Opinion editor's note: Editorials represent the opinions of the Star Tribune Editorial Board, which operates independently from the newsroom.
•••
Reasons to oppose the ballot question that St. Paul voters will decide in the Nov. 7 election are easy to conjure. That question: Should the city of St. Paul impose a 1% sales tax increase over the next 20 years to repair streets and bridges and improve park facilities?
Much harder is coming up with a feasible alternative for reversing the deterioration of streets, bridges and parks in Minnesota's capital city. We don't see one.
We share the assessment that St. Paul City Council candidate Anika Bowie recently gave editorial writers: A sales tax increase is the "least worst option" for the city's infrastructure. We urge its approval.
Critics of a 1% sales tax increase on some purchases in St. Paul (in Minnesota, groceries, clothing, prescription drugs and some services are sales-tax exempt) are not wrong. It's true that such a tax would impose a competitive burden on the city's retailers, giving St. Paul the highest sales tax rate in the state, 9.875%. But several other jurisdictions, including Minneapolis, are less than a percentage point behind.
The sales tax is regressive, disproportionately burdening lower-income households. It would set a precedent for other retail-rich cities in the state to look out for themselves, easing pressure on the state Legislature to live up to its half-century commitment to help fund municipal services throughout the state according to measurable need. Retail-poor communities could wind up poorer still as a result.
But if the existing pressure on state government were sufficient to keep state aid flowing at inflation-adjusted 20th-century levels, St. Paul would be receiving tens of millions of dollars more in local government aid this year. Instead, it is receiving slightly less than was allocated in 2002.