Voters Show Faith in Fayetteville (Andrew Jensen Commentary)

Leave it to Fayetteville voters to prove the power of the people.
On April 10, in spite of a massive campaign against road impact fees on new development, the voters approved the ordinance by a single ballot.
No matter how the absentee ballots add up on April 20, the 2,015 to 2,014 tally can be taken as nothing other than a defeat for big-money interests and a cautionary tale to those who may try to buy special elections in the future, especially in Fayetteville.
Citizens 4 Fayetteville raised at least $40,000 for its campaign to defeat road impact fees while Vote for Fayetteville collected just $1,000.
Not only was the name “Citizens 4 Fayetteville” misleading, so was its campaign. Apparently, Fayetteville’s voters saw through both.
The opposition group took in funds from state and national organizations. The National Association of Realtors contributed $15,000 and the Arkansas Realtors Association kicked in another $10,000.
The group should have been named “Citizens from everywhere but Fayetteville 4 Fayetteville.”
But beyond wondering what these outside organizations know about what is best for Fayetteville, another question is why the opponents focused their campaign on scare tactics rather than substance.
Opponents tried to convince voters impact fees were a system of “double taxation,” a “bad tax” and that the “costs of goods and services will go up for everyone.”
Fayetteville voters didn’t buy it, and they shouldn’t have.
A one-time fee charged at the time a building is completed is not a tax. Just because the developers plan on “taxing” their tenants with increased lease rates to recover the impact fee doesn’t make it the same as a government levy anymore than Wal-Mart “taxes” its customers when the price of orange juice or lettuce spikes because of market conditions.
Also lost in the rhetoric was the fact that Rogers and Bentonville, routinely hailed as more business-friendly than the isolationists to the south, already have impact fees that have done anything but slow growth.
Another piece of hyperbole pulled out of the bag of tricks was the argument that impact fees would price citizens out of the market for affordable housing.
It would be easier to take that point seriously if developers had shown any interest in building affordable housing before the impact fees were proposed.
The fact is, impact fees have been around for more than 20 years. More than half the states enable them and hundreds of cities and municipalities across the country use them.
Five of the top 10 mid-sized cities in terms of job growth in America are in Florida, which has the steepest impact fee schedules outside of California.
If impact fees really impeded growth, it’s unlikely they would have become so widespread.
Developers have been complaining for years about escalating land prices in Northwest Arkansas. The one thing impact fees have been proven to do is lower the price developers will offer for raw land.
While the price of raw land may go down, the supply of raw land available will go up once infrastructure is improved. For example, Fayetteville wants to connect Arkansas Highway 112 from Interstate 540 to the mall economic corridor.
Anchored by the new Sam’s Club to the west, the mall to the east and populated by mixed-use neighborhoods like Springwoods and Park West, such a project could open an entirely new commercial corridor for Fayetteville benefiting landowners, developers and the city tax coffers.
Looking long term, Fayetteville residents obviously believe their city will always be attractive to development even if it comes with extra costs to the businessmen who want to make millions from them.
The city remains the largest in the area, will always be home to the University of Arkansas and boasts a topography and overall atmosphere the rest of the region can only attempt to duplicate.
The voters clearly have faith in that even if developers and outside interests don’t.

Give Them Pat on Back, Kick in Pants
Most of the state legislators were giving themselves a pat on the back when the 86th General Assembly recessed after its 86-day session.
With a couple of major exceptions, we agree that it was a remarkable session. We also recognize the job was made much easier with a $919 million surplus in the state treasury.
The list of accomplishments includes the largest tax cut in state history: reducing the sales tax on groceries by half. That cut from 6 percent to 3 percent will go into effect on July 1 and help the typical Arkansas family save $234 a year. Lawmakers also raised the $300 homestead exemption by $50.
The legislators went a long way toward putting an end to the Lake View school funding case by setting aside $456 million for court-ordered improvements to school buildings and facilities, and then added more than $120 million in public school funding. All that money comes on the heels of increasing school funding by $400 million in 2004 and another $132 million in 2006.
The Legislature also approved a bill to allow the governor to call an election and ask voters to issue up to $750 million in bonds for school facilities improvements if school-facility needs rise beyond the earmarked $456 million.
The education issue had consumed more time and money than any other issue over the past decade. We hope the legislators’ actions will go beyond the court’s “adequate and equitable” requirement and help bring about excellence in our schools.
It wouldn’t be a typical Arkansas session without its sillier moments. Remember the issue of making “Arkansas’s” the correct way to write the state’s possessive case?
Still, it was a much smoother session than usual (admittedly, a low bar) and worthwhile action was taken. So why do we still suggest a swift kick in the butt? Because once again legislators chose to protect the very loan sharks that they should, under the unmistakable terms of the state Constitution, be protecting Arkansans from. The issue seems clear to everyone in the state except a handful of senators who listened to the nonsensical justifications of one lobbyist who is paid handsomely to help payday lenders rip off their honest, hardworking neighbors. This should be a case study in support of ethics reform.
We’re also a bit surprised that another issue we had supported — the setting aside of some of the surplus money for a “rainy day fund” that could be used if revenue comes up short — failed to be passed. We still think it’s a good idea.
Can we give it a grade? How about a B.