[img]1048|left|Jim Clarke||no_popup[/img]Some politicians shine brightest when they subtly perform acts that whiz by the ears of casual observers.
At Monday evening’s City Council meeting that centered on placing a sales tax hike on the November ballot, Jim Clarke, ending his third month on the dais, made a deft move that may have been underappreciated or worse, ignored.
As the first Councilman in the queue called on, Mr. Clarke advocated an upper end sales tax increase of three-fourths of a cent, as opposed to the more popular half-cent option.
Yet, 20 minutes later when Mayor Andy Weissman asked for a motion, Mr. Clarke, in clear, stentorian tones, proposed a half-cent levy for 10 years, which was unanimously approved.
Was that a difficult transition for Mr. Clarke to essay?
“No,” he said this morning, “because it is about the difference between what you want and what you need.
A Matter of Loyalty
“I wanted to make the argument that there were people at our community dialogue meetings who supported three-quarters of a cent. I wanted to be able to represent that point of view. In an ideal situation, I think everybody would have preferred three-quarters of a cent. But the reality was, we didn’t want to take the risk, even if it was a relatively small risk, of not doing anything at all.
“We even had considered looking into the idea – though it probably was too confusing – of having three-quarters for a short time before having it step down to a half-cent. Then there was trying to explain that to the voters. It would have been difficult. Also, there was talk of finding a way to have two items on the ballot. That way, if three-quarters didn’t pass, we could get the half-cent.
Council’s Obligations
“At the end of the day, we still have to find ways,” Mr. Clarke said, “to show the public that we are good stewards of the money, that we are finding ways to make additional cuts, and that we are finding ways to increase revenue. That is the challenge for us.
“This will get us out of the problem of facing the ongoing structural deficit, at least for the next 10 years.”
The second half of the ballot proposition, agreeing to a 10-year time limit on the tax, came as a surprise because throughout the community dialogue series, five years had been the popular termination point.
Mr. Clarke said the expanded expiration date did not arise until the day of the Council meeting. “I was not comfortable with five years for a number of reasons,” he said. “One is, if I am lucky enough to be re-elected (year after next), I would be on the Council when it would run out and we would have to make a decision. It could have been an issue in a re-election campaign, as to whether we should or should not have done it.
“If the proposal is successful, then fine, I can talk about it. I would hate, though, to have to be going through something like that at the same time we are trying to be involved in an election campaign.”
