On Tuesday, I received an interesting email, “Most people I know are voting against the parks parcel tax. I’m still thinking about it.”
The email surprised me a bit. We ran a parks article and even most of the conservatives seems to have not much of a problem with the idea of extending the well-underfunded tax.
I talk to a lot of people and haven’t met one who is actually opposed to the parks tax. In fact, one of the people heading up the Measure D committee reported to me on Tuesday that the parks tax is so-non-controversial that people do not even stop to talk to them about it, they simply wave and say they are supporting it and move on.
On Tuesday night, the city nevertheless laid out their options in the unlikely event that the city were to lose out on the $1.36 million generated by the tax, which comes in at a very modest $49 annually.
We will paraphrase what the city manager said on Tuesday: it would be bad.
If you want a fuller version: “It would mean a permanent reduction in the quality of the parks that we have in the community,” Steve Pinkerton told the council on Tuesday night.
The problem is that I kind of get the frustration of the email message, as well.
The problem is not the parks, it’s city governance, and frankly I am disappointed and growing more disappointed at the city and what it has done since June 30, 2011 on the budget – which is nothing except pound and pray.
The pounding portion is the additional $75 grand that they gave to their professional negotiator whose job it is to exact blood from the city employees.
The pray is that somehow that will be enough money to stave off catastrophe.
I will spoil the ending for all involved – it won’t be.
As much as I supported the 3-2 vote which was supported by Dan Wolk and opposed by Sue Greenwald and Stephen Souza, I still have grave concerns about the city’s approach to the budget deficit.
One of the reasons I supported closing down the pool last year was a message to the community that we are in trouble. Sadly, most that do not follow this stuff daily do not seem to get it.
The problem is that one of the things I suggested is that we figure out what our budget priorities truly are. I agree that we need to put more money toward pensions and retiree health to shore up what are large and growing unfunded liabilities. I agree with budgeting $1 million – I have a severe problem with the fact that the budget was passed on June 30 and not implemented in any way, shape or form.
I understand Sue Greenwald and Stephen Souza both believed that the cuts needed to start through collective bargaining, but the number that we need to get to is NOT $2.5 million, it is probably closer to $7.5 million, the number cited last year by Sue Greenwald that Paul Navazio shockingly did not dispute.
That gets us back to the parks tax. The dilemma that you have here is that the parks tax itself only funds one-quarter of the parks funding. Ultimately, I think some of the bleak scenarios that Mr. Pinkerton laid out on Tuesday will have to come to pass.
He said, as I lift from the Davis Enterprise article: “You won’t have parks mowed every week … you’re not going to see any more edging along the sidewalks in any of our parks or around the play areas, you won’t have the dollars for fertilizer, you won’t have the dollars to check our shrubs every year to see if we need to prune those, you’re going to see less water on our grass, it’s not going to be the Davis green that you’re used to. It’s going to be somewhere south of green in the future.”
But because the parks tax only funds one-quarter of the costs, and because some of those costs are pretty fixed, it does not make sense at this time to pull the tax funding.
AND YET, and here is the critical point, we have not done what we needed to do on the budget this year. We needed to figure out what we as a community have to fund, what we want to fund, and what we can no longer afford to fund.
I truly believe that if we want a city recreation program and greenbelts and green parks, we need to find public-private partnerships, because $7.5 million is more than 20% of the current budget.
Moreover, I resent the fact that we have patch-worked this process. In 2010 we passed the sales tax, in 2012 we are asked to pass the parks tax. But we have no plan. We are flying by the seat of our pants and praying for a miracle that quite frankly is not going to come.
We are not going to fix this with new revenue from economic development. The real estate bubble is probably never going to return to the double-digit annual revenue increases. And the bills are coming due very soon.
So, part of me wants to agree with the hardline view that the city has been run poorly and that, despite the best of intentions in the last year, it is really not being run much better now, and we still have no plan.
The public does not pay attention until we close their pools, brown their green belts and close their parks.
And yet, despite all of this, there is no part of me that thinks this will get better magically if $1.36 million in additional revenue disappears.
Ask yourself if losing another $1.36 million will make things better or worse and then decide for yourself.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I watched the City Manager present this Tues night and was very unimpressed. It was all doom and gloom. It was all what we won’t see if it isn’t passed. RATHER than look to see how we could do things differently if it doesn’t, or maybe, hopefully if it does, e.g., different, less maintenance plantings, different schedules, maybe volunteers etc etc. totally reminded me of current school board who laments and cuts but rarely solves by coming up with alternate ways to do things. Someone said Tues that Davis has more parks than any other city-well maybe we need to give some up during these difficult times. They ARE difficult times, right?!
I keep waiting to be impressed with the city manager, still hopeful. David will you be providing an evaluation at some point?
[i]We are not going to fix this with new revenue from economic development. The real estate bubble is probably never going to return to the double-digit annual revenue increases. And the bills are coming due very soon.[/i]
Lets hope our newly elected city council has a much different view than you. Economic development is not hoping or planning for a real estate bubble to return, but true economic development absolutely can help us grow out of this malaise. A business development plan that welcomes business instead of “shooing” it away, using the strengths that we have (UCD, highly educated work force)can attract businesses that can significantly increase the tax base and subsequently retail revenues and sales taxes.
Continually increasing taxes on households is not going fly with the taxpayers. City finances have to be brought under control, which I think all the candidates understand. In my view, we need elected officials that are interested in moving Davis to the future, instead of clinging to the past.
[quote]Someone said Tues that Davis has more parks than any other city-well maybe we need to give some up during these difficult times. [/quote]SODA… am assuming you’re volunteering to give up the parks and/or greenbelts within 1/4 mile of your home. Thank you for your generosity.
Hpierce
In South Davis (SODA) my green belt is more natural, takes less maintenance than others so yes think I have. Why so nasty? Do you not agree with trying to do things differently or do you believe status quo will work today?
With all of the current focus on the growing crisis of obesity in the nation, funding for safe and beautiful parks and greenbelts is essential. If we are going to get rid of a tax, let’s get rid of the Open Space tax or figure out a way to divert those funds to actual accessible open space on the periphery of town. Proponents of no peripheral growth and densification should be campaigning for the Parks tax. Densification won’t work unless there are parks and open space within walking distance of homes to help maintain sanity. What people don’t know is that this tax started out as a fee, but changed to a tax when challenged in a lawsuit. We’ve been voting in favor of it ever since. We expect people, who move here because they like what Davis has to offer, to vote for it again. This tax results in a direct benefit to everyone in town, unlike the schools taxes, which only has an indirect benefit.
Sorry, this is a bit off topic… but despite the opinion expressed in the e-mail, I will be incredibly shocked if the park tax is not renewed. In fact, Davis parks are so popular that it causes me to suspect that the ChamberPAC’s support for Measure D is simply to build an appealing facade for the townspeople in order to distract from the legally dubious addition of candidate support to the PAC agenda. If most of the money generated by the PAC goes towards Measure D, what a waste because it’s a lock anyway. And yet, if the money primary helps candidates, what a sham.
David’s article makes sense. I agree with the points suggested, except that even if the pool closed down, I don’t think most Davisites would necessarily “get it.”
[i]”In my view, we need elected officials that are interested in moving Davis to the future, instead of clinging to the past.”[/i]
Adam, well said. Agree 100%.
[i]”It was all doom and gloom. It was all what we won’t see if it isn’t passed.”[/i]
SODA, you have hit on the root of the problem. We need a huge paradigm shift in government and the public sector for getting creative for ways to provide essential and higher value services. However, they are both stuck in a routine of “I can’t do it unless I get more money”. You can understand this… their jobs are not on the line like would be working for a private sector business cutting service to customers. The public are captive customers, and the public-sector businesses have the monopoly. The union-political strategy is to let enough customer pain develop that we gladly tax ourselves more. This strategy worked so well for Democrats and the unions in the past, but as is the case, all good things eventually come to an end.
My idea would be to completely change how many municipal services are provided by replacing full-time paid city workers by part-time citizen workers. For example, we could pay citizens $10-12 per hour without benefits for working no more than 20 hours per week to maintain the parks. How many college students would jump at chance to do this work to help pay for their education? How about the same for the fire department? Have a smaller core crew of professionals and paid volunteers to fill the rest of the need. Yes these volunteers would need to be trained; but how much money would we save paying $15-20 per hour without benefits to replace 40-50% of the highly-paid professional staff. Both of these roles would work well for part-time labor because the work can be staffed outside the normal 8-5 work/school day.
[quote]Someone said Tues that Davis has more parks than any other city-well maybe we need to give some up during these difficult times.
[quote][/quote]Hpierce
In South Davis (SODA) my green belt is more natural, takes less maintenance than others so [b]yes think I have[/b][have what?]. Why so nasty? Do you not agree with trying to do things differently or do you believe status quo will work today? [/quote]Dd not intend to be “nasty”… sorry if I came off in that manner. So, your area has no turf, the trees, shrubs, need no maintenance, no encroachments on on pathways… if we cannot afford all parks and greenbelts, do you have a priority list/criteria for which ones are left to neglect? I actually agree with you, from the standpoint that we may (probably) need to cut back standard to save money. I would be willing to volunteer [and, have in the past] to put “work equity” into maintenance. Are you prepared to do the same? How many citizens can be expected to do so? [rhetorical question. not directed to SODA].
Considering how many parks are co-located with schools (no ‘accident) and how many greenbelt systems, particularly bikepaths, were designed to provide least-risk access to schools, perhaps the DJUSD should help share in the maintenance costs. They take a much bigger share of my taxes than do the parks/greenbelt assessments.
I would like to offer a slightly different perspective. I was there during the presentation at the City Council meeting. What surprised me is just how many parks have been added to the Davis inventory over the last 10-15 years. It has increased something like 3 fold, yet the parks tax has stayed virtually the same. (Sorry I cannot give more exact numbers, I am just conjuring up from vague recollections that evening.) Yet personnel have been/will be cut to take care of a huge amount of public parks acreage that Davis chose to invest in when times were good.
Secondly, Davis is a compact community, with very little in the way of yards (except perhaps El Macero), which makes parks and greenbelts almost a necessity. In fact, if we do away with turf grass and start xeriscaping to save on water and maintenance, Dr. Tschobonglous indicated in a IWRS Charrette recently we can expect temperatures within the city to go up by as much as 10 degrees. Global warming anyone?
I tend not to be in favor of tax measures in general, but this one to me seems like a no-brainer…
“We are not going to fix this with new revenue from economic development.” –David Greenwald
I don’t know what to make of this statement at all. There are 3 ways to solve a budget deficit: 1) all cuts; 2) all revenue increase; 3) a combination of the two. We are not some podunk town on the backass of nowhere entirely dependent upon a depleted silver or coal mine. Davis has a mine (UCD) that has a resource (intellectual capital) that will never be depleted (unless it self-destructs or the legislature destroys it). This valuable resource, intellectual capital, is laying around on the street in our community. All we have to do is pick it up. The Chamber PAC is loudly advocating for #3.
Speaking of which, the front page of today’s Enterprise make it yet again clear why the PAC endorsed Souza, Wolk, and Frerichs. In the article, “On budget, it’s all about personnel for candidates”, provided each of the 5 candidates plans for guiding the city to fiscal sustainability. Greenwald states that the ability to increase our revenues is “limited since much economic development is revenue-neutral”. Lee does not mention revenue growth at all. Souza, Wolk, and Frerichs all state that revenue growth has to be part of the solution.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Chamber PAC member)
PS: More on this subject in the next few days.
“In fact, Davis parks are so popular that it causes me to suspect that the ChamberPAC’s support for Measure D is simply to build an appealing facade for the townspeople in order to distract from the legally dubious addition of candidate support to the PAC agenda. If most of the money generated by the PAC goes towards Measure D, what a waste because it’s a lock anyway.”
Here we go again with the scurrilous and unsubstantiated charges. There is absolutely nothing legally dubious about advocating for a robust local economy to foster a sustainable Davis community. Or to support candidates that agree with this advocacy. It never ceases to amaze me that certain individuals find this objectionable.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Chamber PAC member)
Well hpierce, just getting back to DV after spending my day volunteering at two Davis locales. Volunteerism is a wonderful part of Davis I am sure we can agree on that.
Well there are two parks within 1/4 mi of me, maybe 3-4 even and although my kids are grown I have taken my grandsons to a couple of them and IF NEED BE to work within our city’s means, yes I would agree to close one.
As far as helping, here in S Davis with our lower maintenance green belts as compared to other side of freeway, my husband has removed a number of dead brush over the years.
What I forgot to say wasmwhynin the world is the city considering a 50m state of the art pool. If I read the paper correctly we are or will pay a consultant to analyze the idea. That isan example of why I am disappointed in the city. They just don’t get it. Agree with that?
I’ve never understood why the definition of ‘greenbelt’ in Davis equates to lawn. All it takes is a quick bike ride around town to understand that the vast majority of our lawn acreage is never used for games, picnics etc., so why do we put so much time and money into maintaining a manicured lawn?
“[i]You won’t have parks mowed every week … you’re not going to see any more edging along the sidewalks in any of our parks or around the play areas, you won’t have the dollars for fertilizer, you won’t have the dollars to check our shrubs every year to see if we need to prune those, you’re going to see less water on our grass…[/i]”
My question is why didn’t we implement these changes in 2008 when the economy went south? If we only keep the lawn in areas that are utilized as play space, and replace the rest with native grasses, forbs and shrubs, the cost of maintaining the space would have dropped without impacting the ‘green.’ We aren’t managing a golf course, so why are we paying for one?
Thank you Mark. That is- a great example of what I am talking about! But I heard none of that from the City Mgr (or the school district/Board)
Michael, your PAC is illegal and corrupt. Anyone with at least borderline intelligence can see that you are violating Municipal Code 12.01.035. Kemble is director of your PAC, and yet he was Souza’s campaign consultant and, Souza apparently also publishes Kemble’s Davis Voice blog. You’re full of it. 😀
The PAC is a harm to local democracy because it will always give the edge to businesses over individual interests. According to what I’ve heard, Souza’s been trying to fast-track the Davis water project since day 1. If we Davis residents would have been complacent and not signed for the referendum, we would have paid millions more that we shouldn’t have. The delay caused by the referendum has brought with it great negotiations in price, to the tunes of tens of millions of dollars, or so I’m told.
I suggest the city establish a citizen’s advisory commission of landscape professionals to review the parks and greenbelts and suggest actions that could be taken to reduce water use and maintenance costs.
Scott: no personal attacks, please.
Don, I wasn’t personally attacking anyone. Ban me if you wish. They are breaking the law, they are corrupt, and they know it. A simple reading of the law proves this. I didn’t call them names; I used the adjective “corrupt” to describe them because they are. I can’t pretend they are innocent and not breaking the law.
I won’t bow down to those too sensitive to handle raw honesty. Ban me if I’m too much for you all to handle. Sheesh!
And besides, he told me I was full of it too. Just because he didn’t say it exactly in those words, but rather he clouded it with politically correct neutralized jargon doesn’t change anything. It’s lame that you single me out. I’m a fan of saying what I mean not obfuscating things.
Wow, one of you had to nerve to delete the truth… I’m done with this site if it believes in censoring the truth.
Nothing I said was a personal attack. I stand by that, and I’m really bothered that a site I respected would bar personal opinions based on documented facts. I guess this is goodbye. Cheers!
Scott: this is what I was referring to: [i]You’re full of it. :D[/i] I have no problem with your analysis or your opinion of the ChamberPAC. Just don’t get personal with other blog participants, please. That’s all.
He is full of it. I’m done with you, your censorship, and the site. As I just told you on the wiki, I refuse to pander to such types and when people like you look after them, that immediately cuts me off. Have a nice life.
“The PAC is a harm to local democracy because it will always give the edge to businesses over individual interests.” -Scott Meehleib
It never occured to me that local businesses were at odds with individual interest. Last time I checked, local business owners were themselves individuals and members of the community. Last time I checked, local business owners provided the good and services that the community depended upon. Last time I checked, local business owners provided jobs so that individuals could support their families. Last time I checked, local business owners were part of the fabric of the community. Now Scott would have me believe we are the enemy waging war against the community. Scott, I’m not buying into it.
The other thing I’m not buying into is the notion that business owners don’t have the right to organize and participate in the political process. Last time I checked, we have every right to do so as does every other interest group. And we have every right to raise funds, so that we can inform the community that part of being sustainable is having the financial wherewithal to pay for vital city services, community amenities, and good schools.
-Michael Bisch
MIchael: [i]Speaking of which, the front page of today’s Enterprise make it yet again clear why the PAC endorsed Souza, Wolk, and Frerichs.[/i]
From the article cited:
Souza: [i]”We must increase and diversify revenues by attracting new businesses and entertainment to our vibrant downtown and neighborhood shopping centers.”[/i]
What has the incumbent done to attract new businesses, particularly to the moribund neighborhood shopping centers?
Wolk: [i]we need to address personnel expenses, support a robust local economy, share services with other agencies and expand public-private partnerships[/i].
With much less time in office, can you cite an instance of Dan’s support for any specific public-private partnerships?
I’m afraid I find Lucas’es responses pretty much non-starters. The city isn’t going to combine purchasing with the school district for a lot of reasons that the finance staff of those agencies can explain. And it’s easy to talk about “a comprehensive line-by-line look at the budget,” but I’d be more interested to hear what Lucas has found as he’s done that. The city’s budget is available. I doubt he’s going to find all that much outside of personnel costs.
The parks tax is an immediate need. Economic development may provide long-term help to the city’s finances. But Sue provides a note of realism that city services to new development often cost more than expected. If a peripheral site is developed, for example, would we need the 4th fire station that was advocated by Stephen Souza? What would be the annual and long term cost to the city? How many police and fire calls are created by freeway-based sites? What kind of revenues to tech firms provide to the city?
Don, I agree with most of what you say, but:
“Economic development may provide long-term help to the city’s finances.”
It most certainly will. The sooner we start, the sooner we benefit. Had we started 4 years ago, where would be today? For example, had we taken measures to boost our local economy 2% p.a. 4 years ago, our local economy would be 8.2% larger. In 10 years the local economy would be 22% larger.
“But Sue provides a note of realism that city services to new development often cost more than expected.”
Why do you equate economic growth with new development growth? Why can’t we generate more economic growth out of the land that is already developed?
“Economic development is a good general idea. Most people would support it in concept,…”
I don’t think most politically active people in this community support it in concept. From my observations, most politically active people in our community are unaware that economic activity pays directly or indirectly for everything. And a vociferous minority are openly hostile to the notion.
Look, we are in essence a low density bedroom community. Our local economy reflects this fact. We could choose to be different. In fact, our planning documents state we should be different. And we are indeed, slooowly choosing to be different. Meanwhile, as we are sloooowly choosing to be different, circumstances around us are changing rapidly (in a negative direction!).
-Michael Bisch
Michael: “[i]Why do you equate economic growth with new development growth? Why can’t we generate more economic growth out of the land that is already developed?”[/i]
I assume we have four areas of economic development: downtown redevelopment, Nishi, infill, and the peripheral sites that the special committee is reviewing.
Everybody seems to favor Nishi now, but I’d be curious exactly what the incumbents are doing or have been doing to further that.
As to downtown redevelopment, the parking/retail is on hold. I have my doubts it will ever be developed, but let’s remain optimistic. With Rochelle conflicted out, you’ve got a problem getting to three votes to go forward.
Other downtown projects will need to be considered case by case. What did you have in mind? What have the incumbents done to further any other downtown projects?
Any infill sites and peripheral sites are a long ways off.
Again: what have the incumbents done to attract business to the shopping centers? Or to attract new businesses of any kind to anywhere? Where’s the meat in your endorsements?
By the way, I see that Dimple Records is closing. [url]http://daviswiki.org/Dimple_Records[/url]
hpierce
” I actually agree with you, from the standpoint that we may (probably) need to cut back standard to save money. I would be willing to volunteer [and, have in the past] to put “work equity” into maintenance. Are you prepared to do the same? How many citizens can be expected to do so? [rhetorical question. not directed to SODA]. “
You raise an interesting point about how we support our community. From your post, it looks as though you feel better prepared to support with your time than with money in the form of taxes. I think you would find, if we had an accurate means of counting, that many Davisites do support their community through volunteerism. For some it is in the schools, for some clinics associated with the university, for others, elder care, Habitat for Humanity, homeless shelters, community clean up days….
What is of interest to me in this is how we assign value. For me, having put enormous amounts of time into attaining the monetary compensation I have now, and as a former and current volunteer, I would now prefer to pay higher taxes than to spend a day maintaining the green belt.
I would support a system in which everyone contributes in some way. We could establish a monetary value for an hour of volunteer work and allow people to put in the time or put in the money. Their choice.
[quote]I suggest the city establish a citizen’s advisory commission of landscape professionals to review the parks and greenbelts and suggest actions that could be taken to reduce water use and maintenance costs.[/quote]
Interesting suggestion…
[quote]I would support a system in which everyone contributes in some way. We could establish a monetary value for an hour of volunteer work and allow people to put in the time or put in the money. Their choice. [/quote]
You would have a choice to simply write a check. Others would have no choice but sweat equity, bc they don’t have the money to write a check. But their time in their busy lives is just as valuable relative to yours. Many low income folks are working graveyard shifts and well past 40 hrs per week to make ends meet – but yet you want them to be able to find the time to do city landscape maintenance while you conveniently write a check bc you can afford it? Doesn’t sound very fair to me…
medwoman, I like that idea too. I am doing home renovation, and I am capable of doing much of the work. However, there is that time-value-money thing. For some things I simply cannot afford to pay for the labor costs, so I do it myself. For other things I happily pay someone else because I don’t have the time, or I dislike the type of work. I really like the idea of citizens being able to work in lieu of paying some taxes.
In addition, I like the idea of a part-time citizen volunteer workforce. It gives citizens a way to earn some extra income, but the city would pay a much lower rate than the total compensation it pays to full-time employees.
On Elaine’s point about fairness, I think this would be more fair in that it would serve to help balance our budget so we can adequately fund the services used by citizens. If someone is working two jobs and barely making ends meet, of course they would not have time. However, they still have to pay their taxes. Pick you poision so to speak.
To Jeff Boone and medwoman: I assumed from medwoman’s description that she wanted volunteers without pay versus check writers. There is a difference in her vision and yours, Jeff. If what is being advocated for is a way for low income to earn some extra money, I have no problem with that. But what medwoman seemed to be advocating for was that park maintenance be taken care of by either writing a check or providing labor [u][i][b]without pay[/b][/i][/u], to wit:
[quote]We could establish a monetary value for an hour of volunteer work and allow people to put in the time or put in the money.[/quote]
Such a system is inherently unfair to low income, who do not have the wherewithal to write a check. They would be expected to provide all the sweat equity, while the wealthy can easily write checks in a jiffy for cheaper labor (the low income volunteers) – thereby saving themselves money in the form of less in the way of tax hikes for no effort other than to push a pen across paper. Works for the wealthy, but certainly not for the low income, who now have to provide labor on top of the 40++ hours a week they already must provide to keep their families fed…
Elaine, I get your point except for the fact that these would be people that are going to have to pay their taxes anyway. If they don’t have time then okay, they will not be able to “work off” some of their tax liability. However, they are still going to have to pay their taxes.
Think of it this way… every community will have a collection of people blessed with a level of four things: health, time, skills and money. Right now we are only focused on extracting the last of these four to provide all of the city services we need/desire. What if we could find a way to leverage the other three in addition? My thinking is that it would cost less than the current process of extracting money and hiring city employees. So, in the end it helps the people with limited resources by decreasing their tax bill and adequately funding services they rely on.
Note related to previous…
I am more interested in a paid-volunteer citizen workforce… because I think it is more likely that it would generate enough interest.
Does somebody have information on the average total compensation we are paying a city parks maintenance worker? I would bet that we could easily hire part-time citizen workers for less than half what it costs us today.
[quote]I am more interested in a paid-volunteer citizen workforce… because I think it is more likely that it would generate enough interest. [/quote]
If you PAY the low income for their work, then I’m all for the plan…
Elaine
I am not interested in exploiting the labor of the poor. What I am in favor of is allowing those of equal income to choose to work or pay.
If I had complete say, everyone who contributes to the society would make the same amount of money since our time is of equal value.
But I realize that is hopelessly utopian and I had better stop before Jeff has a heart attack.
Medwoman: LOL!
ERM, medwoman, Jeff, what’s interesting is that the hypothetical you are discussing is no longer hypothetical. The city manager has already stated we are heading toward some variation of what you are discussing. He has flatly stated that the level of service that we are receiving is no longer sustainable. He has openly discussed neighborhoods deciding what level of service they will receive. If the residents choose a lower level of service, they will have to provide the service themselves or watch their neighborhood deteriorate. This is why I become exceedingly frustrated when I hear residents say that we must not change, we must maintain the status quo. The status quo is a state of decline.
-Michael Bisch
DT Businessman
I am curious about who you hear saing “we must not change, we must maintain the status quo.”
I have not heard, or read anyone saying this. I think we all know that change is an inevitable part of life. Perhaps this is what you hear when people have a different vision for what change might look like than you do.
medwoman, I’m surprised by your assertion. There are frequent, explicit posts on the Vanguard stating we must maintain our community exactly the way it is. I receive emails stating the same, I witness public comments at council meetings stating the same, I hear it at our Brown Bag Lunches, committee meetings, and in my daily life. These are explicit statements to the effect, “I like things just the way they are and I do not want them changed.” That’s not a vision, that’s a desire to maintain (cling to) the status quo.
Furthermore, opposing project and policy proposals to address community challenges WITHOUT offering viable alternatives has the same practical effect. The end result is identical to fighting to maintain the status quo. Finally, waiting around for some miracle also has the same practical effect unless, of course, the miracle comes to pass.
I rarely hear Davisites speak of their vision for the community with the exception of certain activist stakeholder groups, but even there, the vision is narrowly focused on only certain aspects of the community.
-Michael Bisch
“That’s not a vision, that’s a desire to maintain (cling to) the status quo.”
If I’m in good health, what’s wrong with a plan to maintain that health – i.e. the status quo?
[quote]I am not interested in exploiting the labor of the poor. What I am in favor of is allowing those of equal income to choose to work or pay. [/quote]
I would say that if you can write a check, but the low income do not have that choice (of writing a check or providing free labor), that is exploiting the poor, if you don’t pay them some sort of a wage for their labor…
I’m really surprised you can’t see this…
[quote]ERM, medwoman, Jeff, what’s interesting is that the hypothetical you are discussing is no longer hypothetical. The city manager has already stated we are heading toward some variation of what you are discussing. He has flatly stated that the level of service that we are receiving is no longer sustainable. He has openly discussed neighborhoods deciding what level of service they will receive. If the residents choose a lower level of service, they will have to provide the service themselves or watch their neighborhood deteriorate. This is why I become exceedingly frustrated when I hear residents say that we must not change, we must maintain the status quo. The status quo is a state of decline. [/quote]
Here is the problem. I can almost guarantee you that a certain few will do all the work of maintaining the parks, while the rest sit back and do nothing. It will take some sort of true neighborhood leadership to get folks equally involved in maintaining their local parks – particularly if some don’t even care…
Certainly David, but the city is NOT in good health. That is the point, isn’t it?
[quote]If I’m in good health, what’s wrong with a plan to maintain that health – i.e. the status quo?[/quote]
There is no maintaining the status quo as a practical matter. The parks tax only pays for a 1/4 of the maintenance required. Austerity measures will still take place even if we do pass the parks tax…
Jeff,
The citys governance is in bad shape because it overpaid for its services, promised money it did not ave and the national economy and housing market collapsed.
[i]”The citys governance is in bad shape because it overpaid for its services, promised money it did not ave and the national economy and housing market collapsed.”[/i]
I would reword that a bit to say that the city’s finances are in bad shapes because of previous bad governance at the local level and at the state level that resulted in local fiscal unsustainability, the results of which have been accelerated by the housing and financial market collapse. The spending versus revenue trends made the results inevitable… the Great Recession just made them undeniable sooner. Yet, amazingly, many are still denying the cause because of the impact to their stubborn ideological spirituality.
Cities are economic entities first and foremost, because without funds a city cannot provide any service and would cease to exist. No economic entity can survive forever operating at a deficit.
Davis collects about half the sales tax revenue of the state average, and about a third of what other comparable communities collect. Here we are one of the most educated small cities in the country, and owning a prestigious gem of a captive economic-development partner (UCD) with copious captive paying customers, and yet our economic vision and practices are lower than the most Podunk of communities. There is a predominance of fearful, risk-averse, NIMBY, statists with time energy and money to block any reasonable attempts to leverage our city’s untapped assets to grow our local economy.
The very first acknowledgement needs to be that we cannot afford the lifestyle we are demanding. We can’t protect everyone from the potential impacts of change without us having to reach deeper into the pockets of every citizen; but the citizens are already tapped out. So, we need to cut our expenses and increase revenue. Economic development is the only way to increase revenue other than tax increases.
It is really quite simple. The status quo is to accept unsustainability… and continued decline of city services.
Elaine
“I would say that if you can write a check, but the low income do not have that choice (of writing a check or providing free labor), that is exploiting the poor, if you don’t pay them some sort of a wage for their labor…”
And I am really surprised that you are ignoring multiple previous posts that I have made stating that I think that the relatively well off, myself included, are vastly under, not over taxed, and that I would gladly pay much more than I do now if the money were to go to paying the poor a good living wage, supporting the schools, providing free medical care, support for the homeless, the elderly and those with disabilities.
And it would seem that you chose to totally disregard my comment about those of equal income having the choice to work or write a check. That check would then be used to pay those of lower means for their work. Where did you think that I was proposing that that money would go ?
Jeff
“We can’t protect everyone from the potential impacts of change without us having to reach deeper into the pockets of every citizen; but the citizens are already tapped out. So, we need to cut our expenses and increase revenue. Economic development is the only way to increase revenue other than tax increases. “
I simply do not believe this statement to be true. Not so long ago, in response to a question that you asked me, I told you the size of my home
(1000 sq ft), the type of car I drive ( an older hybrid) and about some of my leisure activities which are quite modest by American middle class standards. You rightfully pointed out that this still made me very wealthy on a world scale. First, I do not believe that we ” cannot afford the lifestyle we are demanding.”. I believe that we could afford it without asking our low income neighbors to pay more, if the wealthy amongst us were willing to contribute more, possibly at the risk of giving up a few fancy toys so that the less fortunate amongst us could also prosper.
medwoman: [i]”giving up a few fancy toys”[/i]
Let me give you and example of why that thinking is wrong and destructive. I have enough discretionary income (barely) to pay to have my second home garage bathroom renovated. In doing this, I am paying plumber, electrician and drywall contractors who are in-turn paying their employees. If however if I had to pay higher taxes (for example, let’s assume my garage renovation project is scheduled for next year after Brown’s tax increase passes and Obama and congress let the federal tax relief expire) I would not be able to afford the renovation work and I would just live with what I have.
This would seem to make you happy since that extra money would go to the “less fortunate” (which by the way is a silly label since every person is less fortunate that some other person).
But now the plumbing, electrical and drywall contractors have less work and have to lay off employees. These employees then slip to the unemployed and require more government services (they become your new “less fortunate”).
But it is unfair that I have a second house, and money to renovate my garage when there are so many less fortunate, and we are still running out of money because the government keeps hiring expensive employees and the ranks of the less fortunate continue to expand.
So, let’s tax me more.
Now I have to liquidate my second house because I cannot afford it. And since my tax rates are so high and my rewards so low, I also decide that I can and should live on less income (the joys of progressive taxation) and stop working 70-hour weeks. To do so, I shrink the size of my company since it was my attempting to grow it that was causing me to work 70-hour weeks. Why beat myself up and put my capital at risk when the monetary reward is so much smaller after taxes? Maybe I just fold the business and get a cushy union-protected government job that guarantees job security and a fully-funded early retirement. Of course it is better to just relax and enjoy my time and live a smaller footprint life like you do and let some other stupid ambitious person give away their hard-earned money to Nancy Peolsi and Barbara Boxer to spend on the growing armies of the hopeless less fortunate.
Welcome to the Greek mindset. And yes, it is all really Greek to me.
Jeff
“Let me give you and example of why that thinking is wrong and destructive. I have enough discretionary income (barely) to pay to have my second home garage bathroom renovated. In doing this, I am paying plumber, electrician and drywall contractors who are in-turn paying their employees. If however if I had to pay higher taxes (for example, let’s assume my garage renovation project is scheduled for next year after Brown’s tax increase passes and Obama and congress let the federal tax relief expire) I would not be able to afford”
I would agree with you if this negative impact on you were the only consequence. However, it would not occur in a vacuum. The additional tax that we would pay would allow people who cannot now afford what we consider necessities, such as a second pair of shoes, or a warm winter coat for a child to afford them. Those purchases while not affecting your plumber directly, certainly help with the profits of the shoemaker and coat manufacturer who perhaps can now afford to hire the plumber instead of trying to fix their own outdated plumbing. You seem to feel that those at the comparative top of the food chain, such those who can afford two houses are somehow more worthy than those who have worked as many if not more hours, but whose labor has not been arbitrarily judged by society as worth as much money per hour as ours.
And as to your equating this with the Greek mentality, demonstrably false. My understanding of much of the Greek economic woes was based not on over taxation, but rather failure to collect taxes that were due. This is the exact opposite of what I am suggesting which is willing compliance with tax collection with no convenient loopholes for the wealthy whether or not the financial line drawing puts me in that category.
medwoman:
First let me say that even though my tone might be direct, I appreciate your thoughtful dialog and respect your opinons. I just think you are more wrong than right on this stuff.
I see how you are connecting the dots, but there are several problems. First, the shoes and coats purchased by the government are going the employees laid off by my contractors. If more people were working, there would be less need for these handouts.
The problem in this country with respect to taxation is union-political corruption combined with egalitarianism driven by a strange type of American guilt. My heart swells when I witness or read of someone overcoming personal obstacles to reach higher levels of self-sufficiency and prosperity. I don’t get the same feeling at all when I witness or read of charity delivered… unless that charity is directly attributable to the former. In fact it makes me recoil a bit. I see too many people in this country having some gap of their own self-worth that is only satisfied by giving away free stuff to people they see as needing to be constantly saved. I wonder if our collective human upbringings might have something to do with this, but then there are no social studies that confirm or deny it. Work is rightous, healing, confidence-building… it is our fundemental need replacing our biologocal design evolved from a history of hunting and gathering. Every time we give away free stuff to people that should be considered able-bodies, I feel we are losing. We are losing them and we are losing ourselves. The few times in my life I have seen extended family members given handouts, I has made me sad… they seem to be sad too.
What does a child learn when he experiences the delivery of free shoes and free coats rather than his mother or father working to earn money to purchase these things?
I have a business idea that would employee 20-30 people, but I cannot afford to launch it. I cannot afford it for several reasons… the primary one is that the work required to launching a business in this state is monumental in terms of time and capital. The second is that I am already taxed so high that I lack the discretionary income, and the risk of loss combined with the limited potential returns after taxes means I am much better off stuff what I can into my 401(k) so I can possibly retire comfortably when I am 70.
So, my taxes feed your egalitarian impulses that guarantee that those saved will need perpetual saving, while I am literally prevented from creating jobs for 20-30 people that could save themselves.
I have said it over and over again… I am absolutely in favor of directing copious resource to children, and seniors that cannot work. I am also in favor of adequate funding to support the mentally disabled. As for the physically disabled, my business idea would employ some that you might consider incapable of work.
The problem is that we are directing far too much of our precious tax money to pay compensation to FAR too many goverment employees, and the pay and benefits they receive is FAR too high. And, we are giving away too much free stuff to FAR too many people that should get off their damn ass and work.
Greek taxes were/are so high, that Greek citizens had to take their businesses underground in order to make a good enough living. Their lax tax payment enforcement allowed this to happen. The US has much stronger tax enforcement so there are too many risk to take a business underground. So, instead of taking the business underground, we just don’t go into business. And the government took over paying more Greek citizens for not working. It is not a sustainable approach. First because there is no way to keep paying for it, and secondly because it corrupts the population with an entitlement mentality. It takes gererations to correct an entitlement mentality once it take hold. Just look at previous communist countries. Look at Argentina. Look at Greece.
So we spiral downward toward fewer and fewer business and fewer and fewer jobs and more people like you stomping your foot that goverment needs to increase taxes on those that manage to make a living so we can save all the unemployed. It is the same Greek tragedy unfolding but you and other liberals either cannot see it, or are otherwise so deep in your ideological spirituality of saving the world, you can’t admit it.
Jeff
I will address your “problems” one by one since you are making assumptions about my position that are inaccurate.
” I see how you are connecting the dots, but there are several problems. First, the shoes and coats purchased by the government are going the employees laid off by my contractors. If more people were working, there would be less need for these handouts.”
No where did I imply that these shoes or coats should be purchased by the government, or provided as “handouts”. What I believe is that people should be compensated more equally for their time and labor.
So bear with me and let me give you an example of my own.
Let’s take the example of two women born in 1952.
Jane Doe is born into a blue collar family with one sister. The family does ok until Jane’s father dies when Jane is 9. Jane, her mother and sister then live off social security until her mother with no skills beyond housework and child raising manages to find a less than minimum wage job
to help support them . Jane being the younger child has no one to support but herself, her mother and one sister having married. Jane decides on an ambitious goal, works while attending school full time, and (take a deep breath, I know the suspense is killing you) through a combination of hard work and good luck gets into medical school, she works ninety hour weeks and ends up a very well compensated doctor.
Now let’s look at Luz Hernandez
Luz is born into a family of farm laborers. Luz happens to be born the oldest of seven children. The family does with both parents working the fields full time until Luz’ father when she is 16. Luz, who also had dreams of being the first in her family to attend college and perhaps become a doctor, now has to drop out to support her sibs. Like Jane, she is working 90 hour weeks, but with essentially no hope of the same academic achievement or lifetime earning potential through no fault of her own.
Your response to this in the past has been some form of “life isn’t fair” or “there will always be winners and losers”. My response to this is you are right. Life is not fair. But we, as thinking, moral human beings living in an extremely wealthy society, could make it more fair if we only chose to do so.
“If more people were working, there would be less need for these handouts.”
I absolutely agree with the benefits of more people working. Where we disagree is that I do not believe that private sector work is more valuable than public sector work. Personal example. My first job was typing and filing paperwork as part of a government summer jobs program for poor youth. This provided me with experience in what it means to have a job and to develope a few skills that I was able to build a resume from.
You have called this “a hand up ” as opposed to a “hand out” in the past. The problem is, I simply do not believe that either of us, or anyone else for that matter has the wisdom to decide in advance for which of the poor it will prove to be “the hand up”, and who will not take best advantage of the help. My preference would be to error on the side of optimism and offer the help believing that more people than not will do the best they can.
“What does a child learn when he experiences the delivery of free shoes and free coats rather than his mother or father working to earn money to purchase these things? “
Again, not even close to what I was suggesting. I would propose that the money be offered to the parents in exchange for their work.
Then, what the child would see is his parent being rewarded for working, and himself having clothes and shoes as a result. If the private sector has not been providing the jobs, as it has not been during the recession ( regardless of the fingerpointing about who is most responsible).
Then, in my opinion, it is the job of the government to do so.
Jeff
“I have said it over and over again… I am absolutely in favor of directing copious resource to children, and seniors that cannot work. I am also in favor of adequate funding to support the mentally disabled. As for the physically disabled, my business idea would employ some that you might consider incapable of work. ”
Yes, I know that you have said this over and over again. However, you have not, in my opinion, ever laid out a credible, comprehensive plan for how you would direct these copious resources to children without providing the resources to their parents. To me, the biggest bang for one’s buck would be for the government to provide jobs ( and adequate daycare) to enable parents to work especially at times and in locations where the public sector is not meeting those needs. This would have a two fold benefit for the child. It would ensure that they have adequate food, clothing, shelter in the short term. And, in the long term, it would impress upon them that these things are earned by one’s contribution through one’s labor.
Jeff
“So we spiral downward toward fewer and fewer business and fewer and fewer jobs and more people like you stomping your foot that goverment needs to increase taxes on those that manage to make a living so we can save all the unemployed. It is the same Greek tragedy unfolding but you and other liberals either cannot see it, or are otherwise so deep in your ideological spirituality of saving the world, you can’t admit it.”
Well, you got one part right. I either cannot or will not admit that I see it this way.
I have never said that I believe that the government should increase taxes “on those who manage to make a living so we can save all the unemployed.” much less “stomped my foot” while doing so. What I am saying, and what you are refusing to address, is that I believe that the more people who are employed, either in the public or private sector, the better off we would all be, both as individuals and as a nation. I do not choose to vilify anyone who is employed in a job that creates something of value. I do believe that the tremendous disparity in income and wealth in this country does not serve us well as either individuals or as a nation. I do believe that this disparity is an issue that we can and should address. And I do believe that to address this disparity, the impetus should come from those of us who have benefitted the most from the existing system.
When addressing these issues I think we would best be served by taking the other at their word that what they write is what they believe and addressing those statements directly rather than falling back on stereotypes and statements frequently attributed to, but perhaps not held by the other individual, regardless of where we perceive them to fall on the political spectrum.
Medwoman: Good stuff. I got busy doing other things tonight, and just now had a change to read your reply.
My thoughts…
Luz Hernandez could work during the day and go to night school. I did. A person can survive on five hours of sleep every night. I have. I get your points, but you are telling a tragic tale of victimization and justifying a need for saving a person that would seem to be no worse off that many people that still get an education and lift themselves up to higher happiness, success and prosperity. Note that I’m not making a case that Luz Harnandez’s life is easy or “fair” compared to others with more lucky family situations. I’m also not against temporary help and some temporary “hand out” benefits. But temporary is the word. Other that that, just tell her to stop making excuses and get it done… that might be some of the best charity she can get.
[i]” Where we disagree is that I do not believe that private sector work is more valuable than public sector work.”[/i]
I don’t think I ever wrote that. I wrote that private-sector business is required to fund public-sector business and private-sector business tends to be more efficient than public-sector business. I think we have far too many public-sector employees and their compensation has grown much too high. However, there are a lot of very good people/employees working in the public sector. Don’t confuse my criticism of the institutions with the people.
[i]” I simply do not believe that either of us, or anyone else for that matter has the wisdom to decide in advance for which of the poor it will prove to be “the hand up”, and who will not take best advantage of the help.”[/i]
Being poor is only a temporary condition in this country. It is not a permanent defined class, no more than being a teenager is a permanent defined class. The key is to define help as development of long-term self-sustainability. If you are contributing to growth and development toward long-term self-sustainability, then it is a hand up. Handouts cause dependency and can cause people to be slaves to their own skewed sense of entitlement.
[i]” Then, what the child would see is his parent being rewarded for working, and himself having clothes and shoes as a result. If the private sector has not been providing the jobs, as it has not been during the recession (regardless of the fingerpointing about who is most responsible).
Then, in my opinion, it is the job of the government to do so.”[/i]
The government can’t afford it because they have committed way too much to all the public-sector union employees. Your idea is a non-starter because of all the years of deficit spending. At this point, the only sustainable way to protect the type of save-the-poor programs you value is to fire a percentage of government employees, and scale back pay and benefits to market levels. Where are your spending priorities medwoman? My “credible program” would be to cut spending, cut taxes, reduce regulations, and have government promote business and economic development in this state. Grow the economy, grow jobs, get more people working… and then use the tax revenue to help improve the workforce and create greater opportunities for growing individual wealth and prosperity. This idea is a spiral upwards to continued sustainability. Yours is a spiral downward toward a Greek-like collapse of the state.
[i]” When addressing these issues I think we would best be served by taking the other at their word that what they write is what they believe and addressing those statements directly rather than falling back on stereotypes and statements frequently attributed to, but perhaps not held by the other individual, regardless of where we perceive them to fall on the political spectrum.”[/i]
Fair enough then. It is just you that is wrong… I won’t generalize about liberals. 😉