Springs 2010 budget, attempted MASSIVE tax increase with Prop 2C (Colorado Springs: sale, lawyers)

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by Bob from down south

1. And where does a clandestine $53 Million taxpayer-funded gift to the USOC for a training facility that generates little but a few bragging rights for the city fit in here? Gee, why we gotz ta pay for them thar thangs, too??!!

2. The City Council planned their spending based on crazy, unsustainable growth. The 41% hike in water rates this year was attributed to a dropoff in tap fees paid when a developer puts a new building on city water. They grew fat and lazy on developer/growth "crack," and now you suggest that getting them off of it is taking a meat axe to the budget? No, uh-uh, preserving revenues at the peak of an unsustainable boom driven by limitless projections of false debt-driven wealth can't be the answer. Reversion to the trend line may look like an axe, but it's necessary to get back to a long-term sustainable reality.

3. Simply put, we have become addicted to an unaffordable array and level of services provided by the city government. Look at how much less our rural neighbors to the east and west live with day to day...much of Colorado Springs' service infrastructure is "nice to have" rather than "must have." We need to learn the difference.

4. I'm not part of the "cut my taxes" crowd, I'm part of the "stop raising my taxes" crowd. I watched a steady stream of special interests parade before the city council at their recent budget meeting, all bleating "please don't cut my program." Since when did museum curators become an essential city service?

1. So your solution to the USOC matter is to punish cops, fireman, seniors, park goers, bus riders, and stop repairing potholes? The USOC deal was an effort to keep a high-profile job provider here, as well as keep the business generated by all the athletes and visitors that come here for USOC activities. How is that a bad thing? Other cities and states spend money to entice firms to move into their area, some cities up to a billion dollars to build stadiums for sports teams. But COLO SPGS spends $53M to keep a highly visible national organization here and some people want a pound of flesh and punish the innocent? If we want to punish someone, vote OUT the current city government. Many people deride COLO SPGS as a one-trick pony, i.e., a military town, so here's an effort to keep some diversity in our financial base besides Federal spending and you're against it? Are you ticked at the secrecy of the deal? Realistically, does anyone think such deals can be made in the open, in advance? If so, every city in the country would swoop in to offer fatter deals; then we'd lose a notable income-generating asset. The Mayor and City Council knew they had to do it in some degree of secrecy else the anti-everything crowd would try to derail the effort to keep a chunk of the tax base here.

2. Developers were paying about $9000 per new home added to the water system. Those fees were subsidizing the rest of us. When homebuilding fell from 5000+ homes per year to less than 1000 homes per year, rates had to go up to cover the true cost of providing water services to all residents. Now that rates are up, we're all paying the true cost for the water we get. It was nice while it lasted, but our water usage should not be subsidized by others.

3. The "unaffordable array and level of services provided by the city" are neither unaffordable nor anywhere near too high. That is your opinion and nothing else. Bus service was always minimal, but has already been cut back, affecting handicapped riders and the working poor. Exactly what are the services that are at too high a level or "nice to have." Do you mean parks for kids? Sorry, the parks were here BEFORE you arrived. Comparing a city of this size to "how much less our rural neighbors to the east and west live with day to day" is a bogus comparison. EVERY rural county in EVERY part of the nation has fewer parks, cops, colleges, culture, arts, eateries, fire houses, courts, schools, roads, and utility services. If I wanted an austere environment, I'd have moved to the rural hinterlands, not to a city that has a known level of civilized amenities.

4. Everyone is a special interest when it comes to voicing their concerns. MY opinion is that museum curators (and librarians) ARE every bit as much an essential service as are great schools. Both groups are extensions of the learning process. Museums are part of our cultural heritage as Americans and/or Coloradans. Our education, culture and respect for history is part of what separates us from mere savages. I don't care to live in a cultural wilderness.

I don't expect 2C to pass, but we have voted YES on 2C.

[sskkc]

2C isn't about CSPD/CSFD vs. taxpayer increases. I'm amazed at how many people take this hook, line and sinker! City leaders across the nation always put their PD and FDs in the middle to get the tax increases.

Exactly! The reason this scare tactic is put out year after year, is that it works. If they were to threaten to cut a tree lighting ceremony, or not hire an artist to build a new sculpture, there would be less fear. But they pay the "frivilous" things first so they can threaten the population with reduced fire and police response!


Welcome to the new Calif-orado! Let them eat cake... and let the financially responsible among us pay for it!

[proveick]

There is hope, havonasun, I just moved to the widefield/security area just N of Fountain, about 8 miles S of Colorado Springs proper. I found out we are in a different taxing district so we wont be affected by the tax hike the Springs is getting hit with. Hey Bob, how come this part of town is so mixed up. When coming down 85/87 the sign says welcome to Fountain when here in "Fountain" I am actually in the widefield tax district?? The hairstylist is moving back here from the other side of 85/87 because that is Fountain and the taxes are alot higher. RP

[Bob from down south]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

1. So your solution to the USOC matter is to punish cops, fireman, seniors, park goers, bus riders, and stop repairing potholes? The USOC deal was an effort to keep a high-profile job provider here, as well as keep the business generated by all the athletes and visitors that come here for USOC activities. How is that a bad thing? Other cities and states spend money to entice firms to move into their area, some cities up to a billion dollars to build stadiums for sports teams. But COLO SPGS spends $53M to keep a highly visible national organization here and some people want a pound of flesh and punish the innocent? If we want to punish someone, vote OUT the current city government. Many people deride COLO SPGS as a one-trick pony, i.e., a military town, so here's an effort to keep some diversity in our financial base besides Federal spending and you're against it? Are you ticked at the secrecy of the deal? Realistically, does anyone think such deals can be made in the open, in advance? If so, every city in the country would swoop in to offer fatter deals; then we'd lose a notable income-generating asset. The Mayor and City Council knew they had to do it in some degree of secrecy else the anti-everything crowd would try to derail the effort to keep a chunk of the tax base here.

I don't want to "punish" cops and fireman...I believe we can adequately protect the city with less of them, and we can pay them in line with other cities (read: less). A friend's daughter got a ticket on Powers a few months ago for 2 MPH over the limit. That sort of policing is not an essential service.

I'm ticked that the city government would put up a whopping $53 million (keeping in mind the proposed Issue 2C tax increase would only generate $46 million next year) and then scream "poor mouth." Just how many jobs does the USOC generate for that kind of cash outlay?

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

2. Developers were paying about $9000 per new home added to the water system. Those fees were subsidizing the rest of us. When homebuilding fell from 5000+ homes per year to less than 1000 homes per year, rates had to go up to cover the true cost of providing water services to all residents. Now that rates are up, we're all paying the true cost for the water we get. It was nice while it lasted, but our water usage should not be subsidized by others.

No, we're paying more to fund the Southern Delivery System, not the costs of providing water services to current residents. The SDS is only needed if you accept the massive projections of growth and development as a given.

It's also worth pointing out that paying out current outlays with money from new participants is the classic foundation of a Ponzi scheme.

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

3. The "unaffordable array and level of services provided by the city" are neither unaffordable nor anywhere near too high. That is your opinion and nothing else.

They are indeed unaffordable and excessive, and that opinion is shared by many of us. I'll let the 2C vote be the barometer there.

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

Bus service was always minimal, but has already been cut back, affecting handicapped riders and the working poor. Exactly what are the services that are at too high a level or "nice to have." Do you mean parks for kids? Sorry, the parks were here BEFORE you arrived. Comparing a city of this size to "how much less our rural neighbors to the east and west live with day to day" is a bogus comparison. EVERY rural county in EVERY part of the nation has fewer parks, cops, colleges, culture, arts, eateries, fire houses, courts, schools, roads, and utility services. If I wanted an austere environment, I'd have moved to the rural hinterlands, not to a city that has a known level of civilized amenities.

How many friggin' parks does a city need? And why do museums need to be funded by government at all? If public transit doesn't generate enough ridership to pay for itself, why does it need to be subsidized? "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

The rural comparisons demonstrate that a decent quality of life is possible without all that stuff. Services can be reduced...I tire of the all-or-nothing approach the tax-and-spend crowd employs as a counterargument, as if a budget cut makes it necessary to shut down every park in the city rather than some incremental reduction.

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

4. Everyone is a special interest when it comes to voicing their concerns. MY opinion is that museum curators (and librarians) ARE every bit as much an essential service as are great schools. Both groups are extensions of the learning process. Museums are part of our cultural heritage as Americans and/or Coloradans. Our education, culture and respect for history is part of what separates us from mere savages. I don't care to live in a cultural wilderness.

I don't expect 2C to pass, but we have voted YES on 2C.

There are privately-funded museums a-plenty in this country. If the interest is there, then it'll survive with private funding and donations. And lack of respect for history is hardly to be solved by spending money we don't have on museums.

I don't expect it to pass, either, and my family has voted NO on the Issue 2C tax increase (and YES on the Prop 300 closure of the "enterprise fee" end-runs around TABOR)

[otowi]

The era of Palmers, Penroses, Vanderbilts, and Carnegies building and funding cities is over. Now we have to do it, or we watch our cities crumble and decay culturally and physically. If we are unwilling to support infrastructure and services through taxes, for whatever reason that may be, we must make up the difference through private enterprise, charitable giving, etc., or do without and brush away the shortfalls with words like "who cares, I personally do not use that, and anyone who wants or needs to use it should just being willing to pay 10x more money for it." Let's have that philosophy for everything, shall we? Let's make every road a toll road, every hospital and doctor pay-before-service, every library fee-to-loan, every museum so expensive that only the elite classes can be culturally educated, and let's get rid of public education and make everyone pay for it, and make those with special needs kids pay for the extra services they need or just go without them. It isn't fair for the rest of us to foot the bill for services our own kids don't need, or for those of us without kids to pay one red cent to support schools, regardless if that might promote a better future employee-base for our city and country. Let's make every park pay-for-play, like the state parks - that would sure keep the hooligans out of 'em, wouldn't it? Who cares that many of the toddlers would be locked out, too - if their parents can't afford it, they don't deserve a park to play in - who needs a playground anyway -- those kids are no Oliver Twists and have more than they really need. Let's make all public art works be pay-to-view; we can cover them up with giant tarps for those unwilling to pay. Garden of the Gods should be fenced all the way around, and gated, to keep non-payers out. But first we'll charge the payers a bit extra to fund that fence and those tarps. And anyone who wants to expand a service or provide a new one, or enrich the area culturally can pay for it fully out of his pocket if he cannot find enough backers or donors, because if he can't, that must mean his idea sucks and isn't for the best. Heaven forbid anyone should pay tax to support their own community if some of that money might go for one single thing they do not personally use or care about. Expenditure or sacrifice for the common good, via taxes - why, that's wasteful, big government, unAmerican, anticapitalist, soft-hearted, show-of-weakness hooey! What vision, what foresight, this is what has made America great - this is definitely the wave of the future!

[Bob from down south]

Originally Posted by otowi

The era of Palmers, Penroses, Vanderbilts, and Carnegies building and funding cities is over. Now we have to do it, or we watch our cities crumble and decay culturally and physically. If we are unwilling to support infrastructure and services through taxes, for whatever reason that may be, we must make up the difference through private enterprise, charitable giving, etc., or do without and brush away the shortfalls with words like "who cares, I personally do not use that, and anyone who wants or needs to use it should just being willing to pay 10x more money for it." Let's have that philosophy for everything, shall we? Let's make every road a toll road, every hospital and doctor pay-before-service, every library fee-to-loan, every museum so expensive that only the elite classes can be culturally educated, and let's get rid of public education and make everyone pay for it, and make those with special needs kids pay for the extra services they need or just go without them. It isn't fair for the rest of us to foot the bill for services our own kids don't need, or for those of us without kids to pay one red cent to support schools, regardless if that might promote a better future employee-base for our city and country. Let's make every park pay-for-play, like the state parks - that would sure keep the hooligans out of 'em, wouldn't it? Who cares that many of the toddlers would be locked out, too - if their parents can't afford it, they don't deserve a park to play in - who needs a playground anyway -- those kids are no Oliver Twists and have more than they really need. Let's make all public art works be pay-to-view; we can cover them up with giant tarps for those unwilling to pay. Garden of the Gods should be fenced all the way around, and gated, to keep non-payers out. But first we'll charge the payers a bit extra to fund that fence and those tarps. And anyone who wants to expand a service or provide a new one, or enrich the area culturally can pay for it fully out of his pocket if he cannot find enough backers or donors, because if he can't, that must mean his idea sucks and isn't for the best. Heaven forbid anyone should pay tax to support their own community if some of that money might go for one single thing they do not personally use or care about. Expenditure or sacrifice for the common good, via taxes - why, that's wasteful, big government, unAmerican, anticapitalist, soft-hearted, show-of-weakness hooey! What vision, what foresight, this is what has made America great - this is definitely the wave of the future!

Another pack of emotion-laced gross exaggerations. It's not like we don't pay plenty of taxes already...and when the bill for the banking bailout and waves of insane stimulus giveaways comes due, our federal tax bill is also virtually certain to more than double in real terms.

The city council wants to preserve spending based on what they had at the top of a boom, even while we're still descending into a bust. During the boom they didn't meet a spending issue they didn't like, and they planned to pay for it with revenues they projected based on unlimited crazy growth. They counted their chickens before they hatched...but now they still expect the same amount of eggs in the midst of an epic failure that crashes most of their assumptions.

Just as an unemployed person is ill-advised to continue buying their daily $5 Starbucks latte with the proceeds of their unemployment check, the city council needs to pare back during these lean times...not slap the citizenry with a PERMANENT 333% increase in property taxes to paper over their excesses and continue to spend money like they have it.

Some of the best museums I've been to in the world are not located in ritzy custom-architecture buildings. Too many have overextended themselves, failed to invest for a rainy day, and now expect to be bailed out with the rest of the foresight-challenged miscreants who have royally botched things and whose failures to plan dot the landscape.

I'm sick of listening to people whine about how they're making do without from their $125/month data-enabled iPhone. I don't think it's credible to say we don't have enough money for road maintenance even as we're installing hideously expensive electronic marquis signs along city streets like Powers Rd, as if we didn't get along just fine without them for the preceding century. I do not believe we should be paying for services that not only I don't use, but that almost nobody else uses, either. Empty busses driving around the city are a waste, and somebody needs to say it. Expenditure for the common good does not mean giving government a blank check, nor paying for every good idea that comes along.

The city gets enough of our money...they need to adapt to fiscal reality and operate within the confines of a sustainable budget. They have enough money to sustain a nice liveable city. Just think of all the services that $53 million they slipped the USOC under the table would provide...what it would do for the police, fire, street maintenance, and parks budgets. It's a matter of priorities, and the planners just aren't getting it. Hopefully 2C will send them that message.

If you do think the city needs more of your money, I'll be happy to provide you the city's general fund information so you can be the first to mail in your donation.

[Mike from back east]

Bob, your "let the 2C vote be the barometer there" is just another incantation of "majority rule" and we know how bogus that is. If the majority could rule everything, blacks would still ride the back of the bus, Jim Crow would still be the law of the land and women would not have equality or voting rights. We elect officials to make decisions and when they do, people want to play "majority rule" on whichever decision they don't personally like.... "I got mine, the hell with everyone else" which is for sure selfish and childish.

Comments by Otowi are spot on.

[Bob from down south]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

Bob, your "let the 2C vote be the barometer there" is just another incantation of "majority rule" and we know how bogus that is. If the majority could rule everything, blacks would still ride the back of the bus, Jim Crow would still be the law of the land and women would not have equality or voting rights. We elect officials to make decisions and when they do, people want to play "majority rule" on whichever decision they don't personally like.... "I got mine, the hell with everyone else" which is for sure selfish and childish.

Comments by Otowi are spot on.

Mike, this last argument is an absolute crock. What a truly bizarre reach it is to equate racism and sexism with a call for government to prioritize and focus its limited resources on things that benefit more than a small handful of people.

It's also pretty bizarre to suggest that the majority of Americans would still prefer to have blacks riding in the back of the bus, or would have women barefoot, pregnant, and without the right to vote. What's next, are you gonna tell me I hate my Mom and can't stomach apple pie??!!

With TABOR in effect, we elect people to wisely spend the money we give them, not to make decisions that wildly exceed those parameters and then come to us wailing "crisis" because we can't afford the overcommitments they've unwisely (or even illegally) made at a time when many, many people are experiencing personal economic challenges of their own.

The comments by Otowi here are emotional, irrational overexaggerations that fail to recognize that limiting government spending programs is NOT the same as eliminating them entirely. You guys think we need to eat a gallon of ice cream to be happy...I say we can make do with the pint we can actually afford.

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by Bob from down south

Mike, this last argument is an absolute crock. What a truly bizarre reach it is to equate racism and sexism with a call for government to prioritize and focus its limited resources on things that benefit more than a small handful of people.

It's also pretty bizarre to suggest that the majority of Americans would still prefer to have blacks riding in the back of the bus, or would have women barefoot, pregnant, and without the right to vote. What's next, are you gonna tell me I hate my Mom and can't stomach apple pie??!!

With TABOR in effect, we elect people to wisely spend the money we give them, not to make decisions that wildly exceed those parameters and then come to us wailing "crisis" because we can't afford the overcommitments they've unwisely (or even illegally) made at a time when many, many people are experiencing personal economic challenges of their own.

The comments by Otowi here are emotional, irrational overexaggerations that fail to recognize that limiting government spending programs is NOT the same as eliminating them entirely. You guys think we need to eat a gallon of ice cream to be happy...I say we can make do with the pint we can actually afford.

Putting things on a referendum, for a majority vote, puts us under the "tyranny of the majority" which has been struck down by courts many times; which is why civil rights and women's right HAD to be solved by the courts, as the majority were, and many are, still biased. Today's overall national population would not vote us back into Jim Crow, but I'm sure a majority in some southern states would. The tyranny of the majority just took away gay marriage in California and the issue is headed for the courts where the rule of law will be applied, probably over-ruling the tyranny of a majority that was force-fed all sorts of spun-up rhetoric and fear.

In a referendum, a majority of voters will always vote against tax increases, always vote for tax reductions and always vote selfishly. I expect a majority will vote against item 2C EVEN if it hurts this city or some of our residents. So long as 2C reduces services to the OTHER guy and not to themselves, they'll vote selfishly. It sucks, but that's what we get with government by referendum.

We elected Rivera, if we don't like what he's done, then we vote him out next time during the primary, if he runs.

I don't think we are overrun with city services, gold plating or extravagance, we have a good city and I'd like to see it stay that way.

[otowi]

My comments were reductio ad absurdum.

I agree with Mike from back east, I don't think we are overrun with services or extravagance, and I don't think we're anywhere close to promoting a whole gallon of ice cream. Some of the things we stand to lose if 2C fails I think would really hurt the welfare and quality of this community; I think we've already cut the fat and we're near to cutting the bone now.