Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
EDITORIAL:
Progress requires some give and take
Given all the headlines coming out of other cities regarding layoffs, tapping reserves and forced work furloughs, the City Council’s adoption of a balanced $774-million budget Tuesday was a relatively painless experience.
That’s because not one method for bridging the $7.2-million gap in the $147-million general fund, which pays for public services like police and libraries, was overplayed. The mixed-bag approach of the City Council, despite the antagonists, meant shared sacrifice across a more broad cross section of stakeholders.
All departments cut their spending, vacant positions were frozen, public programs were curtailed and, yes, a number of fee increases were implemented.
This is the sort of mix of solutions that the California Legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger have repeatedly failed to institute, with continually disastrous results.
No one wants to pay more for anything, but the lack of any pitchforks or large-scale public protests over the measures suggests to us that Burbank residents get it. They get that these are extraordinary times, that layoffs don’t help anybody, and that in order to bridge this recession, all hands on deck, not just the government, have to chip in.
Councilman David Gordon’s contention that the rate increases were draconian is exactly the same mentality that continues to keep this state, and by extension local municipalities, behind the eight ball.
His argument that the public was inadequately notified of the possible changes is a red herring that we’ve heard entrenched politicians use time and again. If there were any true, widespread opposition to the budget plan, the council would’ve heard about it, and so would we.
We’re not saying government is blameless, or that local agencies couldn’t stand to shed a few pounds and get in better shape. Of notable concern are the millions of dollars spent on the fiasco of a police and fire headquarters.
If ever there were a poster child for ineffectual oversight and wasted money, this building is it. While repairs to the shoddily constructed $30-million building appear to be making headway, we’re still millions more away, and at a time like this — where the difference between saving or axing a community program comes down to mere thousands of dollars — it’s really hard to not want see some heads roll.
Even so, what’s done is done, and we also have to remember that, on a macro level, this economy and the problems that have emerged as a result started on Wall Street, not in City Council Chambers.
It costs money to deliver public services like trash collection, electricity and water, and the government is not immune from the rising expense of doing business.
Without taking mild steps to meet that gap along the way, it eventually gets to the point where deficits take on a life of their own. Then the public’s faced with staring down the barrel of either major fee increases or significant service cuts.
Ring a bell?
That’s because not one method for bridging the $7.2-million gap in the $147-million general fund, which pays for public services like police and libraries, was overplayed. The mixed-bag approach of the City Council, despite the antagonists, meant shared sacrifice across a more broad cross section of stakeholders.
All departments cut their spending, vacant positions were frozen, public programs were curtailed and, yes, a number of fee increases were implemented.
This is the sort of mix of solutions that the California Legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger have repeatedly failed to institute, with continually disastrous results.
advertisement
Councilman David Gordon’s contention that the rate increases were draconian is exactly the same mentality that continues to keep this state, and by extension local municipalities, behind the eight ball.
His argument that the public was inadequately notified of the possible changes is a red herring that we’ve heard entrenched politicians use time and again. If there were any true, widespread opposition to the budget plan, the council would’ve heard about it, and so would we.
We’re not saying government is blameless, or that local agencies couldn’t stand to shed a few pounds and get in better shape. Of notable concern are the millions of dollars spent on the fiasco of a police and fire headquarters.
If ever there were a poster child for ineffectual oversight and wasted money, this building is it. While repairs to the shoddily constructed $30-million building appear to be making headway, we’re still millions more away, and at a time like this — where the difference between saving or axing a community program comes down to mere thousands of dollars — it’s really hard to not want see some heads roll.
Even so, what’s done is done, and we also have to remember that, on a macro level, this economy and the problems that have emerged as a result started on Wall Street, not in City Council Chambers.
It costs money to deliver public services like trash collection, electricity and water, and the government is not immune from the rising expense of doing business.
Without taking mild steps to meet that gap along the way, it eventually gets to the point where deficits take on a life of their own. Then the public’s faced with staring down the barrel of either major fee increases or significant service cuts.
Ring a bell?
Save/Share
 |
 |
|
| EDITORIAL: Persisting in tough times | EDITORIAL: Odds were already against him |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of burbankleader.com.
heredes wrote on Jun 13, 2009 1:47 AM:
" BTW, years ago Gordon and other critics spoke out against the Police Building.
The people actually voted against funding it in the late 80s, but the city council and then city manager Bud Ovrom found other monies, so it went up anyway.
Knowledgeable people told them two things: it was a waste of good retail property, and you never, EVER put that much concrete at the bottom of a hill at a four-story height. There's too much water drainage with no place to go.
Heads should roll indeed, but unless the Leader helps galvanize people, how does that happen? Previous Burbank reform efforts have always begun with the local newspaper.
I also think Gordon's complaints about the water rates were that they were not equitable, and the city was merely using these increases as a cash cow, separate from the alleged shortages, while hiding behind conservation as an excuse. "
The people actually voted against funding it in the late 80s, but the city council and then city manager Bud Ovrom found other monies, so it went up anyway.
Knowledgeable people told them two things: it was a waste of good retail property, and you never, EVER put that much concrete at the bottom of a hill at a four-story height. There's too much water drainage with no place to go.
Heads should roll indeed, but unless the Leader helps galvanize people, how does that happen? Previous Burbank reform efforts have always begun with the local newspaper.
I also think Gordon's complaints about the water rates were that they were not equitable, and the city was merely using these increases as a cash cow, separate from the alleged shortages, while hiding behind conservation as an excuse. "
Submit a Comment
We encourage your feedback and dialog, all comments will be reviewed by our Web staff before appearing on the Web site.
Not registered yet?
RSS