County Needs Outside Consulting Firm To Evaluate Infrastructure Needs

The 2008 election season is over. You can dwell forever on why an incumbent lost to a challenger, but it's often the case where hindsight on behalf of the newcomer claims that the current state of government finances would be in better shape if he/she had been the one in charge to appropriate taxpayer moneys.
Yeah, right! If you believe that one, let me sell you a patch of swampland that, due to years of drought, is now arable land and ready for development. I won't tell you the property is still in a flood plain.
Who really believes that with skyrocketing home values, thus ever-increasing property taxes and unabated lines of credit, there wouldn't have still been a "tax-and-spend" period. I don't believe one bit that any given group of people would have made an iota of difference. Federal, state and local governments overspent to this place in time too close to destitution. Oh yeah, homeowners too. And corporations. Cutbacks and work force reduction the world over.
Would tax-and-spend have been the norm regardless the commissioner? You bet your lost tax dollars it would have been! It seems unjust to accuse and persecute every in-term politician for where we're at now. If taken out of the election equation, the end results might have been different.
It was too easy for Hernando County commissioners to "enhance" the lives of their constituents with one project after another, however exorbitant the expenses. Hey, if you got the money, spend it! And what do we have now? Road projects that have been delayed; road projects that need to be done but are now outside the boundaries of consideration. Examples: Elgin east of Mariner; Elgin west of Mariner. Both need to be done, but only one is scheduled sometime in the near, or not-so-near, future. The other is on my wishful-thinking list.
What gets my Capricorn goat is the idea that lowering impact fees would be the right thing to do. Spur the economy with land use hearings that bring more construction of homes when indications point to a period of two or more years before empty homes are once again occupied by families; when there are too many investor built homes yet to be sold; when builders are declaring bankruptcy and leaving subdivisions with a house here and another one over there while the rest of the land is blighted with overgrown weeds?
My expectations put the heavy load on the backs of our new board of county commissioners to be wise in their decision-making. However ghastly it sounds, an "outside" consulting firm would give an unbiased evaluation on the economic impact that decisions would have in the short and long terms. Please, no more of these firms that hobnob with local government and "businesses of interest." An honest outsider wouldn't be based in Florida.
Consultants can better evaluate economic conditions by reviewing county statistics, interviewing local entrepreneurs and government officials, taking into consideration long-term county goals and keeping in mind current and future job market needs in order to present views consistent with their findings.
To what advantage would discounted impact fees have on the local economy? What will the shortfall of funds have on addressing future infrastructure requirements? That's where a consultant can weigh the benefits of reducing impact fees in relationship to future projected expenditures, when costs would be higher.
Somewhere along the long and winding road to future days, someone will have to pay for the paper tiger balance sheet. Shortfalls in county coffers may bring another round of tax increases to shore up the difference in available and needed funds. If this is truly cyclical, it won't be the current commission that will shoulder the blame in some 15 to 20 years, but the board's actions may lead to another bout of voter revolt over tax increases.
I don't buy for one copper cent the hyperbole that says those of the next generations will benefit most from what is done today. That puts the tax burden on those who had no say on the matter. And that's not fair.
Just think, an outside consultant firm might report to county commissioners with facts that support the need to actually increase impact fees!