Dear Source:
On St John, as it is throughout the Virgin Islands, building is ruining the fragile eco-system. The land and the waters are being destroyed by over-development. Did the executive or legislative branches ask if the locals wanted such over-development? Are tax incomes from real estate more important to the central fund than the look and feel and most importantly, the culture of the island? Do St Johnians want more of the same? I hardly think so. The basic problem is, there was no local vehicle in which people were informed about what was coming before it was too late.
Recently, local community action groups on St John effectively stopped intrusive development because of code issues. They pointed out, correctly, that illegal building and zoning practices were becoming the norm. Territorial building officials were convinced of the error and finally sided with the local citizenry that violations, in fact, had occurred.
Where was the central government when the plans were originally presented? Why didn't the territorial officials see it coming, and why did they allow developers to practice the profit game instead of taking into consideration, as the laws require, to first consider the fragile nature of the island? If they did, was it only dollar signs through more taxes that mattered, or did it just slide through the cracks of an under-manned, overburdened government that cannot handle the scrutiny it takes to protect our land? If left to the locals, those projects would never have been allowed to put a shovel to the ground! If local citizens had to rise up to stop or limit such development, then it was a decision based on the desires of the people. Monetary gain, either for developers or for the government through taxation, in and of itself, is a dangerous precedent to set, especially when our fragile eco-structure and our very culture is on the line. The point is, local citizens do care. Locals on any of our islands can and will make a difference if allowed to. Only local voices can affect the present and future of their island. Unfortunately, in our present form of central government, their voices are rarely heard. That has to change.
For hypothetical purposes, let's say that, by law, the income under which the central government functions was derived only through: collecting customs taxes; duties; income taxes; fees from agencies like motor vehicles, licensing, corporations and the like; gross receipts; police fines and all the other ways that income is generated into the territorial government. Not including real estate taxes.
Now, suppose the territorial government had fewer responsibilities. If the central government had only to provide Homeland Security, tourism, a National Guard, a force to collect duties, providing health care, a corporation division, a planning body, a central educational body, a housing authority and an agency to collect taxes and perhaps a few more minor agencies, would the government run more efficiently? With fewer tasks and fewer people we would boost efficiency. Right?
Now, it's glaring to notice that Education (the actual schools and administration of), Police Departments, Fire Departments, Public Works, Parks and Recreation and building zoning and inspection were not included on the former list. It's also noticeable that those are some of the agencies that seem to have the greater problems in terms of efficiency in our present government.
What if these agencies were under the legal control of each island? Would the locals who utilize those services allow them to deteriorate? Would we demand more efficiency from them? Are local needs better served when locals control the situations? Are local island citizens capable of running a local government? Most importantly, how can they be funded?
Are there income producing monies available from each island to meet the challenge of such an undertaking? The answer is yes-real estate taxes.
Real estate taxes account for a great share of the income to the present territorial government. If those taxes were to remain in local hands, with the actual amounts of taxation modified as required, would they be sufficient to run the agencies mentioned? Again, the answer is mostly-yes. With the possible exception of St Croix, it seems unlikely that the income generated from just real estate taxes, with our present real estate tax laws, could sufficiently finance a municipal government.
Through our hypothetical new government structure though, the central government has now reduced its overall fiscal responsibility and has greatly increased its efficiency. It now has overly sufficient funds, and most likely- excess funds. That excess money could be shared to each island by a formula that may include population density or growth patterns. Assuming that local taxation was not sufficient to run the new municipal structure, those excess funds could be the answer to fully financing a municipal government. In effect, the central government is now, by law, mandated to fully fund every initiative the legislature and the federal government requires it to do. Therefore, the amount of money legislated must be sufficient to keep all those public functions running and running properly. The problem lies in how it is spent and the inefficiency and waste that takes place between collection and utility. The monies are being lost to the "middle-man". Why not simply divide up the pie, take what the now limited government needs and send the rest to the municipality? No middle management, direct disbursements and the money is then controlled locally.
Of course, to manage these new responsibilities two things must happen. The size of the central government has to be greatly reduced and refined and a new local, autonomous government must be legally allowed. The present Organic Act already allows the Virgin Islands to create any form of government they choose by instituting its own constitution to do just that.
The overwhelming problem that pervades this idea is that leadership, over the years, has never wanted to change the status quo. Although we are a relatively new government, the leaders we have had since the United States promulgated the Organic Act of 1936 and amended in 1954 have been unwilling to alter that document in any meaning-full way. The general argument is that the Organic Act is our guiding principle and shouldn't be changed. Perhaps the risks of change were too much to consider.
Leadership means taking risks and long-term thinking. Unfortunately, the central government, over relatively few years, has failed miserably in taking risks that may alter even the most menial of government structure. In fact, in its relatively few years of existence, it has added agency after agency. That may create jobs, but do little to efficiently make the government work for the benefit of the people. Sometimes too much government can be dangerous. Glaring examples are the collapse of education and the Government Retirement System.
The government continues to borrow to meet obligations. Many projects that have enhanced our economy came from borrowed money. This is not necessarily a bad thing except, like any good business, the cost of borrowing must be offset by efficiency and sometimes prudent change. The cost of borrowing is high. Borrowing cannot occur if it means under-funding other government services, like education, police and health care.
Our central government has made fiscal decisions over the years to provide funding in order to enhance our economy and keep it growing. This is correct and commendable if it actually showed significant economic gains. Are we allowing private enterprise to foot some of the costs, in sufficient numbers, for many of these capital improvements? Should the government provide funds from the public coffers when private enterprise could? Are we giving profit-makers a helpful free ride by letting them build or expand and then give them tax-exempt status through the EDC? Is the tax structure so inviting to foreign business that the Virgin Island taxpayers end
up paying for this so called, economic boom? The answers there are…YES!
This wasteful practice has got to end and the only way to do that is to disallow the central government to make decisions about local economic or social realities if the bills simply cannot be paid. Growth is good but mortgages only profit the lenders.
How can we make these massive changes? Not easily. There will be doubt and resistance from locals and many persons will still feel that central government structure is the only answer. Whatever the course the people take, it is most important for them to realize that THEY HAVE CHOICES. It will take many years and great will to make change happen. Is it worth the try?
Paul Devine
St. John
Editor's note: We welcome and encourage readers to keep the dialogue going by responding to Source commentary. Letters should be e-mailed with name and place of residence to source@viaccess.net.
