Yesterday may have been a holiday, but that didn't stop the folks over at the Daily News from producing some budget related content. First, let's take a look at Dave Davies column on the pension obligation bond that we examined on this blog over the weekend. Davies is somewhat skeptical of the proposal.
I want a long second look. Any time somebody tells me the answer to a financial problem is to borrow a big heap of money, I get nervous.I really encourage anyone who is interested in the bond deal to check out Dave's piece. It really examines the issue in-depth and provides a lot of information about how the borrowed money will be spent. This blog will continue to take a hard look at the proposal in the coming weeks.I spoke Thursday to Duquesne business professor James Burnham, a former staffer at the federal reserve and director of World Bank who wrote a 2003 article about pension obligation bonds for a government financial officers magazine. It was called "Risky Business?"
Burnham says these deals amount to borrowing money to invest in the stock market. Sometimes it works out. Sometimes it doesn't. But he said you don't want to take risks if you're already stretched.
"You're doubling up, like in a poker game," Burnham said. "You're asking somebody to lend you money so you can throw more chips into the game."
Burnham noted that the federal government regards pension bonds as financial arbitrage, where you borrow money to invest at a profit, so the Treasury Department won't allow cities to issue them as tax-exempt debt.
And it's interesting that when a recent Pew Charitable Trusts study listed 13 steps Philadelphia could take to deal its the pension fund problem, a pension obligation bond wasn't one of them.
The other piece of budget related content from the Daily News was an editorial that challenged ordinary citizens to rethink they approach city government. It's very relevant, so I'll reprint the entire thing:
BURIED WITHIN Mayor Nutter's budget address last week was a revolutionary idea, and it had nothing to do with the $4.5 billion bond that he proposes the city float in order to more fully fund city pensions.Along the same lines, I think the real challenge is how we approach the budget as a city. Traditionally, the various political factions throughout Philadelphia regard the budget as a giant pie of dollars to be cut to up for various neighborhoods and constituencies. I'd rather we approach it by asking what is best for everyone. Is this even possible in a big city like Philadelphia? You tell me.To hear his bold idea, you had to read between the lines, particularly the lines that said "the park gets an increase in funding" and "we'll give Community College $20 million more" and "we'll hire 200 more police and put in a 311 line" and "we'll eliminate part of the business privilege tax."
The message underlying it all: "We're going to take away the excuses for not having a better park, a more educated workforce, a more competitive city, a safer place to live."
Gulp. Now what?
Now, we get to face the truth: would we rather live in a city that actually works, or the shabby, troubled one we know and love to complain about?
Nutter's budget puts money on the table for some things that we are used to doing without. Now, we'll not only be able to demand results from the parks, and the cops and others. Now, we all will be expected to demand results, and raise our standards.
That's where the real revolution is. *
Comments (4)
Interesting article. I hadn't realized pension bonds weren't tax-exempt at the federal level. That's significant, as I think it could force the city to issue them at a higher interest rate than it would a non-pension bond.
Posted by Anonymous | February 19, 2008 10:24 PM
The real challenge is to budget in the collection of the $540 to $700 million in overdue property tax liens against real property.
The city can't just keep doing this optional property tax collection system where no property ever goes to sheriff sale to pay its huge debt to the city.
The city is content to throw a big bone to voters, but the voters' children can't read or write because the schools are so underfunded.
Since 60% of all property taxes paid go to schools in Philly, we need to prioritize the collection of this money. That's what Rendell did to create the first city surplus of memory.
Also, when you tie the pie and and its distribution to collection of property taxes, and to full fair market value assessment, you really cool the spend spend spend ardor.
If you are budgeting such that the dishonest policy of saying here is your pie, and I'm getting this for you because you voted for me, you are creating debt crisis.
If you are budgeting such that you say pick your top items you want to see, and here's where the money can come from to pay for them, and leave borrowing as a last option, you get a city of budget literates.
Posted by ljlong | February 20, 2008 1:12 PM
I'm disappointed that Nutter's first line is to bond out the payment of this pension debt. I would have preferred earmarking a portion of the property taxes collected to pay a payment toward the funding of this plan. I realize the debt is huge, and that this bond doesn't have to be perpetual government policy, but....
We don't have to have a credit card to pay our bills, because we have enough money coming in as a city. But people don't want to spend responsibly.
City council loves to go into huge debt. We have to elect people who can pay their own bills on time, who have a good credit rating, and who live within their means. Thus far, we've had a mayor who has property tax liens, and rotten credit, who spends money that's not there a la Phila Safe and Sound.
Philly has to tie what it spends to what it takes in. Then, for vulnerable program funding such as for schools and pensions, that low pols like to gut for their pet ideas, we have to earmark or mandate spending from what is collected to pay those important obligations first. The bad pols in Philly know that kids can't vote and tomorrow never comes for them.
Nutter, it seems, like Street, wants to borrow first, and I'm frankly disappointed that a Wharton MBA uses bonds as a first recourse, even though the debt has grown huge. The city still has huge obligations owed to IT that it is not processing foreclosure on. Only 113,636 properties owe money to the city, so no, it won't create a foreclosure crisis for new tax paying owners to buy these properties at sheriff sale. It's only 12% of the population, and large segment of tax scofflaws live outside the city.
Of the 113,636 properties in the city that owe money to the city, we have to remember that this represents $494,635,589.07 owed right NOW. Almost $500 million in debt is a goldmine.
Debt against property is NEVER bad debt. Debt against a valuable asset is never uncollectable. So let's get 'er done.
Business can't run like this, and the city has to be run with good business principles. It's the easiest kind of business -- it only has to break even. If Nutter isn't going to work in that framework, he's going to end his larger political career before it even starts. I don't want to see that.
Trying to hold large tracts of property owned by the city, the RDA, or the other government agencies to use as provocative carrots to generous dem players is not the right way. You know it. I know it. we all know it. The top property tax owing entities are government bodies. WHY?
www.hallwatch.org/proptax/about/redelinq/stats/topdelinquents/mailingaddress
The city has to make up its mind -- it can pay its bills by collecting what is owed it and putting private property back in the hands of tax paying owners, or government can own property, create blight, not pay taxes and keep this land out of the tax paying base that funds schools and safety.
And then to cover its MASSIVE debt from the latter option, it can borrow. Nutter has spoken.
Nutter could run for president if only he could boldly say to voters here's what we have, here's what we have to do. A good budget does that.
They'll squabble, but they'll be forced to decide to collect overdue lien debt assertively, cut government spending by hiring highly qualified municipal contractors instead of pension/health cost overrun city employees, and introducing competition into the spending mix, such as open shop concepts.
Other cities have had to crack down on debtors to the city. Whether fines, nuisance liens, gas, water, or property tax overdue debt, other cities are reporting to credit agencies, and filing collection actions and all debt to the city as lien debt in court. That means that L&I fines over a certain amount get posted against the property, and fines in excess of a certain amount get foreclosed to collect. VOILA, people start fixing up their properties. The city doesn't need to board up properties or demo properties, since the properties get sold before that has to happen to owners who want to do something with them.
The city seems to have stopped the Tax Delinquency collections altogether. There were 3 foreclosures a month, now there are only two, mortgage and private tax lien collection. (www.phillysheriff.com)
NO city can run like this, much less a city of 1.4 million.
Does it have to take a Giuliani or a Bloomberg to get elected as mayor in Philly? If Nutter wants to fly with the eagles, he needs get tough.
Posted by Anonymous | February 20, 2008 1:55 PM
Here's how able the average property tax delinquent is to pay this debt -- an owner of a decrepit, crumbling corner property that has had run ins with the law owed about $15,000 to $20,000 on his former store. How long did it take for him to not pay his taxes to run up this much debt? 20 years.
TWENTY FREAKING YEARS of not paying a dime, and getting teeny tiny fines and interest.
The city finally sent him a letter saying they were foreclosing and set a date. The day of the sale, the owner went in and paid the debt all cash.
NOW if only the BRT would assess his property in real value like it does mine, then we'd have someone who's paying as much as I am to educate kids and have safe streets.
Why is this loser getting a discount from the BRT? Do drug dealers work to get out the vote?
I pay almost $2,000 a year for a property much smaller, while druggie owner pays $800 a year now. No one who owns a valuable property, ESPECIALLY ones who deliberately keep it run down to keep taxes low, should get a huge break like this.
This policy of having run down properties pay less is suicidal and wrong. It favors drug dealers who get corner properties to launder money and hold corners while the let dealing go on in front.
It's dumb, it's crazy, and yet, the drug dealers in this city who own property get every break from the BRT and the Dept. of Revenue. We need full fair market value assessments now. What is the hold up? Schools need cash now.
Knuckles needs to pay what I pay or MORE. His property is worth $300,000 in as is condition. Complain to the BRT, and they are like, oh, but we don't want to drive out seniors.
Will someone please tell the BRT that seniors have their taxes frozen, and the disabled, and that not every owner of a run down property is a senior?
This is why felons should not be allowed to vote. With felons voting in Philly, you have a whole cadre of people who keep properties run down, uninhabitable, not paying taxes, not being assessed in real time at real value, and the pols who cater to them claim they are all about "seniors." Tell that to the seniors getting evicted from Cambridge.
There has to be a voice of someone who is in the room that says, this is not helping seniors or the disabled, since they are covered. There has to be a voice that says this only helps the bad owners remain bad while the city has to borrow to cover its needs.
Posted by Anonymous | February 20, 2008 2:13 PM