Mayor Eric Johnson spoke on Tuesday about “competing political philosophies” on the Dallas City Council leading to disagreements between officials about how taxpayer dollars should be spent.
The topic was raised at the Dallas Regional Chamber’s Year-End Conversation with Johnson attended by The Dallas Express. Dallas Business Journal Market president and publisher Ollie Chandhok asked the mayor why the majority of his colleagues on the council declined to approve a “no-new-revenue” (NNR) tax rate and budget for the current fiscal year.
As reported by The Dallas Express, the city council passed the largest budget in Dallas history in September. Council Member Cara Mendelsohn advocated for the adoption of an NNR plan in a bid to rein in City spending and reduce the property tax burden on Dallas residents.
This proposal was supported by Mayor Johnson but was not adopted, as the majority on the horseshoe voted against it.
“I think there is a philosophical difference on the Dallas City Council. I think there’s an actual divide,” Johnson said on December 12. “There are competing political philosophies.”
Johnson explained that it is the City’s responsibility to provide services like public safety, sanitation, and street maintenance, but officials should look at the areas where city government is not effective and reduce spending in those areas to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently.
“I want to see us do fewer things, better, and lower taxes so that people can keep more of their money and do things that they want to do with their families and live their best lives,” he said.
He explained that this leads to a “philosophical divide” on the council, as other members believe City dollars should be spent on a wide range of programs and services regardless of how effective those programs are.
“I do think there’s a group of folks on the council that tend toward my direction on this, and there’s a large group that doesn’t,” Johnson said. “Here’s what that divide boils down to: I think that there are folks who believe that if there’s a problem in the City of Dallas of any type, we should make an effort to solve it as a city government, and that there’s something we can do programmatically, whether it’s creat[ing] an office or a department or … directly spending money. That we ought to make an attempt to solve it.”
Johnson said it is a “great thing” for officials to want to help the people of Dallas in any way, but he contended that “the reality is, we have limited resources, and city government isn’t necessarily good at doing all those things that we would like to see solved.”
“Nor is it true that we are necessarily the right level of government to solve the problem, if government can solve it at all,” he added. “Some problems, government can’t really solve at all, and there are problems that government can solve, but maybe city government isn’t the right level to do it.”
A similar debate came up at City Hall last week during a briefing on the upcoming $1.1 billion bond program. City staff recommended spending $10 million of the bond on permanent supportive housing (PSH).
However, Council Member Mendelsohn noted that PSH is a federal program and argued City funds, whether from the bond program or the general fund, should not be directed toward PSH, as previously reported by The Dallas Express.
“That’s clearly a federal issue,” she explained. “We cannot solve every problem in our city with City dollars. Some of those are state things, some of those are county things, and some of those are federal things. We have a limited budget.”
Johnson added on Tuesday that he is “very sensitive to the fact that property taxes are a real burden on folks, particularly working-class folks.”
“I’m always looking at the city government from the perspective of — what are we doing that we’re not doing very well that we can stop doing and let someone else do, whether that’s the private sector or nonprofits or another level of government.”
Furthermore, Johnson said those on his side of this philosophical divide are often accused of being “heartless.”
“I think we’re at a point where [if] you don’t want to do it in the first place, then you’re painted as not caring or heartless. If you want to stop doing something that’s not working well, you’re painted as not caring or heartless,” he said. “I just don’t think that’s the reality. I think it’s just a different philosophical perspective on what government ought to be doing.”
Disagreements over taxpayer spending led to passionate debates at City Hall earlier this year as council members fought over the annual City budget. Now, similar disagreements are ensuing as the council determines how to allocate the $1.1 billion in the 2024 bond program.