In 2008, on the ballot was a measure for the city to build a new Public Safety Building for $98 million. So the city held a "listening tour" and decided that they would borrow $30 million that is payable over 30 years at a cost of (drum roll please)$102 million. Interesting to say the least.
There was no doubt that the city wanted the public safety building and they were going to get it no matter what we the people said, They used "Certificates of Participation". That is a loan that they don't have to go to the voters for approval. It seems they like the like "the end around play" (to use a football analogy) at the city.
The voters did not approve the original proposal because it was thought to be to extravagant. So why not pare down the original proposal and send it back to the voters? Maybe we can find an answer from comments by City Manager Laurie Kadrich, "We would have done it at this time, regardless,” Kadrich said. “Sure, there will be people to say they’re doing it to beat the ballot.”
This seems to be a perfect example of what ballot Amendment 61 is trying to stop. I don't think anybody wants the police to have a shabby run down police station. What the people do want is for our governments to be accountable to the people.
Government and bureaus (school district) always figure a way to "cut expenses" at the consumer level... Schools will penalize students rather than lay off administrators or admin. staff. City and County government threaten to cut services that are quite necessary...such as police patrols and deputy vehicles. The government folks hold the public ransom so that they can get the money that they think they "need" in order to maintain their power structure.
ReplyDelete