You requested these (nonexistent) projects

Do you remember the 100% of bond projects that you requested, and how your city leadership listened?

Some of the Prop 4 projects some of them were not even defined;  there would be a request for proposal after the bond vote. But now that we've agreed to pay for them we get some input on what they might be.  Get crackin'!

So which is it?  The projects existed and we requested them, or the projects did not exist so we could not have requested them.  Perhaps I am operating under a faulty understanding of what "requested" means.  Perhaps elected officials are tempted to increase their power and influence by redistributing the treasure of the tax livestock, and will dangle the vaguest of carrots to get it.  Seems like the real request, if any, was "please tax us and go deeper into debt.  We'll work out the details later."

We are in an unenviable position of begging the city to get our own money back to our neighborhoods.  Let us be clear:  the citizen wouldn't have to be a supplicant if his funds were not co-opted in the first place.  An economist's argument might be:  if the neighborhoods really wanted these tokens of "vitality" the residents would have already bought them.  

While I'm playing the crank this morning, let's keep going.

Consider these two scenarios:
1.  Protection racket
You buy a house in a nice neighborhood.
A fellow knocks on the door and tells you he'll watch your house to make sure nothing happens to it, in exchange for a yearly fee.
He provides some neighborhood services which you may or may not want, and you can ask him for favors.

2.  Taxation
You buy a house in a nice neighborhood.
The city knocks on the door and tells you to pay a yearly fee or something may happen to it  (ie, "Property taxes attach as an enforceable lien on property").
The city provides some neighborhood services which you may or may not want, and you can ask them for favors.

In both cases it is demonstratable that the provided services are unwanted, fictive,  or at least overpriced;.  Otherwise the residents would have voluntarily sought to pay for those services beforehand.  In both cases power accrues to the provider of protection and the resident must pay or lose property.  Does this setup sound like a good idea?  If we were remaking it from the ground up would you choose this option?

I am not a tea party guy but I do believe it is in the citizens' best interest to avoid "enabling" the tax/spend/indebtedness addiction of local governments.  (Link pointed out by RCN; thanks!)

Bond vote results

I am ok with the voting results.

The Yes win was narrow enough that I hope the council/manager will be more aware of their responsibilities toward all residents and to their official duties. I hope we get a leaner, more fiscally responsible city govt. I hope for more transparency.

I hope that neighbors continue the broader discussion and bloggers keep writing about their home city.

"100% of these projects were requested by you..."

Received a postcard from Neighborhoods for Richardson today; I assume everyone else did, too.

"100% of these projects were requested by you, , the residents of Richardson.
Your city leadership listened."

Uh, no. Some of the more vocal residents screamed for pet projects the same way baby birds scream for worms.

Doesn't anyone remember the quote about how the council didn't want a bond package now and had to be strongarmed by Tex?

"Invest wisely". Indeed. I already cast my vote.

COR and AAA bond ratings

When I was listening to Tex Keffler at the HTNA neighbor meeting earlier this month something chafed me a bit. He mentioned our AAA bond rating and added something like "the bond rating people know what they are talking about."

What chafed me was I remembered that bond rating agencies, including Moodys and Standard and Poors, had been involved in conflict of interest and unwarranted optimism exacerbating the current economic crisis. A somewhat spicier write-up is online here.

The situation is so jacked up that rating agencies actually started claiming immunity from liability for their ratings by claiming they had free speech rights like (and no more responsibility than) a movie reviewer. Unfortunately for them (WSJ):

Manhattan federal Judge Shira Scheindlin dealt a blow to ratings firms, rejecting a free-speech defense asserted by Moody’s Investors Services and Standard & Poor’s.

Do those names sound familiar?

I am not claiming that COR's AAA ratings are fraudulent. I do think they are unlikely to stay AAA if we keep up the profligate spending, including elective project spending and overpayment of top officials. My suspicion has been that COR wanted to shoehorn in a huge bond because they know/fear/suspect that the AAA bubble will burst sooner rather than later. I sure would like to be wrong about this.

Early Voting

There was no line in the civic center; I was in/out in about 3 minutes. There were no other voters while I was there.

To be fair, there were projects I would have considered funding on a bond if they were line items and not bundled with other non-essential stuff. If I were the the director of the Dog Pound or Library I would pressure The Powers That Be to put my projects on seperate lines next time around.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch: pro-bond folks are probably not amused that the DMN published an article about Keffler's sick/vacation pay bonanza today. There's no straight line to be drawn between Keffler's benefit package and the bond, but seeing non-trivial amounts of citizen treasure spent that way might irritate some residents who were otherwise on the fence about the bond.

COR employees used to pull Vote No signs?

I'm hearing chatter that COR employees may be:

1. contacting households with the Vote No signs on their property and/or
2. removing the signs based on that contact

Can anyone confirm/clarify? FOIA request on a police report may be productive shortly. Trying to pull some RPD audio.

City bond video on cable access

From the recent COR email update:

2010 Bond Election Video Available Online In an effort to provide information to voters about the upcoming May 8, 2010 Bond Election, our Citizens Information Television Department has produced a video overview of the $66 million proposal. The video is available online at www.cor.net and will also be aired on the City's cable channel.

I wonder if video from last night's Just Say No meetup will get free play on the cable access? It's worth thinking about. Equal time and all that.

"Just Say No" enclosure in Money Mailer coupons

We love our great city, and we love it enough to demand strict fiscal accountability. Go to the polls and vote Against a 10.4% tax increase for you and your neighbors.

The insert references www.jsn2010.com (a yellow page with the text from the flyer) and blog.jsn2010.com, which lists all and discusses some of the project proposals. I think the blog is interesting, as the format allows readers to comment on each project.

If I were on the council and had made a lot of porky promises, I'd think I'd be feeling a bit uneasy these days.

Strongest case

An anonymous writer laid out a compelling, rational argument to vote against the upcoming bond proposals.

It's worth reading, even if you are voting for the bond proposals.

bond props, 1-4

First off, COR webmaster, stop with the unnecessary Flash animation crap, ok? I think there's an important metaphor in there somewhere but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

I think in future bonds we need more granularity. Instead of
Street Improvments
Parts and Rec
Municipal Public Buildings
Neighborhood Vitality

we could have
Street Improvments - Critical
Street Improvments - Optional
Parts and Rec - Critical
Parts and Rec - Optional
Municipal Public Buildings - Critical
Municipal Public Buildings - Optional
Neighborhood Vitality - Critical
Neighborhood Vitality - Optional

This would help prevent critical expenditures from getting bundled with "sure would be nice" issues.

Or, even better: think of how different borrowing would be if we actually got to vote on each item. That would be something like 34 items instead of 4. Would I be willing to take the extra 10 minutes at the poll? Believe it. I don't think it will ever happen because it would KILL pork, and pork is the lifeblood of politics. Starve the beast, people.

Prop 1, $24.7M
The question here is whether or not to spike this $24.7M prop because of the inclusion of:
Galatyn Overpass Extension $787,500
UTD Roadways $2,836,000

Am I willing to drive on worse roads for a couple of years in order to send a signal that the city shouldn't try to bloat up bond props? Yes, I am.

BTW, I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with the city building erosion features for what appear to be two private residences at 1709 Timberway Dr. and 1502 Braeburn Dr. Anyone know the dates of the work sessions or council meetings when those were discussed? I'd like to educate myself on that issue. My immediate reaction is that underwriting poor residential location choices increases moral hazard.

Prop 2, $22.6M
This one is easy. No.

We're likely required to do
City Wide - Park ADA Modifications $262,500
which we can do out of current funds.

As much as I'd like to see trails, I will take my own medicine here. This is not the time to borrow money for that.

Note: Hey COR, I understand your girlfriend Heights Park is hot and more than a little high maintenance. Promise her all the trinkets you want, just don't expect the rest of us to underwrite your adventures. We're trying to buy groceries and make the mortgage over here.


Prop 3, 10.5M
No.

Would I like to increase doggie ventilation? Sure. Do it out of current funds. Or get a corporate partner. Who wouldn't want to go on the record as helping adoptable dogs stay cool?

The 724K RFID project will probably save money in the long term, and if so should be in a reasonable bond prop.

Prop 4, $8.15M
No.

Seriously, this is how you're going to list it? How about a link of some kind.
HOA Requested NV Projects Screening walls, entry features, bridge aesthetics $2,100,000

I have no problems with sidewalk repair but 25% undifferentiated fluff in that prop seals it for me.

Man, I'm getting grouchier as I age.

No.

[please see the followup at the bottom]


As Mr. Hartnett said, "if you want any of this you need to cut out about half of it."

The city has played their cards, and counts on two things happening:

1. the voters in the pork-receiving areas will vote yes out of parochial self-interest
2. other voters will vote yes in order to get the needed insfrastructure maintenance

I think a standoff is in order. City Council wants to soak the taxpayers for pretty civic trinkets? Fine, we can reject it. Mr. Mayor, come back to the residents when you have something reasonable, responsible, and respectful of the citizens you serve. You can only shear a sheep so close, and even then you must be mindful of the weather.



PS: If anyone needs a reminder of how shallow the Shiny Pretty City booster crap is, find a few open evenings to re-read Babbitt. Although it was written in the 1920s you will absolutely recognize the same types in our own little burg. The novel is razor sharp.

Followup. I have received this info that appears to confirm a 4-proposal bond election:

Prop 1 - Streets and Drainage-$24,710,000

Prop 2 - Parks -$22,645,000

Prop 3 - Public Buildings - $10,495,000

Prop 4 - Neighborhood Vitality - $8,150,000

If this is in fact the case then I will ratchet back my opposition. It's not exactly a line-item-veto level of control but is much better than a monolithic proposal. It also means I need to back off my "hostage" verbiage.

2/15 work session: need != want

Around 9:16pm

Slagel: "There is the issue of being able to do the things we need to do and there's not a way without a significant tax base growth and sales tax growth to be able to do the things we want to do without a tax increase... It really poses a significant issue for us."

Mr. Mayor, the significant issue here is the conflation of the concepts "need" and "want". There is a subset of voters are that NOT interested in porky, politically-expedient debt-spending when the economic shizznit has hit our collective and individual fans.

Seriously, sir. Have the courage to lead the city council with fiscal conservatism and responsibility in this difficult time. This is not a game, and we ain't playin'.