Does Tucson Spend too Little or too Much per Resident?

The city of El Paso spends half as much per resident as the city of Tucson spends per resident.  The city of Scottsdale spends nearly twice as much per resident, and the city of Gilbert spends more than twice as much.

What’s the significance of that?

Does it mean that El Paso is a slum overrun with crime because it skimps on law enforcement and other city services?  Well, no.  Actually, its crime rate is lower than Tucson’s.

Does it mean that Scottsdale overtaxes its residents?  Well, no.  Actually, it has a sales tax rate that is lower than Tucson’s.

A personal anecdote:  My wife Kim and I moved eight years ago for family reasons from Scottsdale to metro Tucson, specifically to the unincorporated area known as the Foothills, not to the city itself.  We bought a house in the Foothills for the same price as the one we sold in Scottsdale, yet our combined total for property taxes, water, sewer, fire and trash increased by 50 percent.  At the same time, the number of amenities provided by local government, the responsiveness of local government, and the maintenance standards of local government declined precipitously.

In short, we ended up paying significantly more for significantly less.

Anyway, here’s how Tucson compares to other selected cities in the amount of spending, or budget, per resident.

What does this say about Tucson?  Is it badly run or well run?  Is it efficient or inefficient?  Is it prosperous or poor?

The above numbers are rough indicators.  As such, additional analyses would need to be conducted to answer those questions objectively.  Also, care would have to be taken to ensure that the comparisons are apples to apples, to account for differences between cities in their charters, their size in square miles, their age, the condition of their infrastructure, and their demographics.

Ideally, cities should conduct such comparisons on their own as a matter of course.  In the absence of that, perhaps some enterprising journalist or a scholar at a think tank or university could take this on.

I used to conduct such analyses when I was an unpaid community columnist for the Arizona Republic, covering the Northeast Valley of metro Phoenix, which included Scottsdale.  Of the 350 columns or so that I wrote, many were based on such solid, nonpartisan research. Ironically, now that I’m retired, I don’t have the time or inclination to do that anymore.

Still, two conclusions can be drawn with a high degree of certainty.

First, with everything else being equal, a city like Scottsdale that spends $8,607 per resident will have more money to spend on upkeep, beautification, safety, transportation, and amenities than a city like Tucson that spends $4,466 per resident.  That in turn will make the city more attractive to prospective businesses, tourists and wealthy investors.

Second, good governance can lead to higher revenue without higher tax rates. For example, under the leadership of former Mayor Herb Drinkwater, who was a true visionary, Scottsdale went from a cowboy town of little significance to a city with a national reputation for being clean, safe, pretty and thriving.  It did this through efficiencies, nonpartisan elections, top-notch services, and first-class amenities.  As the populace became wealthier, and as capital was attracted to the city, consumer spending on higher-ticket goods increased, which generated more revenue at the same tax rates, in a virtuous circle.

Being adjacent to Paradise Valley, the wealthiest town in Arizona, also helped.  Because Paradise Valley doesn’t have much commercial development, its residents tend to shop and recreate in Scottsdale.

Maybe this has applicability to Tucson, or maybe it doesn’t.  But someone in city leadership or media or academia or a think tank should be asking such questions and making such comparisons.

Mr. Cantoni can be reached at [email protected].