 |
 |
By ERIN CARLSTROM
The city of Santa Rosa is headed in a dangerous direction. Next week, the City Council will be taking up the 2011-2012 budget in a series of hearings, but even before these hearings have taken place it looks as if the City Council has decided to take a direction that will gut the quality of life in Santa Rosa.
Erin Carlstrom.
The city manager’s original budget proposed equitable cuts spread across city services, using taxpayer-approved Measure P funds to help support all of our city’s vital services. The original budget preserved most parks and recreation funds, kept pools open and maintained adequate levels of police and fire services. Instead, revisions requested by certain council members are forcing the city to cut important community services, especially in our Parks and Recreations Department, to bolster the police union that supported their campaigns.
This raid on our city’s parks and pools is egregious as the revised current budget proposal includes not just maintaining police services but actually expanding staff by filling vacant positions and adding an “analyst” to the department. As a member of the Measure O oversight committee, I have had the opportunity to review the city’s crime rates and these funding proposals in detail. They do not make sense for our community.
First, the programs being disproportionately cut are important for keeping our community’s youth out of trouble in the first place, before they are exposed to gang or other criminal activity. Recreational programs are healthy alternatives to joining gangs and provide vital opportunities for our children to advance in the future.
As a child, I had the opportunity to participate in swimming programs, which led to my being recruited by an Ivy League university for my education. The structure and physical outlet provided by these programs kept me focused and out of trouble. Investing in programs such as swimming, soccer and other community activities for our youth is important because they represent an investment in our community’s future.
Second, the council’s current budget does not recognize the reality of the current fiscal situation facing Santa Rosans. The economic downturn has impacted us all. While we have been suffering as a community, losing services and tightening our belts, our police officers have not joined in the significant sacrifices being made by their neighbors and fellow officers across the state.
Recently, the city has gained concessions from almost every other group of employees in the city. They even took the drastic action of imposing a contract on the road maintenance workers, but they have not gotten the same concessions from our police. Many of the upper echelons have continued to collect unsustainable salary and pension perks, while other city employees have had to make significant sacrifices.
For a department with 45 percent of the city’s most highly paid employees (in excess of $100,000 a year), it is appalling that the city has not received any concessions from these public servants, and it’s a shame that the proposed revisions don’t treat the rest of our community so kindly.
We are a city that is more than just police officers. We are a city that last year voted to fund our recreation programs for children, adults and seniors. We have stood up and taxed ourselves to keep these services open, but now it looks as if the City Council is going to misappropriate these funds and gut the core of our city.
I urge you to demand equal concessions from all sectors of our government. The budget hearings will be held on June 14, 15 and 16.
Erin Carlstrom is a member of the Santa Rosa Measure O Oversight Committee, a local business owner and president of the Redwood Business Alliance.
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
She’s doing a hit piece on the opposition here—just what you would expect from an operative. she’d just call it getting down to brass tacks.
right, erin?
keep this woman off of council.
@Chris, while all the reasons for the decline in crime is debated, most criminologists give a chunk of credit to crime analysts, who enable police to pinpoint their limited resources to where they do the most good.
So, I’m not sure why you classify this position as “non-safety.” It may be more important than you realize.
As to rec programs, if I were to agree that some of them are essential to lowering gang violent (and I’m skeptical), then I’d want them tailored for that purpose. But most aren’t. They’re just places for kids to play. Which is all very nice, if one has the money. We don’t.
How about that advisory vote? I’ll live with the results. Will you?
@ Reality Check – Food and shelter is not on the table. The police want to hire more new positions and cut our city services to do it. I think we can live without a brand new analyst in the police department. Crime has been decreasing in our city without this non-safety position. Recreation programs, as you have demeaned them, are more than just a family picnic. These programs provide real impacts for a communities children, and have been proven to reduce gang violence and other crime activities in an area. Maybe you need a reality check?
A simple advisory vote by the citizens of Santa Rosa might be helpful. In which order do they wish city services cut, if the need arises.
I’m afraid, though, those calling for “equitable” reductions will be disappointed. There is nothing equal about the public’s ranking of city services. Some are highly ranked, others strictly discretionary.
That the few who benefit from specific programs confuse them as essential government services is understandable, I suppose. But the public is unlikely to agree. As with any family facing a budget crunch, recreation gets cut before food and shelter.
Makes perfect sense if your town is signed up with ICLEI.
@Common Sense – much better put than the first time around, but we’ll have to agree to disagree. As Chris stated, these parks and other recreation programs are even more important for the poor in these rough economic times. The wealthy can always pay for private facilities, but not the less fortunate among us. Much of the anti-gang efforts are centered around these recreation programs that are being threatened…
@commonsense – While these types of programs are recreational for us as people, they are not optional for government to provide. With the tough economy and high unemployment, it is more important for the city to fund these programs as people are less able to afford to take vacations or participate in other types of recreational activities.
@lets be reasonable,
I grew up in PA and NY in the 1970′s-1990′s. I learned the function of governement in my civic’s classes and in my college government classes. While you have a point, that governemnt is what the people decide it is, at least in this country, my point is that historically it’s functions have been more limited/structured and while in good economic times, we may want our excess to go to things that are recreational, in bad economic times, we cannot afford that and must focus on the core priorities of government.
While you may not agree with me, that is fine, but it’s still my opinion.
It is nice to hear from someone that is aware of the “real” issues facing the City of Santa Rosa. The mayor’s suggestion to have a “two-year budget cycle” is a typical bait and switch…trying to take our attention away from the budget situation now!!! As most agree, the City Council needs to keep the real costs of doing business in the forefront of the topic as it relates to staying ahead of the next budget and fairly make the cuts in each department. You are never going to hear that public safety is overpaid…or that they think that they should have to give something up…that job lies with the City Council….and real citizen input…and the Mayor should not be able to vote…I can hope..
The City is too focused on protecting the well paid in its ranks and not planning for the future. Tax revenues are in long term decline, the loose spending days are gone, as anyone who has looked at their home equity can tell you.
If we keep laying off the low paid workers to protect the highly paid, what are we going to end up with? If my kids have no pools or parks to play in, with no summer jobs to work, are they going to end up involved in crime? How much will that cost taxpayers?
We need to maintain services at a lower cost, and the only way to achieve that is real pay cuts, not 6% pay raises, not gimmicky deferred pay, not reduced hours for the same pay, and not red-herring threats to services to convince voters to increase taxes. The public don’t have the money to pay these taxes, so deal with reality. I would be amazed if voters ever approve another tax hike like measure P when they see how it is being diverted exclusively to high wage Public Safety and Management.
To reinforce Jack C’s point.
The new reality; hot off the presses:
“WASHINGTON (AP) – Falling U.S. home prices have shrunk equity so much that the proportion of their homes that Americans actually own is near its lowest point since World War II.
Average home equity plunged from more than 61 percent at the start of 2001 to 38 percent in the January-March quarter this year, the Federal Reserve said in a report Thursday.”
http://money.msn.com/home-loans/news.aspx?feed=AP&date=20110609&id=13751253
I have a suggestion for the Press Democrat and the operator of this posting board.
How about finding a way to prevent personal discussions between competing commentators ?
Its really boring to watch people post for their favorite political position.
Posts should be limited to addressing the topic of the article and nothing else. No debates. Without debates, we can all view each other’s opinions and adjust or not adjust our own.
My opinion? Tax revenue will continue to decline as we are a nation in decline in jobs and wealth. Its obvious for anyone to see. So, my quesstion is this: why hasn’t local government stated openly how they plan to adjust local government spending downward. Their dreams of continuing to spend at current levels are just that and only dreams. There is less money around, people. Public wages and programs must be reduced from now on.
Perhaps private pools and parks could be an alternative except for the fact that if there was one mishap, the owners would be sued out of their minds.
@Common Sense – when and where did you grow up!? Parks have been around since before California was a state. And who are you to decide what is, and is not, a core function? Seems to me that core functions are whatever the voters decide that they are.
Smithy,
Let’s not forget her other ties to the rest of that web…
http://www.watchsonomacounty.com/2010/06/cities/familiar-faces-switch-seat-on-planning-commission/
While I appreciate the parks and pools, they weren’t paid for by government when and where I grew up and I don’t think they are a core function of government. The core function of goverment is fire, police and infrastructure, not recreation services.
Ted, Paul or Jim,
Who decides what the biographical info at the end of guest columns says, the newspaper or the author?
I only ask because while this author’s bio seems to paint her as a business owner watching the fray at the city from afar, in reality she is a member of the planning commission (not mentioned), appointed by a member of the council minority (notice the shot at the majority’s ‘police union’ backers), and is easily found listed online as a leader in the California Young Democrats, Accountable Development Coalition and other local progressive groups.
Nothing wrong with that, but with the full picture this seems less like a plea from a concerned business owner and ‘oversight’ board member and more like a calculated move against one’s political enemies.
Well said Erin.
Please run for city council or county supervisor. We need good honest people like you in office!
Bear,
Well said, especially for someone living comfortably on a public pension. Who needs those pesky schools and parks so long you got yours, right?
Finally someone speaks the truth about police and fire! I am a city employee who has mandatory time off plus we have a pay cut coming soon. We little guys are tired of being used to balance the budget while the top earners, including upper management, give up nothing!
Agreed, Lets be Reasonable!
Oh please. So republican economic policies are requiring the closure of pools, parks and schools?
I’m very sorry about the parks and pools.
Maybe build your own pool?
I’m not happy at all about the schools.
Maybe build and fund your own schools?
@Kirstin – yes, I agree completely. I just think that the Circadian station is not serving a necessary service currently. Later, when there is more growth in that area, then it would make more sense to staff it.
@LBR: Every department should maximize its efficiency, including fire, all the time. The point is that the city’s budget must emphasize continuing necessary services, and that is usually best done by retaining all (nearly all?) employees (especially at the most basic, working level) but cutting salaries as needed to balance said budget.
@Kirsten – yes the Circadian station exists, but was built mostly to service the expected growth in that area which hasn’t occured yet because of the crash. They were going to close it in the original budget, which makes perfect sense to me because of the low call volume in the area. It is where the Fire Admin staff are now, and they would remain there, but it would no longer have trucks and crews.
@ Lets be Reasonable. Station 10, Circadian Way, does exist already according to the fire station map (http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/doclib/Documents/City%20of%20Santa%20Rosa%20Fire%20Stations.pdf). I haven’t been there to verify, but it was that station, together with 11 at Lewis Road that was mentioned in the initial City budget reductions (dated Apr. 13, 2011).
@Kirsten – the original budget called for closing a station that was built to service future growth that has not happened yet. It makes sense to close it, since there are VERY few calls for service in that area. It is the Lewis station that needs to be kept open.
I have to disagree with the concept that parks and open space are a vital part of government operations.
They are not.
We are spending way too much, however, on public safety and public safety pensions. Sonoma County and the cities within Sonoma County just are not that overrun with crime although the city attempts to convince us otherwise.
“Equal concessions” from police and fire must be in terms of salary reductions, however, not cuts in service. It was cuts in service that were originally proposed by the City Manager and over which the City Council then expressed reservations. Since police and fire do receive salary and benefits out of proportion in the current economy, their representative unions ought to be willing to offer suitable concessions that would permit continuance of all their personnel but would also permit other important city functions to be funded at a higher level than if fire and police make no concessions.
Some other highly paid officials in City government (such as in the City Manager’s and City Attorney’s offices) should also be required to take significant pay cuts to set an appropriate example for the rest of the city’s employees. In effect, any City (and County) employee currently making over $100,000 a year should take a newsworthy pay cut.
@Erin – do you not put Fire into the same boat as Police, or do you feel that Police is more of a problem than Fire?
This is well put. I want public safety as much as the next person, but not at the expense of other city services. Go back to the original plan.
Well said Ms. Carlstrom.
I agree in principle. The shift toward public safety at the expense of the remainder of the City’s services seems shortsighted.
I would refer to the Sonoma County Upstream Project which thoughtfully identifies that attention to children and youth has long term gains for our city, county and society.
http://www.sonomaupstream.org/docs/upstream_final.pdf
I value and support law enforcement and the challenges they face. I hope and expect my City Council to keep everything on the table so we can consider alternatives to the present crisis resolution.