Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Questionable priorities

By A TIMES EDITORIAL
Published April 25, 2007

We're all for cutting duplication and waste. But that sounds like an excuse Hillsborough commissioners intend to use to weaken the county's oversight of the construction industry. Board Chairman Jim Norman said property tax reform made it likely the county would have to pare its budget. The three agencies he singled out for cutting the fat are the ones that protect the environment and residents from the damage of unbridled growth.

Norman said he is not targeting any agency. He plans to ask staff during a budget meeting today for an analysis of county boards and departments whose responsibilities might overlap. That's a reasonable discussion. Local governments, as the St. Petersburg Times reported this month, spent well beyond the pace of population growth and inflation between 2000 and 2005; Hillsborough's rate was twice as fast, thanks in part to huge outlays for police and fire service, salary increases and pensions and state-mandated services.

But Norman, a board member for 15 years, knows cutting spending is no easy trick. Fire stations need firefighters, sheriff's deputies must secure the jail and libraries and roads need maintenance. Meaningful savings will require a noticeable cut in services - something none of the Hillsborough commissioners seem ready to acknowledge. Norman, as chairman, also knows his suggestions carry weight, especially during the horse-trading every summer over the budget. Making an example of any agency before the staff does its homework prejudices the entire discussion. Does the staff throw Norman a bone and conclude the Planning and Growth Management Department, the city-county Planning Commission and the Environmental Protection Commission can merge or drop any of their distinct functions?

Norman's suggestion, coming after he and a board majority refused to oppose a House bill that would make it easier for developers to destroy wetlands in Hillsborough, makes us wonder whether the real intention here is to reward developers. He fires a shot over the environment and neighborhoods and avoids any talk of the savings that could come from consolidating larger services, such as city and county garbage pickup. Either this is another sop to the construction lobby, or the board does not take tax reform seriously.

[Last modified April 24, 2007, 21:43:42]