Increasing the local sales tax may or may not be the best way to fund an initiative to protect open space and provide new industrial sites in Douglas County. But it’s a little insulting for officials to oppose that funding strategy primarily because it would require approval by county voters.

After years of discussion and study, officials are ready to move forward on recommendations to boost the county’s dwindling supply of industrial sites while also protecting significant natural property in the county.

Both goals are important to the continued quality of life in Lawrence and Douglas County, but funding the proposal presents some challenges. Unfortunately, the only two sources readily available to local governments are the sales and property taxes, two taxes that Douglas County Administrator Craig Weinaug accurately labeled as “problematic.” Sales taxes are inherently regressive because they disproportionately affect low-income residents, but property taxes are a special burden for some people, especially older residents on fixed incomes.

So, caught between a taxing rock and hard place, members of the Lawrence-Douglas County Economic Development Board discussed their options last week. According to Weinaug’s figures, either a quarter-cent sales tax increase or a 2-mill property tax increase would meet the desired goal of raising $20 million over the next 10 years. Board members weren’t crazy about a property tax, but they generally favored it over a sales tax for one primary reason: A property tax increase would not require a public vote.

“For me, this is an issue of risk versus importance,” said County Commissioner Charles Jones, adding, “I’m very wary of the risk something this important will fail if we put it to the voters.”

The implication is that local voters just aren’t bright enough to grasp the importance of this issue, which seems like an unfair assessment. If local officials are convinced of the need for this project, they shouldn’t be afraid to go forth and sell it to the community and its voters.

Local voters certainly don’t have a history of rejecting tax increases that they believe are important to the community. The last time the local sales tax was raised was the 1 percent countywide increase approved by 57 percent of the voters in 1994.

One advantage that proposal had that is notably lacking in the current open space/industrial proposal was a very specific use for the money that would be raised, including construction of a new county jail and additional community health facilities as well as support for city parks and recreation facilities.

The open space/industrial proposal is more nebulous. Officials say the $20 million they want to raise might be used for industrial projects on the former Farmland property or near the Lawrence Municipal Airport or on preservation of the Black Jack Battlefield or native prairie near Lone Star Lake. But no definitive plans or price tags for those projects are on the table. The lack of specific spending targets is a disadvantage when trying to sell a tax increase to voters.

No tax increase is particularly palatable, especially considering the many other major projects that will be facing the city and county in the relatively near future. But it isn’t fair to local residents for officials to choose to raise property taxes primarily to avoid a public vote.

Such a strategy is disrespectful to voters and taxpayers. If officials think the open space/industrial land proposal isn’t strong enough to withstand a public vote, perhaps they should rethink their plan.