[x]close

use comma(,) if mutliple email addresses i.e(friend@domain.com, friend2@domain.com)

More options need to be on the table Steve Castaneda And Patricia Aguilar | Sat, Nov 13 2010 12:00 PM

Chula Vista voters dealt another blow last week to the city's efforts to fix our ever widening budget gap by rejecting Proposition H, the city's utility tax reauthorization measure, by a whopping 14-point margin. It was a painful reminder of last year, when an overwhelming two-thirds of voters rejected an effort to raise Chula Vista's sales tax. In each case, voters ignored warnings from city leaders of imminent reductions in public safety services. Are voters indifferent to the need for adequately patrolled neighborhoods or responsive fire and emergency medical services? Or, have they just stopped listening?

In the case of the failed sales tax measure, voters who didn't support it had no reason to regret their decision. Why? Because those "unavoidable" cuts in public safety that were threatened never materialized.

In fact, although Chula Vista has the leanest Police Department of any local jurisdiction - 0.97 officers per every 1,000 residents - Chula Vista continues to enjoy low crime rates and the department's neighborhood oriented policing program has never been so vibrant. So it's not surprising that voters have grown fatigued and largely numb to the "support new taxes or we'll lay off cops" approach to selling tax hikes.

However, the combination of the defeat of the sales tax and the utility tax measures will have a real impact on city operations. The only question is, will those impacts affect public safety, or can the budget be balanced by reductions in public spending that will go unnoticed by the public?

In talking with residents, it is clear neighborhoods want to preserve public safety services as well as have the opportunity to visit a library or a park and get there on a road not riddled with potholes. But in this difficult economy taxpayers simply can't afford to pay more, and are demanding that city government live within its means, spend money only on things that clearly benefit the public, run the government in the most efficient manner possible, and explore non-tax ways to generate revenues.

The only avenue to fix the budget mess currently under discussion is to reduce pension costs for existing and future employees, and eliminate future raises included in existing collective bargaining contracts. Without question, shifting the cost of the employees' share of the pension payment back to the employees (taxpayers have paid both the city and the employee portion of the pension bill since 1998) is necessary. But in and of itself it is not enough. Other avenues to a balanced budget must also be evaluated and discussed.

For instance, a hard look needs to be given to such things as the level of executive compensation, further consolidation of city departments, and ending programs that offer no clear value to the public. Another avenue to balance the budget is consideration of means to generate revenue without raising taxes; a couple of examples are leasing surplus city building space and charging for parking. In our view, only a combination of pension reform, other means of budgetary savings, and new, non-tax revenue will assure police and emergency services remain adequately funded and assure our libraries and parks will continue serving our neighborhoods.

Twice now Chula Vista voters have rejected the city's efforts to raise taxes to fund city operations. That doesn't mean they are willing to accept unsafe and unmaintained neighborhoods. They expect city leaders to find ways to fund the services they depend on without new taxes. Pension reform, while necessary, only gets us part of the way there. A more hard-nosed approach to expenditures, as well as innovative approaches to revenue generation are also needed. Now is the time to broaden the budget discussion.

Castaneda is a Chula Vista councilman and Aguilar is a Chula Vista councilwoman-elect.

Rate This Article 5 vote(s)
Average Vote 4/5

Zach Says:

Wed, Nov 17 2010 01:59 PM

"Voice of Reason" there is no reason that cops are sacred cows of the city. EVERY OTHER CITY EMPLOYEE contributes significantly to their retirement and has taken drastic pay cuts to ensure the city doesn't have to cut services or to ensure their coworkers still have jobs (last part has mostly been in vain).

The CV Police REFUSE to help balance the budget and are DEMANDING A RAISE! Can you believe the audacity? A RAISE!

But you're right, there are other issues. Why do City Councilmembers get paid a salary to attend meetings? Why are they paid a salary when they have full-time jobs?


Voice of Reason Says:

Tue, Nov 16 2010 09:50 AM

ElProfeLoco thinks police and firefighters can retire in luxury before reaching 50????? Definitly loco. You cannot retire before age 50 without the aid of a debilitating injury. And even then, if you are 49 with 28 years on the job, you get a whopping 50% of your base pay. Can you retire in luxury on $40,000 a year with a disabling injury?????

The simple facts: Yes, public safety employees can retire at age 50. Most work beyond because they didn't start this job until around age 30, so at 50 they are nowhere near the high retirement figures that so few actually attain. Those who do start at 21 rarely make it to actual retirement age.

According to SANDAG reports, the City of Chula Vista spends $182 per resident on Police (that is the entire Police Dept. budget, not just salary) every year. This is the lowest number in the County by a large margin, even with the "excessive pensions". Clearly the issues are elsewhere and need to be addressed accordingly.


ElProfeLoco Says:

Sat, Nov 13 2010 09:20 AM

Yes, it is long overdue for elected representatives to begin cutting the fat from bloated governmental staffing, excessive excecutive/managerial compensation of staff, and overly generous benefits and retirement.
Most government employees cannot begin to get such generosity from employers in the private domain. If they can, let them do so.
Law enforcement and fire fighters have no God given right to earn more than teachers, and as much as some M.D.s. AND they can retire in luxury before reaching 50 years old. Their unions wield influence way beyond their voting numbers - too much influence.
Yes, it is time to finally address some of the public excesses that have plagued and burdened the citizenry for decades.


Leave Comment
Name
Email

(will not be published)

Comment(s)

The Star-News | 296 3rd Ave., Chula Vista, CA 91910 | Phone: 619-427-3000 | Fax: 619-426-6346 | info@thestarnews.com| Site Feedback| Corporate