At least that's what I would be saying if I lived in Fluvanna right now. Head officials there just voted to start the ball rolling on a $60-70 million dollar high school construction project. And that's only the beginning, the total cost of revamping their school system is estimated to be more like $90 million if the rest of the proposed plan goes through. Bear in mind that Fluvanna is a pretty podunk place, with a population of around 25000 residents. As stated in the article, the tax cost of servicing the debt would be very large.
This presents an interesting situation. There is a large group with a significant amount to lose, and tax relief is being proposed for senior citizens, so the burden falls hard on those working age residents without school-age children in the area. How did the smaller group of beneficiaries win in this case? From our chats on Stigler and Peltzman, I'm guessing that the parents, who are used to getting organized on a regular basis, did so at a relatively low cost and made very persuasive arguments, while the large taxed group was unable to organize themselves efficiently. Apparently there was a round of applause after the vote, so it sounds like the opposition was under-represented...freeriders are perhaps to blame.
One other idea - if mobility costs are low compared to this transfer of wealth, would Tiebout's model predict that we might see more families with children moving into Fluvanna and those without children moving away?
Comments