Proposed sewer rate increase unfairly burdens middle class
Later this year, Bakersfield residents can expect to start paying more for sewer and storm-drain services. The news was recently announced in a mailing from the city inviting public comment. Under the proposed plan, the annual fee for sewer services would increase by $5 a year for each single-family residence, upping the annual cost to $200.
Five dollars is hardly a fortune, and most homeowners won't notice the tax increase masquerading as a rate change. What is exceptional about the proposed increase is the expectation that middle-class homeowners will continue to quietly subsidize their wealthier neighbors.
Own a 4,000-square-foot home with three bathrooms in Haggin Oaks, get ready to pay $200. Or, own a 1,400-square-foot home with 11/2 baths in any number of smaller subdivisions or less affluent areas, and get ready to pay $200. All homes may not be created equal, but your sewer bill equals that of your wealthiest neighbor.
Forget that water and sewer usage is typically a direct function of home and lot size. If you own a mansion in Bakersfield, rest assured that you will pay no more for your sewer service than the most thrifty, struggling couple. And to the thousands of hardworking middle-class homeowners, get ready to bump up your subsidy to your wealthy neighbors. But, don't worry too much, the change is only $5 a year; you'll hardly notice it.
Ordinarily, our tax structure is progressive. Earn more and expect to pay more in taxes. It is a progressive rate system. The wisdom of the "earn more, pay more" structure is debated among some who reason that rich or poor, everyone draws equally on our collective contributions to national security, education, Social Security and so on.
Indeed, since wealthy taxpayers rarely call on unemployment benefits and are more likely to send their children to private schools, in some instances their utilization of public services is actually less than others. Still, the reasoning goes, it is impractical to attempt to precisely match taxes paid to benefits received and it's generally recognized that on balance the wealthy make out OK, even if they are asked to pay a bit more.
What's wrong then with the less well-off being asked to subsidize the wealthy once in awhile? Well, consider that there is a qualitative difference between national and local affairs. It may be unmanageable to track or price out the benefits of national security or interstate highways. But when it comes to municipalities and differences measured as readily as home and lot size, there is precious little justification for charging without regard to individual benefit.
Of course, apart from city planners and developers, it's unlikely that many of us spend much time thinking about the sewer or storm-drain system, except when it doesn't work. Further, in the scheme of things, the prospect of five more dollars a year just seems like one more of those nuisances that we silently tolerate. Yet there is the matter of principle: Tax increases may be periodically necessary. At the same time, we should be able to expect the cost will be fairly apportioned, even if it's only $5.
Konrad Moore of Bakersfield is the chief deputy public defender for Kern County.
