Sparks Tax Mess:
Vote No To Bailout

End the Corporate Welfare

According to Sparks Finance Director Terry Thomas, the Rail City is very likely to see serious budget deficits in the not too distant future, growing year by year if tax revenue is not increased substantially.
No surprise here. When you siphon off the majority of the tax revenue from your major producer and place it in a special account that can only be spent on a tiny district, you are almost guaranteeing future budget problems.
John Ascuaga's Nugget is the largest single tax revenue generator for Sparks, and gets VIP treatment because of it. Problem is, this big dollar producer uses its clout to insure the taxes it produces are also spent almost exclusively to

benefit the Nugget. And the City Council, lapdogs all, go right along with it.
You see, in 1977, the Sparks "downtown redevelopment district" was started. All property taxes within the district that were paid to the City were in effect frozen at 1977 levels. All increased property valuation, and the corresponding taxes, were to benefit only the Redevelopment District. In plain English, all tax revenue generated by all the improvements at the Nugget -- the tower, parking garage, new restaurants, etc. -- resulted in not one increased nickel to the City treasury.
Not only that; all improvements and growth in value within the entire district -- which encompasses about one-fifth of Sparks -- that have occurred since 1977 also benefits exclusively and only the redevelopment district. And the redevelopment district benefits almost exclusively the Nugget. Quite convenient. The City gets exactly what in received in 1977, without even so much as an adjustment for inflation.
To make up for this shortfall, all the rest of the taxpayers have to pick up

 
the tab. You pay more taxes because the Nugget and surrounding environs in effect pay none.
In theory, a city uses tax dollars in this way because the enhanced property valuation such projects create will down the road pay the City back through expanded tax collections.
Yes, that's the theory, but the reality is quite to the contrary. The current Redevelopment District was to expire after 30 years of existence. In 2007, the revenue was to again flow to the City.
But, seven years early, the City Council is set to extend its life, to at least 2015.
Why? Why does this decision need to be made now, so far in advance of 2007? Why would the City, hurting for money, shoot itself in the foot? Why, when the Redevelopment District has not raised one additional penny, and cost at least 50 million tax dollars, continue to spend so much on it? Why, if it is so certain to make downtown profitable once again, did the private property owners and/or the wealthy investment oriented types not sink their own money into such a project? Why are the offices surrounding the movie theater still empty after two years?
In the name of fairness, and, more pragmatically, with the projected budget shortfalls,

the wise course of action for the City would be to cut their losses and quit spending money on a project that soaks it up like a bone-dry sponge.
Before the City dares to ask the already disproportionately taxed voters to again reach into their pockets and bail the city out, a complete withdrawal from the corporate welfare scheme known as the "Downtown Redevelopment Project" should come first. Unless the City can show measurable and year by year projections of when the taxes already spent will be recouped -- which they have not done, that I suspect is for a very clear reason -- no one in their right mind should vote in favor of any tax increase.
Perhaps the best example of the absurdity of this whole unnecessary mess was the recent press coverage of the purchase of a casino as part of redevelopment. The cost was 1.5 million. Near this article was another with the headline "City Faces 1.8 Million Shortfall." Yes, Sparks can purchase a casino -- to tear down -- but cannot pay its everyday bills. How ridiculous.
Ultimately, the voter-taxpayer will determine who gets what. Because most people don't pay that much attention to politics in general, they often make up for that by paying