Sgouros’s Answer Is Big Government

Tom Sgouros likes the idea of centralized government. (He also knows just how to run it, it seems, at least better than a growing list of his fellow citizens, including our “absurd[ly] scolding” governor and the “blind squirrels” who advocate for consolidation.) In a recent column with the aim of supporting that affinity, he attempts to move his cups fast enough that readers won’t notice a critical omission and a hint of his end goal.
His argument is that diffuse government, financed with local taxes, is a financial trap in a mobile society:

When people leave a town, it takes a while to cut the expenses of the services they used, if it’s possible at all. If you have a hundred kids in a fifth grade, that’s four classrooms. If ten of those children move away, that’s still four classrooms, but with less money to pay for them. If a fire station is established to deal with a neighborhood of 500 houses, a town can’t close it just because 50 of those houses are now vacant. A shrinking town doesn’t need a smaller police department. If anything, experience shows it needs a larger one.
The opposite side of the coin is just as telling. A family with two school-age children moving to some rural town will likely cost that town as much as $30,000 in services, but provide only a fraction of that in taxes. New construction often requires new traffic lights, new water lines, new sewer lines and more. These expenses are never covered by the new tax revenue, and seldom even covered by occasionally imposed “developer impact fees.”

He touts a study of the school district in Fairfax County, Virginia, that he’s performed, but he neglects to offer any evidence that Fairfax is worthy of emulation or to explain what about that system would benefit Rhode Island. Sgouros points out that the cost of government of Jamestown (for example) has corresponded with a growth in population:

Town payrolls have gone up because towns have grown, and because of requirements imposed on them. Jamestown has twice as many year-round residents, and many more summer houses, than it did back in the days of two police cars. Rhode Island has about the same number of people as a generation ago, but our little towns are bigger and our cities are smaller. We have spread out across the landscape, and that has real consequences.

But do you see the spending of the cities contracting, or their leaders asking the state for less money? To quote Sgouros’s arrogant tone: “Yeah, neither do I.”
His hypothetical shrinking town is still going require four classrooms, and the rural town is still going to face the necessity of expanding its services; the former is still going to have to keep up unneeded water and sewer lines, and the latter is still going to have to install new ones. The only difference is that the ever-expanding cost of government — notably including the cost of Sgouros’s union friends — would occur a little bit farther beyond the political reach of regular citizens.
Actually, that’s not the only difference. It would also be a little bit easier for those with an affection for central planning and top-down dictation to implement their preferences. Writes Sgouros:

Want to know what else Jamestown has that it didn’t have a generation ago? Special-ed students who used to be wards of the state, attending the Ladd School. Having special-needs children educated with other children is a good thing, but it’s not free. When the state closed Ladd, do you remember how the state gave that money to cities and towns for special education? Yeah, neither do I.
What else didn’t Jamestown have back then? Clean-water mandates imposed by the EPA, comprehensive planning laws, bus monitors on school buses, and yes, minimum staffing levels in public safety departments, imposed by the state. Here’s the thing, though: all of these requirements were imposed for a good reason. Clean water, good planning, and public safety are all important.

One wonders what else Mr. Sgouros believes should be “imposed for a good reason.” Centralized government is most successfully a mechanism for enabling a class of people who believe that they’re smarter and more moral than the rest of us to tell their fellow citizens how to live. In the short term, it also serves to obfuscate the unsustainable costs of their policies.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
4 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Patrick
Patrick
12 years ago

Let’s take his explanations to an absurd extreme.
“A shrinking town doesn’t need a smaller police department. If anything, experience shows it needs a larger one.”
A town of 1 person needs more of a police force than a town of 30,000?
And if there are going to be fewer students in the classrooms, then how about we cut the teachers’ pay? If the classrooms go from 15 students to 20 students, won’t we hear the union yelling about that and that the teachers deserve more pay? That’s a tough argument to disagree with. So then if they’re getting paid for 20 and only teaching 15, don’t they deserve less pay?
I think it’s interesting that he can make a case that if a town grows, it needs more money. If a town shrinks, it needs more money.
Wacky.

Frank
Frank
12 years ago

Isn’t it amazing that whenever a family with schoolchildren leaves a community there is never a savings exacted from the school system? Yet from the Sgouros liberal viewpoint, when you add as little as two children to the school system, you have somehow increased school costs by $30,000! He must be using that new math, or, more likely, not thinking any of this through.
FWIW with average class sizes in RI being 13-15 or so, I would think that adding a single child, not a special ed child mind you, to any class, does not result in any increased cost at all.

jp
jp
12 years ago

That commentary in the projo was so sophmoric and riddled with poor assumptions I didn’t even know what to make of it. My initial thoughts were:
What do the local mechanic, landscaper, corner store owner, home heat distributor, private trash co., or other mom&pop business do when the population of their community decreases? I’d like to think that before a town makes an human resource expeniture that amounts to millions of dollars over its lifecycle that they would identify population trends.
As you say, why does Providence continue soaking up the lion’s share of state aid if its population is decreasing? Maybe the solution to the issue is to divide the amount of state aid by person and distibute accordingly.
Isn’t his whole complaint good reason for regionalization? Assuming the movement is between communities and not states, does’t regionalization allow resources to move from the community with decreasing requirement to the community with increased requirement more readily?

Chris
Chris
12 years ago

Sgouros, Soros, same difference.

Show your support for Anchor Rising with a 25-cent-per-day subscription.