Thumbs up for city of Big Lake

As a newspaper, we have to be careful about letting a dazzling or sensational story overcome our better judgment.

For example, it might make for an attention-grabbing front page to run a photo of a bloodied car crash victim clinging to life. But we are Valley residents first and reporters second. We take great pains to avoid embarrassing or enraging our neighbors with those kinds of photos.

By the same token, it might be great for us professionally if our neighbors elect an attention-grabbing quote machine who’s good at returning our phone calls, even if his or her policy ideas are destructive and much less preferable to those of a more reasonable candidate.

Even so, we would not use our editorial influence to endorse such a candidate. That is the same decision we worry about when it comes to whether or not we believe the incorporation of Big Lake is a good idea.

No one in today’s newsroom was a reporter back when the last city was incorporated in the Valley. The last time that happened was with Wasilla in 1975. None of us were alive the first time in happened, which was with Palmer in 1951.

So this is indeed a once-in-a-career — if not a once-in-a-lifetime — story for the Valley. How exciting for government policy geeks like ourselves to watch the birth of a brand new municipal government.

But are we putting the sensational above the prudent?

Actually, we don’t think so. In this case, we think that, with all the evidence available, a city of Big Lake would likely be a good idea for that community.

The main concerns about adding a new layer of government are generally twofold. First, people worry about higher taxes. Second, they worry about more onerous regulations.

On that first count, we think concerns are overblown. The city of Wasilla levies lower property taxes than does its unincorporated neighbors. Tax burdens in Palmer and Houston are not outrageous. That’s because all three of those cities have a means to make those taxes lower, namely sales tax. Houston also taxes the sale of fireworks.

But Big Lake is kind of a unique area in that even a sales tax might not be necessary. The area is home to some of the most valuable real estate and expensive homes in the Valley. The area already contributes $1.3 million in road taxes and multiple times that in regular property taxes. It’s not too much to imagine that there’s room in those road taxes for a city government in addition to the $600,000 maintenance contract the area already has in place.

What the residents need most would be more or less free. You don’t have to pay a mayor or city council member anything to serve, and those council members or mayor can be powerful voices to speak about large construction projects poised to play a huge role in Big Lake’s future.

As for new regulations, that will literally be left up to the area’s residents. The city as envisioned would be in charge of just roads and maybe parks. If it wants to take on planning or other powers, that would be up to the city’s voters.

We have a year to watch the incorporation process play out, and we will be watching. Perhaps in that time we will change our minds, but for now this idea looks like a winner.