Quote:
Originally Posted by MIKEETC
Appears from the article that the city may have committed themselves to a contract that they can't break.
|
Maybe.
I've also noticed a lot of this kind of thing with public budgets. When past councils create mandates that a certain percent of a budget must be spent on "x" and nothing else it really does tie the hands of future leadership to use monies appropriately. I guess it was started to be a safeguard AGAINST poor leadership, but since people don't have crystal balls they can't know that in 20 years there won't be a need for "x" and that the money can't be spent where it's needed without special elections and 2/3 majority votes or whatever. It's nuts.
I have a rule that I will NEVER vote for anything that requires a certain amount of a budget be reserved for a specific purpose, and I'm outspoken when city/state leaders try to pass laws doing that too, because I've seen too many problems happen that way.