Tucson Budget Crisis

 If the city is requesting a tax hike, there must be more information given to the voters.


So let's do some math! What is the amount of federal money received by transit today? How long is this requirement from the '70s in effect? Are these higher costs associated with hiring a management company, the union demands, the benefit levels and coping with strikes worth what the feds are contributing now? Too much money is tied up in this. If the answer is that certain people who make money off federal grants control the process and they're not going to let go of it, then this financial crisis cannot be solved. If this management company hiring is in perpetuity, then a court challenge needs to be made. How much does the management company for transit cost the taxpayers? This appears to be an unnecessary restriction in a right to work state.
I want to know what percent of this proposed tax increase will go to what department and will be used for what. How about a nice pie chart showing the raw data? Then break down each core department into how it spends the money: personnel, pensions, benefits, equipment, maintenance, buildings, consultants, debt service... Another general pie chart showing personnel numbers per department, others to show executive, administrative, clerical, field personnel, contractors and consultants as a percent of total expenditures in each department.

Core services as defined by charter? how detailed is it? Are all these subsidiary to the core services also untouchable? Can some portions of 'core services' be transferred to other departments, away from core services? let's redefine 'core services' to more austere levels.
I know what kind of core services this city had in the early days and what they are defining as core services now is nothing like that.


Here is an explanation for the creation of a management company for transit, politely supplied by George Caria:


Here are the answers to your questions. The first and third questions are reated, so I answered them together.



1. When did the city give this management team the right to negotiate with Sun Tram, giving them the right to strike when others can not? and 3. She said it was federally mandated. Why would this be?



When the Transit system went from private to public in the 1970's, the Federal Government had agreements in place with the Department of Labor. If transit systems, throughout the United States, not just Tucson, were going to received federal money they were required to have a right to strike clause in their labor agreement. Since most cities do not have a right to strike clause, they were required to hire a management company, so those employees were not employed by the City, but a separate management company. Additionally, it is required that issues related to labor details in the agreements, only be negotiated by the management company, and not the City.



This model was used throughout the country in cities such as Minneapolis, Mephis, Richmond, just to mention a few.



2. Who in the city set this up?



As I previously mentioned, this was set-up back in the 1970's. As private transit companies were folding, the Federal government offered financial assistance, and this was one of the strings attached to receiving Federal dollars. If Federal monies were not used to acquire transit systems cities were faced with the dilemma of using the Federal dollars or not having a transit system in the community.

PROPOSED TUCSON TAX INCREASE

THE PROPOSED TUCSON TAX INCREASES




I have been holding my consul lately concerning the fiscal problems of the City of Tucson government, while hoping to learn more about the situation. A few discussions, presentations and websites later I think I know enough about what is going on in order to logically comment upon it.

The presentation at El Rio by City Council members Romero, Fimbres and Ulich was illuminating in that four 'core services' are identified as being Police, Fire, Parks and Transportation. The Police and Fire and Parks departments were well represented by the respective department heads who took responsibility for informing the people concerning the tax increase to be voted upon in November. Nowhere did I see the head of Transportation, nor did I hear a word concerning their proposed share of this proposed tax increase. They should have been there to explain their part. I feel slighted by this omission.

I don't trust this proposal without estimates, percentages per department, prioritizing cuts and layoffs. Isn't there more to this proposition? We need expositions for the rest of this proposal. What about the reorganization of city hall? What about the proposed salary raises for council members? What else is tied up with this vote? Using scare tactics to get through a tax increase that would also include raises for council members? These items should have been four separate votes, not one huge vote with unrelated items in it.

Reorganizing city hall should be tied to a tax decrease, not an increase. Giving raises at a time when unemployment levels are high is unwarranted. Guaranteeing that one segment of the city is immune to layoffs and hikes in benefit costs is not fair to the rest of the city employees or the taxpayers since this tax hike would benefit Transportation employees in just that way. I heard that the city charter details transportation as a 'core service' but I suggest that parts of the transportation department would be better organized under different departments, thus reducing transportation to the actual core services, which would not be so difficult to fund. How about public safety and road repair administered under the police department? Are the SunTran employees under a management company so they can be exempt from the city worker agreement not to strike? Who set that up?

As for the scheduled cuts to be made in the event this tax increase does not pass, these are not the only configurations of cuts to be decided upon. I mean, there are other things besides police and fire to cut. I've seen the budget. One presenter at another meeting suggested retiring the 'double dippers', cutting high level salaries and benefits and reorganizing and cancelling departments. Absolutely, the level of public debt is too high! No more borrowing for anything.

Analyze this streetcar thing. How much money was borrowed to finance this? How much grant money was obtained? How much debt service will be paid on all borrowed funds? Does the interest cost of borrowing use up the grant money? Are we really making money on this thing, or are we just employing people in Oregon to build streetcars? What will the maintenance on this system cost? Are fares expected to pay for this deal? How realistic is this scheme? A few will be employed, but how long will it take for the rest of us to pay for this system? How many of us will use this system? I think deals like this and Rio Nuevo are impoverishing the community with debt service, reducing the value of our tax contribution.

Maybe this is off the topic of the proposed .5% tax increase, but voters are wary of giving more money into the hands of the city because of the recent track record. More tax to give to the moneylenders for debt service is simply unacceptable. If there were no debt, there would be no money crunch and projects could still continue to be built out of incoming receipts. A new way of thinking is needed.

The size and cost of government spending and projects must be reduced to fit the budget! You cannot depend on tax hikes, borrowing and selling real estate assets during a downturn.

TAX THE LIENHOLDERS!

TAXATION AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Communication with others produced a new idea. According to a source, it is possible to tax banks, but that is a state responsibility.
Can the legislature take charge and tax foreclosures and repossessions? Not a tax on the poor guy who just lost his home or investment! How about a tax on the repossessors,; instead of giving them a fat tax break on the homes and businesses they repossess? They end up with a tax advantage and physical possession of the properties, a good deal for them and a bad deal for the rest of the community.

The foreclosure policy could also be implemented as a fee. How about a fee on every repossession and foreclosure, payable by the lienholder? The courts and administrative offices could raise fees on the lienholders foreclosing and repossessing. The police and fire could have a non-refundable contingency fee on empty homes and commercial property and require a monthly list of foreclosures and repossessions, plus cash payment for each at time of filing.

The reasons for instituting new fees and taxes on lienholders foreclosing on and repossessing properties should be stated:

Foreclosures and Repossessions contribute heavily to:
Homelessness
Increases in public housing costs
Increases in bankruptcy rates
Neighborhood blight and vandalism
Increases in welfare rolls
Increases in state health care costs

These foreclosures and repossessions are damaging the social fabric of our town. Community resources have to take care of the people ousted from their homes and businesses after the lienholders are through with them. Homes and jobs are lost as a result of bank policies. Foreclosed homes are even sold for less than the original buyer could have now paid. How about appraisal fraud on homes, like the false appraisals on 'derivatives'? Social responsibility can be maintained through taxes and laws.

This fee or tax money from the lienholders could be divvied up among the state and communities. This is a tax people would support! Sock it to the banks!

NEW REVENUE SOURCE

In thinking about the need for new revenue for the city, my mind landed on the banks, who are rolling in cash. I have several questions about the banks and the foreclosures and the taxes on the foreclosed properties.


In several places I have seen case histories of those who lost their properties through foreclosure, then were charged taxes on these properties even though they could no longer had access to the properties. Taxes apparently accumulated long after they were ousted by foreclosure.

My question is this: Where are the taxes on foreclosed homes? The lenders foreclosing should be liable for the taxes, since they ousted the inhabitants and claimed possession of the property in fact. They claim the property, they own the taxes also? If you buy a property, you assume the liens which must be dealt with at time of purchase. The taxes should be assumed by the banks, since they take defacto possession of the foreclosed properties.

How much money could be generated by making the lenders pay taxes on the foreclosed properties?

The cities, towns and states could use this owed tax money, which should be paid by the defacto owner, not held in limbo by a paper technicality that allows the banks to stick the prior owners with the taxes, who now must struggle with this added debt after they lose possession of the property, that held fraudulent appraisals in the first place. The banks should step up and pay the taxes and penalties they owe on the properties they seized.

Pass some more penalties and tax the lenders for every empty home they own in this community. If they were taxed, maybe they would cut the rent or prices and get people in the houses. Empty homes in this community should cost those big owners some money.

Our governments need the money.