the official blog of the evergreen freedom foundation

Now is Not the Time to Build Heritage Center

Posted by Brett Davis - February 25, 2010

The Olympian and The Daily News Online both editorialize on the merits of keeping the proposed Washington State Heritage Center off the chopping block, even as lawmakers deal with a $2.8 billion deficit. We respectfully disagree.

 
The $110 million project, which would house state archives, the state library and historical displays, calls for a footprint of 142,000 square feet. That works out to more than $774 per square feet, which tops the state Department of Information Services’ new headquarters—$650 per square foot (394,000 square feet at $255 million). Both projects are more expensive than the Bellevue Towers, which sold a few years ago for an all-time high of $575 per square foot. The purchasing price was described as “mindboggling” at the time by local real estate brokers. That doesn’t exactly seem like getting a lot of bang for the buck.
 
Secretary of State Sam Reed rationalizes the project as a jobs-creator. Of course, the money that funds said jobs doesn’t come out of thin air. Since government doesn’t have any of its own money, taxpayers end up footing the bill. Government can’t create jobs; it can only transfer money from the private sector to pay for priorities politicians consider more important. Simply put, jobs are a cost, not a benefit. Constructing an expensive building for the sake of “creating” jobs is a sure-fire recipe for wealth-destruction.
 
Furthermore, Reed’s request that the legislature not raid the money already saved up fund construction is laughable, given that the legislature raids dedicated accounts all the time. How do you think lawmakers, at least in part, balanced last year’s budget?
 
Finally, Reed’s touting of the Heritage Center as a project that is funded by an increase in fees paid to file documents at the county courthouse—no additional money or taxing authority, in other words—belies the fact that those fees could better serve those paying them if they were actually directed toward criminal justice purposes.
 

The legislature should responsibly fill the budget gap before giving the okay on spending taxpayer money on a luxurious Heritage Center that would fill a history void.

Thoughts?   Add Comment -

David Ammons, Office of Secretary of State said on Feb 26 2010 at 10:36am
This project, previously approved by big majorities in both houses by members of both parties, is a capital construction project with its own dedicated revenue stream. It does NOT compete with other projects in the capital budget and has absolutely nothing to do with the $2.8 billion OPERATING budget problem.

Were the Heritage Center not to be built, it would add not one dime for criminal justice, schools or anything else. (Neither house budget proposes to grab the $10 million accumulated Heritage Center fund, although the House Capital Budget talks about the money possibly being used for Capitol Campus projects.) If the Legislature gives a green light to issuing Certificates of Participation and construction begins promptly, the project would generate over 1,000 jobs in the private sector and $6 million in sales tax receipts for the General Fund.

In the long run, it is cheaper to own rather than rent facilities. Without this new consolidated structure, we will continue leasing space for the State Library and our Archives are nearly full.
State law requires the archiving of the state's most important papers. The dedicated fees previously approved by the Legislature for this project include those paid to record archival documents (county recordings and corporation filings). The Association of Washington Business, Realtors and independent business organizations supported the user fee as long as they were used to house archival records, and not merely enrich the main General Fund.

Snatching the accumulated fees, rather than allowing this little savings account to be used as the down-payment for construction, will force higher costs on state taxpayers over the long run.

We ask that readers of this blog to consider supporting this fine project. It makes economic sense and it's a wonderful proposal for preserving and teaching our history and our heritage. One small but amazing little product of the Heritage Center is already available -- nine free down-loadable oral history/biography of some of Washington's fascinating citizens. Using foundation money, not public money, the Heritage Center and our Legacy Project recently opened a year-long display in the Secretary of State's Office to honor the women pioneers in government. This coincides with our celebration of the centennial of women's suffrage in Washington state.

said on Feb 26 2010 at 4:09pm

Brett said on Feb 27 2010 at 1:30pm
The bottom line is it's still taxpayer money. In the midst of a $2.8 billion deficit, this doesn't strike me as the best use of public funds. Perhaps the state should tighten its belt and focus on core government functions.

As for the notion that this is a jobs-creator, government can't really "create" jobs per se, as government can't inject money into the economy (via the jobs for this project) without first taking money out of the economy--the private sector, where jobs are actually created. Those in the private sector can spend money much more efficiently than the government can.
Adding government jobs is never a net addition to employment opportunities, because it means a heavier burden on private employers and employees.

I think Henry David Thoreau put it best when he said, "Government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alarcity with which it got out of its way."

Nice shameless plug, by the way. :)

Brett said on Feb 27 2010 at 1:32pm
Pardon me: I meant "alacrity" in the Thoreau quote. Dang typos. LOL

Bob Williams said on Mar 03 2010 at 11:51am
1. The project adds to the state debt, which has gone from $8.5 billion in June 2003 to $15.4 billion in January 2010.

2. The state has $12.7 billion in bonds authorized but not issued due to the debt limit. Those projects should be prioritized and this project would not be the top project.

3. County recording and filing fees could better be used for higher priority projects. The Priorities of Government process should be used for this.

4. This project has everything to do with future operating budget problems. When completed, the new facility will need funds for staffing, pensions, health care, maintenance, etc.

5. Certification of participations are an accounting gimmick to get around the constitutional debt limit, BUT it still adds to the outstanding debt limit which is now twice the national average.

6. It is not always cheaper to own than it is to rent. The cost per square foot of this project raises serious questions about not only regarding leasing vs. building, but also if all the space is truly needed.

7. As should have readily been seen in the last two years, there is no such thing as a dedicated fund. The funds could very easily be "snatched" by future legislatures.

The main questions are: Do we really need this much space? Is there a cost-effective alternative? Can some of these "projects" be transferred out, etc.?

Sam Reed's comments in The Olympian appeared to set up a tourist destination which would duplicate the mission of the state museum. The cost per square foot cannot be justified particularly in this economy.