I'll say one thing for our outgoing mayor here in Fort Wayne...he's got cast-iron agates! King Richard recently proposed an 8% pay increase (that's $10,000 bucks, people) for the office of mayor. Now aside from the fact that this will likely be voted DOWN, one still has to admire the sheer audacity of such a ploy.
I for one sure didn't expect any type of (financial) SPANISH INQUISITION here. (..."NOOOOOoooooobody expects the Spanish Inquisition"...)
Let's forget that OUR mayor is the HIGHEST paid mayor in ALL of Indiana. And let's forget that this position pays even MORE than being the GOVERNOR. Let's just look at yet another way to SPEND MONEY...period. It doesn't bode well for any democrats that "say" they're for LESS spending, does it? And it kind of reinforces the point that the democrats LOVE to spend, right?
Curiously, neither (Pat) "Roller the Controller" nor incoming (king) mayor Tom Henry could be reached for comment. So I'll just have to comment on this myself.
The mayor, regardless of the "title" associated with the position is STILL a CITY EMPLOYEE, and with any and all other city employees getting only a 3% increase in their salaries, who (exactly) figures that being a mayor (of a city trying to find it's way and purpose) is worth another 5% more than those who are actually DOING MORE for the city anyway? And "if" we have the highest paid mayor (already), shouldn't we be seeing more "bang for our buck"? I'm sure Tom Henry would agree, since he used that phrase in HIS campaign ads. He's not commenting (for now).
To paraphrase a line from Julius Caesar - But Tom Henry is an honorable man.
Besides, didn't the mayor's position ALREADY receive a nice healthy increase on 2007 (which made being a mayor HERE better than being a mayor in any other Indiana city, as well as being a governor in this state)?
Our city is struggling to find it's identity, and no amount of trending, ballpark building, rezoning, annexing, or pay raises for the "Big Kahuna" is going to get this dog to hunt. We could toss (frivolously) a 50% increase in the mayor's salary, and I can say with certainty that all that scratch will NOT make one damn dent in the CRIME we have here. It will NOT bring jobs to the city, and it will NOT make this city a better place to raise a family.
Our city is struggling to find it's identity, and no amount of trending, ballpark building, rezoning, annexing, or pay raises for the "Big Kahuna" is going to get this dog to hunt. We could toss (frivolously) a 50% increase in the mayor's salary, and I can say with certainty that all that scratch will NOT make one damn dent in the CRIME we have here. It will NOT bring jobs to the city, and it will NOT make this city a better place to raise a family.
We, the citizens do that (mostly) on our own.
I'd much rather see that $10K (mayoral) increase tossed at the FWPD instead. Hell, give ME that $10K, and I'll not only make MY area safer, but I'll even turn that $10K into more folding money for even MORE public safety. And I'm about as far away from any mayor's office as you could get...and it would be LEGAL to boot.
As I have said time and again: "Any city is only as good as it's worst attribute".
Let's be fair, Fort Wayne has a laundry list of dubious attributes, and thanks to other bloggers, we KNOW what they are, so I won't have to repeat them here. What I will say is that whatever "we" (the people of Fort Wayne that WANT to give a shit) feel about the city, we are on the inside looking at the inside, and share a certain level of bias (good or bad), as opposed to those on the OUTSIDE looking IN (being a lot more objective).
Problems do abound here, as is the case with any fair-sized metropolis, but it's how these problems are DEALT WITH that either entices or repulses both outsiders as well as it's own citizenry.
-Businesses are not likely to build where crime runs rampant.
-People will not move into blighted areas.
-Downtown cannot be revitalized as long as developers are allowed to build FURTHER AWAY from that downtown.
All political parties are to blame as well. This is ONE area where "everyone can share the wealth", as it were. And like the old saying goes: "If you're not part of the SOLUTION, you MUST be part of the PROBLEM". The democrats want change for change sake, while the republicans stodgily hang onto whatever status quo is handy. And even the libertarians need to step it up and do more to at least unseat some of these other two party members that don't appear to have OUR best interest in mind.
I usually don't get into the political realm (here), but I just could NOT let this fish get away...the pole was starting to bend a tad too much (plus I didn't want to lose that "lure")...LOL!
And just "cutting the line" was simply NOT an option.
I just hope others see this for what it's truly worth, and come to the same conclusions. This last hurrah for "King Richard" (the shifty-hearted) will likely become a muffled whimper (just keep an eye on those "peasants", your majesty). Let's trust "King Henry" will not suffer us the same indignities.
Or as Ash (from Army of Darkness) would say: "Hail to the king, baby".
4 comments:
Bob,
While I would like to see the city's downtown area revitalized, I'm still a market-driven solutions fan at heart. The way I look at it, private sector investment will occur in an area where profit potential is highest, and costs are lowest. If property values downtown become attractive enough, investors will begin to sink their own money into the area based on their desire for profits, with or without government involvement. Rather than have the city dump millions of dollars into a limited-use facility that could end up an empty shell in a few years, I'd rather see the money invested in infrastructure such as streets and sewers. The downtown area is a pain to get into and out of, parking is inconvenient, and major events downtown still result in traffic problems that usually require police intervention at key intersections. Midtowne Crossing was a good barometer for measuring interest on the part of potential downtown residents, and it's been a disappointment. I don't have a problem with tax abatements to lure new investment into the downtown part of the city, but throwing money recklessly at it just goes against my grain. I'm with you...it's time for a voter revolt to hold leadership responsible for their decisions.
Jim:
One can only hope that property values remain low enough downtown to attract the private investment sector, otherwise, it all becomes a moot point.
Tax abatements are only as good as the company that STAYS LONG ENOUGH to see the city recoup the taxes IT didn't collect during the time set in the abatement.
This whole "4 years & out" deal might work for the ARMY, but it costs more $$$ than we can imagine.
And we pay for it...time and again.
I just think that with WINTER coming...holding some "feet to the fire" would solve more than a few problems in many cases...
;)
B.G.
Let me throw out a point that typically doesn't get discussed.
Abatements for all, and subsidies KILL development. The reason is that even if a company wants to develop in our downtown they will simply not do so until they receive an abatement or other incentive. So development becomes stagnant and dependent upon the government. We've now set the bar so low (McDonalds & Subway) that literally every single business will want a subsidy.
Who in their right mind would think that makes for efficient economic development? Even if the profit potential is there investors won't jump in until they get the extra gravy coming in the form of an abatement or other subsidy.
How's the old saying go? "Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free?"
Jeff:
I'm glad you tossed that out there. I feel the SAME way about abatements...."the so-called incentive".
WHAT incentive?
And for WHOM?
Hell, where's OUR incentive for wanting to STAY in a city that grants abatements willy-nilly, and then when that company LEAVES, takes all the tax money they "saved" with them, leaving US the bill?
I'm just not quite convinced these ledgers "balance out".
Maybe I'm missing something?
B.G.
Post a Comment