American Standard: Problems With Hopkins Profs' WSJ Piece On Baltimore Politics

by Benn Ray

Steve H. Hanke and Stephen J.K. Walters, a Johns Hopkins professor and a Hopkins fellow recently wrote a piece for the Rupert Murcoch-owned Wall Street Journal discussing the Baltimore Grand Prix, the upcoming Baltimore election and the supposed "Curley Effect."

I've seen several people posting links to this article and discussing it. So instead of posting comments in multiple areas, I thought I'd list my thoughts on the piece here.

1. A tourism based economy is not a solution for the economic woes of a city like Baltimore.

2. The authors are right, the Grand Prix will be an economic dud.

3. I agree that the Grand Prix exemplifies the city's bad development strategy. In fact, I have a Shank post scheduled later today discussing how the Grand Prix is a symbol for everything Baltimore neighborhoods see as wrong with City Hall which pretty much says the same thing.

4. Baltimore city has been bleeding residents since the 1950s/60s. There was a minor stabilizing effect in the early 2000's as part of a "back to the cities" population trend that was not sustained by Baltimore largely because city leaders did nothing to nurture it.

To say Baltimore's population decline is the fault of tax policy is to not understand the history of the American city. Most urban areas (especially east coast/rust belt) populations saw flight that began in the '50s and hyper-accelerated in the '60s and continued through the '70s and spiked in the '80s, regardless of tax policy.

5. Funding projects based on projected revenue from non-existent casinos is not very smart largely because Maryland's new casinos are under-performing.

6. I am leery of any article (especially those in the conservative Wall Street Journal) that refers to tax policy with the politically charged terms "redistribution of wealth".  The phrasing belies an agenda.

7. The writers verge on tinfoil hat conspiracy theories by suggesting Boston politicians had an economic plan designed to drive Republicans out of the city and secure a majority Democratic vote for decades to come.

8. The authors suggest all Baltimore need do is invite capitalists back to town. Following the rhetoric of this Op-Ed - what they seem to really mean is wealthy Republicans (based on their comments about Boston). They also mean out of town corporatists. Baltimore already has a wealth of struggling capitalists. I'd rather see the city create a program to help local businesses and entrepreneurs instead of bringing in more revenue-siphoning corporatists. I have issues with this idea that in order for Baltimore to succeed, for Baltimore to be healthy, for Baltimore to aspire to greatness once again, we need to bring those who have abandoned or ignored or quit on our city back into the city.

9. I support Otis Rolley. I am curious about his tax program, but that's not the main reason I support him. I have had friends leave town bemoaning tax rates. I have also had friends leave town bemoaning lack of jobs. Lack of public transportation. Crime. Bad schools. A majority of Baltimore's residents are not landowners anymore. I think for so much of this election's debate to be centered on property taxes disenfranchises the poor, the working class and the non-landowners from the election by not focusing more on issues that are of more direct import to their lives. Maybe that's intentional. But then, suggesting such a thing may make me sound as conspiratorial as Johns Hopkins professors who write conflicted, agenda-driven op-eds for The Wall Street Journal.

10. It's also disturbing to see the Johns Hopkins economics department looking so much like the University of Chicago and the Chicago school of economics.

Don't get me wrong, I'm for lowering property taxes. Baltimore has very high tax rates, and we have little to show for it. So if lower taxes encourage more folks to live in Baltimore city, thereby resulting in more tax revenue for the city because we have a larger tax base, I'm all for it. But lowering property taxes is not a magic bullet. Baltimore needs a whole lot more than just a tax break for the land-owners - we need more, better jobs; better public transporation; better public education; less crime; more investment in our parks; etc. And I think the Hopkins economists' conflation with the supposed "Curley Effect" is forced, irrelevant and indicative of the authors' more political agenda.

Comments

[BaltimoreGal]

Thank you Ben, for this.

[kara]

To this day I still reference O'Malleys starbucks comment:
http://www.beaumonde.net/weblog/archives/starbucks.html

as exemplifying the eternally flawed economic politics in this city.
Always looking for validation from outside corporations. Desperate and willing to sell our city short.
Completely overlooking the fact that there is no track record of boxed shopping centers and the like doing anything for our city in the history of.. ever.
Failing to acknowledge the hard work and perseverance of the people who actually HAVE effected change surely but slowly, neighborhood by neighborhood.
It's all come from within and always will unless our blind politicians continue to figuratively AND literally bulldoze the city's history and the efforts of its people in order to put down a welcome mat for corporate exploitation.

[Benn]

Well said, Kara. Totally agree!