Today's Choice News | Mar. 11th, 2010

Rebuilding Maine’s Economy through Green Housing Investments

image: 

What Maine needs is a smart and focused approach to stimulating our economy and LD 774 does exactly that. LD 774 (An Act to Create Jobs and Improve Energy Efficiency Through the Transformation of Maine’s Housing Stock) addresses three of Maine’s most compelling problems with a long term strategy and short term results. The bill targets job creation and energy efficiency through the development, replacement, and repair of Maine’s aged housing stock. By issuing $200 million in revenue bonds over the next ten years including $30 million over the next two, LD 774 would pay for the construction of new units of affordable housing, renovation of existing housing, weatherization of existing housing stock, and replacement of pre-1976 mobile homes.

Housing affordability in Maine has long been ignored. With one of the oldest housing stocks in the country, 80 percent of our homes heated by oil, and a cold climate, Mainers are subject to volatile and burdensome heating costs. According to a study released this week by the MIT Center for Real Estate, more than 200,000 Maine households pay more than 30% of their income for housing costs (including utilities and commuting costs) and 86,000 households are severely burdened (low-income and paying more than half of their incomes toward housing). Almost 12,000 Maine households are on a waiting list for Section 8 housing vouchers, at least 7,500 are living in unsafe and uninsulated mobile homes manufactured before 1976, and still thousands more live on our streets or in emergency shelters.

Erratic energy costs make these affordability problems even more acute. We need a comprehensive plan to ensure that energy costs don’t leave anyone behind. To do this we will need to increase our supply of energy efficient homes as well as replace what cannot be fixed, so that everyone has a safe affordable home within reach. This can be a win-win from the standpoint of increasing affordability and reducing our collective energy dependence.

Equally compelling is the potential impact of this plan on jobs. Unemployment rates hit 7.8% in Maine in January surpassing the national rate. Job losses mean less spending, less lending by the banks, and less production. Housing construction is one of the best job creators because of the number of multipliers. New construction alone is said to create 750 jobs for every 500 new units. If you include the retrofitting and weatherization components of LD 774, Maine could see more than 5,000 jobs created or saved per year. Creating and retaining jobs means more revenue to the state in the form of income and sales tax. It means the banks are able to lend, contractors go back to work, the state captures more revenues, and Maine people gain access to quality, safe, affordable housing.

State revenues are shrinking, the need for critical services are growing and Mainers are worried about whether they will have another paycheck not to mention whether that check will meet their needs. The legislature will have to make important decisions about how to deal with a plummeting economy at a time when our state budget has a monumental shortfall. We cannot simply cut our way out of this situation nor can we ignore the realities of an $840 million shortfall. While some cuts are unavoidable, too many cuts will hurt our ability to gain ground in the near future and will undermine federal efforts to stimulate the economy.

The only way to get money flowing again in a recession is to increase demand. The federal government can do this by cutting interest rates and pumping more money into the economy. States, however, can’t just print more money, so they can only borrow. By selling bonds, states can generate money to be used to increase demand in areas that create new jobs and stimulate production where it’s most needed. When the State has recovered, we’re in a better position to pay off the debt. However, because it’s important not to take on more debt than we can support, there should be a clear standard for job creation and retention as well as investments that make us stronger going forward. LD 774 is targeted, timely and just what Maine needs to begin rebuilding.

Nicole Witherbee, PhD, is the Federal Budget Analyst at the Maine Center for Economic Policy.

ShareThis
Your rating: None Average: 1 (2 votes)

Comments

RE:Rebuilding Maine’s Economy through higher taxes is a bad idea

"By issuing $200 million in revenue bonds"

Are we sure that higher taxes is the right answer?

Bonds have to be paid back.

Yes the money might go to a few temporary jobs. But a portion of the money will go to administration, to banks, only a partof it will go to construction workers, and then only unitl the money runs out.

And we will be left paying these bonds with our taxes.

Bond issues are tax issues.

Rebuilding Maine's Economy A Taxpayer's Prospective

As altruistic as this bill appears to be, I'd like to take a moment to speak for myself (a taxpayer who has never qualified for anything remotely close to assistance - even though there were times in the past that I worked 2 jobs and STILL barely made enough to live).

I am all for helping people who need assistance to build a better life, but I have to say that I am at my wits end with all of the discussion of "job creation" that will only create jobs in the short term. Jobs that pay a living wage with reasonable benefits are all but gone now. The death of the many paper mills, shoe factories, textile mills, etc...have provided a dearth of jobs that cannot, and I repeat, cannot be replaced with mainly part-time service-sector minimum wage jobs with no benefits. I know how many residents of this state are employed - albeit - underemployed and qualify for Mainecare and other assistance. It is staggering to me. Contrary to popular belief, a considerable amount of Mainecare recipients aren't welfare cheats - many work full-time (or as close to full-time as they are allowed to). Construction jobs are great, yes, but the fact of the matter is that construction jobs wax and wane and sooner or later, they simply go away until the next "boom or bubble" of building.

This situation probably would have more support from many people IF it weren't for the indisputable FACT that this state seems to be working a budget that not only appears to be based on voodoo mathematics, but also seems to be addicted to spending revenue that it doesn't even have yet. I'll use the current school consolidation situation as an example of that: First the penalties are this much - oops! We were wrong...it won't cost you that much, it'll cost you this much - for now anyway. As a taxpayer all I can say is basic arithmetic will take us very far - do not spend what you don't yet have in order to generate an amount whose end will not justify its means. I'm also becoming less than impressed with a populace who seem to vote bond issues through as if free matching federal fund money rained down from the sky. Harsh perhaps, but I see what federal taxes fly out of my paycheck as well.

Furthermore, ForestBeekeeper hit the nail on the head when he said "But a portion of the money will go to administration, to banks, only a part of it will go to construction workers, and then only until the money runs out." After the money runs out, many of the construction workers will go back to qualifying for services, and the taxpayers will continue to pay both for this bill, and for the services that the newly-unemployed construction workers will then qualify for.

Personally, I would like to see the money spent in incenting businesses that don't have their corporate headquarters in another state (and send the bulk of their profits there) to come up here and hire Mainers so that they don't have to live in pre-1976 mobile homes. Reasonable wages and reasonable benefits would keep a lot of the working poor off Mainecare - which truly is a giant draining vortex of a program that's parting a lot of Mainers from a lot of their wages (in the form of taxes).

Additionally, with the number of people I now know who have recently received "pink slips" and the number of mortgage forclosures that I see daily in the paper, it'll be a matter of time before the tax-payer pool shrinks even further and I end up having to sell my home to move into a pre-1976 trailer. Sound contrived? Perhaps, but not to all of my acquaintances that were living high off the hog (and forking over big state taxes in the process) in the mortgage business for the last few years. It's all relative to me - for now anyway - able to still pay my bills and feed my kids without assistance. I'd like to keep it that way.

Who will pay?

I have traveled to many different regions and have seen this problem addressed in many different ways. I think it all depends on where the taxes are coming from. I am tired of seeing them take it all out on small businesses. The major corporations of the world, who are oftentimes backed by the government should be responsible for helping to pay the tab in my opinion. They can't keep taking it from small businesses or everything will crumble in my opinion.
Golden Rule | Atlas Travel | Workholding

I think going green is the

I think going green is the way to go. I think it can be a money maker if you do it right and really push it.
orlando cosmetic dentists

© Liberalati LLC RSS / Widgets | Editorial Guidelines
Home | About Us | Advertising Information | Privacy Policy | Employment
Please read our privacy policy. By using this site, you accept our Terms of Service