3 Reasons Why City Government Should Not Collect Taxes from Businesses Impacted by Riots

Cheerleading, Incompetence, and Appeasement Come At A Cost!

In the aftermath of civil unrest, small businesses often bear the brunt of financial losses through no fault of their own. Often, feckless city governments have a critical role in supporting these businesses by reconsidering tax collections during their recovery to engender long-term economic stability.

1. Promoting Economic Recovery

The Need for Support

Businesses affected by riots face substantial, unexpected financial strain through no fault of their own. Taxing these entities during their recovery phase can exacerbate their struggles and hinder revitalization efforts.

The Argument

By suspending tax collection, city governments can provide essential breathing room for these businesses. When businesses thrive, they contribute positively to the city’s financial health in the long run through a steady stream of taxes and fees - that vacant commercial spaces in their stead - can’t yield!

2. Acknowledging the Social Contract

The Role of Government

City governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens and businesses through cogent planning and effective law enforcement. When civil unrest occurs, if the rioter can’t reimburse the business, the local city government can right their wrong via issuing tax credits or payment relief by not collecting city taxes during the next tax year cycle.

The Argument

Taxing businesses that have suffered losses can be seen as a breach of the social contract, as city leadership failed to protect the local business from a raging mob through ineffective law enforcement or reasonable preventive measures.

Why should the city be rewarded for this ginormous failure by collecting taxes from business they did not adequately protect? 

Shoot, when a utility provider doesn’t live up to their end of the deal, customers rightfully expected a prorated bill or a partial refund, reflecting the inadequate service.

Instead of punishing business for suffering circumstances beyond their control, governments should prioritize healing and rebuilding. A supportive approach demonstrates a commitment to community welfare and acknowledges the struggles faced by local businesses - caused in part by feckless city leadership.

3. Encouraging Long-Term Investment

Attracting Businesses

When local governments show empathy by alleviating the tax burden on riot-affected businesses, it fosters goodwill and trust among residents and business owners alike.

When business leaders see city governments owning their responsibility by being fair to riot-impacted business via tax credits or a riot tax exemption, they will be encouraged to invest in said city.

Heartlessly taxing those already facing adversity - while not acknowledging some culpability via tax relief programs - can send a negative message to potential investors, making them hesitant to establish or expand their operations in that part of the city!

The Argument

Often, extensively rioted areas never fully regain their former glory or prominence. After the 1965 Watts Riots (also known as the Watts Rebellion), it took 20 years for a supermarket to move back into Watts, CA. This caused a food desert for locals, with only convenience stores, fast food restaurants, and liquor stores to pick up the slack.

Sadly, a swath of Black-owned businesses such as bars, restaurants, and clothing shops simply never returned.

In the aftermath of riots, often marginalized and poorer communities also lose out, as business deserts replace once-thriving commercial centers. However, it doesn’t have to be this way.

If business investors see city officials owning up to their responsibility in letting a riot, rebellion, or uprising get out of control - and proactively compensate affected businesses - investors will be more likely to view the city as a stable and supportive environment; fostering confidence in future investments and economic growth.

By suspending taxes for businesses affected by riots, city governments can create a more favorable environment for investment. This proactive approach signals that the city is committed to supporting its businesses, which can attract new enterprises and stimulate economic growth in the long run.

Conclusion

By prioritizing support for affected businesses instead of imposing taxes, city officials can rebuild trust and encourage investment in the community. This approach not only acknowledges the failures of local leadership, but also lays the groundwork for a more resilient and prosperous future for all stakeholders involved.