Fiscally irresponsible

Say it ain’t so. Or that it won’t be so!

Come Tuesday, the Sarasota City Commission is expected to approve spending $1,053,000 to begin architecture services on the $16 million renovation of the 45-hole Bobby Jones Golf Club.

It’s going to take a little money shifting to get started. Commissioners will be expected to approve a budget amendment that will pull $190,000 out of the general fund budget earmarked for Bayfront Park Improvement; and $260,000 of BP settlement funding previously designated for other city parks.

That $450,000 will be added to $735,000 that already was designated this year for Bobby Jones. Voila! — $1,185,000 available to dump in a project that makes absolutely no sense. No sense fiscally, no sense from the perspective of golf trends and no sense from the perspective of the role of government.

Over and over, commissioners have been reminded of the  years-long trend of the decline of golf, with not an inkling of a resurgence in sight. If anyone came to you with an opportunity to invest in a new municipal golf course, you would laugh the peddler out the door.

And what, pray tell, makes operating a 45-hole golf club a legitimate role for government? To be sure, we’ll hear from those citizens who ascribe to the belief that making recreation opportunities available is part of government’s duty to address the welfare of its citizenry. 

So here’s  a wild guess — most taxpayers would agree with the idea that, rather than operate golf courses, they would prefer their municipal governments stay focused on those city services that really matter: police, fire, streets and sewers. Those are enough of a challenge alone  (e.g. 900,000 gallons of effluent gushing from a blown sewer pipe in December). 

Indeed, it seems so obvious. The private sector certainly would fill the niche of operating inexpensive golf courses if they made economic sense. Instead, governments think they can fill that role — by looting all taxpayers to subsidize the golfing few. 

Altogether, spending $16 million — $20 million, including interest — to renovate Bobby Jones is fiscally irresponsible.

Consider the larger context:

City commissioners are embarking on this when they are on the verge of taking on a $200 million, perhaps $500 million, redevelopment of one of the city’s most valuable environmental assets: The Bay, 53 acres of unobstructed bayfront.

And they need the money to fund it.

When you juxtapose The Bay project against renovating Bobby Jones, public support for The Bay overwhelmingly dwarfed support for renovating Bobby Jones. And if you put the two on a ballot, the results would not come close. Which would you prefer: creating a world-class public gem on 53 acres fronting the bay, a public park that would remain in perpetuity, or renovating 45 holes of a public golf course?

Add to that context: One of the most vexing issues for the city is the cost of housing. Year after year, we hear elected officials lament the lack of housing options for people who work downtown. They lament urban sprawl. They lament the traffic on Interstate 75 of workers who can’t afford to live close to their jobs.

Imagine if you sold Bobby Jones and converted its 290 acres to residential use.

Rough math: Say half of the 290 acres is developable — 145 acres. Say, conservatively, 12 units per acre — 1,740 housing units. And say it’s “affordable housing,” with the cost $15,000 per unit. That’s $26,100,000 for the cost of the 290 acres.

That’s the cost of Phase 1 of The Bay.

Minimum wage: Why not $250/hour?

Debating the minimum wage is like debating a border wall. What a morass.

So when Sarasota Observer columnist Adrian Moore last week attempted to explain some of the potential consequences of a Florida constitutional amendment requiring a $15 minimum wage, it was no surprise he triggered responses.

We can’t resist from adding our own. 

Why stop at $15 an hour? Heck, why not mandate $250 an hour? If we want everyone to have living wages, then let’s just go all the way! 

Here’s a better idea: No laws whatsoever dictating what anyone should be paid.

The best arbiter of determining an individual’s wages is the competitive marketplace.

Indeed, when you cut through all the noise about income inequality, living wages and minimum wages, an individual’s compensation is — and always should be — a voluntary agreement between employer and employee. No one else.

It is an agreement that is no different than your purchasing, say, a bottle of laundry detergent. When you go to the supermarket and select your brand, you are telling the detergent maker you are willing to pay $X in exchange for detergent that will perform Y service for you.

It is a peaceful and voluntary transaction. No one else is involved. No one is coercing you to pay a particular price, and no one is coercing the manufacturer to charge a particular price.

Likewise in the hiring process and relationship between employer and employee. An employer says she needs an employee to perform a job and is willing to pay $X per hour.

If she hires someone at that rate, the new employee is voluntarily saying he agrees that the compensation for his service is a fair exchange. No one coerced the individual to take the job, nor did anyone coerce the employer to pay a certain rate. The two obviously saw it as a fair exchange.

If, say, the employer is unable to find anyone to perform the job at the rate she offered, the marketplace is telling her she must raise her level of pay. No law is necessary to force what the employer should pay; the marketplace dictates.

 What if the employee is an outstanding employee?

Any employer who wants to succeed will see it is in his/her interest to keep the employee. The employer will pay the employee more. Again, no coercion.

Or, flip the scenario. Say it turns out the employer is a jerk and doesn’t give the good employee raises. The employee is not bound to stay. The employee-employer relationship is voluntary. The employee can leave when the job is no longer in his interest.

Moral of the story? There should be no laws dictating what an employer must pay an employee. That is between them. The free market is the best, fairest determinant of a person’s worth and wages.