Tax Cuts= User Fees?

The editorial board at the Daytona Beach News-Journal casts their vote on the January property tax referendum in today's edition:

The bottom line: The proposed ballot issue exacerbates problems caused by the escalating costs of providing basic services. Voting "no" in January is the right choice to avoid large increases in local government fees.

In other words, the folks at the News-Journal aren't buying the argument that local governments can afford the additional property tax cuts the January vote might force them to make.

This is speculative, of course, and the reaction will almost certainly from one locality to the next. But, given that locals have already been forced to pare back their property taxes this year, it's not hard to believe that stacking on even more cuts would force many local governments to make some unappetizing choices: cut services or replace the lost revenue somehow?

The News-Journal editorial cites anecdotal evidence that suggests a lot of governments are already finding there's no fat to trim off their budgetary bones:

Port Orange, DeLand, Ormond Beach, Daytona Beach and Edgewater are looking at a fire-services fee, to cover expenditures that traditionally have been paid with general property taxes. DeLand and Port Orange are also looking at charging for some medical rescue services.
These Volusia County cities are far from alone. Elsewhere, cities are considering new fees or increases for water, sewer use, stormwater drainage, garbage pickup, development impacts, building permits, burial plots, library use, park and pool use -- and more.

As the editorial points out, this should hardly be a surprise. Anyone who remembers the dual legacy of California's Proposition 13-- lousy schools and a sudden growth in creative local user fees--could have told you this is a plausible outcome whenever state lawmakers make it harder for locals to rely on property taxes.

Again, this is all hypothetical. Some locals will find room to cut; others will find that they'd rather look under the cushions for the proverbial loose change rather than imposing further damaging cuts on vital services. But the fundamental point the News-Journal makes is dead on: a shift towards user fees is a poorly-thought-out, downright sneaky way of paying for property tax cuts. So why enact them?