Thursday, August 27th, 2009...5:01 pm
Funding Provided by the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny
Interesting bit from the Keep Tucson Safe website. These are the folks who are pushing the public safety initiative. Check this out:
Will my taxes be increased as a direct result of this initiative?
Since there is no tax attached to this charter amendment, your taxes will not be increased as a direct result of this initiative. Currently, both the Tucson Police and Fire Departments are funded through the City’s General Fund. The proposed charter amendment does not change this existing funding source. Instead, it ensures that necessary protections is guaranteed to the citizens of Tucson.
Well that’s very nice. This is another way of saying, “We want the city to spend more money, but we would really rather not admit that it will result in higher taxes and fees, and probably cuts in other city services as well.”
Interestingly, had this initiative been run under state rather than city rules, they would have had to name a funding source.
Supporters claim that they can fund expanded police and fire services through cuts in outside agencies and the sales of bonds. Neither of these are explicitly named in the initiative.
Their own numbers claim that this program will cost $41 million (which is likely low: estimates from the city manager show the costs in excess of $200 million, and an independent commission is crunching their own numbers). Okay, so we’ll fund this through cuts in “outside agencies.” These are budgeted at $13 million, but the city only controls $7 million of those budgets. Where does the rest of the money come from?
Bonding is also problematic. Bonds would have to be approved in a later election before they could be sold. I sit on the county bond committee, and we have been putting off holding a county wide bond election (that would include public safety projects such as expansion of the court house, a new sheriff substation and facilities for remanded juvenile offenders) because we were unsure that the issue could pass in the current economy. One also has to remember that the city of Tucson hasn’t had the same success in passing bond issues as Pima County has. Another question is: does the state’s current budget situation effect the city’s bond rating, and thus its ability to sell bonds if the voters give the go ahead?
This all gets back to the motives of the folks pushing for this. The fact is, the folks pushing for this are not big fans of the city council. One has to wonder why they would all of a sudden be into putting a feel good issue on the ballot with no way to actually fund the darned thing. Is this, as Bruce Ash basically admitted on Arizona Illustrated a few weeks ago, just a manuever to elect Republicans to the council? If so, they will be leaving an awful budget mess for their friends to clean up after they get elected.
15 Comments
August 27th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
They will be at Drinkinng Liberally tonight to explain their position. Can’t wait for our crowd to ask them questions….
I promise to behave… can’t speak for others… (or myself if the tequila kicks in)
August 27th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
This is how it works: You CUT taxes and then the fricken’ Tax Fairy shows up and leaves money under your pillow. We call it “Supply Side” kookeconomics.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
The way to get Republicans to be against it is for a Democrat to sponsor it.
The Republican reply to anything that any Democrat proposes about anything:
http://nightbirdsfountain.blogspot.com/2009/08/song-of-gnop.html
August 28th, 2009 at 12:06 am
The drinking liberally talk was great. It showed clearly that this initiative doesn’t stand up to even the smallest bit of scrutiny. When faced with real questions, they have no answers.
Among other highlights, Zimmerman insisted repeatedly that he didn’t think we would have to cut any programs at all, or increase any taxes.
I didn’t notice before, but it turns out that money just grows on palm trees these days.
August 28th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Ted,
I am surprised you are backing the City Council thus the Democratic Party on this issue. The City is required to provide three things to the public. Parks, Streets and Public Safety. Everything else, according to the charter, is subordinate.
Everyone on this blog knows your talking points are ludicrous and are meant to pander to your base, but they love it.
You have a problem. The unions are backing this initiative but you don’t want to be seen as anti police and fire which would not be good for your candidacy. Then you quote Zimmerman, a Democratic PR Firm, as saying taxes will not be raised. Then you are saying this whole thing is a conspiracy started by Bruce Ash to elect Republicans. You forgot to mention George W. is somehow involved along with that rascal Chaney.
This is a giant conspiracy by the people of Tucson to force the City Council to quit squandering millions of taxpayer dollars and to bring this City of half a million people up to national standards for police and fire. Straight talk, no spin.
August 28th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Best line of the night was from the PR guy from Tucson Assoc. of Realtors, who was saying Tucson was not safe. Asked if it was the official position of TAR that Tucson was not a safe place to live, he said YES.
August 28th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Wait, so spending money on food and shelter programs, which help ensure the public safety as preventative measures, are “squandering” taxpayer dollars? Those are the programs that will be cut if this boondoggle passes. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure; too bad that common sense seems to be lost on TAR and others.
August 28th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Walt,
The parks and rec budget would have to be cut (completely). Does the charter say that you can gut and eliminate one entire core department to fund another?
The fact is that this is the most irresponsible spending package to hit the Tucson in a long, long time. As usual, republicans fail math 101. We are running a $30 million deficit and it is GROWING. You guys want to spend $270 million dollars MORE.
This is the party of fiscal responsibility’s plan to help Tucson? Bankrupt it? Threaten it’s credit rating? Jesus…No wonder the citizens don’t elect you guys to the Council.
At the end of the day Walt, you and your bunch of care bears can’t answer this basic question:
Where does the money come from?
August 28th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Walt is unfamiliar with this word, “nuance,” or this concept, wherein you disagree with members of your own political party or other groups you usually agree with.
That kind of thing is un-American.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Walt-
I’m not alleging that Bruce Ash is part of a conspiracy, I’m telling you what he said. He was asked by Bill Buckmaster what the result of the Public Safety Initiative would be, and he said, “more Republicans.” If you have trouble with that formulation, take it up with him.
August 28th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Tucson City Council can spend 20 million dollars in cost overruns on an overpass. 10 million dollars in cost overruns on a underpass. Almost 200 million in Rio Nuevo and nothing to show for it but wealthy special interest groups and we can’t bring the police and fire into the 21st Century? The citizens of Tucson will certainly speak to this issue at the polls. When the rhetoric is over the voters have the last word.
It would appear Ted that in your Bruce Ash statements you are guilty of the same crime you allege Jesse Kelly commited.
August 29th, 2009 at 2:35 am
Walt,
An answer to your question:
“10 million dollars in cost overruns on a underpass. Almost 200 million in Rio Nuevo and nothing to show for it but wealthy special interest groups and we can’t bring the police and fire into the 21st Century?”
In the first place, the Tucson public safety has a sweet, sweet deal. They take far less in budget cuts than every other city agency, and they pay far less into their pensions. I don’t know what you mean about bringing them into the 21st century, I haven’t seen any rolling around town in carriages with whistles and six shooters…the fact is that according to the FBI, the average number of police per 1000 in a city of more than 250,000 people is 1.9. Tucson is at 1.9. We are perfectly in line with comparable cities (this is irrelevant anyway because these ratios are worthless as a source for staffing numbers
http://www.theiacp.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=LF7xdWl1tPk%3D&tabid=87 )
As far as being able to afford Rio Nuevo and not the police force (as you frame the question), the answer is simple. Here is how Rio Nuevo funding works: if we aren’t using that money for downtown redevelopment, than we aren’t using it at all. It can’t be used for anything else, as we receive that money for the specific purpose of funding those downtown projects and nothing else. If we chose to stop funding Rio Nuevo beginning today, we wouldn’t suddenly have a pile of cash sitting around to pay off our debts and buy cool police stuff. We just wouldn’t have the money…at all.
In summary, No. As previously stated, we don’t have the money. Rio Nuevo funding would make it easier (although it still wouldn’t be enough money) but would not be a legal expenditure.
So again, I ask: Where does this quarter of a billion dollars come from?
August 29th, 2009 at 2:38 am
EDIT:
The average number of police officers per 1000 people in a SOUTHWESTERN U.S. city of more than 250,000 is 1.9.
August 29th, 2009 at 8:43 am
TucsonVice says:
“In the first place, the Tucson public safety has a sweet, sweet deal. They take far less in budget cuts than every other city agency, and they pay far less into their pensions.”
Everyone that knows me knows that I am a friend of public safety and our officers. But TucsonVice is absolutely right. The largest portion by far of city budgets is public safety. Politically, it is nightmare to cut and it is difficult not to give them all that they ask for.
I don’t want to say that there is no need for more funding of public safety. But let’s for once apply the same arguments the GOP makes about education, shall we.
The officers here are paid well well below the market and are leaving to cities and other states. True.
Why not cut the “toys” like robots, f’ing attack squad helicopters, and the like…and give it to the officers? Why not cut back on administration (I don’t believe this argument as I think administration is important) but look at their salaries, look at the fat…
Shouldn’t we simply say like conservative that “more money doesn’t equal better public safety” and that “cut administration and give it to the (insert favorite street level bureaucrat)”.
August 29th, 2009 at 8:48 am
Oh…and on where is the money going to come from. This is my favorite of all. Let’s ask the Tea Partiers who claim that government spending is the root of all evil and that govt. and taxes are too. Well, idiots…total IDIOTS…public safety is the highest portion of local budgets and their dollars come from you and me. There ain’t a market for cops…it is a socialism, as you would say, it is big government, it is what you and I pay for.
They can’t have it both ways. When they argue for cuts in taxes and spending, ask them about police and fire and watch them squirm.
I can’t believe my friends on the force could possibly remain with these total clowns. The biggest threat to their work and livelihoods are republicans.