I find it interesting that they acknowledge they need taxes to provide services. What is the rationalization of "sales taxes" being ok while "property taxes" are bad?
It's ok to tax tourists/outsiders, but not the people living there and actually using the services?
Actually, that part of it made sense. The intent was to attract business with low taxes. They would make their money off sales tax levied on transactions for others--much like cities love to tax hotel rooms. The problem is the numbers didn't work.
Every tax must include the cost of collecting the tax. This is the reason sales taxes are so popular. The merchant is the tax collector and is allowed to keep a portion of the collection, if the total is remitted on time. The problem is, sales taxes do not reflect the cost of providing government services, in the same way a property tax will. Sales taxes are very cyclical, following the general economy, as well as the weather and natural disasters.
This little town in Texas fell for the Field of Dreams hype and as has been demonstrated everywhere else the "cut taxes and prosperity will come to you," was tried, they discovered that nothing grows without investment, and what's really important, governments exist to to make the investments which cannot return a cash profit.
Of the billion miles of roads in this nation, a very tiny percent are toll roads. Of those roads, the tolls only supplement the costs. The people who drive over any road are a small percent of those who economically benefit.
It's a very simple proposition. If a community wants low taxes, they must accept a lower standard of living. This lower standard is not always a bad thing, but it can mean a septic tank which must be maintained at the owners expense, instead of a no-care sewer system. It may mean driving over substandard roads at low speeds, to drive to a faraway store. The fire department must use those substandard roads, too. It's always a trade off.
As they used to say, there's no such thing as a free lunch.
