Our View

Our View

Ballot initiative could be boost to state economic development

Pay attention, Arkansas voters, and take note of the various amendments that will appear on the ballot this November, because the decisions that are made will have a major impact on everyone.

We’ve pointed out the number of experts, politicians and community leaders who are opposed to the idea of legalizing “pot” to why voters should seriously consider passing the constitutional amendment to limit attorneys’ fees and non-economic damages in medical care lawsuits.

Now then, let’s review Issue 3 on the Nov. 8 General Election ballot. Let’s begin with by saying opponents of this economic development amendment are going around saying all this is corporate welfare.

Issue 3 is one of three constitutional amendments that the General Assembly referred out for voter approval. The amendment contemplates:

• Removing the cap of state-issued bonds for economic super projects, which is currently 5 percent of the state’s revenue;

• Allowing communities to borrow money for economic development through voter-approved bonds; and

• Allowing cities to pay chambers of commerce for economic development services.

While some supporters say Issue 3 has the potential for unintended consequences that could put the state or the local communities in a financial bind, there are others who say the provisions will give economic developers the tools they need to attract or retain businesses in Arkansas.

There is a legitimate argument to the possibility that rejecting the amendment will leave Arkansas communities at a disadvantage in trying to recruit businesses to the state.

It doesn’t take an expert in economic development to realize that when a local community has no defined ability to spend funds for economic development purposes, it is at an immediate disadvantage versus communities that have this ability. There is some strong opposition to government incentives. For instance, state Rep. Nate Bell, an independent who represents Polk County, is out there saying all this does is support cronyism. He is of the misguided belief that government’s role in economic development should be to create an environment where businesses can thrive, not award the economic incentive packages. Because every state government in the country offers some type of economic incentive to attract new and sustainable business and industry that creates hundreds of jobs and pays enormous taxes, Arkansas would become seriously isolated if it were to cease such incentives.

Every state surrounding Arkansas has benefited greatly from government incentives to private enterprise. Take Mississippi for example, where there are major automobile manufacturers providing hundreds of good paying jobs because of incentives. Right here in the delta, Big River Steel would not have located in Mississippi County if it had not been for the incentives that former Gov. Mike Beebe and his economic development team put together. We could cite hundreds of examples of successful partnerships between government and private enterprise that have greatly made a difference.

Let us point out that it is not so much of what is being offered as it is how it is administered. As in any economic development venture there are certain risks at play but there should also be safeguards in place to make absolutely sure they are minimal.

Based on the history of this state’s economic development experiences we can honestly say the positives certainly outweigh the negatives. And, the fact of the matter is that if Arkansas is going to move forward and be competitive it must be able to come to the bargaining table with the same chips the other players have available to them.

We can be idealistic all we want but we must also be realists.