Though I rarely post, I do try to read most of the ideas here. Here is an idea I had:

What if Everyone Did That?
Michael G. Nichols

What if everyone did that? In a complicated world, this may seem too simple a question, but I find it worthy of much thought. In my consumptions, my contributions, my actions, and my acceptances, I try to ask myself that simple question: What if everyone did, or did not do, that?

It has to be qualified, of course. Sometimes it is “everyone on the planet” (what if none of us drove, or all of us did?) Other times it is “everyone in my neighborhood” (what if we all mowed our lawn at 8pm on weeknights? What if we all rode our bikes to work every day in the summer?) Sometimes it is “everyone in my house” – (what if everyone in my household forgot to take out the trash, or was not bothered by the dandelions in the lawn?)

I enjoy this question because it leads me to do things I think are right, without having to research every nuance or aspect of a decision. It keeps decisions simple for me, without turning me into a simple person. Sometimes, this question saves me time, trouble, and money; sometimes it leads me to extra thought, extra work, and extra expense. Always, though, I feel better for answering the question.

Recently, I read in the Bellingham Herald that the City of Bellingham projected a $2 million budget shortfall, due mostly to the unpredicted (and unpredictable) tax shortages caused by a softening economy. This worried me, as I am in favor of the general direction our city is heading. Few citizens are satisfied or supportive of every project or decision their city government undertakes or makes, but I am generally happy with the way our government is operating. Furthermore, I cannot fault this or past administrations for the national economic downturn which seems the cause of Bellingham’s trouble.

My suggestion is that we, as citizens, voluntarily contribute the funds needed to make up the shortfall, in order to sustain the projects, programs, and maintenance to which we have become accustomed. The amount each person or household contributes should be based on that simple question: What if everyone does as I do?

According to the City’s website, there are 39,244 Bellingham citizens between the ages of 21 and 64. I am sure many of these folks are not in a position to contribute at all, while some might be able to contribute more than others. I hope some businesses will contribute as they are able, and this should help offset those which cannot. For my own part, I am certainly not wealthy; nor am I struggling to make it each month. My contribution would be an average one: $2,000,000 / 39,244 = $50.96.

This is meant to be a voluntary and positive action. Not a tax, tithe, duty, or fee, but simply a one-time donation. I dropped a check at City Hall last week. What if everyone did that?

Interesting thought. Here's another one. I have my own business and as the City has customers (taxpayers) I have customers. The City's customers support the city business by taxes, some required, some not (i.e., sales tax and the choice to purchase items). My customers support my business by purchasing products from me (and then I pass on the taxes I collected). So, we both have an income to support our business. Then comes management of that income to expenses. You indicate that since the City is coming up short in this economically challenged time we should drop off a check. So...if my business is coming up short...can I expect a check too? Or am I supposed to do what business people do...manage your expenses against your income and anticipated income and if the anticipated income falls short, tighten the purse strings without compromising customer service and weather the storm.

Like it or not, the City is a business and we (the taxpayers) elect the CEO to run it. I have some great ideas for my business and would love to invest more money into those ideas, but I'm a smart enough CEO to know now is not the time. Those ideas will have to wait and some that I've already started may have to be placed on hold until the storm is over...unless of course...I get that check.

I'll tell you what would happen if everyone did what you did.

Everyone would celebrate that the budget crisis was adverted... until next year. The next year the city budget deficit would be even larger because they didn't take any steps to reign in spending and worse yet they would depend on everyone to step up and donate again or else face an even larger budget shortfall.

This is so bizarre, I don't know how to respond without breaking the "be civil" rules of this website.

I guess I'll just say, I missed my checks FROM the city during the "surplus years".

There is an extreme disconnect between Bellingham’s decision makers and Bellingham citizens and taxpayers when it comes to paying for the costs associated with growth.

In the city’s most recent “Customer Satisfaction Survey”, when Bellingham registered voters were asked if they agreed with the statement that “Bellingham is growing too fast and is losing its character”, 71% agreed. (Source: 2006 survey, question 61 @ http://www.cob.org/documents/mayor/2006-customer-satisfaction-survey.pdf)

Presumably, if you asked voters and taxpayers whether they would agree to subsidize even more growth, a similar percentage would oppose such a subsidy.

Here’s the disconnect: The same Bellingham taxpayers who believe the city is growing too fast and is losing its character are currently picking up the tab for the majority of the costs associated with growth. Even though the Growth Management Act (GMA) authorizes the city to collect up to 99% of these costs from those who create the need to expand the city’s transportation, park, school, and fire protection systems, it is estimated that the city collects only 30% or so. Taxpayers are funding the lion’s share, amounting to an estimated $15,000 subsidy for every new home, regardless of price (including a $15,000 taxpayer subsidy for the $1.7 million new condos overlooking Boulevard Park).

Now that the city’s expenses have exceeded revenues, what will the city do?

Will they ask taxpayers to cough up some more dough?

Or will they resolve this disconnect and require those who create these additional financial burdens to pay for them by properly raising growth impact fees?

Politics is a game of least-resistance. As long as taxpayers remain silent and provide little resistance or pressure to assess appropriate impact fees, it’s not likely our elected officials will do so. Now that we have a budget deficit, perhaps additional pressure will be applied.

by the way, Stann, that's your gizzard, not your craw...and if you ate more gravel, neither food nor ideas would get stuck there...

---

You better laugh at yourself,
Everyone else is.

www.parkenfarkergroup.blogspot.com

keep pounding...

Thanks for the link, New Vision. I usually can't be encumbered with facts...

I'm looking through Article VII of the State Constitution, I'm sure you can find it quicker than I can.

I seem to remember something about taxation districts not being permitted to have both a tax and fees for the same district.

In all the decades that I've lived here, no one yet has been able to educate me as to why growth is bad.

Growth is a sign of a healthy economy, which in turn creates a stronger economy.
Most folks that I know who are anti -growth seem to have hostile attitudes toward newcomers and appear to want to use impact fees as a means to punish them for coming to our little piece of heaven...

Skyscrapers for Ferndale!

---

You better laugh at yourself,
Everyone else is.

www.parkenfarkergroup.blogspot.com

I think that those of us who already live here will be using this infrastructure as well as the new folks will.
Often times, when Infrastructure is extended, the existing systems are upgraded at the same time.

The cities that are being bankrupted is not because of growth, but appears in most cases to be poor management and lack of supervision of spending, compounded by spending priorities being out of order, with an unwillingness to cut programs that are not essentials.


I'm glad your anti-something, as I am anti-gravity

---

You better laugh at yourself,
Everyone else is.

www.parkenfarkergroup.blogspot.com

You were right the first time. It's "craw."



It would be more accurate to say he was presenting on the CAFR, but we talked a lot about budget issues. I should have been more precise.

But, you're correct. I'm very protective of people's identities, of information that is confidential, private conversations that are intended to stay private, meetings in executive session, etc. I've extended that courtesy to you in these forums before, waiting until you were ready to say here what you indicated to me via email that you wanted to post. I suspect this gentleman will weigh in here eventually. He works a tough schedule.

But, yes, he did work through the entire CAFR, and using the city's own numbers, came up with what I, in my exceedingly limited understanding, said above. This man has a gift for numbers, the way Michael Phelps has a gift for swimming. We had a spreadsheet roughly 10' by 4' with 8 point type on it, spread out all over my living room floor, and he moved over it with grace and comfort. I understand your skepticism, but after having him walk me through this for 2.5 hours, I was completely impressed with his work, and confident that he knows what he is talking about.



Indeed. With my current level of understanding, I would not try something like that on my own.



I sent you a PM with instructions how to do that, but it may have gotten lost. I'll send you an email with images, so hopefully it will make sense.



That's fair.

In this case, it is specifically the mayor, and by extension staff that advises him and feeds him data.



Here is the full article.



I understand that frustration. It's a valid concern, and a good parallel. Businesses face this. Private families face it, and government faces it. Where the difference comes in, and the resentments arise, is that the government has the power (and uses it) to just raise taxes, or fees. I cannot go to my employer, cry him a song, and mandate a raise in pay.

A business can raise prices to offset costs, but they run the risk of losing customers. Just off the top of my head, I'll offer two examples. I used to make a regular trip to Haggen's food court to get their rice bowl with General's and Honey Glazed chicken. I probably gained 20 lbs. from eating those things. They were $4. Now, they are $6.50 - $7.00, and I rarely buy them. The same with the $5 Hot -n- Ready from Little Caesar's. My son and I had a routine wherein every Thursday after guitar lessons, we would pick one or two up and woof `em down together. We no longer do that, because now they are $6.99 each.

Those may seem like silly, or insignificant examples, but the point is, when prices go up to offset the cost of doing business, customers often make the choice to cut back on purchases. When taxes go up, consumers must make decisions on whether or not to spend, and that affects revenues for the city.



What makes it silly? The fact that you don't like it? Stan, this is the job you signed on for. I have to believe you knew these sorts of challenges would be in front of you. While "just cut the fat" is not a phrase I've ever used, I wouldn't say "just" cut it. I'd say "CUT it!!" Saying "just" cut it makes it sound easy and painless. Such is simply not the case. It takes guts and courage to take the knife and carve the waste out, or the spending that is not necessary.

What waste? What unnecessary spending?

The first one that comes to my mind is this new museum being built downtown. I can already hear the outcry at my heartlessness, and I dismiss it. You laid out a great list of "essential public services." Police, Fire, Roads. Somehow, I believe if any thinking man or woman really weighs fire protection against a children's museum, the fire protection is going to win. That's a whopping lot of money being poured into that museum. Is it going to be a nice facility? No doubt about it. Is it essential? Not even close.

Sometimes you have to add up a lot of small costs to find a large savings. So, let me offer one of those. Consider the cost of these many mosaic crosswalks throughout downtown and out at Cordata (and wherever else I've not seen them). Compare the cost of something like that against the simplicity of the plain white double-stripe crosswalk. The former are clearly more attractive, but both will do the job, and one represents a significant cost savings.

There are definitely others, and probably better ones, but these are just a couple of simple examples off the top of my head that represent the type of extravagance some in Bellingham have come to expect, and I would argue, is the kind of extravagance we cannot afford, and which has led to the statement by the Mayor of Bellingham, that we are headed for a $2 million shortfall.




I would point to the former Soviet Union as an example of a government that no longer exists, precisely because it went broke.

But on your question, as to why people "here" think that government should be run like a business:

I'm not sure where "here" is. Bellingham? This forum? The Pacific Northwest? The U.S.? You talked above about how businesses can go broke, but governments don't have that option. Indeed, to survive, businesses must be diligent to make sure they are run efficiently and effectively. They cannot waste money, and they must make good on their deliverables. Competition is ever-present and spurs businesses to deliver better products at lower costs.

Conversely, government bureaucracies are inherently inefficient and have no objective incentive to improve efficiency or reduce costs. It can be effectively argued that public provision of goods and services is a monopoly, and without competition, the public is trapped into using one service. In the private (business) sector costs must sometimes be contained through workforce reduction, whereas civil service protections make this difficult, if not impossible, in the public sector.




I suspect neither of us is a big fan of unfunded mandates.



From spending 2 1/2 hours with this gentleman going over the CAFR numbers. The figure is actually 47%, and it comes from the city's own numbers.



Okay. What would you like explained about it? Most successful businesses pull about a 5% profit. I just did a quick query and found recent net profit margins for HP at 5% while Dell is slightly higher at 6.5%. British Airways was at 4% while Southwest Airlines is smiling all the way to the bank at 11%.



Heck yeah! That's a great number, even if it is gross profit, which I suspect is the case. If that's net profit (which I doubt), then Nardi should be the next mayor!

---

Damon,
Thank you for the kind words. I appreciate that we can agree on almost nothing except that civility and courtesy are valuable commodities. I do wish you would not call me a "liberal", though. I have a lot of opinions, and plenty of them would upset people who call themselves liberals. Maybe as much as this idea has upset some folks on this forum!


******** *********** **********

Regarding the main theme in arguing against what I did: I do not have a great deal of facts or statisticts to quote, or a complicated platform to which I can refer. It is more a feeling of weariness and fatigue at reading or listening to recurring problems and recurring arguments, always suggesting that the problem is someone else's fault, and the solution is for someone else to make a sacrifice (whether it be financial, political, or whatever). I am sure that any one of us could balance the budget retroactively (and in the future) if we had no constituents to please, no political enemies to fear, and nothing to consider but what *we* think is a good idea. Under those conditions I could do it in an hour. Hand me a pen and turn your back, please. It will only hurt a moment... or maybe a year.

I am not convinced that my idea is a real solution -- I aknowledge it is more of an exercise in serindipitous civic pride and inspiration -- but I thought of it myself, and have not heard of anyone else suggesting or doing something like it. As long as I have followed politics and as long as I have tried to pay attention, I have heard people blame others, tell other people what they should do(often while not being willing to do it themselves), and devise progressively more complicated systems. My idea does not lay blame, it doesn't ask anyone to do anything I haven't done, and it is very simple. Most importantly, it is not a reworking of the same arguments and accusations.