At Charleston City Council

Almost....

Next Wednesday, the Supreme Court of South Carolina will hear the City of Charleston's appeal of the circuit court's decision in favor of the incorporation of James Island.  

During the last week. there were seven members of Charleston City Council who were ready to vote to drop the suit.   At first, there were six yeses and one maybe.   The maybe turned into a yes, but one of the yeses turned into a maybe.   In the debate Tuesday night, the yes that had turned into a maybe made clear that he was now a no.  No vote was taken.  

I want to thank Mayor Riley for allowing me to speak in the citizen's comment period.    I told the story of how a James Island pastor, early in my campaign, told me that all of the people of James Island, both Town and City, are being held hostage by this pointless  war and that someone needs to make peace.   I asked Mayor Riley, and the City of Charleston City Council to make peace now.   I promised cooperation between the Town and the City of Charleston.

But I also promised a fourth incorporation.   I hope every citizen of the Town of James Island knows that Senator Glenn McConnell, who represents most of us in the South Carolina Senate, has helped the Town with its efforts at incorporation.   If the Supreme Court finds defects in the current incorporation law, then he will see that the necessary changes are made.  

Sadly, Mayor Riley chose to give a very combative speech.   Those of us who have been involved in this "war" for some time are quite aware of his views.    He claims that the public policy of the state is that large cities should control the surrounding suburban communities.   It is the normal view of big city liberal Democrat mayors.     Often, the purpose is to tax more affluent suburban communities to fund social services to the inner city poor.    However, there is also an argument that the affluent suburban communities should be taxed to support projects that promote downtown development, like stadiums and auditoriums.

Well, he didn't say much about how we in the Town should taxed to support Eastside.    As we all know, we have poor communities on James Island, and there are plenty of poor neighborhoods in the City of North Charleston.    No, it was the economic development end of things.    Supposedly, forming our own Town and not being in the City of Charleston allows us to free ride by going to hospitals, sending our children to the College of Charleston or the Citadel, going to the Symphony, the Charleston Museum, and I don't know what else.  

Well, I have been to St. Francis Roper Hospital and one son attends The Citadel.   I have been to most downtown attractions at one time or another.   I don't know about you, but the hospital bills were high and tuition at The Citadel isn't cheap.  I will grant that I have visited some downtown parks, and they were free.   Thank you, Mayor Riley and the taxpayers of the City.

Mayor Riley also complained that citizens of the Town use City facilities here on James Island.   He was especially focused on the City Recreation Center.    Oddly enough, I haven't used it.    However, I know that many citizens of the Town, especially children, are involved in city sponsored team sports.   And, of course, their parents pay fees.     When Mayor Riley claimed that his annexation of the James Island Charter School showed  that citizens of the Town are free riding on the City, he was getting little ridiculous.  Any burden to the taxpayers of the City of Charleston caused by his spot annexations on James Island are the responsibility of Mayor Riley.

I must admit that I find Sunrise Park very nice (I apologize to those immediate neighbors who aren't so happy about it.)   While I don't go there frequently, I go there more often than to our own Dock Street Park.    So, I must thank Mayor Riley and the taxpayers of the City for allowing us to enjoy Sunrise Park.   And I welcome them to visit Dock Street Park.

At the level of grand public policy, I favor multiple jurisdictions.    This allows a variety of combinations of levels of taxes and provision of public services.   It provides the residents of a metropolitan area with choice, just like the free enterprise system provides for a variety of goods and services that cater to a variety of tastes.   Those who want extensive and ample provision of government services can live in a community that provides such services to its residents and charges high property taxes.    And it isn't just the over-all level of provision, some communities can provide more services of one type, like parks and recreation, while another community can have better garbage pick up.  

More importantly, competition provides protection against unjust exploitation--taxing one group of people to provide services that solely benefit some other group of people.    For example, taxing people who like to go to rock concerts in North Charleston to subsidize the provision of classical music in downtown Charleston.   In my view, the proper role of government is to provide services that benefit everyone.    Of course, those who live in one jurisdiction cannot tax citizens in another jurisdiction.   However, the existence of competition makes it difficult for a city to tax one segment of its own citizens to provide services they don't want, but others do.   People will move, or more realistically, when some of them move, fewer people will move in to replace them if they are treated as nothing but a source of funds.   The existence of competing jurisdictions helps protect those living in the City of Charleston from exploitation.

What about wasteful duplication of services?   This is a very important concern, and that is why I support contracting out.   The practice of each municipality providing all services themselves does lead to waste.   The way to combine multiple jurisdictions that compete for residents with efficient provision of public services is for municipalities to purchase services for their citizens from the neighboring municipality or private provider that is most efficient.

As for downtown economic development, it is hard to imagine that the Mayor of a major tourist destination would worry so much about citizens of the Town enjoying these amenities.   Consider the Waterfront park.  It does add something to the attractiveness of the City of Charleston as a tourist destination.   Much of the benefit goes to the downtown merchants, especially restaurants.   They pay high property taxes for those locations.    And, of course, those businesses receive that money back by selling products to the tourists.   And by selling  to people from the Town of James Island.  

If you see the free market economist in me celebrating competition, you should not be surprised.    What I find surprising is that after eight years of Mark Sanford and our newly elected governor, Nikki Haley, that Mayor Riley still thinks that the public policy of this state is for big city mayors to control all of the surrounding suburban communities so that they can fund big urban government.   Don't bet on it.