December 14th, 2012
By German Lopez |
Politics/Issues |
Posted In: 2013 Election, Mayor, Budget, News, Privatization
John Cranley
Fact Check: Cranley's 'Very Easy' Budget Plan
Mayor candidate’s budget suggestions are inadequate, impossible
John CranleyFormer Democratic city council member John Cranley is kicking off his 2013 mayoral campaign by getting involved in budget talks. In a public hearing at City Hall last week, Cranley tried to provide an alternative to privatizing the city’s parking assets, which City Manager Milton Dohoney has suggested to pay for $21 million of the city’s $34 million deficit.
“It’s not the citizen’s job to balance the budget, but let me make it very easy for you,” Cranley said. “You have $12 million in casino money that can be used but is currently being used on pet projects, like street sculptures. The parking meters themselves produce $7 million a year. That’s $19 million. And $5 million for garbage cans. That’s $24 million. You only need ($21 million) to cancel the parking privatization plan, so I got you $3 extra million to spare.”
In short, Cranley's alternative to parking privatization is using $12 million from casino revenue, $7 million from keeping parking meters under city ownership and $5 million saved from not purchasing trash carts.
So how viable are Cranley’s ideas? In a memo, Dohoney’s
office responded.
The memo points out that casino revenue is currently
estimated at $7.2 million, not $12 million, and $1.3 million is already
included in the budget for Focus 52, a neighborhood redevelopment project. That leaves casino revenues $6.1 million short of what Cranley proposed.
Regarding parking meters, Dohoney’s office says revenue
from parking meters is restricted to fund “operations and maintenance in
the right-of-way.” The memo says City Council could authorize using the money to plug the deficit, but it would then have to find
alternatives for funding operations and maintenance.
Even the trash cart proposal doesn’t work. Not buying trash carts would only save $4.7 million, not $5 million. And the plan, which is part of the city’s effort to semi-automate trash collection, is in the general capital budget, not the general fund operating budget that’s being debated. The memo concludes, “If the trash carts are not purchased, the funds would not be available to close the gap because this is a capital budget expenditure and resources supporting the capital budget cannot be used in the operating budget.”
In other words, Cranley’s “very easy” budget plan isn’t just difficult; it’s a mix of inadequate and impossible. If CityBeat was PolitiFact, Cranley’s suggestions would probably get him a “Pants on Fire” label.
If Citybeat were Politifact, it would probably realize that Dohoney has lied to the public before and is lying again. Taking a two-bit administration's pronouncement as holy writ is not fact-checking.
Please show what was incorrect in the city manager's memo. By my check, it all holds up.
To criticize Cranley based solely on the memo of the city manager is faulty as allows the city manage to set the only parameters that favor his stand. He states rules, which could be considered arbitrary and that could be changed if the city politicos wanted to. If Cranley's suggestions were not precise, I wonder if anyone can be precise with all of the smoke and mirrors that are used by the administration.
It has been claimed elsewhere that Manager Milton Dohoney’s position that it’s necessary to avoid the layoff of 344 city employees.
I would like that explained along with the requirement that the city be concerned with maintaining the size of the city bureaucracy.
There is a need to consider all aspects of the costs and benefits and not just those that the city manager decides to put forth.