Jackson Mayor Harvey Johnson Jr. wants the city to have more input on a controversial commission that will decide the fate of potential new revenue generated by a 1 percent sales tax increase specific to the city.
The new tax, if approved by a majority of voters in an as-yet-unscheduled referendum vote, is designed to produce revenue for infrastructure, and it gets its own fund separate from the regular city budget.
As it stands, a commission gets to design a spending plan for the new revenue and monitor the city to make sure it is adhering to that plan over the 30-year lifespan of the temporary tax increase. While Johnson says he has no problem with the idea of reliable oversight in any situation involving taxpayer money, he does have a problem with sources other than the city appointing a majority of the commission.
The way the law looks, a "local chamber of commerce"—which could be the Greater Jackson Chamber Partnership or the Jackson Chamber of Commerce because the law isn't specific—gets to appoint four members of a 10-member commission overseeing how well the city adheres to the parameters of its spending plan.
The speaker of the Mississippi House of Representatives, the lieutenant governor and the governor each get to appoint their own commission member, leaving the Jackson City Council and the mayor to appoint the three remaining members—a clear minority on the commission.
Johnson rightly wants the city of Jackson to have a majority on the board to look out for how the city spends its own taxpayers' money. The original referendum legislation allowing the Jackson-specific tax first came to life in 2009, when Jackson's mayor was Frank Melton.
Former Ward 2 City Councilman Leslie McLemore said then that legislators clearly did not trust Melton to spend the money wisely and, frankly, needed looking after. Johnson, when he took the reins back, rejected the idea of the commission dictating city infrastructure expenditures and threatened soon after his election to never allow the referendum vote. He later changed his tune and was willing to accept the commission, so long as his city got majority voice on the commission.
Should a majority of commission members with input on how the city spends its money be appointed through the traditional avenues of board appointments, or should this black-majority city have a majority of its commission members appointed by probably white people who live outside the city? This is exactly how people are going to view this debate, so choose wisely.
Frankly, we're with the mayor. The capital city does not need a suburban or state big brother watching over us, and it's an insult to suggest that we do.
More like this story
Support our reporting -- Follow the MFP.
