Rolling in money

     
     On April 2 the Review-Journal published a letter I wrote congratulating the paper for Vin Suprynowicz's March 23 Focus cover article about growth paying for growth. In my letter, I stated that our research shows that government income increases more than three times the rate of growth.
      On April 13 a commentary from Paul Reber was published, in which he asked, "What kind of bogus statement is that?" Here is the kind of statement it is:
      When we researched the subject two years ago, we compared the population growth rate, from UNLV's Center for Business and Economic Research statistics, with the revenues received by Clark County as summarized in its 1994 budget. We compared growth rates over the previous five-year period.
      In that five-year period, our population grew 22 percent. We felt it reasonable to expect that government revenues should also increase 22 percent to keep pace. What we found was the Clark County's revenues increased 74 percent in the same period. That's more than three times the rate of population growth. Not only that, the property tax component of government income increased 104 percent during the same period. Nearly five times the population growth.
      It does seem unbelievable, doesn't it? Quite the contrast to the widespread belief that government is money-starved.
      To understand what's going on, there are really three growth rates to be considered in the growth-pays-for-growth issue: The rate of population growth; the rate of government income growth; and the rate at which government actually does the work.
      We suggest that when we see things not done, it isn't for lack of money. It's for lack of the work being done.
      Here we are with an accumulated $27 million in park funds not used, amidst a cry for more park funds; $310 million in road funds not used, amidst a cry for more road funds; and $150 million in school surplus money at the state level, and an approved bond issue of $600 million which the school district has hardly touched yet. All this amid the dire screams that government needs more sources for raising money.
      It is much easier and more profitable to blame a money shortage than it is to explain ineffective action.
      A related but essential point altogether overlooked in the infrastructure funding debate is that government does not build, nor pay for most of the infrastructure to serve new growth. It requires private development to do that. This is nothing new. It has been doing it for years.
      Government requires private development to build and donate all the streets, sewers, water lines, electric and phone lines, street lights, traffic signals and flood control facilities that serve each new development. Government doesn't pay for it, you do -- about $16,000 in the price of your home, or $125 a month in your mortgage.
      So, government gets plenty of money, has plenty of money, and gets its infrastructure built for free. What is it again that they want us to pay more money for?
     
     Eric L. Horn is president of the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association. The Review-Journal welcomes local commentary submissions. Send to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Commentary Page, 1111 W. Bonanza Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89106.