Submitted by Dan, Dec 13, 2006 18:25

Public investments which yield a high return are worth making. True, in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, we invested in lots of things like public housing which had a return of 0%. But subways, water tunnels, even parks, this is quite another matter. All of these things drive the economy. Houston is entirely free of things like subways and clear air. For sure, this leads to lower taxes. It also means that no one who desires a high quality of life voluntarily lives there. If the CEO of Goldman Sachs announced the HQ was moving to Houston, his entire workforce would desert for another company, lower taxes be damned. Hell, they almost did that when he announced a move to Jersey City, which is also a high tax/high services city.

My point is, there is always a trade-off. Low taxes are good, but lowering taxes isn't always the answer, if it means abandoning essential services. I consider every one of Bloomberg's 10 goals essential -- comparing things like subways to housing projects is a false analogy.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.