Imagine yourself deep in debt, your expenses far exceed your income and the situation is getting worse day after day. What would you do?
A: You could cut back on how much you spend to keep on living large. B: You could stop sending that check to your aging widowed mother. C: Or you could walk down the street and rob everybody you see.
In the case of City Hall, the first option is unthinkable. Cutting back on how much you pay city employees for wages and benefits is out of the question. Even getting rid of some of them is impossible because you've given them contracts that all but prevent layoffs.
So that takes you to option B, which isn't so bad. You can cut services to the public who brought you into office and keeps you in the green as the highest paid city officials in the nation. Close some youth programs, cut back on library and park hours, reduce street paving since there's already a 75 year backlog, squeeze every penny you can out of what you provide to the people who pay the bills -- it still only amounts to a pile of pennies.
Then, there's option C. Eureka! Rob them blind.
Today, the City Council will pursue that option by dipping into the $111 million Special Parking Reserve Fund -- the money piling up from meters and parking structures that is supposed to go under the law to pay for new parking structures intended to get cars off the streets and relieve traffic congestion in high-density commercial areas.
The people who make the laws can break the laws, or at least change them. So after a lot of research by bond counsel and attorneys, City Hall has figured out a way.
Put aside the money to pay this year's costs of bonds used to build existing structures, declare the rest of the money is surplus so it can be moved to the city emergency reserve fund and then transfer it to the general fund where it can be used to pay salaries and help cover the budget deficit that seems to be growing by $10 million a week, according to the mayor's report last week.
That way nobody on the city payroll gets hurt. Only the taxpayers and the people whose neighborhoods don't have enough parking because the city is approving more apartments and businesses than the infrastructure can handle.
It's all so simple you got to wonder why nobody ever thought of it before. Perhaps, it's because robbing Peter to pay Paul is always a bad idea since it doesn't really solve the problem. But this is L.A. and solving problems is not the city's business.
It's not like the mayor has really delivered on his promise to curb spending despite the massive shortfall he papered over in this year's budget and the even bigger one he is creating next year.
How's his plan for unpaid furloughs of city employees doing? Halfway through the budget year, a total of nearly $600,000 has been saved out of the $7 billion budget, most of it going for employee costs.
How's the city doing in reducing all the costly lawsuits it creates with its mismanagement and lax discipline? Not so good, there's an expectation that settlements and judgments will cost $29 million more than the $32 million budgeted -- a misjudgment of nearly 100 percent.
Oh well, there's always the Department of Water and Power with all that cash from endless rate hikes and its unlimited capacity to borrow. Trust me, they've already got their eyes on that pot of money and if it's not enough, they can always raise rates again.
A: You could cut back on how much you spend to keep on living large. B: You could stop sending that check to your aging widowed mother. C: Or you could walk down the street and rob everybody you see.
In the case of City Hall, the first option is unthinkable. Cutting back on how much you pay city employees for wages and benefits is out of the question. Even getting rid of some of them is impossible because you've given them contracts that all but prevent layoffs.
So that takes you to option B, which isn't so bad. You can cut services to the public who brought you into office and keeps you in the green as the highest paid city officials in the nation. Close some youth programs, cut back on library and park hours, reduce street paving since there's already a 75 year backlog, squeeze every penny you can out of what you provide to the people who pay the bills -- it still only amounts to a pile of pennies.
Then, there's option C. Eureka! Rob them blind.
Today, the City Council will pursue that option by dipping into the $111 million Special Parking Reserve Fund -- the money piling up from meters and parking structures that is supposed to go under the law to pay for new parking structures intended to get cars off the streets and relieve traffic congestion in high-density commercial areas.
The people who make the laws can break the laws, or at least change them. So after a lot of research by bond counsel and attorneys, City Hall has figured out a way.
Put aside the money to pay this year's costs of bonds used to build existing structures, declare the rest of the money is surplus so it can be moved to the city emergency reserve fund and then transfer it to the general fund where it can be used to pay salaries and help cover the budget deficit that seems to be growing by $10 million a week, according to the mayor's report last week.
That way nobody on the city payroll gets hurt. Only the taxpayers and the people whose neighborhoods don't have enough parking because the city is approving more apartments and businesses than the infrastructure can handle.
It's all so simple you got to wonder why nobody ever thought of it before. Perhaps, it's because robbing Peter to pay Paul is always a bad idea since it doesn't really solve the problem. But this is L.A. and solving problems is not the city's business.
It's not like the mayor has really delivered on his promise to curb spending despite the massive shortfall he papered over in this year's budget and the even bigger one he is creating next year.
How's his plan for unpaid furloughs of city employees doing? Halfway through the budget year, a total of nearly $600,000 has been saved out of the $7 billion budget, most of it going for employee costs.
How's the city doing in reducing all the costly lawsuits it creates with its mismanagement and lax discipline? Not so good, there's an expectation that settlements and judgments will cost $29 million more than the $32 million budgeted -- a misjudgment of nearly 100 percent.
Oh well, there's always the Department of Water and Power with all that cash from endless rate hikes and its unlimited capacity to borrow. Trust me, they've already got their eyes on that pot of money and if it's not enough, they can always raise rates again.
Ron Kaye is the former editor of the Los Angeles Daily News where he spent 23 years helping to make the newspaper the voice of the San Fernando Valley and fighting for a city government that serves the people and not special interests.
Twice in recent years, Los Angeles Magazine listed Kaye among the city’s most influential people, specifically in the area of politics. Kaye has been variously described in the media as the “accidental anarchist,” “the Patrick Henry of the San Fernando Valley” and a “passionate populist.” He is now committed to
carrying on his crusade for a greater Los Angeles as an ordinary citizen. Previously, Ron worked at the Los Angeles Herald Examiner,
Associated Press, Cleveland Plain Dealer and The Australian as well as papers
in Fairbanks, Alaska and Yakima, Wash. He also wrote for Newsweek magazine, The Guardian in London and the National Enquirer.
City Ethics Commission
Tuesday, December 16, 2008 Agenda
http://lacity.org/eth/ethagendas/ethethagendas21757240_12162008.pdf
Statement of appointees receiving CAUTIONARY letters that highlight areas in which potential conflicts of interests could arise:
Mr. William M. Jackson – CRA Board of Commissioners
Mr. Javier C. Angulo – East Area Planning Commission
http://ethics.lacity.org/PDF/agenda/2008/December/121608_A8_SEIReview.pdf
It's a Ponzi scheme all the way. I thought Ponzi schemes were illegal?
Keep in mind that if you can get away with a Ponzi scheme long enough you will have moved on so you don't need to be accountable.
LOL, you're right Ron. Somehow, when people get elected to office they somehow forget the basics of budgeting. That forgetfulness falls across all party lines, no doubt about it.
You forgot one option though---when real people get in trouble financially we start to sell our stuff. It happens every day all across this country. What we can't sell we give away because it costs money to maintain stuff.
But our current system is based on owning tons and tons of stuff. Not necessarily good stuff, like homes, but just junk. Do you know that even though home prices have been diving for 2 years still only 48% of all Californians can afford to buy a home in CA?
Things are just bass-ackwards here in L.A. County and in the whole state. The party is over and we're all getting a contact hangover!
Gee, Ron thanks for (inavertently!) opening up an old wound. Years ago, the parking meter revenue fund was collected from each of the council districts. It was to be used to build parking structures in the districts along with other associated parking costs. Then, without any real notice to the public, the City Council quietly made a motion to change this longstanding policy, and put all meter funds in one main account as you described. I find it rather surprising that there is that much money in the account since it has come to our attention (here in Sherman Oaks) that the money has been previously used for other city budgetary shortfalls.
Frankly, none of this truly matters because this city has no intention of dealing with parking shortages. That's why more and more developments (before the downturn and even after) are being granted exemptions from required parking laws!