For most people, talk of government tax credits for thedevelopment of new housing opportunities sounds like a complicatedexercise in some strange form of mathematics. Those who qualify tolive in the new structures probably don’t fully understand theoverall concept.

But for many municipalities and counties where the taxcredit-assisted developments spring up, it’s a simple matter ofproperty tax dollars and cents. And the math is just not workingfor the local leaders.

As a result, the Mississippi Association of Supervisors and theMississippi Municipal League are pursuing legal action to challengeso-called Section 42 rules that allow developer tax breaks for thiskind of housing for low- to moderate-income workers. Brookhaven andtwo other communities in the state joined the MAS and MML legaleffort this week.

The problem for local officials is that the law allows developersto be assessed not on the actual value of the property, but by therental income that it generates.

Couple that with additional rules limiting the amount of money alow-income worker can make to qualify to live in the home andleaders’ concerns become clearer. The property tax revenue simplyis not there.

However, like other citizens in the community, residents in Section42 housing utilize schools, streets and roads, police and fireprotection and other local government services.

“All those services that the city provides has to be paid for bysomeone,” said Ward Six Alderman David Phillips during a Wednesdaypublic hearing on a proposed Section 42 development in his area ofBrookhaven.

Supporters of Section 42 housing contend that if that kind ofproperty were taxed like other property, then tenants would beforced to pay higher rent or mortgages, or developers would go outof business. The very meaning of the phrase “low income” makespaying more for housing a challenge.

An issue that cannot be escaped, though, is the fairness factor.And that is a big reason why city and county officials across thestate are challenging the Section 42 rules.

When an occupant of Section 42 housing is unable to meet the sametax obligations as those who live in similar homes but taxed atfair market value, there is a problem.

Tax revenue lost under the Section 42 regulations must be made upelsewhere. In many cases that means higher property taxes on otherhomeowners, thereby creating even more of a fairnessimbalance.

Furthermore, the possibility of Section 42 housing reducing thevalue of surrounding neighborhoods cannot be ignored.

Therefore, the burden of paying for government services used by allis again pushed disproportionately onto other property owners.Either that must happen or all will suffer from a decrease inavailable services because government entities are no longer ableto pay for them.

That could explain why one official even referred to the Section 42developments as “city killers.”

The issue is not about whether low- or moderate-income individualsdeserve a home to call their own. No one but the most cold andheartless among us would say they do not.

The real matter involves government rules that favor one kind ofdevelopment to the detriment of other property owners and agovernment’s ability to fund needed services. When too few are leftto pick up the tab, all will pay the price.