Sales tax plan brings cause for consideration

As sure as death and taxes is opposition to taxes. And the naysayers were out in force Thursday night for a public hearing about a proposed sales tax in the Mat-Su Borough.

After a painful and controversial adoption of a boroughwide tobacco tax last month, the borough assembly is considering a new tax. An ordinance authorizing the borough to ask voters to approve an areawide sales tax was introduced during a special meeting of the assembly earlier this month.

Like the tobacco tax before it, the sales tax is being pitched as a means to provide relief to property owners who have seen their assessments - and their tax bills -- increase dramatically in recent years.

Assembly Member Jim Colver, who is also the deputy mayor, introduced the proposal, which was drafted by Borough Manager John Duffy. It calls for a sales tax not to exceed 2 percent, and has the additional benefit, advocates say, of diversifying the borough's revenue stream.

But those who turned out for the public hearing last week were not swayed by any of the arguments for a sales tax. Mostly, they wanted something that is not usually part of any tax plan.

What they want is a guarantee that the tax will not be abused and that property owners will see some genuine relief. They believe a tax cap is the surest way to protect the interests of borough residents.

And they may be on to something.

For now, all residents have is talk. Talk of a $20,000 property tax exemption and talk of a 2-mill reduction in the property-tax rate. It's the kind of talk by which taxpayers in cities, towns and states across the country have been charmed before, only to see any reductions whittled away in subsequent budget cycles by real and imagined crises. So we're all for skepticism.

But we're also for a healthy dose of reality.

The borough is growing, and needs are real. No amount of head-in-the-sand wishful thinking is going to change that.

Good roads, good schools and a good quality of life are something everybody agrees on. But there is little agreement on how these wants should be funded.

Perhaps, as Alaskans, we have become accustomed to the bounty of oil money. But we need to realize that the free lunch is over.

Providing relief to overburdened property owners is a great idea. So is diversifying our sources of revenue. But keeping a check on excessive government spending is no less an idea with merit.

The assembly postponed until July 12 a decision on whether to put the tax question on the Oct. 4 general-election ballot. Assembly members have their work cut out for them. But democracy has never been a spectator sport, so residents, too, share the burden.

As long as minds remain open and and a sense of civic responsibility guides the proceedings, an equitable solution is sure to follow.