City-data poll - Mayor of Atlanta (White, Norwood: buying, bill, best)

[south-to-west]

Originally Posted by Mishap

How exactly does one scale back pension liabilities? Execute pensioners? Short of filing bankruptcy or firing everyone near vesting on their pension, you can't change the liability. The only real solution is to ditch the pension and all the lazy lifers that pensions bring.

750 police officers would cost nearly $40M just on salary costs not to mention equipment, pension costs, and added back office. Assume you're talking about 70M in overall annual cost and it's over 10% of the total 2008 budget. You're not going to find that firing IT staffers and breaking city contracts.

I'm all for added police but I'm also painfully aware that my property taxes on my modest condo are already 50% higher than my parents who own a 7bdr 5,000sqft home in Gwinnett. The police should have a vested interest in seeing city property values going up but as it is, they're contracts are loaded w/ pension gifts that are a drag on the city's finances b/c the last few mayors have all traded police labor peace w/ unrealistically generous pensions.

You also forget that you're paying for all of the people that commute in to the city from other jurisdictions, as well as tourists and interstate travellers passing through--versus Gwinnett, which although it's a sizeable jurisdiction, it still doesn't attract the volume of tourists and employees that the City of Atlanta does.

[Brillemeister]

Originally Posted by south-to-west

That's interesting that you asked. I couple of pages ago I posted the following rationale behind my support of Kasim Reed based on his proposed fiscal policies.

How does that add up to approx. $600K in savings?

[onemanarmy]

Originally Posted by Brillemeister

How does that add up to approx. $600K in savings?

Well an well unintended bad plan is better than no plan any day of the week.

[Brillemeister]

^I rather disagree. You know, it's possible for the city's finances to deteriorate even further if, say, tens of millions of dollars more are spent annually.

[DeaconJ]

Afterr receiving almost daily phone calls from "the committee to elect Kasim Reed" for a couple of months, I would vote for anybody but him.

[afonega1]

Originally Posted by Brillemeister

^I rather disagree. You know, it's possible for the city's finances to deteriorate even further if, say, tens of millions of dollars more are spent annually.

Acording to an article I read the other day,Atlanta's current budget is on track to get the city back in black by the end of next year.

[J2rescue]

Originally Posted by south-to-west

Reed has proposed to put more cops on the street--as Norwood has--and also to reopen many of the community rec centers that have had to close. Due to the esteem to which his colleagues on both sides of the aisle held him in the State Legislature, he also has a record of securing State funding and authorization for major projects, such as the massive project upgrading our sewage system.

In order to fund these projects, as well as basic maintenance and operations of City infrastructure and services, he has made specific proposals to cut areas of the budget that have leeway. Such methods include:

• Cutting the IT department, which is slightly overstaffed.
• Restructuring city contracts with private businesses that provide civic services.
• Using in-house city lawyers more often than contracting outside lawyers.
• Cutting back on employee overtime.
• Scaling back liabilities from the city's pension plan.

Mary Norwood hasn't been this specific in regards to funding while at the same time proposing such as broad agenda.

Creative Loafing did an excellent job in highlighting the differences among the candidates in their endorsement of Kasim Reed. I also verified, in my own self-interest, all of their points by reading press clippings and campaign literature.

While those may be worthwhile plans, cutting the IT department will absolutely not fund an adequate police force and the infrastructure needs of the city. Whatever is done with the pension plan, it won't have any immediate impact. Its likely going to require several years before any savings can be realized. Everything else is a worthwhile goal but relatively minor.

I read that Creative Loafing article as well but I would again argue that THE central issue for Atlanta is management of city finances, which was graded an F by the city's own CFO. Even if we could instantly go back to the pension obligations the city had in 2000, how could we have any confidence that it would result in a fully staffed police force and better infrastructure? The city didn't have enough police in 2000 either.

With the litany of financial issues that have been in the news over the last two years, its hard to understand Creative Loafing basing an endorsement on relatively minor proposals. Nearly every other problem is merely a symptom of the underlying problem of poor management of city dollars.

[Atlantasfinest]

You know, I seem to remember a recent campaign that spoke of “hope”, but let’s be honest — governing isn’t campaigning and it’ll take more than hope to right the City’s fiscal and public safety challenges.

It’s sad that many Norwood supporters can only point to “hope”, “energy” and “access” when justifying their support for her candidacy, but the reasons why they are left with these squishy reasons are clear: her legislative record is anemic. Mary Norwood was not a visionary legislator. She was not a well-respected Councilmember. She was a busybody. A nice woman but a busybody no less.

I respect others right to be entitled to their opinion, but again, some Atlantans rationale for supporting Ms. Norwood is telling. We know the key issues facing the City, but can ANY Mary Norwood supporter point to anything she’s done or anything she says she will do that will address our budgetary or public safety woes? Did any of you watch ANY debates? How could you come to the conclusion that Mary is most qualified and best equipped to lead the City? Or, are you just looking for something new?

Though I see where Ms. Ransom is coming from, her approach is outdated. Though I am a younger guy, I doubt older Black Atlantans need any reminding about what the City used to be like. They need to be reminded about what the City is currently facing, sell Senator Reed’s clear record of accomplishment and draw clear contrasts between Ms. Norwood’s rhetoric and his legislative RECORD (in a Republican-dominated, anti-Atlanta state legislature no less!). Some segments of Black Atlanta’s political class seem to be so consumed with the past, that they can’t see what is driving Ms. Norwood’s candidacy.

Further, I would hope that this election season brings to light this nonsensical belief that because someone is accessible or because they show up at every community meeting (or every senior facility’s fish fry or every church BBQ) that this equips them to be Mayor. I find it shocking that people would think that you can do nothing (other than call for a few audits) on the Council, but show up to every senior facility’s spaghetti supper and pander to misled black folks at the Beautiful, pay off “activists” like Dave Walker and “Able” Mable and someone take your mayoral candidacy seriously.

The fact that 46% of Atlantans voted for her only underscores what we’ve known in the City for some time — voters say their cast their votes for substantive reasons but that’s mere pretext. People think that a “new” face will somehow magically clean up City Hall. But Mary’s not new! What has she said or done to think she’ll be effective? It’s sad that a legislator can’t point to anything of record that Mary Norwood has done to address the very ills he thinks she can address.

Councilmembers are far from powerless, but some of them are ineffective, and Mary Norwood’s record on the Council, her debate performance and her platform all speak to her inability to lead the City. But then again, my critique works from a substantive basis, and this City is so consumed with race and contracts (— please believe that cronyism and no-bid contracts didn’t begin with Maynard Jackson), that we can’t get to the issues that truly matter and we’re possibly on the verge of electing someone who has shown she’s unfit to serve.

[afonega1]

Originally Posted by Atlantasfinest

You know, I seem to remember a recent campaign that spoke of “hope”, but let’s be honest — governing isn’t campaigning and it’ll take more than hope to right the City’s fiscal and public safety challenges.

It’s sad that many Norwood supporters can only point to “hope”, “energy” and “access” when justifying their support for her candidacy, but the reasons why they are left with these squishy reasons are clear: her legislative record is anemic. Mary Norwood was not a visionary legislator. She was not a well-respected Councilmember. She was a busybody. A nice woman but a busybody no less.

I respect others right to be entitled to their opinion, but again, some Atlantans rationale for supporting Ms. Norwood is telling. We know the key issues facing the City, but can ANY Mary Norwood supporter point to anything she’s done or anything she says she will do that will address our budgetary or public safety woes? Did any of you watch ANY debates? How could you come to the conclusion that Mary is most qualified and best equipped to lead the City? Or, are you just looking for something new?

Though I see where Ms. Ransom is coming from, her approach is outdated. Though I am a younger guy, I doubt older Black Atlantans need any reminding about what the City used to be like. They need to be reminded about what the City is currently facing, sell Senator Reed’s clear record of accomplishment and draw clear contrasts between Ms. Norwood’s rhetoric and his legislative RECORD (in a Republican-dominated, anti-Atlanta state legislature no less!). Some segments of Black Atlanta’s political class seem to be so consumed with the past, that they can’t see what is driving Ms. Norwood’s candidacy.

Further, I would hope that this election season brings to light this nonsensical belief that because someone is accessible or because they show up at every community meeting (or every senior facility’s fish fry or every church BBQ) that this equips them to be Mayor. I find it shocking that people would think that you can do nothing (other than call for a few audits) on the Council, but show up to every senior facility’s spaghetti supper and pander to misled black folks at the Beautiful, pay off “activists” like Dave Walker and “Able” Mable and someone take your mayoral candidacy seriously.

The fact that 46% of Atlantans voted for her only underscores what we’ve known in the City for some time — voters say their cast their votes for substantive reasons but that’s mere pretext. People think that a “new” face will somehow magically clean up City Hall. But Mary’s not new! What has she said or done to think she’ll be effective? It’s sad that a legislator can’t point to anything of record that Mary Norwood has done to address the very ills he thinks she can address.

Councilmembers are far from powerless, but some of them are ineffective, and Mary Norwood’s record on the Council, her debate performance and her platform all speak to her inability to lead the City. But then again, my critique works from a substantive basis, and this City is so consumed with race and contracts (— please believe that cronyism and no-bid contracts didn’t begin with Maynard Jackson), that we can’t get to the issues that truly matter and we’re possibly on the verge of electing someone who has shown she’s unfit to serve.

Honestly,to me.watching Mary Norwood was like watching a lighter version of Sarah Palin(accept Mary Norwood is more likeable).

[south-to-west]

Originally Posted by J2rescue

While those may be worthwhile plans, cutting the IT department will absolutely not fund an adequate police force and the infrastructure needs of the city. Whatever is done with the pension plan, it won't have any immediate impact. Its likely going to require several years before any savings can be realized. Everything else is a worthwhile goal but relatively minor.

I read that Creative Loafing article as well but I would again argue that THE central issue for Atlanta is management of city finances, which was graded an F by the city's own CFO. Even if we could instantly go back to the pension obligations the city had in 2000, how could we have any confidence that it would result in a fully staffed police force and better infrastructure? The city didn't have enough police in 2000 either.

With the litany of financial issues that have been in the news over the last two years, its hard to understand Creative Loafing basing an endorsement on relatively minor proposals. Nearly every other problem is merely a symptom of the underlying problem of poor management of city dollars.

No, but it's a start. What specifically has Mary Norwood proposed?