City’s Capital Investment Budget Turns Minimal

By: Walker

9 Comments

• 

  Walker June 16, 2009 8:41 am

  This is the thing that bothers me more than a reduction in police/fire, or closing rec centers. It is critical that the city invest public dollars in infrastructure and development to leverage as incentive for private development.

  If the city isn’t investing, then it gives private developers less of a reason to invest.

  I’d equate this to an individual who is getting a paycut at work and decides to axe their 401k instead of their cable tv bill. Not a smart thing to do at all. The long term investment budget should always be set aside untouched, in good times or in bad.
• 

  SusanB June 16, 2009 9:08 am

  Walker;

  I resectfully disagree. If the police or firemen are let go they are very difficult (and expensive) to replace when the economy bounces back. The infrastructure work can be postponed for a year or two without much immediate trauma (which I think reducing the CPD would cause). But then again I am looking at it from an area of town that gets “infrastructure” support in ways we don’t want, as in low income housing on the Shotties parking lot. I’d much rather have cops than “affordable housing” cause we already have plenty of that down here. I think I might feel differently if my neighborhood recieved infrastructure support that we actually wanted/needed, but overall a postponement (if that’s all it is) still would probably get my support rather than loosing police and fire.
• 

  misskitty June 16, 2009 9:56 am

  I agree some things must take the back burner even if it means putting off new building for a few years. I am glad they are not putting aside the Scioto River bridge at Rich and Town streets.
  It needs to be finished and I would rather have a bridge finished then a new building or something of the like.
  In a sense there still investing
  “Although the capital budget contains no new projects, it does include money for efforts such as the just-completed Lincoln Theatre renovation on the Near East Side, the ongoing Scioto Mile remake of the Downtown riverfront, and the just-begun replacement of the Scioto River bridge at Rich and Town streets.”
• 

  Walker June 16, 2009 10:30 am

  SusanB Says: I resectfully disagree. If the police or firemen are let go they are very difficult (and expensive) to replace when the economy bounces back. The infrastructure work can be postponed for a year or two without much immediate trauma (which I think reducing the CPD would cause).

  Don’t get me wrong… I’m not saying police and fire are not important. None of these cuts are easy.

  That said, can I ask why are police/fire difficult and expensive to replace? Because of training? I really don’t know a whole lot about what goes into those hiring processes, but I’d love to see some sort of financial comparison of what those added costs would be to rehire them vs would the city would be saving by not spending salary money on them during the reduction phase.

  And I agree with you that development work CAN be postponed without a lot of immediate trauma. My point is that the trauma that comes from that is much more of a long-term problem. Development is an extraordinary slow moving process. Postponing development means putting off jobs, improved neighborhoods, urban infill, denser populations in our urban core, and therefore putting off having a larger tax base in the long term.
• 

  StowCbusCleveland June 16, 2009 11:41 am

  The 3 big numbers to be pulled out of that article (That I saw) are the current projected 2010 deficit ($115.4M), the amount the potential tax increase may bring in during 2010 ($90-100M), and the difference between the original 2010 capital budget and the new one (~$240M becomes $24M = ~$216M in cuts).

  While it sucks, I’m not sure I blame them for not starting any new building projects while they are still staring a 9 figure budget deficit in the face.  Even if we pass the tax increase and their revenue projections are close, we’re looking at only getting back to even.

  I’m still learning about the Columbus budget though…Walker, is there any area of the budget in particular that you view to be the “Cable Bill” that should be cut to save the “401K” of infrastructure improvement?
• 

  Mike Brown June 16, 2009 7:15 pm

  Facts and Background on Issue 1 – Part of Columbus’ 3-part plan to maintain neighborhood services and our economic future
• 

  Mike Brown June 17, 2009 12:23 am

  Walker, thanks for posting that link to the background.  Our office system has been blocking me from posting or commenting during the day.

  I’ve tried not to insert myself too much in these posts, because I like to see the dialogue grow.  But the fact remains that the City faces serious choices between deep cuts and change.  We’ve chosen to change via a 3 point plan, that includes Issue 1.  The voters will decide if we maintain our progress as a city or if we choose a more bare bones approach.  We’ve shown our cards based on the best estimates of City and private sector economic advisors and now ask people to give it thoughtful consideration.

  To answer the sunset question, that was considered.  But, while it may convince a few voters, it may also doom a future generation of leaders to drastic cuts in another slowdown.  It could take years for this half-cent increase to catch up with even current expenses, and the fact remains that even with a .5% increase we will still have to keep making cuts in 2010. 

  If we set a sunset for even 10 years, and costs kept climbing for basics, and then the revenue arbitrarily went away, we’d only be saddling future leaders and voters with a deeper problem.  So the decision was made, just as it has been in past generations by Mayors/Councils of both parties, to take the tough road to balance the budget through a mix of cuts and a permanent revenue increase.  If the economy were to rebound so strongly that services could be maintained and a significant surplus realized, changes could be made.  But, for now, that isn’t reality.  We need to change the model or face great losses to our neighborhood quality of life and ability to compete economically.  The tax rate has been unchanged since 1982, and we think we’ve put a fair proposal on the table where many people are asked to invest a little to protect a lot of public good.
• 

  mstimple June 17, 2009 1:58 pm

  This annoys me to no -end.  I feel now as if every cent of my tax money is going towards things that don’t directly benefit me and people like me.  I don’t want to vote for the income tax increase, but I feel like if I don’t it would be years before any more meaningful capital improvements take place.  I can’t take solace or lend my support towards the various GOP types running for council who don’t want to spend any money on anything or the current regime of all Dems who want to take more of my money to appease police/fire (and their unions).  Anybody out there want to run for mayor or council whose whole platform revolves around taming the beast of government beauracracy and control of the city public sector that never seems to cease suckling from the taxpayer’s teat while at the same time promising to devote more of our hard earned money towards things that improve the quality of life and vibrancy of our city?  You would get my vote.
• 

  Walker June 17, 2009 10:10 pm

  mstimple Says: I feel now as if every cent of my tax money is going towards things that don’t directly benefit me and people like me.

  But do these things indirectly benefit you?