An American writer and minister from the 1800s (James Freeman Clark) said, “The difference between politicians and politicians is that politicians think about the next election, whereas politicians think about the next generation.” It means thinking about.”
So perhaps I’m more focused on ensuring adequate infrastructure and public safety for both current residents and future generations, rather than blindly promising a complete downsizing. Maybe that makes me a bad politician. If so, I’m okay with that.
Safe and reliable roads, a functioning stormwater system, an adequate water supply, an adequate number of sheriff’s deputies, and a first-rate fire and rescue service for years to come are, to me, the ultimate in injury and property tax costs. It’s more than just a small break for a year (most homesteaders probably won’t see any break in their monthly budgets).
This may not be the most popular position, but I truly believe it’s the right position this year, in this budget and in this economic climate.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m a true fiscal conservative, and I scrutinize budgets closely throughout the year. For every contract I approve, I’m not afraid to challenge city officials and hold vendors and contractors accountable. I look at the long-term financial burden and infrastructure needs associated with any new housing development.
So if there is a way to allow a complete rollback while still providing residents with the services and quality of life they deserve, I fully support it. I did that last year too. But to be honest, as a no-good politician I’ll be honest, I just don’t see how that’s possible this year.
Last year, I supported a complete downsizing to begin what I felt was the beginning of a cultural change for both city staff and the City Council. A culture that is more efficient and resource-enriched, rather than simply taxing and spending. The rollback was completed, $3 million was cut, and we survived. But in an economy where everything has become more expensive, including the cost of running a city, it came at a price. Everything from chemicals to treat water and pools to construction materials for aging infrastructure has gone up in price. However, we were able to reduce it.
Infrastructure and public safety must be prioritized this year, but both of these priorities come with a high price tag. Here are just a few examples that illustrate the current challenges.
1. At least $4.5 million in funding shortfalls for road maintenance programs.
2. There is an approximately $1.7 million shortfall in funding for the long-awaited reconstruction of Fire Station No. 22.
3. We need to find approximately $1.3 million more to fund nine new sheriff’s deputies to keep our communities safe.
The above are necessities, not luxuries, and they all have costs, most of which come from the general fund, which is fed by property taxes. Therefore, while I can firmly promise to hold firm to the tax line and not increase taxes, it would be irresponsible to say that I can promise to reduce taxes knowing that the above needs are rushing to our door. and is not in the best interests of residents.
This is what politicians like to do. They tell their constituents that they will get a huge property tax relief, when in reality that is not the case for the majority of residents.
When I say I’m going to cut taxes and let the next City Council worry about addressing these needs, I’m making tough decisions in the best interests of my constituents – on behalf of them, not myself. It would ignore the fact that he was elected to do so.
Well, I think I’m a bad politician. But I would rather be a bad politician with integrity than a good politician who avoids today’s challenges and leaves responsibilities to future generations and representatives.
