It's not rocket science. If a city has bad schools, bad streets, high crime, and high taxes, people are going to move away. When they do, the tax base is going to get smaller. That means less money to take care of the problems -- or for passing out pork to party hacks.
What to do? What to do? Increase taxes, right?
Wrong. That's the worst possible remedy because it only drives more people away.
To revive a city that's in a downward spiral, you have to improve the schools, improve the streets and other infrastructure, reduce crime, and reduce taxes. Doing those things will lure people back to the city, which has certain amenities that no rural or suburban setting can match. All it takes is leadership and sacrifice by the Huntington honchos.
Nobody likes to spend half an hour or more every morning driving into the city to go to work, and the same again in the evening returning home.
Folks do it to get away from the bad schools, bad streets, high crime, and high taxes. There is nothing wrong with wanting to live and raise a family in a place that has good schools, good streets, little crime, and low taxes.
What is with this municipal mentality that thinks citizens should submit to increasing tax burdens as their quality of life diminishes? How government stupid is that?
People don't patronize restaurants or groceries with bad food and high prices. They don't overpay for shoddy merchandise or unsatisfactory service. When they don't get their money's worth, they expect their money back. And rightly so.
There'll be no money-back guarantees for the citizens of Huntington, however, or for the workers who commute there if the city's proposed "occupation tax" passes.
How about that? The municipal hacks of Huntington are doing the worst possible thing they can do to address the city's financial problems, while doing their best to drive more people and jobs away.
Those who support the "occupation tax" should step down and find an occupation elsewhere.
