Now this is interesting. Mayor Street and City Council passed a budget yesterday in the style of a family with a new credit card at Christmas: It gives everybody everything they want. And, in Mark McDonald's story about this today, Darrell Clarke notes:
"Unless we're going to dramatically cut services, we are going to have to start talking about raising some revenue," he said. "It may call for some minimal tax increases."
Obviously, he's right -- but the problem is (as Rob Dubow of PICA, the city budget watchdog, points out in the same article) that we are facing more than just a budget with too much under its tree -- we're looking at structural budget problems AND new union contracts that must be negotiated immediately after the next mayor takes office.
These two things are NOT directly connected. However, is it a common sense -- or smart negotiating -- to head into what should be a difficult, painful time of renegotiating contracts with a budgetary attitude of, "Hey, whatever you want!"?
I couldn't help but read the whole paper today with a sense that we're ignoring some structural problems. The schools budget is "balanced" with the imaginary support of money from Harrisburg, though lawmakers have said they aren't going to give it. The city budget is "balanced" this year, though the spending it in "utterly imbalanaces" the city's five-year plan, as Mark reports.
Meanwhile, DHS just realized that its failure to deal with kids in its care a generation ago is leading those now-grown people to kill their own kids today.
You know how, after too many of those Christmases, families that have lived an unsustainable high life for too long have to sit down and figure out a way out of debt?
Well, in the next mayor's term -- perhaps when those union contracts are up for renewal -- the city will find itself having to do something similar. We're already in debt at a level that worries budget analysts, so more city borrowing really isn't the answer. The answer will be hard choices, something we don't seem quite ready to accept.
Comments (5)
A tax increase would make me consider leaving the city and taking my taxes with me. Clarke's an idiot who should've been voted out on May 15th. Every time he opens his mouth on financial matters, crap spews freely.
Posted by Anonymous | June 1, 2007 10:08 AM
We need to find a better way to work regionalism. I don't know if that's a commuter tax (like Fattah suggested) or a congestion tax for Center City (like Bloomberg recently endorsed in NYC).
The trick is going to be to spread the city's costs to richer adjoining suburbs who enjoy city benefits without bearing a proportional burden of the costs. But that extension can't go so far as the state level in Harrisburg where those wacky backwoods legislators consitently frustrate our sensible attempts at gun control.
Posted by cschmitt | June 1, 2007 1:02 PM
What about the casinos? The Council is saying we should increase taxes at the same time they are delaying building casinos, which will generate millions for the city and schools. What logic is that?
Posted by Anonymous | June 1, 2007 1:06 PM
What about the casinos? The Council is saying we should increase taxes at the same time they are delaying building casinos, which will generate millions for the city and schools. What logic is that?
Posted by Anonymous | June 1, 2007 1:06 PM
If you tax people coming into the city from the 'burbs they'll just stop coming. I'm all for regionalism, but there are better ways to do it (regional sales tax, regional gas tax -- either would be better).
There's also the problem that no suburban resident in their right mind would our current city government administrating their tax money, but that's a different discussion.
Anyway, we have a ways to go before we get any regional cooperation going.
Posted by Anonymous | June 1, 2007 4:49 PM