Latest / Commentary - TJ Meadows / Local Control. Local Burden. Local Benefit

Transcript

Local Control. Local Burden. Local Benefit · Commentary - TJ Meadows

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: A simple principle increasingly shapes my thinking on data centers
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: in West Virginia. Local control, local burden, local benefit. As
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: the data economy takes shape, some communities see opportunity, others
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: see reason for caution. State policy should recognize both. Consider
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: Putnam County, where Google is proposing a data center near Buffalo.
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: There is opposition, certainly, but there is also enthusiasm, and
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: a lot of it. Why? I have a theory. Putnam
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: County has experienced decades of benefits from Toyota's investment in Buffalo.
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: Good paying jobs, business opportunities, economic growth. Toyota also established
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: a standard for corporate citizenship. Google will be expected to
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: meet or exceed that standard. Putnam County knows what a
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: good corporate partner looks like because it has one. Elsewhere,
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: skepticism remains, and West Virginia's history gives us reason for it.
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: Too often, companies extracted our natural resources and left communities
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: carrying the consequences. At least it seems that way. That
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: history should inform our safeguards. It should not prevent us
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: from embracing new opportunities. That's where local control matters. Communities
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: willing to welcome data centers deserve a path forward. Those unwilling...
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: should have a meaningful say. But here's the other side
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: of that equation. The communities accepting the burdens of development
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: should receive the greatest financial benefits. And that brings us
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: to House Bill 2014. Under its tax allocation formula, the
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: host county receives just 30% of the covered regular levy
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: property tax growth above increment. Half goes towards potential statewide
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: income tax reductions. The remainder is distributed elsewhere. Excess levies
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: are unaffected, but 30% simply is not enough. We know
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: that now. Why should counties that reject data centers receive
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: any financial consideration if they're not willing to host them?
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: And while I strongly support reducing income taxes, those reductions
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: aren't guaranteed simply because money flows into a designated fund.
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: Income tax reform should stand on its own merits, not
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: depend so heavily on redirecting property tax growth from communities
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: embracing investment when others aren't. Putnam, Mason, and Berkeley counties
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: deserve more of the revenue their development generates. If we
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: want stronger local economies, let communities keep more of the
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: proceeds of their success. Local control, local burden, local benefit.
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: The legislature should revisit House Bill 2014 with that principle
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: in mind. Let communities help determine their future. and let
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: those willing to embrace economic opportunity keep more of the
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: value they help create.