Not content with a mocking and error-filled and still uncorrected editorial on Charlotte’s 9th place finish in Forbes misery ranking, the Uptown paper of record today trots out Charlotte Chamber numbers guru Tony Crumbley to spin some more. In a nutshell, Crumbley just refuses to believe that Charlotte could possibly compare poorly to any other city. It is blind boosterism at its best.
Crumbley rejects unemployment as a meaningful metric, instead holding up job creation as the relevant number. But that measures the churn and dynamism of a local economy, important factors true enough, but not exactly the same thing as unemployment. Unemployment tells you something about the overall health of the social fabric and predicts things like the amount local government spends on public assistance. And what do you know, Mecklenburg does indeed have a high percentage of residents on public assistance of one kind or another.
Says who? Harry Jones and the county government. The county is shooting for 12 percent of the local population on public assistance, instead we are at 13.6 percent. Last year’s budget noted that “demand for public assistance has continued to increase. This increase is the result of a growing number of working poor and senior citizens, who are experiencing rising costs and low wages.”
On congestion and commuting, pay very close attention to what Crumbley says. “The 2006 estimate is currently 26.3 minutes. More important is what Charlotte is doing to impact this in the future. Lynx, the new light rail service, will positively impact this number, as will the concentration of individuals downtown and along the transit corridors,” he writes.
Remember this. This is the Chamber saying that light rail and high density corridors will reduce traffic congestion. Tell that to the people stacked up on Hebron at South Blvd. everyday, waiting for trains to pass. Nevermind that commute times in Charlotte barely moved at all between 2000 and 2005 because we added road capacity.
On crime, more denial. Crumbley trots out population growth again to explain Charlotte’s crime problem, nevermind like-sized peers such as Fresno and Austin experience much less crime.
Superfund sites, bleh. Me neither. I do not understand this metric one way or the other.
But on the income tax comparison, Crumbley really blows it.
A totally inappropriate measure. Some municipalities do impose a local income tax, but in North Carolina, as in most states, this is a state tax. Likewise, income tax is just one form of taxation used by governments. A better measure is total per capita state and local tax. This tells one how much they can expect to pay state and local governments relative to other states. Twenty-nine other states have a higher per capita collection than North Carolina.
Let’s walk through this because Crumbley surely knows better.
A major component of any relocation decision involves taxes. The people make corporate and business relocation decisions are, by definition, well-paid. Figure on six-figures and up. As such, they care very much about their state income tax burden. The fact is that North Carolina has a high marginal income tax rate on top earners, 7.75 on income over $60,000 and 8 percent on income over $120,000. Plus N.C. has a relatively low standard deduction. It all adds up to a high income tax burden for anyone living in Charlotte, N.C.. This matters. High taxes make people miserable.
And what do you know, North Carolina’s per capita income tax collections are high — 11th highest, ahead of New Jersey’s and just behind Maryland’s. Add to that Charlotte’s state-high local per capita burden of $2400 a year and….
And I could go on, but frankly I’m tired of this.
