Ballot Questions

[emoney]

Committee of Seventy: Ballot Questions, November 8 General Election

Shall The Philadelphia Home Rule Charter be amended to provide for a mandatory Budget Stabilization Reserve, more commonly known as a “rainy day fund,” and to provide for restrictions on deposits to and withdrawals from such Reserve?

Should the City of Philadelphia borrow ONE HUNDRED ELEVEN MILLION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($111,295,000.00) to be spent for and toward capital purposes as follows: Transit; Streets and Sanitation; Municipal Buildings; Parks, Recreation and Museums; and Economic and Community Development?

[Cya]

Committee of Seventy: Ballot Questions, November 8 General Election

Shall The Philadelphia Home Rule Charter be amended to provide for a mandatory Budget Stabilization Reserve, more commonly known as a “rainy day fund,” and to provide for restrictions on deposits to and withdrawals from such Reserve?

Should the City of Philadelphia borrow ONE HUNDRED ELEVEN MILLION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($111,295,000.00) to be spent for and toward capital purposes as follows: Transit; Streets and Sanitation; Municipal Buildings; Parks, Recreation and Museums; and Economic and Community Development?

1. No.
2. No.

[raider.adam]

1. No.
2. No.

Without digging more into the details, I would vote yes for #1.

[qweezyq]

1. Yes
2. Yes

It is smart economic policy to restrict growth during booms and and stimulate during recessions. In other words, you want to have steady growth not ups and downs. Thats what both of these questions are doing. Saving during times of growth, and borrowing and spending in bad times. It may seem counter-intuitive, but it is the correct thing to do.

Besides, in regards to Q2, it is no secret that Philadelphia lags behinds our competitors in terms of cleanliness, transit, infrastructure etc. You may think we shouldn't be spending now, but you are risking our future growth. Why wouldn't you borrow when interest rates are at historical lows in order to create jobs NOW and spur growth for tomorrow. If you don't do this, Philly will decline. Lets face it, I love my city, but there are much better places to live in terms of jobs, weather and general QOL. I hope we can change that (well aside from the weather).

I am sorry CYA doesn't feel that way, but with that POV you may as well say seeYA to PHilly as a top city.

[raider.adam]

1. Yes
2. Yes

It is smart economic policy to restrict growth during booms and and stimulate during recessions. In other words, you want to have steady growth not ups and downs. Thats what both of these questions are doing. Saving during times of growth, and borrowing and spending in bad times. It may seem counter-intuitive, but it is the correct thing to do.

Besides, in regards to Q2, it is no secret that Philadelphia lags behinds our competitors in terms of cleanliness, transit, infrastructure etc. You may think we shouldn't be spending now, but you are risking our future growth. Why wouldn't you borrow when interest rates are at historical lows in order to create jobs NOW and spur growth for tomorrow. If you don't do this, Philly will decline. Lets face it, I love my city, but there are much better places to live in terms of jobs, weather and general QOL. I hope we can change that (well aside from the weather).

I am sorry CYA doesn't feel that way, but with that POV you may as well say seeYA to PHilly as a top city.

#2 isn't because of some Keynesian economic plan and on top of it, Keynesian economics is a bad plan at the municipal level. What is important is what the 112 million is planned to be spent on.

[qweezyq]

#2 isn't because of some Keynesian economic plan and on top of it, Keynesian economics is a bad plan at the municipal level. What is important is what the 112 million is planned to be spent on.

I agree, the problem isn't spending 112 million it is giving it to council to spend it. Thus the unending problem of Philly. Maybe after you elaborate to me why Kenesian econ is bad at the municipal level you can run for local govt?
Thanks

[raider.adam]

I agree, the problem isn't spending 112 million it is giving it to council to spend it. Thus the unending problem of Philly. Maybe after you elaborate to me why Kenesian econ is bad at the municipal level you can run for local govt?
Thanks

Because the municipal government doesn't have control over the money supply to properly implement a Keynesian counter cyclical plan as well as it's spending doesn't necessarily benefit it's own internal economy. A municipality is part of regional economy.

In addition, a municipal government's role isn't to be so heavy handed in trying to manipulate the economy.

Now, I assume you can elaborate on why you think municipalities should take on significant debt loads when they are having trouble even balancing their budgets?

[Insoluble]

After reading through the Committee of 70's synopsis, I'm inclined to go with yes on #1, with some reservations. Will the restrictions placed on the rainy day fund be sufficient to prevent abuse? Is there anything stopping council from overestimating budget projections on purpose in order to fund pet projects? I'm not familiar enough with how the budget projections work.

As for the second question: how much did we borrow last time? Isn't there a bond question every election? I hear what you're saying qweezyq, but I would be more inclined to say yes to this if I had any reason to believe the city was actually being strategic about this like you say. I'm more inclined to believe they will continue asking to borrow money no mater what the economic climate and that we'll end up like Harrisburg.

[raider.adam]

After reading through the Committee of 70's synopsis, I'm inclined to go with yes on #1, with some reservations. Will the restrictions placed on the rainy day fund be sufficient to prevent abuse? Is there anything stopping council from overestimating budget projections on purpose in order to fund pet projects? I'm not familiar enough with how the budget projections work.

The rainy day fund legislation is far from perfect or ideal and can be gamed*. The thing is, it is still better than what we have now, which is nothing.


* City Hall can get around the deposits by simply budgeting all the money away. - Getting out of deposits should be linked to lack of revenue growth, not by a failure to budget all the money.
** City Hall can get withdrawals by merely over projecting their revenues. - Withdrawals should only be allowed if revenue decreased from year to year or funding is needed to pay for a state of emergency.

They make it all too easy to not pay into it and to take money out of it by simply playing with the books.

[raider.adam]

They probably should rename it from a "rainy day" fund to a "it might be slightly overcast next weekend so we aren't sure if we are going to the park" fund.

[qweezyq]

Because the municipal government doesn't have control over the money supply to properly implement a Keynesian counter cyclical plan as well as it's spending doesn't necessarily benefit it's own internal economy. A municipality is part of regional economy.

In addition, a municipal government's role isn't to be so heavy handed in trying to manipulate the economy.

Now, I assume you can elaborate on why you think municipalities should take on significant debt loads when they are having trouble even balancing their budgets?

Good points, except,
1. we are talking about improving philadelphia's infrastructure, not somewhere else. Tell me how getting people into and around the city does not encourage more revenue exchange in Philly. We are not talking about buying widgets from china. we are talking about putting local people to work to facilitate local growth and stay competitive with other cities.
2. Philly is the center of the regional economy.

[Cya]

After reading through the Committee of 70's synopsis, I'm inclined to go with yes on #1, with some reservations. Will the restrictions placed on the rainy day fund be sufficient to prevent abuse? Is there anything stopping council from overestimating budget projections on purpose in order to fund pet projects? I'm not familiar enough with how the budget projections work.

As for the second question: how much did we borrow last time? Isn't there a bond question every election? I hear what you're saying qweezyq, but I would be more inclined to say yes to this if I had any reason to believe the city was actually being strategic about this like you say. I'm more inclined to believe they will continue asking to borrow money no mater what the economic climate and that we'll end up like Harrisburg.

Ahh, thank you! That's where I was going with my answer of NO to Question 1.
Same thing for #2. Each election cycle, we are asked if the city should borrow millions of dollars for "capital projects".

[raider.adam]

Good points, except,
1. we are talking about improving philadelphia's infrastructure, not somewhere else. Tell me how getting people into and around the city does not encourage more revenue exchange in Philly. We are not talking about buying widgets from china. we are talking about putting local people to work to facilitate local growth and stay competitive with other cities.
2. Philly is the center of the regional economy.

I have no problem with spending on infrastructure. I have a problem with your premise that a municipality taking out more debt because it is a recession and not because they are needed projects is a good strategy.

Your position was that it is a vote for yes because it is counter-cyclical, not because the $112 million is going towards needed projects.

[LUCas]

As to #1

The Finance Director could find that a withdrawal is required because City revenues were at least one percent (1%) less than expected. Or the Finance Director could find (if approved by a state oversight agency or two-thirds of City Council) that a withdrawal is required to prevent a significant disruption to City services or to fund emergency programs.

In other words, fudge the budget to manipulate this fund.

As to #2

City Council would have authority, by ordinance, to change the intended allocation of these proceeds.

I predict: It is hereby ordained by city council that these funds be used to maintain DROP for city council members, personal cars and chauffers, and to pay off lawsuits against city agencies for their directors commiting criminal acts but since they're someone's good friend or brother on city council, we don't want to fire them.

[TLP]

A rainy day fund seems like a pretty sensible idea, but a I don't think a 2/3 majority is all that more stringent than a simple majority when you look at how Council operates. I get the feeling that many bills aimed at specific projects (i.e. proposed by a Councilmember for the benefit of their immediately consituents) get passed nearly, if not fully, unamimously given their attitudes about Councilmanic privilege. You vote for mine, I'll vote for yours. You spend rainy day money on mine, I'll spend rainy day money on yours.

[Cya]

A rainy day fund seems like a pretty sensible idea, but a I don't think a 2/3 majority is all that more stringent than a simple majority when you look at how Council operates. I get the feeling that many bills aimed at specific projects (i.e. proposed by a Councilmember for the benefit of their immediately consituents) get passed nearly, if not fully, unamimously given their attitudes about Councilmanic privilege. You vote for mine, I'll vote for yours. You spend rainy day money on mine, I'll spend rainy day money on yours.

Exactly! I don't trust council one bit.
Instead, let's put the ballot question of borrowing the $$/establishing a fund before the voters--and add the stipulation that the proposed projects for the rainy day $$ will be presented to the voters as a ballot question. .... Why not?
There's an election every 6months.
Ok. Let's establish a rainy day fund. But the voters should have a say as to how the $$ is spent.
This would shed light on the pet projects council likes to keep hidden from the public.

For example, I recall voting against a ballot question of borrowing millions of dollars about a year or two ago. That ballot question passed, I believe. Does anyone know what was done with that $$ that was borrowed?

[qweezyq]

I have no problem with spending on infrastructure. I have a problem with your premise that a municipality taking out more debt because it is a recession and not because they are needed projects is a good strategy.

Your position was that it is a vote for yes because it is counter-cyclical, not because the $112 million is going towards needed projects.

Well no, my real position has more to do with the fact that I am pro-infrastructure spending. I could go into the details why, but lets just say, infrastructure is way worse than what people see or take for granted. But I do believe they are needed to keep us competitive. Who are you to say this money is not for needed projects because of deterioration or vitality?

[raider.adam]

Well no, my real position has more to do with the fact that I am pro-infrastructure spending. I could go into the details why, but lets just say, infrastructure is way worse than what people see or take for granted. But I do believe they are needed to keep us competitive. Who are you to say this money is not for needed projects because of deterioration or vitality?

Your first main point in voting yes was solely for counter-cyclical reasons.

[qweezyq]

Your first main point in voting yes was solely for counter-cyclical reasons.

i lied?

[qweezyq]

Your first main point in voting yes was solely for counter-cyclical reasons.

Actually i stated that the combo of the two questions were counter cyclical. My main reason for voting yes had to do with infrastructure and keeping the city competitive.