficient government entity, the fact is that services demanded are quickly outpacing revenues.  Local governments have a responsibility to provide the most basic necessities for commerce and social welfare.  Roads.  Bridges.  Drainage and flood control.  Public schools.  Public safety and fire fighters.  But more and more, local governments are being asked to provide other services such as affordable housing, and purchase open space for preservation.  They are expected to provide indigent care and shelter for the abjectly poor.  In essence, the people expect the government to provide all sorts of services, but are unwilling to pay for them.  There has to be another solution.

There are armies of people who would gladly volunteer a small portion of their time for the comforts they actively enjoy.  For example, consider if the City of Austin decided to redirect resources to fully fund road maintenance (instead of pushing off the maintenance for future taxpayers to pay 4-10 times the cost to reconstruct the failing road system), and stopped maintaining the beautiful park system along Lady Bird Lake known as the Hike and Bike Trail.  Legions of faithful users of the trail would gladly sign up to maintain it themselves rather than watch it dwindle in disarray.  With only 120 faithful volunteers, each willing to donate 3 days per year, the trail could have maintenance every day of the year. 

There are other examples of services people would gladly volunteer to deliver if possible.  We have doctors and nurses that take two weeks away from their practices to fly around the world and practice medicine, why couldn’t they volunteer one afternoon a month to serve for free in local clinics?  We have retired government social workers with great pensions and plenty of time on their hands; why couldn’t they volunteer a day a month to help the poor register for available services?  And with the growing retired population of baby boomers, why can’t more volunteers help keep public libraries open?

With all these services provided by volunteer labor, the local government would spend less on personnel and be able to dedicate more of their resources to the actual provision of services.  In essence, they could make each dollar go further.  It is just an idea, but one I think has some value.  There was a time when we as a people relied less on Government and more on each other.  Because, in the end, the American system imagines that the people are the government.  Maybe we should start taking responsibility for each other.  Just a thought.

The Evolution of US Cities

Wow, time flies.  I apologize for going so long without posting.  Now to the topic at hand.

In the past 50 or 60 years urban expansion (sprawl) in the United States has been unprecedented.  Writers attribute this growth to the convergence of a rising population, increasing incomes, and falling commuting costs.  Because of the impressive highway system and corridor development in the US, the more affluent continue to move further out of the city centers and the poor remain in the older housing stock contained within.  Many Americans view this urban sprawl as a bad thing that contributes to alienation, air pollution, obesity, segregation, the concentration of poverty, and any number of other negative aspects of American life.  I personally tend to agree that this pattern of growth is unhealthy for the system, primarily based on the notion that extending infrastructure costs more than the revenues it can generate for local governments, straining their ability to provide necessary and demanded services.  But I think this pattern of growth is changing, and we are in the midst of an evolutionary shift that will bring about its own unique problems.

European cities, in contrast to American cities, principally concentrate affluence and wealth in the city centers and have poor suburbs.  This may be because of the relative age of European cities compared to the US, among any number of other aesthetic reasons.  I believe that many US cities are moving the same direction, however.  The filtering theory of urban systems posits that rings of housing development around the urban core “filter” from higher socio-economic populations down as the housing stock grows old and deteriorates.  I believe that this latest wave of housing growth will leave us with vast neighborhoods of mediocre housing stock that will run down in 10 to 20 years, leaving whole suburban developments undesirable to the affluent home buyers and becoming available to lower socio-economic cohorts.  These wealthier purchasers are going to be looking for well-built (or rebuilt) homes – and the solid neighborhoods built in earlier periods closer in to the city centers are going to become more attractive.  This is already happening in Austin.

In addition, as a good friend pointed out to me recently, with gas prices continuing to rise we will no longer be thinking about the miles-per-gallon we get with our automobiles, but instead about the dollars-per-trip we make.  For example, it costs me nearly $2 a day to drive to school.  As that commuting cost increases (not to mention congestion), the trade-off for the house in the suburbs with the big yard and white picket fence is going to becoming increasingly unattractive.  This will also drive the more affluent families further into town, displacing the poor and pushing them out.

Finally, the new urban living trend of small condos downtown will also drive some of this evolution.  And this trend is not only occurring in the “hip” young cities.  In towns as different as Spokane, Washington, Waco, Texas, and New Orleans, Louisiana, buildings are being converted into lofts faster than the for sale signs can be printed.  I can’t go anywhere without seeing advertisements for this rebirth living in walkable communities close to both work and play.  I am a big fan of this movement, but believe it will carry with it social costs that few are considering when they move in to their new condos.

What does all this add up to?  I think we are in the midst of a vast shift in the urban nature of America.  Mimicking many European cities, our urban centers are becoming the centers of wealth and affluence and the poor are being scattered and pushed outward.  With this shift comes both positive and negative externalities that need to be considered (perhaps in a follow-up blog post), but we need to start thinking about this paradigm shift right now if we are to both capitalize on and accommodate this change.

Is a Crash Tax the Answer?

Municipal governments across the country are feeling the pinch.  Service demand continues to increase while taxes become increasingly unpopular.  Cities across the country are looking for new and creative ways to raise revenues without raising taxes.  The country is moving increasingly toward user fees and away from general revenue funds, which introduces its own problems, but is the direction we are moving nevertheless.

One such example is the so-called Crash Tax.  Basically, if you get in an accident that requires emergency response you end up paying for the call, either personally or through your insurance.  There are 18 or more local governments that have instigated this new taxing system, and its catching on.  With fees anywhere from $100 to $2,000, depending on the severity of the accident, these can raise significant amounts of revenue in larger cities.

But not everyone is welcoming the new practice.  AccidentTax.com, a website operated by the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, argues fervently against the crash tax.  Not only does the site meticulously chronicle the critical public response to this new idea, but it quotes officials claiming it doesn’t raise the amounts they had hoped.  And it also strongly argues that if this is to catch on, insurance coverage will cost more for everyone. 

But beyond this, I worry that this effort is trying to charge fees for services that are the core of the public good.  There are services the government may or may not provide for its citizens, such as welfare assistance or public housing or even public education.  Most feel these services are important, but are not critical to the functioning of society.  However, first responders are in fact critical to the smooth functioning of our economy and society.  While the promoters of the crash tax assure us that services will be provided whether or not payment could be made, but once we start “taxing” these critical services we open the door.  It seems almost too easy to cross the line and neglect the most important duties of civil service. 

As we move toward the service fee structure of government, we can’t wholly replace taxes.  Certain core services provided by our government are required in order to keep our community, and economy, moving.  The Crash Tax is one step down a dangerous path, and one we might think twice about before taking.

Austin Red Light Cameras

So the City of Austin implemented cameras at stop lights around town in order to cut down on red light runners.  The camera will catch these overeager drivers take their picture, and send them a nice little ticket in the mail.  No muss – no fuss.

 I am not necessarily against this.  I think it sounds like a way to both raise revenues and increase safety, if applied well.  I understand the arguments against it, and my libertarian roots scream against the Big Brother element of cameras on every corner.  But I am willing to let the experiment run and see if results are as expected, as long as the City takes great pains to keep the effort transparent and as clean as possible.

However, I have to wonder about an interesting observation from this morning’s commute to school.  The stop light at Anderson Lane and Burnet Rd, one which I drive through nearly every morning, is suddenly running on a different pattern than ever before.  In the past, each direction has had a good length of time to clear before the cross traffic gets its turn, mainly by the overlap of the opposing left turn lights.  This morning the left turn lights no longer overlapped, and the light was much shorter in every direction than before.  So instead of waiting a reasonable amount of time for the light to change and then having ample time to get through the intersection, one now waits through more than one light change for one’s turn. 

In my mind, this prompts impatience and encourages drivers to hurry through at the tail end of the yellow light.  When my turn came to scurry through the intersection I looked up and – low and behold – there was a pesky camera watching me.  I know I was legally through in time, but the cars behind me that cut it close may not have noticed the camera.  Ah, revenue generating at its best.

I am not saying that the light pattern at Anderson and Burnet was changed because this ordinance just went into effect (last night), but it does seem suspect at best.  If this is the case, then shame on the City.  If its a happy coincidence, then I guess my paranoia is finally getting the better of me.  We shall see.  Keep your eyes open, friends, and see if you don’t notice similar changes in your neighborhoods.  Only through diligent observation can the people avoid the loss of all liberty.  It starts slowly, incrementally, and pretty soon we don’t even miss our rights.  Stay alert.  (Uh oh, my libertarianism scratching through again)