OPINION — Last week, Paradise Valley residents received an email urging them to vote no on Proposition 426, which would approve a significant increase in the town’s spending limit.
I do not support personal attacks on the mayor or anyone else involved in this debate, but I do agree that Proposition 426 is the wrong approach, and I will be voting no, just as I did at the council meeting.
I am a passionate fiscal conservative and a strong believer in limited government. Raising the town’s spending capacity by $20 million in the main budget, without a specific and clearly defined purpose, creates too much opportunity for unnecessary government growth. I will always support responsible ways to meet residents’ needs, but additional spending authority combined with a healthy strategic reserve fund is an invitation to spend more simply because the capacity exists.
That is why I will be voting yes on Proposition 427, the Capital Projects Accumulation Fund. Proposition 427 creates a dedicated, prefunded capital projects budget that gives the town a responsible way to save for and fund necessary infrastructure and capital needs. It provides the funding structure we need while keeping overall government growth in check, making the permanent base adjustment proposed in Proposition 426 unnecessary.
Some have pointed to past expenditure limit increases as precedent. It is true that Paradise Valley voters have previously approved increases to the annual expenditure limit, and the town has also previously approved a Capital Projects Accumulation Fund. But those actions were never taken at the same time.
We do not need both. We need a disciplined capital projects savings account, not an open checking account for general spending. I will be voting no on Proposition 426 and yes on Proposition 427.
Please submit comments at yourvalley.net/letters or email them to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.