UPDATED COMMENTARY
I must say that I have rethought my original idea presented below. I had proposed a ONE-TIME small tax payment on Peabody households and business to make up for the ONE-TIME state funding cut.
I no longer believe this is a good idea for the simple reason that these cuts are now NOT BEING SEEN as a one-time event. This became evident when the Mayor said that we need to prepare for additional cuts in State aid in the near future.
IF indeed this is the case, then a simple band aid of money (even small amounts) will simply allow the current business-as-usual mentality to persist despite further cuts coming down the road. Since this is what is now expected, then there is NO SENSE in postponing the inevitable... make the hard cuts that the current situation demands NOW which will allow the City as a whole to operate under a better (read cheaper) financial picture and then re-access when future cuts come along.
My reasoning is the same as I put forth regarding Salem's School budget loss (thanks to the crook they had in office) where it was not a simple one-time infusion of money that would help the City, but it was an on-going need for too much money. Thus, a one-time tax would become permanent... I am NOT advocating that.
More links on this story. The Peabody/Lynnfield Weekly:
==============================================================
The Salem News: Less state aid means $871,000 cut in Peabody budget
Lynn Item: Peabody bracing for 'real crisis' in budget cuts
Well... you can't say we didn't see it coming. It actually turned out a bit better than the Peabody Patriot has been predicting ($1.2M cut).
So now what do we do. We have the lowest taxes around and the services and educational system to prove it. Where do we begin to cut the $900,000.00 Even if all the cars went away and we enacted all the moves discussed in previous posts it doesn't come to that figure without BIGGER items... like a school closure and sale (because you won't reap much $$$ immediately without a sale).
Or what about this? A poster at the Salem News said every resident should pay around $17.50 each.... and the budget is back to normal.
But that would be unfair to larger families in my opinion. Here is one other idea...
Have a special assessment. In 2006 there were approximately 1,160 businesses in Peabody. In 2000 there were exactly 18,581 households in the City.
If each household paid a one time charge of $35 and each business paid a one time charge of $215 ~~~P~O~O~F~~~ Budget problem reversed and solved.
I personally do not have money to throw around these days (well almost any days to be honest) but I would be willing to pony over $35 per household to keep the City in the black and prevent cuts in services.
What do you think?
Farewell Dark City....
11 years ago
13 comments:
PI I hear what your saying but I do not have $35 to spend even once. Really it is all I can do right now to pay bills. I am at the point of which ones need to be paid and which ones can wait.
I also own a business in Peabody so now my nut is another $215. Again I can not afford that right now. I am having a hard enough time paying my staff.
OG says...
you are optimistic if you believe that we could quickly sell a hypothetically closed school building in this real estate market...the only quick answer is savings via Layoffs along with some Patty Schaffer fancy economics maneuverings...as we continue to hear of more corporate layoffs, a crumbling bank system in the UK, and restaurants closing by the week the reality is this >> FOR MOST OF US THIS IS WORST IT HAS EVER BEEN ECONOMICALLY...THE WORST since the Great Depression and OG is starting to wonder if we are about to experience the SECOND Great Depression.
I like the idea of a special assessment, but I would like to see the business end be a little more, if not the complete package. Particularly those businesses that have been given tax breaks for so long by the city. In these trying economic times, tax breaks for places like the NSM are unfair to the taxpayers. We are the ones that provide them with their profits. Tax us too much and we will spend less in their stores in order to make ends meet. These are the days in which the business world should be happy with LESS PROFIT (not no profit, just less) and more concerned with helping get us out of the financial funk the country is in. When oil companies, despite the ever changing market, can still make BILLIONS in PROFIT each year, and companies like Verizon can do likewise, it's time to assist in a real fashion to get this nation back on its feet. Locally, as I said earlier, businesses need to contribute to the cities and towns whose citizens support their existence. I know that 35 dollars doesn't sound like much, but with each "little" assessment we pile on, it nibbles away at our ability to live a decent lifestyle. Corporate greed is the root of the problem we face. Big business isn't satisfied with just making a profit, they demand mega-profits or they cry poor-mouth and raise prices. Come to think of it, even when they get their mega-profits they raise prices! Continuing in this way will spell the end of the USA as we know it.
Agreeing to a tax hike after watching 3 mil. worth of raises get passed out is complete blasphomy! What evr happened to that 10 MILLION DOLLARS of "free cash?"
Several comments...
To Anon:
I am truly sorry to hear about your current hard times. And I am sincere about that. And while my previous statements are true I still like my idea... even if it means some additional hardships on some people.
I mean what if the Mayor had increased the taxes just a tiny bit more per person resulting in the same $35 increase per household... you would simply have paid it.
The business is perhaps a different story... maybe a better assessment would be based on number of employees so that smaller businesses would be less impacted.
To WhoGAF:
While I would also like to limit the effects on the citizens and put additional onus on the businesses... I don't think that is either smart (don't want to force them away) or practical.
Here's what I mean... in my calculations we have about 18500 households and just about 1160 businesses...
To have the businesses pay the full freight would cost each one would need to pay a little less than $800... IF the households just paid it would be $50 per household.
So I came up with a rather even handed split (but it was simply my guesses... nothing scientific).
To Jorge:
If (and ONLY IF) closing a school is both an economically and educationally sound decision... then we should proceed if it meets the demographic projections.
I do not see closing a school as a GOOD SOLUTION to a short-term budget crunch... and while I believe we are heading into a deep hole... I think we will emerge on the other side before too too long.
And in my thinking a one time charge in order to protect existing services to everyone is a good trade off in this situation.
Aside...
I remember floating this same idea when Salem was facing the huge losses to their school budget due to the reprehensible (but not illegal... gotta love the system) actions by their school leader.
Salem could have kept ALL their teachers and programs intact IF they had only come up with an assessment for both businesses and households like I have proposed for Peabody.
BUT... there was a big difference...
After thinking more about it... Salem did NOT need a one time payment... it had created a budget (and school program) based on FAKE MONEY that NEVER EXISTED... and thus they would need to fund the system EVERY YEAR... not just one time.
Also... the numbers were MUCH HIGHER per business and Household... but I am sorry I don't remember the actual figures... but they were HUNDREDS per household.
I see the Peabody situation as a one time (ok... maybe two times if the State remains bad off thru 2010) and something that would benefit everyone.
To OG:
The school building would probably not sell right away and it would also sell for less than if it was sold in a good real estate market. Heck... it might not sell at all for a good while.
The problem(s) I see are that we are going to need to maintain it (we will even need to minimally heat it or the pipes will all freeze) and it will be subject ot all sorts of problems as most vacant buildings do (think of Endicott St.)
So perhaps the BEST USE would be to move some other City services to such a location or... maybe even better... rent it out to someone (still difficult right now) or LOAN IT OUT to some non-profit services that would benefit the community... then if (when) we need it or wish to sell it... we can.
OG says...
let me offer this tidbit to help convey the urgency of our current situation...for as long as I have lived mail has been delivered 6 days a week...but read on Roundtable Readers...reality check time !!
WASHINGTON -- Massive deficits could force the post office to cut out one day of mail delivery, the postmaster general told Congress on Wednesday, in asking lawmakers to lift the requirement that the agency deliver mail six days a week.
If the change happens, that doesn't necessarily mean an end to Saturday mail delivery. Previous post office studies have looked at the possibility of skipping some other day when mail flow is light, such as Tuesday.
Faced with dwindling mail volume and rising costs, the post office was $2.8 billion in the red last year. "If current trends continue, we could experience a net loss of $6 billion or more this fiscal year," Potter said in testimony for a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee.
so, it's not all about service folks because US mail service has never been better...it's all about the money.
OG says...
on a somewhat related city budget matter please enlighten me...just about every year we hear Mayors complaining that we have already used up our snow plowing budget...is there a rational reason why we don't just budget more money for this snow plowing need/issue and not 'run out' like we do every year???? yes, we've had a lot of snow but it seems that we hear the same lament every year...don't you all agree ???
Snow removal is the only line item that cities and town can legally deficit spend. That's why they all do.
Thanks for that info Anon!
OG: About the US Post Office...
First... frankly on my street I know I am only getting about 11 days in two weeks at the most anyway! I have 'proved' this by leaving mail for 'pick-up' at the box (so I know he didn't show up that day at all and it wasn't just a case of me getting no mail that day.)
And you know what? It really isn't such a big deal. I would actually prefer to know that on Tuesday there was no mail instead of just hoping it is late...
Second; I am not so sure that this is actually a sign of the financial crisis. I think this is a change in the way the world works.
I do the majority of my correspondence on-line via email and other electronic communications. I pay a large percentage of my bills on-line as well. And I know I am not alone in this. So if lots of people are doing this, it is time to change the system to accommodate these changes.
As a start, reducing delivery days seems like a fine idea. I think that the actual Post Offices should, however, be open not just 6, but 7 days in order to serve the public - they do more than just move letters around you know!
I think the US Mail system is still the envy of the world and a huge asset to American business... but it simply needs to change a bit to continue in this role. Unless you all want to spend $1.85+ for a stamp... Or you can pay $4.57 to UPS for the next cheapest alternative to the USPS.
OG says...
less mail volume is certainly a symptom of a weak economy...we can debate the merits and value of what we get in the mail each day but in our life times we have always seen 6 day a week delivery...but I do think that this is a money driven issue...but like you, I could live with getting mail 5 days a week...so let's save the money...but let's not underestimate the impact of this action on the many postal service employees out there if this action is taken...that in itself is another ding on our national economy.
I have no problem with mail delivery 5 days a week. It's no big deal to me. However, if there has been such a big decrease in the mail volume, why hasn't the USPS adjusted their operation accordingly, with layoffs or closing certain offices? I haven't heard of any of these things even being discussed, or have I missed something? The USPS has always been a very inefficiently run organization.
PI;
If you didn't have any mail to be delivered to you on a particular day, then why oh why would the mailman come to your house?? Just leaving a letter to post in your mailbox doesn't mean the guy will show up for you. You
haven't "proved" anything with your experiment. The mail carriers are out there delivering every day of the week excluding Sundays.
No Anon, you are wrong here.
My mailbox is 10 feet from the sidewalk that the postal carrier walks past on the way to the next house... and it is CLEARLY VISIBLE that their is a letter attached to the box.
This is just the facts. You cna say that the carrier was too lazy to go and get that letter... or that maybe they just didn't look at my box (but I doubt it)...
The fact of the matter is I am not in the business area and thus get pretty late mail delivery and when the carrier is running late... I tend to be skipped.
I get mail everyday (99.99% of the time) and yet the day I get no mail I get twice as much the next day.
Sorry but I am being short changed here. The fact is I am not going all crazy about this service irregularity... I am simply using this as an example of why 5 days of delivery would be no big deal as long as the customer service centers (post offices) were open.
Post a Comment