When local leaders in Des Moines talk about affordability they are finally naming a problem taxpayers have been raising for years. Housing costs are rising. Property tax bills are climbing. Families feel squeezed. On that, there is broad agreement. Where the discussion too often falls apart, however, is on the cause, and therefore the solution.
Some local officials now acknowledge that Des Moines residents face a heavier property tax burden than they should. That realization, while overdue, is welcome. But it is hard to take seriously when the conversation stops short of confronting the root issue: local government spending. Affordability is not undermined by a lack of clever incentives or insufficient tax abatements. It is undermined when government grows faster than taxpayers’ ability to pay.
Rather than grappling with that reality, much of the affordability discussion continues to fixate on how to fine-tune property tax rules or expand incentive programs. That approach misses the forest for the trees. Property taxes are high because spending is high. Until that relationship is acknowledged, no amount of policy tinkering will make Des Moines meaningfully more affordable.
One example of this disconnect is the ongoing debate over tax abatements. Several years ago, Des Moines offered generous abatements for luxury homes, promising economic spillover and long-term benefits. Critics (namely ITR Foundation) warned at the time that the program distorted the market, favored a narrow group of property owners, and shifted the tax burden onto everyone else. Those warnings were dismissed.
Now, some of the same local leaders who benefited from those abatements are calling for scaled-back versions of the policy. That reversal is revealing. If abatements were such an effective affordability tool, why is there suddenly concern about their scope? The answer is simple: the program did not deliver broad affordability. It merely redistributed tax burdens while leaving overall spending untouched.
Even more troubling is the suggestion that similar incentive models should be extended to small businesses, modeled after long-standing agreements with major corporate employers, specifically pointing to Wells Fargo. That argument ignores the bank’s recent layoff history. One of the city’s flagship incentives subsidized a large employer that accepted public subsidies for years, only to later scale back operations and shed thousands of jobs. If that is the model, it should serve as a warning, not a template.
Economic development does not fail because incentives are insufficiently generous. It fails when governments attempt to substitute targeted deals for a healthy, low-tax environment. Businesses value predictability, workforce availability, and manageable tax burdens far more than one-off abatements negotiated behind closed doors. The idea that affordability can be engineered through ever-more creative incentive packages is not only misguided, it is costly.
What makes this debate especially ironic is that affordability advocates often criticize property tax limits as too restrictive, while simultaneously opposing the very spending discipline that would make stronger limits—and therefore affordability— workable. Property tax restrictions without spending restraint simply shift pressure elsewhere in the system. True reform requires aligning revenues with sustainable spending, not hoping growth or incentives will magically cover the difference.
If Des Moines leaders are serious about affordability, the conversation must expand beyond symptoms and address causes. That means asking difficult questions about the size and scope of local government, the pace of spending growth, and whether every program and subsidy truly serves taxpayers. It also means acknowledging that broad-based tax relief—lower rates for everyone—is more effective than carving out exceptions for favored projects or industries.
Affordability is not achieved by choosing winners and losers. It is achieved when government lives within its means and allows families and businesses to keep more of what they earn. That principle applies whether the discussion is about housing, property taxes, or economic development.
The good news is that the affordability conversation is happening at all. That represents progress. But unless it evolves beyond lamenting high tax bills and toward confronting spending decisions, it will remain an exercise in frustration. Iowa communities do not need a new incentive strategy or a rebranded abatement program. They need fiscal restraint, transparency, and a willingness to say no.
Affordability is not a mystery. It is a choice.
Print a PDF