Advertisement
Opinion

OPINION | EDITORIAL: Go Forward back with another tax

Byron Tate

They’re back!

Go Forward has been itching for a rematch, and with the likely automatic approval from the Go Forward, oops!, the Pine Bluff City Council, voters will get to go to the polls yet again to decide on a renewal of the current Go Forward-inspired sales tax and another Go Forward-dreamed-up sales tax for police and fire.

Speaking of which, we got the press release about Go Forward donating $10,000 to help the Pine Bluff School District pass a millage increase. That was a nice little PR gesture, but it made us wonder if Go Forward is going to pay for its own special election in May that cost somewhere around $50,000, which the city had to pay for. And now this one, set for November, which will likely be close to that same figure — and again, that the city will have to pay for — for a total of somewhere around $100,000. It would only seem fair that if it’s going to pony up money for someone else’s election that it pays for its own.

It’s also worth noting that Go Forward’s current tax doesn’t expire until September 2024 and the nonprofit could have easily waited until the primary election in March 2024 when putting the item on the ballot would have been drastically less expensive. But of course, that was not desirable for Go Forward because it, once again, is hoping very few people show up during what amounts to a special election and it squeezes out a win. In March, far too many people would show up to do Go Forward any good at the polls. Goodness, all those average voters voicing their opinions at the ballot box would just muck up the works!

The Go Forward tax proposal is a repeat of the one that was sought in May, with a few more bells and whistles — more on that later — but there are a few more particulars to the public safety tax attempt. Mostly, the new proposed tax sprinkles money over police and fire personnel – think buying votes – without addressing any specific and concrete way to lower crime.

The fundamental problem with the public safety tax is that it, like the last one, was handed down from on high, that place being where Go Forward exists. Did that tax proposal go through any vetting from police and fire officials? If it did, that too was away from the public’s eye. Were residents asked to weigh in and give input at public meetings where they might have asked for more street lights and security cameras and who knows what else? It would not appear so. But because Go Forward is sponsoring the legislation, it must be good, right? Just send it on to the council for a quick rubber stamp and on to as few voters as possible. Don’t forget, this sales tax never ends.

Overall, nothing has changed. Go Forward is a secretive organization that pulls the levers of power in Pine Bluff in unhealthy ways. And while a public use tax is likely necessary in order for the city to function, we do not believe an agency that doesn’t answer to the public and isn’t concerned with transparency or accountability needs to be in charge of the process.

We are certain to have more to say about these proposals in the future, but we had to point out that the tax money is now — unlike the first try — specifically going to fund Jimmy Cunningham’s Delta Rhythm and Bayous project – making him and his project bait for the passage of the plan — and that the city is also going to get a city built and owned movie theater. We’re not sure we’ve ever seen such a thing. Perhaps it could be connected to a city owned ice cream parlor and city owned dry cleaners and city owned men’s store to go with the city owned go kart track (that’s real) and that we’ll completely do away with the free market and the concept of capitalism in Pine Bluff.

As for Mr. Watley’s guest opinion piece across the page, we’ll just say that we stand by every word we’ve written about Go Forward in the news pages and on the opinion page. And if playing the race card is his theme now, well, that’s certainly his prerogative but it does seem a bit desperate considering the subject is a public policy debate of a sales tax.