voiceofsandiego.org: Slop... That Graph
an independent nonprofit |
Support This Service

That Graph

Published: Sunday, June 22, 2008 6:41 PM PDT



I made a big deal of this graph in my column Friday:

There just really is no illustration that better communicates the financial trouble the city of San Diego is still dealing with. That you can have a graph like that tracking the city's revenue increases over the years and at the same time still be talking about having to cut city services is just astounding.

I heard from a number of readers who were surprised by that. Was this an indication of some kind of massive fraud or something? Or was I, by not fully explaining where the money is going, implying that the mayor and city were just "pissing" away all the taxpayers' money?

No. There are a couple of main things going on. We are paying a massive bill to the city's employee pension system. Remember, the mantra of the pension crisis: It was never, or never should have been, a question of whether the San Diego City Employees' Retirement System was in jeopardy of complete failure. That's just not an option. The question, and the whole point of the hoopla about the issue, was what strain on the city's budget would saving the pension system cause?

This year, again, the city is paying more than $160 million to its employee pension system. In 2003, the payment was (a now-paltry) $85 million.

And that's what we're feeling now. The mayor, to his credit, is doing the right thing. He is paying the pension bill. But he is also putting money aside to pay for the health care costs of retirees. The city promised years ago that all of its employees would have their medical bills paid for the rest of their lives. With health care costs rising, that's no meaningless promise.

But the city had never set aside money for this in the past. Now it is, putting an additional $27 million aside this year to begin saving for its future bills.

Finally, the city, like other agencies, has a massive backlog of "deferred maintenance." First of all, they need to come up with a better term for this because studies have proven that just saying "deferred maintenance" out loud will completely immobilize rats for up to five hours. The precise effect on humans of hearing the nauseating term is not yet known.

So, better said, the city's buildings are falling apart. And we've put off -- "deferred" -- the upkeep on them for years and years. Again, we did this during times of supposed prosperity in the economy.

Now we are putting tens of millions into catching up.

If you want to know why we have to get rid of librarians and others this year, there's really nothing else you need to know.

Does the mayor deserve a parade for paying for these things? No. It's simply the right thing -- and only thing -- to do if you care about the city and its future.

I sometimes expect my wife to notice and praise me for doing the dishes. But that's lame. I'm just supposed to do the dishes and she's supposed to do other things. The mayor is supposed to do this. He doesn't need someone to pat him on back and say nice job for doing something that he simply has to do. I suppose we can be happy that he's not further "deferring" all of these costs.

Yay.

-- SCOTT LEWIS




15 Comments so far on this story...

Once property starts getting reassesed at 30%, 40% and even 50% less than it currently is, that graph is not going to be going up anymore. And you thought we have problems NOW, wait until revenue starts going down. BBOOOOMMMM!

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
June 22, 2008 7:17 pm

First of all, the pension is one of many reasons for the City's financial problems. Council overspending for new programs they couldn't afford since 1990 constitutes the large majority of the problem and it continues today. The mayor proposes modest reductions and cushions reductions in overly optimistic revenue projections this year and next with more one time, non recurring revenue. But even with this decidedly mild approach to solving the City budget's structural problem (ongoing revenues are not sufficient to fund ongoing expenses - which, by the way, preceded the pension issue by a number of years), the City councilmembers continue to "fight for the service levels the citizens deserve" and oppose the mayor's reductions. READ THE INDEPENDENT BUDGET ANALYST'S REPORT ON THIS SUBJECT: link May we have some political leadership PLEASE and not more of the same parochial "protect my council district at all costs" approach.

Posted by Get A Clue | reply to this comment
June 22, 2008 9:34 pm

They still have grossly overestimated their revenues for the coming year. (hello, by what metric do they actually expect an increase over last year in property, sales tax, or other revenue??) Watch for a big "oops!" budget adjustment in the fall.

Posted by Tom S. | reply to this comment
June 23, 2008 5:50 am

Good work Scott. Why should we give highfives to someone for waking up, putting on their shoes and getting the newspaper? Unless he or she is recovering from substance abuse or grave mental illness. Hmmm . . . one might argue that the Susan Golding, Dick Murphy, Ron Saathoff, Alan Bersin, Bonnie Dumanis political culture that governs our community creates the functional equivalent of manic depression with associated narcissism. This happens to gang members all the time. The culture in which they live produces grave mental illness. So maybe Jerry might deserve some credit for occasionally doing what his therapists and probation officers tell him to do.

Posted by jorgeelgato | reply to this comment
June 23, 2008 6:08 am

Scott Lewis, you are correct. If that certain group of hysterical San Diego citizens out there thinks the personnel cutbacks the Mayor is now proposing are somehow devastating or worse, then they just don't "get" that Sanders' is actually being quite conservative in his proposed trimming of staff costs. As I argue in my latest post (http://robert-lee.org), and commenters above, especially "Tom S." (#3) understand, I just don't believe, when all of the economic numbers come in, that San Diego will dodge the bullet this time. Even if we don't go into a full-blown recession here, sales receipts and property taxes from depressed home sales will fall sharply; TOT is likely to fall as tourism in the city declines; drivers are cutting back on fuel purchases, while consumers are reducing other expenditures, reducing sales tax revenue, etc. We must act NOW to reduce City expenditures, as Sanders proposes.

Posted by www.robert-lee.org | reply to this comment
June 23, 2008 6:23 am

While the mayor's actions are a step in the right direction ("yay!"), they also suffer from being fearful baby steps when full strides would be barely enough. The deposits to the (raided) pension fund are falling hundreds of millions short of promises. And increases toward deferred maintenance, savings, and the like, are numbering in the single-digit millions. The reason is simply that cuts are being made shallow enough to not appear as 'service cuts' ("whaaa!"), and paying for trash pickup and other San Diego entitlements is not open for discussion ("hmmmph!"). So, no, a pat on the back is not appropriate. We're talking about doing two dishes and going back to the couch. That's not gonna cut it.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | reply to this comment
June 23, 2008 8:20 am

Along with the 'slightly increased revenues', you forget, is a Hugely Increased 'number of homes, roads, lighting, sewers, police, fire & emergency personnel & maintenance service needs! The Pension fund deficit was created by '60's 'anti-establishment, now THE establishment', 'government controllers' getting 'something for doing nothing' (or almost nothing). This City has been 'let go' by terrible management, both budget-wise and asset-wise. Look to see where the majority of Property Taxes goes...of 17 Different Redevelopment Agency areas-then include the 'Enterprise Zones.' ALL 'suck up and redivert' General Fund Revenues, also WHY the State's Budget is also failing..Too much dependence on 'High Cost Opinions' from High Cost Attorney's paid for by the Housing Development Industry...BBH is right again! Do You live in a Redevelopment Area? Where do Your Property Taxes go? If SD is "22 firestations short" from its 'new population' needs, Where's that money?

Posted by Look to '60's Histor | reply to this comment
June 23, 2008 8:53 am

I agree, good work. As for property tax revenues possibly coming in lower than planned; it's my understanding that the lion's share of those revenues go to the state and counties. Not the city. The city gets some, but it's not so large that it would have a substantial affect on the city's budget. Additionally, while some homes are being re-assessed at lower values, others still are being reassessed at higher levels because they have not turned over in many many years.

Posted by Brandon F | reply to this comment
June 23, 2008 9:52 am

Cities get approx. 17% of property taxes unless they have created a redevelopment zone. In a redevelopment zone cities get approx. 70% of property tax revenues from the incremental increase in valuations after the zone is created. Who gives up the $? The County, the schools, and the State. Generally, property tax revenues don't decline in a recession so much as the rate of increase slows. As for the cause of the budget problem, the corporate welfare over the last 20 years (think Chargers, Padres, and Convention Center) and the pension increases of 2000 and 2002 are the fundamental source of all the city's problems.

Posted by Taxpayer | reply to this comment
June 23, 2008 10:36 am

@Taxpayer: you've got the causes mostly right, but don't forget that beginning in 1996 the City began underfunding (ie. raiding) the pension fund in order to maintain a high level of 'services' -- corporate welfare among those -- alongside a low level of taxes/fees. The refusal to make difficult choices I see as the root cause of our problems. Still.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | reply to this comment
June 23, 2008 11:27 am

"Brandon F" and "Taxpayer": Even with only a 17% or so recovery of property taxes from the State and County, you're still talking about millions and millions of dollars less that will be coming into the City's coffers as a result of depressed or lower-assessed property values. I just had my own home reassessed to a significantly lower value, and that's just one property. Citizens and taxpayers in this city, over the next many months, need to reach a collective consensus about which city services are critical to them, at what level, which muni services are not (as) important, and then how much they're willing to pay for those services that are important to them. And even then, San Diegans still have to account for when things are not so great economically, as appears to be the case now in our fair city. The rubber's now hitting the road...

Posted by www.robert-lee.org | reply to this comment
June 23, 2008 11:46 am

Come on, Scott -- at least we can applaud the fact that someone's willing to make unpopular decisions to right the ship? The willingness to make responsible decisions about the budget hasn't happened in many, many years, and it's exactly what got us into this mess.

Posted by Be a sport | reply to this comment
June 23, 2008 3:05 pm

Yeah Scott, be a sport. Consider the context in which Jerry operates. He has to rely on Fred Sainz for political advice, who in turn has to always calculate the reaction of Bob Kittle on the one hand and Ron Saathoff on the other. So Scott how civic minded do you really think Fred, Bob and Ron are, eh? Its a wonder this sausage making machine gets the traffic lights to operate in sequence. (Most of us have long since given up on having the potholes filled.)

Posted by jorgeelgato | reply to this comment
June 23, 2008 5:27 pm

Part 1. Revenue Growth Increases –v- Debt Increases It we look at those numbers we see that even though growth is projected to continue to increase the rate of increase (as a percentage of the past years) is defiantly slowing. Simultaneously America’s finest City…, no only continues to borrow or want to borrow more money (increase its total debt responsibility) but also has to make the debt maintenance payments (this includes things like pensions too) on all the past and current debts we have gathered. Want to see something scary? That would be a graft showing the rate of projected revenue growth side by side with the rate of total debt liabilities and total debt payments which should be made.

Posted by Gregory | reply to this comment
July 26, 2008 8:05 am

Part 2. It is kind-of like the debt thing happening nationally. In 2006, we paid what, some 260 billion dollars in interest on our national debt. The bailing-out Fannie and Freddie instantly double our National debt. Moreover, all the people owing money to those two, which represent more than half of all our nation’s home mortgages, would still own as much money as they did at the same rate of interest. What about that? It appears we would be almost instantly, paying some 520 billion dollars just on the interest on our new national debt - is that correct? So the question, exactly how much total debt liability does the City of San Diego have? Can anyone answer that question? This could be all wrong for the raw numbers are not available to the public, or I've not found be able to find them.

Posted by Gregory | reply to this comment
July 26, 2008 8:20 am


Reader feedback
  • Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
  • Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
  • Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.
Post a comment
Name:
Email:
Comments:
Current Word Count: Verification Code
8c277c0

Scott Lewis on Politics

The Scott Lewis on Politics blog, abbreviated cleverly as SLOP, is a collection of observations, insights and the occasional scoop on public affairs in San Diego. Please feel free to e-mail Scott at scott.lewis@voiceofsandiego.org.


Listen to voiceofsandiego.org's radio program on AM 600 KOGO: Latest Episode (November 8): Scott Lewis and Michael Zucchet talk about the city's budget

Subscribe to the Podcast Feed



MOST POPULAR STORIES:



MOST POPULAR STORIES:


Copyright © 2009 voiceofsandiego.org. All Rights Reserved.