Grow or Die?

There is some truth in the phrase the city manager and others have used that a city must grow or it will stagnate or die. The manner of that growth can be reasonably debated among those who care, but most would agree that a sensible balance between spending and return on invested capital is necessary to achieve the kind of growth that sustains a community and provides for the kind of revenue necessary to support existing services. Those who oppose some of the examples of growth Sidney has undertaken have been labeled as anti-growth or uninformed. I, for one, do not see the opposing view that some kinds of activities should be suspended during the tough times as anti-growth, but rather a need to absorb what we have done and to retool our approach for the future.

Why is it when people question what we are doing that they are labeled by city management, certain advisory board members or their supporters as anti-growth? When Bob Van Vleet voted his conscience on the Deadwood Trail, expressing his view that taking federal grant money is wrong, he was labeled as the party of, "No." Growing the city isn't the problem. The issue is the unrestrained growth and what some would consider questionable spending that concerns some people.

As a result, some people have begun to term the problem an issue of trust in city council members vs trust in the city manager. Two camps have been set up, largely to propagate their respective sides and are using relatively effective means to go after people on personal levels. Accusations of corruption have been launched at sitting councilmen as a means of stirring public sentiment against those who oppose the current approach by the city manager. Candidates are running on the "kick the bums out," motif and still others seek to paint challengers as being in the pocket of powerful business interests. Neither side has much truth in the debate on trust.


It should not matter what we spend as long as we receive more value in return than what we invested to begin with. We have spent millions promoting the long term economic infrastructure. The time has come to shift our economic development focus on bringing people into the community though the promotion of jobs growth, market rate housing for rental and adopting a stance at holding the line or cutting city budgets in order to shift funds to road repair or tax relief, thereby encouraging others to relocate within the city limits.

Localities, especially small ones have become addicted to the welfare of the state and federal government. When city councilmen publicly state that you must 'TIF it or it won't get done', or 'If we don't take the grant, some other town will,' we are saying that we lack the drive and determination to figure out our own destiny. The fact that these types of programs exists doesn't mean we should use them just to get our fair share or to reduce the city exposure on the tax roll. Sometimes the proposed use of the tool doesn't make sense. The Prairie Winds Subdivision TIF project and the Deadwood Trails Project come to mind as examples where it would have been advisable to choose a different route, if you forgive the pun.

I am on record as opposing TIF financing for single family homes, especially homes in excess of 200,000 dollars. Most people in Sidney cannot afford the proposed properties on their salaries, and despite the caution detailed in financing problems on the front range, the city manager pressed a short-staffed city council to adopt the proposal. Three years later, we have streets, but no homes. If we were going to be so hot-to-trot on building more housing, it would have made more sense to build apartments that would bear a market rate instead of the rent controlled majority of apartments that are available in Sidney. The lack of this kind of housing is a large contributing factor in the high number of commuters working in the city today. Only now is the developer willing to consider market rate apartments on the site.
 
What has all the economic growth gotten Sidney? Our city manager is forced to spend many days out of the office in Lincoln, praying that the state government will listen to the pleas of poor Sidney and towns like her. We have already been told that times are tough and we will need to stick it out longer. The state could care less about our plight; If we don't start taking a hard look at what we spend (including the county as well), we will continue to be jammed further between the rock that is low population and the hard place of ever increasing taxes and fees.

Pretty pictures and a fresh coat of paint in exchange for up to 10,000 in the downtown area do not add much sales tax revenue. Shops that close at 6 PM are not conducive to promote shopping when residents  who live in other communities can't get here after work. Attacking people who want to talk about the challenges we face as being anti-growth or anti-city manager are likewise counterproductive.

To my friends and detractors alike, I say the following: Using the excuse that we are fairing better other communities is a poor excuse to continue excessive spending in these tough times. The city manager is to be commended for his acknowledgment of the current issues and the efforts to find administrative and legal solutions within the state government and its agencies. He should also be recognized, along with key staff members that the financial reality facing the city may mean very hard choices.

Sidney is in a tough position, due mostly to the economic growth activities we have undertaken in the past. It is unlikely to subside within the next several years and the various competing interests need to separate themselves from their schoolyard arguing and come together in order to develop a plan that addresses the most pressing concerns the community faces.

We cannot operate as the federal government has done, heaping massive debt upon the citizenry in order to build the perfect town. We must take time to pause and to reflect on what we have done and seek advice on how to fully engage and incorporate what we have into what we want for the future. Spending decisions should be given extra consideration before signing off on any expenditure, not just the ones that meet statutory threshold limits.