Due to the travels and whatnot, I haven’t had a chance to comment on Langford’s tax proposals, which unfortunately the Birmingham City Council approved today. The increases take effect January 1st. His plan includes an 1 cent increase in the sales tax and a doubling of business license fees, all to build a domed stadium, an entertainment district downtown and to fund schools and other city services. I ain’t fer ‘em, I’m agin’ ‘em, natch, but let me tell you why.

Tax and spend proposals never work. Langford tried the same strategy in Fairfield, building massive projects like Visionland, which promptly went into bankruptcy and was, fortunately, bought out by a firm who apparently knows how to run a theme park. Fairfield has certainly not seen much improvement under Langford’s tenure there. “If you build it, they will come” is a Hollywood movie not a serious public policy proposal. If a city is to the dire point of ruin and a one-shot tax-and-spend scheme is its only hope for renewal, then it might be best to let that city die. I don’t believe that is the case with Birmingham. In fact I don’t see Birmingham as a dying city. I see it as a city that has been dominated for too long by politicians and central plans, rather than allowing the folks who live and work there to keep their own money and pursue their own plans and dreams, including building new businesses, schools, parks, transit, etc and revitalizing existing areas. Langford has Atlanta envy and believes that prosperity is as easy as copying other cities, never stopping to think that local problems might have local solutions. Langford believes that “the man on the white horse” alone can inspire and lead the people into a new era of glory. Forgive me if I don’t buy that. The best thing that Langford could do to help the residents of Birmingham is to get out of their way, leave people alone and see what kind of city they will create.

Such proposals are especially hard on the poor and small to mid-size businesses. Birmingham has a very low unemployment rate, thankfully, but many of its citizens remain poor and on fixed incomes. Langford’s sales tax plan would disproportionately affect the poorest who are unable to drive out of town to avoid the new taxes and for whom an extra penny tax makes a difference. Langford’s unbelievably callous response: “If a penny’s going to break you, you’re already broke anyway, so don’t worry about it.” So, Langford is willing to sacrifice the poor in pursuit of his grand plan. He’s also willing to sacrifice local car dealers and other small to mid-size retail businesses for whom a one-cent sales tax will greatly effect their bottom line, not to mention the effect of doubling business license fees. Langford believes that bringing in big companies and businesses with bribes and infrastructure is the only way to grow a city. Wonder why he was surrounded by large business owners when he announced his proposals? They can smell pork just as well as any politician. This thinking, though, has it exactly backwards. Without a thriving base of small to mid-size businesses, no large businesses will want to invest in the city, the risk is too great. A thriving base of such businesses though will naturally attract larger businesses who see a bustling economy and a growing city as a good investment. Cities grow from the bottom up, not the top down. Langford obviously doesn’t care about that, he only cares about his plan. Related: my good friend Radley has a piece today on the unintended consequences of seemingly benign local regulations.

The majority of voters don’t want a domed stadium. The stadium idea is the monster that just won’t die in Birmingham politics. It has been voted down numerous times by the citizens of Birmingham, but Langford is hellbent on imposing his will on the city. Never mind that such projects amount to welfare for private backers, developers and team owners. The private backers (remember when Richard Scrushy supported the MAPS dome-building proposal? Why do you think he did that?) put up a portion of the funding needed for a project and then make sure they get their money back, plus a hefty premium. The developers get a massive project with a flexible funding source–once the project is halfway completed, who would object to a few more million than originally anticipated to finish it? Team owners get the best deal of all b/c, if the city doesn’t do what they want, they’ll just move on to the next city hankering for a stadium. Here’s a study showing exactly that.

Private, voluntary solutions would achieve better results without raising taxes or fees. Let’s look at Langford’s education policy, for example. He wants to shore up failing public schools, 20 out of 65 of which the state’s department of education and an independent consultant recommend closing. He also wants city-provided scholarships and laptops for students to be paid for out of the business fee increase. Here’s an idea. Instead of investing in failing schools and doling out cash and tech to students on the taxpayers dime, allow parents and children to have a choice. Allow them to take their children out of failing schools that for whatever reason aren’t meeting their needs or preparing them for life. How about a solution that has been proven elsewhere that involves no tax increases? Answer: school choice programs, like tuition tax credits, are a great way empower parents and students and they also provide much needed educational competition between schools, so that even public schools improve. If interested, the good folks at the Alliance for School Choice would be more than glad to advise the city and help them set up such a program. Of course, that would get in the way of the grand plan, so don’t expect progress anytime soon.

Required reading for Langford and the City Council: The Voluntary City: Choice, Community and Civil Society.

End of rant, for now.

Addendum: Matt approaches the topic in a subtle, yet in many ways more direct, way.