Mesa City Councilwoman Dina Higgins was all smiles on the day after the election when we met at Red, White and Brew in East Mesa.
Voters had just handed her and other Mesa Council members a vote of confidence and the means to improve city services by approving a property tax to fund two bond issues. The bond issues will pay for $170 million in public safety and street projects.
Just two and a half years ago, voters shot down big time a ballot measure that would have given the city a property tax to help fund city services. The margin in that election was 3-2 against the property tax.
I dug out the Tribune’s editorial following that defeat, and it suggests we were spot on. Here is an excerpt:
“Finally, the council shouldn’t retreat from its plans to offer a bond package to voters later this year that would be funded with a secondary property tax. We suspect at least some people who rejected a property tax Tuesday will regret that decision as they watch additional budget cuts ripple through the community. Others might be more inclined to support a secondary property tax tied to a specific purpose and a specific lifespan.
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/65784
“Besides, Tuesday’s election campaign was the first concerted effort in quite some time to educate Mesa residents about the evolving local economy and demographics, and their related impacts on the city budget. It just might take more time for much of the information and debate provided to voters to really sink in.”
This time around, not only did voters approve the bond issues and property tax funding, they did so by unflinching margins.
The public safety bond issue received 67 percent of the vote and the one for streets passed with 65 percent of the vote.
There are a number of explanations for the strength of this vote. Some of them are in Tribune reporter Sonu Munshi’s follow up story for Thursday’s print edition of the Tribune.
They point to the big voter turnout. They point to turnover on Council and new leadership in the mayor’s office. They point to the Council’s looking out for the taxpayers by trimming the original bond packages down from $409 million that city government originally had wanted.
These are all valid explanations.
But let’s give Mesa voters some credit. In 2006, the taxpayers weren’t about to sign a blank check for the tax spenders.
People in other parts of the Valley sometimes look at Mesa as backwards and saw the results of the 2006 property tax election as proof.
I see it the other way. It’s proof only that voters want to know what the expected return is on an investment of their hard-earned dollars. Mesa isn’t a city of sheep and let’s hope it never is.
In this election, city leaders demonstrated good stewardship by cutting what they asked for by 60 percent. Voters knew what they were getting and agreed to have their property taxed in return.
That strikes me as smart citizenship.
