Asheville City Council continued discussions tonight about how it will incentivize “the kind of development we [i.e., members of council] want.” This alone has been a source of frustration for me, as I dropped out of school before I had a chance to learn about the true role of government. I therefore remain fixated with the notion that government is supposed to protect the rights of all citizens, and if it gets too one-sided, citizens have a responsibility to alter or abolish it. I don’t understand these advanced concepts about those in power making rules to justify their attempts to get “what we want.”
The most aggravating part of the evening was the long discussion following Brownie Newman’s request that council eliminate the “but for” clause in the proposed policy. Newman correctly observed the proof of poverty would be impossible. Fortunately, City Manager Gary Jackson finally piped up. As city manager, he is not supposed to cause council to lean one way or other in policy decisions, and he acknowledged that. However, the “but for” clause pertained to the use of “public benefits” for developers. Of all those who spoke, only Jackson seemed to realize cutting a tax break for one guy shifted the city’s revenue streaming burden to somebody else, and therefore there might be a problem with somebody asking for and getting tax breaks simply because they can.
