If the funds used by local government to purchase goods and services are derived from the tax-proceeds of local citizens, then it’s in those citizens’ best interest to ensure that local government MUST first consider spending that money on the goods and services provided by local businesses BEFORE they consider sending that money outside the region.

This cannot be a foreign concept – can it?

I admit that it’s unexpected that a Growthaphobe thinks it unwise (and perhaps illegal) to require tax-supported government to shop local…

The Boise area has been the beneficiary of a tremendous influx of out-of-state capital as local businesses offered up their services on the national & global markets — and took full advantage of the government’s “low bid is the best bid” fantasy. But this scenario also meant that as those business grew the local area had to accomodate all those new employees. This was an unsustainable situation — as the Guardian has pointed out — since it slaved the local economy to a volatile economic sector. It got to the point that no matter how many “tax breaks” the legislature passed, those high volume, fragile business ventures collapsed.

Stability will be re-established once local government spending (really the only large-scale spending citizens have any true control over), is contained to the local region.

It’s actually not that unusual for a public agency to restrict acquisitions to companies that are based within geographic proximity. This has very little to do with the equal protection clause, since non-local companies can become eligible for contracts simply by choosing to relocate to Boise — just as Boise (et al) had nothing to do with those companies “choosing” to disqualify themselves by deciding not to locate to the Boise area.

Localism only becomes prejudicial when the “proximity” offered in the spending statute so severly restricts the public’s options, that it is forced to contract with companies that benefit elected officials (their spouses, or other relatives). Typical proximity statutes specify location winthin 20-50 miles of the issuing agency.

The mantra of “lowest bid” has Walmarted America, and induced auto-dependent sprawl throughout once-pristine rural regions. And, as in Boise’s case, over leveraged these once small-populated areas into situations where there aren’t enough jobs left to keep everyone working. The long-term impact of such short-sightedness is rampant unemployment, and the attendent rise in crime and urban blight.

But, then again, if you think this was a good thing — then, by all means, oppose the “buy local” ordinance.

We pay the same whoever gets contracts, the only difference is that with foriegn firms many of the costs are externalities (hidden costs to society).

Ignorant poor people will always look to price first and don’t care who gets harmed in order for them to get their low price, including themselves in the case of processed poison called food and lead covered toys. Government should be held to a higher standard.

Clearly I was speaking in hypotheticals, either way tax payers pay more for the same product. As Gottfried von Haberler put it:

Nearly every industrial tariff was first imposed as an infant-industry tariff under the promise that in a few years, when the industry had grown sufficiently to face foreign competition, it would be removed. But, in fact, this moment never arrives. The interested parties are never willing to have the duty removed. Thus temporary infant-industry duties are transformed into permanent duties to preserve the industries they protect.