I don't speak for the Riverside Party and am not a supporter of any particular party. I do have doubts about parties, groups, or individuals that make unrealistic promises. Don presented a reasoned analysis that points to some deficit spending, at least in the 1-2 year time frame. I concur. Considering the obligations which the Village must meet, the budget can not be balanced through efficiency measures. Anyone who claims this is as bad as Madoff. It is a fiction, a fantasy, a canard. The questions are: 1. How low do we allow reserves to sink before changing the balance between income and expenditure? 2. What are we willing to give up to limit expenditures? 3. How do we increase revenues? Now someone who says "I'll reallocate all reserves to the general fund and let them go to 20% of the annual general budget. I'll accept cuts to services including 20% of Police manning, daytime fire manning, all of rec and all of Public Works overtime. I will push for home rule and undesignated sales taxes, occupation taxes, and real estate transfer taxes" has said something realistic and complete. I wouldn't agree with it all, but at least it addresses all the questions. It probably doesn't matter though. People will vote for whomever for whatever reasons they vote, the elected will face the exigencies of the situation, the reserve will dwindle and in 2010 or 2011 the decisions will be forced. You might want to save this post because I would be very surprised if someone at a board meeting doesn't say exactly the same thing 12-18 months from now. In case I'm not around at that time, "I told you so."
Riverside Info » About Riverside
How do we balance Riverside's budget?
(78 posts)-
Posted Tuesday Feb 24, 2009 14:44 #
-
If you review, I believe you'll find you've been referring to my figures and analysis.
But that is precisely what the Riverside Party is saying. They offer no budget cuts, nor any tax increases. We know from prior to the campaign that Smith always favored Home Rule or the PTT if the referendum failed.
I think people might approve a necessary tax increase if and only if they are convinced the fat has been pressed out. The perception of wasted money is, I know, a reason many people voted against it. Others simply do not want to pay more taxes. Those people could have been saying, go ahead, cut services. I have no problem myself with either of these scenarios, so long as public safety and infrastructure are not cut before bells and whistles are.
I don't think it is possible to know how much fat there is to cut until you have the view from the inside. If we examine our own budgets, we usually find fat, fat and more fat.
Posted Tuesday Feb 24, 2009 15:17 # -
I think the point I wanted to make is that just saying "let's increase sales taxes" won't do that. Wanting new businesses and acquiring them is not the same. The Village will get more revenue from an open Chew Chew than a closed one, more from a full one than an empty one, so I would do everything possible to help those already here. I wouldn't ask Grumpy's for $1000 for tables, instead I'd construct a curb meander so that the Chew and Grumpy's could have outdoor tables in summer and route the sidewalk around with simple planters. Give them everything we can to help them be successful and make a buck.
Giving this Board - any Board - Home Rule just so we could have a Real Estate transfer tax is insane. Trying to lure people to invest to open new businesses on Harlem where there is horrendous traffic and no parking is another idea that won't work. Places are folding all the time, and will continue to do so for the next two years - minimum. So like it or not we need to revamp our existing commitments wherever possible. These guys were going to drop the 1% tax on eating places if they got their referendum dough, and knowck $20 off the vehicle sticker. What sense does that make? We get the most sales tax revenue from the Zoo, mostly from out-of-towners - just what we are supposed to want, right? So why would offer to cancel that?
Why did we buy those two houses - which surely have dropped in value - if we have no money for spending on projects like parking lots. Parking for what? The church lot is right across the street if we had need of it for the Chew's dinner guests - so why did we tie up $700K in that? Why are we redoing Centennial when we are broke? It's been fine for a hundred years or so. Yes, if we don't lower our expenses, and we don't take in any more revenue, we will run out in 3-4 years,but hopefully times will be better than, and perhaps people will come around to Riverside. Now we are just chasing a rainbow... At least these guys will say they are going to look at every single things and try their best to lower our expenses...
Posted Tuesday Feb 24, 2009 15:23 # -
Fred - What I wanted to say is this: In good times, when the dough is rolling in and revenue growth looks to be a given, we all can act and spend andallocate our resources as we feel comfortable. When things are reversed, when the outlook is bleak, market contracting, savings being hit, we need to act differently. I had good, profitable businesses, so I could and did buy Benzes and Porsches and even a Lambo and a Maser. Over the years I had a couple million (minimum) of nice cars - and I didn't worry about buying or paying for them. Now I'm a retiree, fixed income, all that goes with that, so I have changed my style. The Village, the schools, the state and the Feds, we may all have to do that too. There shouldn't be any sacred cows. Don't be like Limbaugh and hope we fail, just so you can say "I told you so." Help out. If you see a place where we can economize, bring it up. For example, I'd like to know what it costs us to arrest and process - A to Z - the people we arrest for DUI on First and Harlem and Ogden. Not because I don't want the Police to do that, but so we could ascertain if we need to make getting caught in Riverside even more expensive for the perps. I'd rather have across the board furloughs or hour reductions rather than lay people off. It's OK with me if we only salt intersections and not all the roads - actually I like it better - quieter and looks better too. Maybe there are smaller economies to be discovered in many places, but they all add up. Labor contracts are being renegotiated, and you can bet that other towns and villages all across the state and country are dealing with these same issues. Nothing is cast in stone. People that say we need more revenue but can't show where we will get it don't help.
Posted Tuesday Feb 24, 2009 16:35 # -
If Roubini is right, and he has a good record of being both right and ahead of the pack, and the recession (for lack of a better word) extends through 2010 - say 36 months - the ONLY way we can balance the budget is through controlling spending and effecting meaningful cuts and reductions. Tax revenue will decrease, and it is hardly likely that new businesses will be coming in to Riverside during a downturn. It would be foolish to not plan for this scenario - hence the top-down, line-by-line audit and matching of available revenue to services is the only way to go - for the present and maybe longer.
Roubini says U.S. recession could last up to 36 months
www.chinaview.cn 2009-03-10 05:31:30 Print
Special Report: Global Financial CrisisNEW YORK, March 9 (Xinhua) -- Nouriel Roubini, a professor at New York University who predicted the current financial crisis, said Monday that the U.S. recession could drag on for years without drastic action.
In an interview with CNBC, the professor said he saw "no hope for the recession ending in 2009 and will more than likely last into 2010."
"We are in the 15th month of a recession," said Roubini, who is also known as "Dr. Doom." "Growth is going to be close to zero and unemployment rate well above 10 percent into next year."
Roubini predicted credit crisis in 2005, saying U.S. home prices were riding a speculative wave that would sink the economy.
The Obama Administration's 800-billion-dollar stimulus package is not enough to save the economy, Roubini said. While there will be a light at the end of the tunnel, it'll probably get worse before it gets better, he said.
Posted Tuesday Mar 10, 2009 13:47 # -
"The inches are everywhere"
thinking about the upcoming election, thinking about the Village budget, about our state...the inches are budget solutions, money we did not know we had, solutions...
There is a precise cross reference to Tom Jacobs exhortation to have gov't leader inspire and motivate... in another thread. This is more than the budget and the RP flier.
http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/riverside-party-flyer/page/6#post-8155
.We're in heck right now
We heel now as a team or we will crumble
that's [football] , guys.
( a profane word or two, but masterful rhetoric and film making)
Posted Wednesday Mar 18, 2009 12:05 # -
Is Al Pacino on the ballot?
Posted Wednesday Mar 18, 2009 14:14 # -
the movie clip suggests, or points to, a target or a mindset - clawing for every inch of dollars - for *all of us* to hit in working the Village problems. Vote for people who participate in this, and who can inspire others to do this, to a greater degree than others.
remember how he starts the speech ... 'we are in heck now' ...that's fiscal heck. you gonna vote for the mindset that got us here, lesniak-smith, or for a change?
Posted Wednesday Mar 18, 2009 17:45 #
Reply
You must log in to post.