YOUR OPINION: Prop. A opposed

Dear Editor:

As I hear politicians argue the need for Proposition A in a hysterically anti-tax atmosphere, I must question the wisdom of what we are poised to impose upon St. Louis and Kansas City.

This state level proscription on earnings taxes ignores the possibility of disastrous consequences. These two cities levied these earnings taxes after the migration of populations working in the city but living outside it compelled a re-examination of funding mechanisms. Obviously, anyone commuting to Kansas City and St. Louis prefers that police, fire, street maintenance and sewer systems will be there during their commute and while working there. The simple fact is that elimination of almost $350 million in funds for these great cities would have extremely negative consequences over the long term, a factor we frequently ignore in our political process.

Simply, if this funding source is removed for these cities, there are only two options left, sales taxes and property taxes. The alternative of just not replacing these revenues is unacceptable if we hope to maintain their economic viability.

However, the problem is that significant increases in sales and property taxes in St. Louis and Kansas City would have equally unacceptable results. I think we all understand that a significant increase in either or both revenue sources would negatively impact purchasing and launch another migration of business and residents elsewhere, the only ones remaining being those economically marginalized at the lower ends simply because they do not have the resources to flee.

As revenue sources evacuate, revenues drop and pressure builds to again raise the sales taxes and property taxes and a spiral begins with no successful conclusion. In the end, streets deteriorate, the jobs of teachers, police and firemen are necessarily eliminated and we have two economic disasters on each end of I-70 plus the added disadvantage that state revenues will be negatively impacted and all for the benefit of some political grandstanding.

The real issue that may impact our decision on this is whether we really believe the owners of the Chiefs, Royals, Rams and Cardinals are likely to keep their franchises in two cities that are merely shells of their former selves. States and cities with the resources will gladly build new stadiums and deprive us of even these flagship icons of two cities that once proudly anchored 1-70 in this state.

Short-term passions frequently produce long-term regrets.