If the opinions expressed by San Carlos residents on Monday night at the City Council meeting were in any way indicative of the feelings of all San Carlans, the city may face a Braveheart-like rebellion by its residents if the fire department and police departments are replaced by less attractive options such as Cal-Fire and the Sheriff’s Department. I was present for the parade of public speakers and I did not hear more than one that was in favor of replacing our police and fire departments with less expensive options.
Residents emphatically rejected the San Carlos city staff proposals which examined the possibilities of closing the budget shortfall of 3.5 million dollars by farming out our fire department to Cal Fire and have our police department be absorbed by the Sheriff’s Department. Here are just a few of the comments and reasons residents gave to the City Council during the public comment session:
* “When your house is on fire, who do you want to come rescue you…….our fire department or a cheaper alternative?”
* “It takes our council 10 years to decide on synthetic turf, and only weeks to consider dumping our fire and police departments.”
* “If you take away these departments now, they will never be coming back.”
* “Our police department took 85 years to build and possibly only a few weeks to dismantle.”
* “Out of all of the city’s recommendations, I never once heard about cutting salaries at city hall.”
A more distant proposal floating around centers around keeping our police and fire departments with minimal changes, and instead making massive cuts to other city departments. If the council decides to go in this direction, San Carlans will experience some “tough love” with regard to city cutbacks, as other city services and parks and recreation take massive budgetary hits.
One thing that everyone can agree on is the fact that the cuts need to happen and they will be severe. The only question remaining centers on the source of the cuts. Clearly, many San Carlans are on edge over those cuts coming in the form of losing their fire and police departments.
An underlying theme which seems to be prevailing in the budget talks centers around the defeat of Measure U. Several speakers made mention of the fact that they voted against Measure U, but had they known of the true ramifications of its defeat, would have changed their vote in a heartbeat. This underlying theme begs the question of whether or not a similar tax measure would now be passed by San Carlos if given a second opportunity. If the “tough love” option is ultimately put into action by the council, look for a successful tax measure in the not too distant future.
Arn, what a great rundown of the statistics. They illustrate the reason everyone must mistrust governments from a fiscal perspective – the only form of spending regulation they have is bankruptcy. They *always* spend at or beyond their means, then demonize people like Matt Grocott for drawing the line, as if they have a right to our money in the name of their irresponsibility. We can either ‘wish’ them to become responsible and trustworthy OR deal with the reality of the thing and simply fight every dollar they want to tax and spend.
I’ve got to say one thing that occurs to me along these lines is the rosy picture painted for us about allowing the PAMF hospital construction. What happened to all that revenue? Have we spent that already?
Too bad ignorance isn’t painful.
Where’s the rest of this thread?
I think ignorance *is* painful, and that’s why we’re feeling pain.
The link below contains info on Palo Alto’s budget difficulties.
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=16404
To many, Palo Alto is the #1 community on the Peninsula – fabulous schools, City has their own utility department, Stanford University and Shopping Center, very high incomes, strong economic tax base etc etc.
Palo Alto is facing the same issues San Carlos is.
I think it is clear that no matter how you slice the numbers and make comparisions; the bottom line is just about every school district and City on the Peninsula is running short of money.
That would indicate to me the problem is “structural” and can not be fixed with minor tweaks but rather the whole system of government finance needs to be adjusted to the newer world economy.
Here is a link to an effort by Menlo Park residents to place a proposition on the ballott that would limit pension benefits to like 60% of top salary and also require a City vote on any pension increases in the future.
http://www.almanacnews.com/news/show_story.php?id=6403
Here is link to impasse between MP City and firefighters.
http://www.almanacnews.com/news/show_story.php?id=6401
Now I guess one could argue the problem in ALL these cities is DECREASED revenue.
While revenue has decreased SLIGHTLY due to the economy, I believe any independent observer would say the problem is never ending increasing costs.
I believe there is no doubt, that fundamental change in City employee compensation (County, State, and Federal, too for that matter) will occur in most if not all cities on the Peninsula.
Yes there will be major legal skirmishes along the way but ultimately, the greater good will prevail. Ultimately, either the courts or the legislatures will understand that maintaining the current system of government employee compensation is not a practical or workable solution and that to maintain the current system will be to the deteriment of the larger community.
Matt,
I agree. If everyone had been paying as much attention over the past 5 years as they are now, they’d know how we got here and might have helped to prevent it.
Arn,
You’ve left out some important factors.
The State has stolen money from every city and school district on the peninsula. Have you signed the petition to stop that?
The recession is ending. Revenues will increase again.
SC has already lowered its retirement plans for new employees and it is illegal to lower the retirement plan of existing employees.
Given the inability of the CA State legislature to pass anything the least bit controversial, I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for them to tick off every teacher, cop, firefighter, etc. in California, a total of 1.7 million Californians, PLUS their families.
Arn,
I forgot to mention unfunded mandates. You seem to think that City expenditures are controlled by the City. Some are, some aren’t. You keep pointing out that revenue has only gone down slightly and blaming the whole problem on City employees. How would you deal with unfunded mandates?
A recent example: The City was sued by Save the Bay for spilling pollution into the Bay. The spills were the result of deferring maintenance. The settlement agreement cost $200,000 PLUS an agreement to update our sewer system. If we don’t update the sewer system, we pay exorbitant penalties.
That has nothing to do with pensions, unions, salaries, etc. and it will probably cost half a million dollars.
There are also new requirements for cleaning storm water before it hits the bay and we are a “hot spot” for some forms of pollution. I have no idea what that will cost, but I know the City Manager and City Council fought to keep those new requirements from being imposed.
So you can cut public safety, fire the employees who keep the city running, do whatever you like, but the cost of running the City WILL increase.
Arn,
I ran across this quote today and thought of you.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. quotation inscribed on the IRS building says, “Taxes are the price we pay for civilized society.”
Arn,
Speaking on unfunded mandates – how many of the California Proposition initiatives that you have voted for over the last twenty years contained unfunded mandates?
The point is, we all get so emotional, that we don’t look at the ramifications of what seems like a good idea presented in a 25 second sound-bite.
Prop 13 (don’t stop paying attention just ’cause i mentioned Prop 13) is an example.
When Prop 13 was enacted – about 1/2 of our state’s property tax revenue was from commercial real estate, and one half was from residential real estate. Today, thanks to the nature of commercial real estate non-turnover; commercial real estate generates about 1/3 of the property tax revenue. Who won here? The commercial real estate crowd, of course.
At that same time, there were laws on the books that disallowed home owner’s from being sent from there homes for not being able to pay taxes. Grandma was not going to be sent packing because she couldn’t pay her property taxes.
Few people realize this. We all (even Matt Grocott, who pays no property taxes directly) appreciate the fact that our home property taxes are less. Few people realize we are subsidizing the commercial real estate market. Howard Jarvis snookered us to some extent – we didn’t all look deeply enough.
Arn, look deep – look within. Don’t be a dope.
Scott,
Good post. I didn’t vote for Prop. 13 and I have never voted for an initiative I’m not willing to pay for. I have never voted for a no-new-taxes politician.
Here’s another interesting tidbit from Anderson Cooper on CNN:
So, let’s go over to the wall here. Now, if you are in the highest tax bracket this year, your marginal tax rate, well, it’s over here. It’s 35 percent. Now, 50 years ago, this is what it was, 91 percent. Imagine that. That’s a huge drop, obviously, for those at the top end of the tax pool.
But, of course, most Americans now are in the middle of the tax pool. So, let’s look at their effective tax rate, what they pay after deductions and tax credits. Fifty years ago, over here, a family of four in exact middle of the income spectrum was taxed at rate of just under 7 percent, 7.7 percent. In 1980, what they actually paid in taxes peaked at just under 12 percent.
And, since then, with a couple exceptions, it’s been falling. This year, it’s estimated that a same family of four will pay only 4.6 percent of its income in federal taxes.
So, how about the rich folks start chipping in. As long as we have rich right-wingers from So Cal running things, that’s not going to happen. We need to be able to pass a bill with 51% of the vote in the legislature and we need a Governor who isn’t part of the problem, but part of the solution. Remember, Prop 13 came from So Cal too.
The rest of us have gotten a substantial break in Federal taxes as well. What if we put that saving into our State and Local governments? I don’t know how many dollars are by San Carlans in Federal taxes, but I bet it’s a tidy chunk of change. Even if we use 7.7% as a reasonable rate, that’s 3% higher than what we’re paying now. If you would increase your contribution from 4.3% to 10%, still below 1980, that would be real money. I don’t have time to calculate how much of the savings have been eaten up by increases in local taxes, but I’m sure Arn will tell us. The point is that we are taking more than we’re giving compared to previous generations, and my generation built the interstate highways. The people who bellyache about paying too much in taxes are welcome to cut their contributions as long as they cut their use of services accordingly. I’ll pay extra for excellent public safety, but I get first priority when the calls come in.
In case you missed it Arn, when commercial real estate pays 1/3 the property tax revenues in the state; that means we homeowners (not you Mat Grocott) pay the other two thirds.
Homeowners now pay 2/3 of the property taxes in the state. We used to (in 1979, before Prop 13) split it 50-50 with the commercial real estate crowd – not anymore.
Arn, how much commercial real estate do you and Matt Groccot own?
Pat B and Scott
The problem with the City finances is NOT a lack of revenue.
Prop 13 property tax payments have doubled in the past 9 years.
City tax revenue has increased 127% in the past 15 years.
It appears City employees overly generous compensation packages require City revenue to TRIPLE every 10 years in order to maintain budget.
How much money do they want?
Recent news items:
Average Palo Alto fireman made $178000 last year!
THAT IS WAY TOO much for like 15 days a month on call.
I suspect the same kind of pay structure exists in San Carlos.
New Jersey lost 121000 jobs last year but education jobs increased 11000.
School enrollment increased 3%, education jobs increased 16%
NJ governor proposes teachers pay 1.5% (one and half percent) of their insurance costs. OMG, Pat B you must think this is unfair to NJ teachers. For the record, I pay 100% of my insurance costs and the NJ teacher unions throws a tizzy fit because Gov wants them to pay 1.5% of their insurance costs.
Do you think New Jersey has a revenue problem too?
NJ has one of the highest state income tax rates in the Nation.
Public employees from local to county to state to nation have been have been running this game for far too long and things are starting to change.
Pat B and Scott – you are on the losing side of the argument.
Pat B and Scott – I have never heard you talk about what’s best for San Carlos. Your only frame of reference on this issue has been what’s best for City employees.
As Pat B noted cutting Number of City employees does not save money because other City employees just run up overtime. Salaries need to be cut to save money.
City should do what Ireland has done:
Cut public employee pay 5% for the first $54000, 7.5% for the next $50000, 10% for the next $50000 and 15% for anything above $150000.
Pat B notes the State has stolen money from SC. Why do you think that is? My answer is that the State pays THEIR employees TOO MUCH MONEY – no othjer reason
Ultimately what’s best for the majority (not just what’s best for public employees) will prevail.
People are NOT stupid. Increasingly they more clearly what has been going on.
So you can keep talking about revenue problems. The fact is more nd more folks understand it is a spending problem.
Pat B spoke about the 1.7M public employees fighting any change. What about the other 25M Californians who are sick and tired of being ripped off by government employees?
Scott
I do not own ANY commercial real estate – wish I did.
I do have any idea on how you estimate my wealth or income level.
I am just trying to survive and pay my bills like the rest of us common Americans, I wish I was as rich and as wealthy as you imagine.
Sadly it is not true.
I am not some multi-millionaire refusing to pay more taxes because I am eithe stingy or just mean.
My positions are based on the fact that what is going on is UNFAIR to the MAJORITY of Americans not on the public payroll.
Scott – nothing personal here – we see things differently – that’s OK – doesn’t make either one of us BAD people.
Ultim$ately the majority will rule.
Arn,
I see I have upset your reality. Anytime someone writes to another that, ” … you are on the losing side of the argument,” the writer had demonstrated that i) the writer can’t incorporate new or contradictory information into their perceptions of reality and/or, ii) the writer is rigidly attached to an ideology or position and/or iii) the writer is too intellectually lazy to consider the new data.
I wish I could announce myself the winner and on the correct side of issue as easily as it appears that you can. I also wish you would consider the data I presented re: tax revenue sources – who really is the big winner (maybe there are many) from Prop 13. And framing the discussion in your terms – who are the big losers?
I’m trying to understand why it is that you and so many others are so quick to vilify those that work so hard to make our government run (in many cases very well) for us. I’m trying to understand why it is that you vilify those that work in government, yet you give what appears to be a free pass to those that appear not to be carrying their weight while reaping the benefits of our states tax and economic structure and physical infrastructure.
When you voted yes for Prop 13 (maybe you weren’t in the state yet) did you realize that homeowners would be carrying 2/3rds of the states property tax burden, after having shared that 50-50 with commercial real estate and business entities for decades? Did you anticipate your sons paying more property tax, for lesser homes, than you own? You say that Prop 13 revenues have doubled over the last nine years. Who is carrying that load? Not you or I Arn – long time homeowners – it’s the people who have bought homes during that time span.
You seemed to be driven by some pretty simple principals, Arn – does it seem fair that your neighbors having moved into their homes in the last five years are paying three to ten times the property taxes that you and other long time owners are paying?
I don’t wish to read/encourage people’s vitriolic rants; I wish to learn how to incorporate other’s ideas into my own reality. Please help me with this. (To some extent you have, and I thank you for that – you seem to believe that public employee benefit packages are better than those in the private sector. For the record – that is not true at my firm.)
I’m sorry that you feel that you have been ripped off by some government employee Arn. Next time you need the help of the police or the fire department – people who literally put their lives on the line for you and all of us everyday that they go to work – why don’t you go to someone else for help?
Next time we get a huge storm on New Years day (or Christmas, or Passover – what ever holiday you celebrate), maybe you’ll go out in the dead of night and unplug the sewers and drains so that all of our properties are not ruined.
Next time you want to coach your kid’s baseball team or some other all-star team – maybe you can perform the 100′s of hours of work that are required to keep the fields green.
Does it matter to you that I feel like there are many that are not carrying their weight when it comes to paying taxes?
Arn, how much commercial real estate do you and Matt Groccot own? And if the answer is none, why do you seem to support a structure that seems to be so contrary to our state’s long term well being?
Scott
Do you EVEN READ my comments?
I already told you I do not own any commercial property.
Ask Bob Bredel to search Santa Clara and San Mateo property ownership records and you will discover I own ONE property – my home.
READ what I actually write. Or is that too much to ask?
In terms of our kids and grandkids and in terms of our country’s future, the absurd levels of debt we are taking on is what will hurt their future more than Prop 13.
Folks who keep blaming Prop 13 fr budget issues are barking up the wrong tree!
In terms of winning the argument, time will tell. But I believe the majority of Americans are waking up to the absurd level of government spending most of which goes to pay government employees while expecting the population to py high and higher taxes.
The majority of SC residents have voted down 4 straight tax issues. They see the truth.
Let’s have another vote and see who wins!
And Scott, please read what I write. You ask questions, I answer them and then you ignore the answers.
Scott,
Outstanding post! I just don’t have the patience to wade through all the ranting to try to make sense out of it.
I would take issue with one of your suggestions, field maintenance. I think the KIDS who use those fields should help with maintenance too. Too many kids are being raised to think that the world owes them whatever they want, when they want it. They think they’re ENTITLED to perfectly groomed playing fields 365 days a year, even if that means the City has to cut back on public safety services.
The people who think public employees are freeloaders never mention the fact that public employees know that they’re never going to “hit it big.” A Realtor can dream of listing and selling a $10 million property and taking home $1 million. There is no equivalent in public service. What public servants have to look forward to is a secure retirement; that’s why our society has always provided an old-fashioned pension plan for them.
People in sports and entertainment have never provided any services for me, not a thing, yet many of them make millions of dollars every year. Is that fair? Life just isn’t fair.
I’d like to know what the Tea Party, et al, wants, not just what they hate. I never hear anything positive they’re going to do with the money they want to take away from public employees.
Thanks Scott
Pat,
That is one of the most ridiculous statements you have ever written. “People in sports and entertainment have never provided any services for me”!!!! Are you serious? They pay taxes, and a lot more than you pay. They also buy more expensive homes which results in higher property taxes. They also purchase more goods and services. You think just because they don’t work for the government that they don’t contribute. Who do you think pays the salaries of the government workers? The entitlement is from government workers, not citizens.
I find this whole collectivism thing worrying and distasteful.
The government exists to protect the freedoms and enable the productivity of its populace. It would seem people think the opposite is true.
Comments lamenting Prop 13 and the tragic reduction of state revenues betray broken thinking. The people *do* have a right to say “No, government, you can’t have that money. Live with it.” And in fact, since governments spend every penny you give them (and finance countless more), we have an obligation to do so as it is the only form of financial regulation that has any chance of working.
If we instead just say “Well, you know best state/local/federal government, I wouldn’t want you to have to make cuts. Think about those pensions! And the children, where will they play without $100k+ groundskeepers?!” you will get atrociously out of control spending in entitlements with unsustainable debts, all which cut into the ability for non-entitlement recipients to earn, build businesses, have children and educate them into productive people, leading to a vicious cycle of more entitlement recipients, greater debt, political entanglements with lender nations that want to defeat us, and even less wealth creation – culminating in class envy, nationalization of industries and expulsion of capitalists. No thank you.
Rob,
Sorry you missed my point.
Pat
Rob you hit the nail on the head!
In Pat B’s world view, the ONLY people that contribute to our society are GOVT employees. No one else contributes anything in Pat B’s opinion other than money to pay our GOVT employees. We have no rights other than to PAY and PAY and PAY.
Post office will run out of money before the end of the year!
Scott, is that due to Prop 13?
In Scott’s world view, Prop 13 is the root cause of all GOVT financial trouble.
If that is true why are NY NJ and Illinois BILLONS over budget. Last time I checked there was no Prop 13 is those states.
Pat B likes to refer to pro athletes at one point Pat saaid athelets do not give back money so why should public employees? Pat B seems to believe pro athletes are role models and the moral compass we all should be judged against.
Really?
Do the names Tiger Woods Ben Roethesburger or Santonio Homes ring a BELL?
Pat,
Since you believe I missed your point, can you clarify what it was?
Arn,
My apologies – I didn’t go back through all your posts – it looks like I may have missed an answer. Since you wrote, “You ask questions, I answer them and then you ignore the answers,” please tell me in which posts you answered:
a-i) “When you voted yes for Prop 13 (maybe you weren’t in the state yet) did you realize that homeowners would be carrying 2/3rds of the states property tax burden, after having shared that 50-50 with commercial real estate and business entities for decades? a-ii) Did you anticipate your sons paying more property tax, for lesser homes, than you own? a-iii) You say that Prop 13 revenues have doubled over the last nine years. Who is carrying that load? Not you or I Arn – long time homeowners – it’s the people who have bought homes during that time span.”
b) “You seemed to be driven by some pretty simple principals, Arn – does it seem fair that your neighbors having moved into their homes in the last five years are paying three to ten times the property taxes that you and other long time owners are paying?”
c) “I’m sorry that you feel that you have been ripped off by some government employee Arn. Next time you need the help of the police or the fire department – people who literally put their lives on the line for you and all of us everyday that they go to work – why don’t you go to someone else for help?”
d) “Does it matter to you that I feel like there are many that are not carrying their weight when it comes to paying taxes?” What do you propose on that front?
Arn, we’ve been listening to you rant for years – please post cogent discussion addressing the concerns/points raised above. Doing so will likely force you to put a bit more thought into your posts – a bit more thought is what I think we need from all that are capable of it.
My point is that without more, deep, reasoned thought, we’re going to continue to be the pawns of 25 second sound bites, the pawns of our natural afflictions (such as envy, want, bitterness and vanity), and suckers, long term. I’m willing to consider considered points of view – not bitter rantings. Please help me understand your points of view, really! But don’t go for the emotional hook, give me reasoned discussion.
so Arn, how do you answer a), b), c) and d) above? I really want to know?
Matt Walsh,
I appreciate your post – I’m going to give most of your points some thought. Perhaps while I do that you might ask yourself, did the people of CA know what they were getting into when they voted for Prop 13? I fear that you, just like Arn, are not willing to consider points that might be viewed as unfavorable toward Prop 13 – even though they are real. Prop 13 is a “sacred cow,” one whose mere mention causes otherwise thinking, rational people to toss their thinking caps aside. Please don’t.
What do you say about the shifting the tax burden from commercial real estate owners to home owners? Do you think that is right? Did you know that was going to happen when Prop 13 passed more than 30 years ago? Do you think it’s fair that your neighbors that are in their homes fewer than five years are paying three to ten times the property tax of those that have been in their homes 20+ years?
I understand your point that people have the right to say, “No, government, you can’t have that money. Live with it.” I agree. But I don’t think that that thought explains all that is going on. Consider the Prop 13 generated tax burden shift to homeowners. Consider the tax cuts those in what is now the 35% bracket (which includes me) have enjoyed the last eight or so years. Did those people really need that cut? Without that cut, maybe we’re not in as deep a soup? It’s easy to be against taxes, against government – but are those really the sources of all these problems? What other issues need to be addressed?
You don’t like “collective” thinking. Without the “collective thinking”, who would have built the roads, fire houses, schools, universities, FDA, state and national defense systems, ……. and all the other entities that so enrich our lives? Isn’t any insurance that you have a collective sharing of risk? We are in a country of 300+ million people. There are nearly seven million people in the bay area. Collectivism, I’m sorry to say, is not optional – the question is, how much?
Consider that it’s not “Government that is the problem,” rather it’s “bad government that is the problem.”
No knee jerks- keep thinking, keep considering (not just rejecting and counter-pointing) other points of view. We’ll all win when we all start doing this (maybe even without Arn).
Rob,
My point is that our society values Angelina Jolie more highly than we value an excellent teacher. Angelina Jolie gives away 1/3 of her income because she also thinks it’s stupid to pay movie stars so much money. If teachers were paid more, they’d pay more taxes.
To All:
ARN DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ME!
Arn,
I’m really tired of your presuming to speak for me.
The tone of this blog is just too nasty for me. Look up “ad hominem argument.”
I will miss Scott’s thoughtful posts and I applaud him for wading through all the incoherent rants. I just don’t have time for this.
I leave you with the following:
“In Pat B’s world view, the ONLY people that(sic) contribute to our society are GOVT employees.” NOT TRUE
“No one else contributes anything in Pat B’s opinion other than money to pay our GOVT employees.” NOT TRUE
“Pat B likes to refer to pro athletes at one point Pat saaid (sic) athelets (sic) do not give back money so why should public employees?” What? Athletes don’t contribute money?? ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE!
“Pat B seems to believe pro athletes are role models and the moral compass we all should be judged against.” What? I never said any such thing, nor do I believe it. In fact, I said the opposite. Please calm down and read my post carefully. NOT TRUE!
All,
Comments in this category are now closed.
Thanks,
Bob