Politicians like to be able to point to large, finished projects and say, "I did that."

They know taxpayers aren't terribly likely to lift up the curtain and look closely enough to see whether these projects were sound fiscal decisions. And, in many cases, the politicians themselves aren't savvy enough to know, either.

And so, cities compete over silly things, like professional soccer stadiums that one day will glow and sparkle just off the freeway.

Sandy won that honor this week. The stadium mostly likely will come with a headquarters for a regional television center, also owned by soccer team owner Dave Checketts. The jobs this center creates will be real additions to the local economy. You can't quibble with that. But few people will bother to compare those relatively few well-paying jobs to the millions in public subsidies that will bring them there.

Politics is the art of magnifying the positive and hoping nobody notices the negative. All those numbers and tax rates and arguments about who really paid for what can be confusing. Just keep your eye on the game, buy some hot dogs and have a good time.

Which is why I was impressed last week by a proposal from Salt Lake County Auditor Sean Thomas. He wants to make cities be absolutely aboveboard and transparent from now on with how they deliver tax subsidies through redevelopment agencies.

To be clear, Sandy isn't proposing to use an RDA to help build the soccer stadium. But that's likely only because state lawmakers last year slapped a moratorium on redevelopment money for sports stadiums.

And if Thomas ever got his plan into law, cities would absolutely be free to use redevelopment money for stadiums or anything else, even "a lizard farm," as Thomas puts it.

The only difference is they would have to very clearly list all of that on the property tax notices you get each year. Right now, it's hidden. Not only that, it leads to higher taxes in ways most people never realize.

In general terms, here's how redevelopment works in Utah: Cities and counties can declare specific geographic areas as redevelopment districts. Then they provide incentives to developers who agree to build projects in those districts. The incentives are repaid by the new taxes the projects generate. It's a nifty way to lure big developments without having to raise taxes, and to clean up a "blighted" area at the same time. But the problem is it ties up a share of tax revenues for 20 years or more.

That might not be so bad if it affected only cities, but it ties up revenues for every taxing entity that lays claim to that district. That includes libraries, school districts, mosquito abatement districts — even the state. And because nifty new projects often lead to growth, they eventually put stresses on libraries, schools and other services, and these in turn end up having to raise taxes to cover the difference.