Part of the reasoning given in the article is to shore up the "rapidly sinking tax base" of the state and it reminds me that we don't have a good example of governments that both grow and shrink based on the economic activity of the state. That is something that could really help areas remain stable for longer periods of time I expect.
The "pro-tax" people in my area are also generally against this sort of thing, because they want nothing more than to take more money and spend it on special constituencies.
For example, my state passed a sales tax that was sold to us as a way to better preserve our parks, wild lands and cultural heritage. About 19% has gone to the DNR, which means less actually went to the stated cause. The rest is being funneled to art projects that are poorly received and utilized.
Mind you, this is in a state that's very pro-taxation, and otherwise very liberal.
12 states, mostly low tax states. Texas has 2, both from the 19th Century.
That has changed in the past 100 years, especially in the New World. You no longer have to worry about your towns being burned down by an invading army (not in the developed world at least). The systems and thinking that we have in place for governing have just never dealt with this problem before.
I do hope that it changes in the near future as we see the inevitable decline in many, many rural communities in the US and the hyper-growth of urban conglomerates. It would be nice if Governments could plan for a gradual decline in the population and ensure that basic city services would survive the decline by investing judiciously, rather than try to reverse the trend with expensive gimmicks to attract people that lose money, make the communities financially insolvent and basically increase their misery.