Thursday, September 18, 2008
Phasing In the Solution
You may have already seen the article in The News Tribune about considerations involving the Lakewood budget. The council is looking at two budgets: one assumes the initiative to ban minicasinos does not pass, while another budget would assume it does.
What I suggested to the council Monday night is that we come up with a third budget option and approve it.
Here's the background: It's very, very clear that the folks who want to ban minicasinos feel very sincerely that banning them in Lakewood will have a huge effect on the community. One can assume that even if the initiative does not pass this year, the opponents of minicasinos will be back next year, and the year after that.
Under those circumstances, it makes no sense to rely on a source of funding that is constantly under attack. If nothing else, how would you feel to be a city employee whose job is constantly up for layoffs, year after year, depending on an election?
What I propose is that the council gradually cut the core city budget over four years to eliminate the amount produced by the gambling tax. It would mean an adjustment to city services that the public would notice ... but the process would be a lot less painful than having 8 percent of the budget lopped off overnight.
Under this proposal, we would wean the city's essential services off of the gambling tax. We could spend gambling money in the meantime on expenditures that don't have to be repeated year after year, like road repairs and improvements.
A final notion: There would be an additional benefit in terms of clarity of thought. You should decide whether you want to allow minicasinos in Lakewood solely on that issue alone. The whole question of what their tax pays for is a distraction. It's an inevitable distraction because the city relies on those funds right now. But if we got ourselves off an addiction to the gambling tax, voters could make up their mind on the issue of minicasinos alone. That would be a good thing.
Forward this post
What I suggested to the council Monday night is that we come up with a third budget option and approve it.
Here's the background: It's very, very clear that the folks who want to ban minicasinos feel very sincerely that banning them in Lakewood will have a huge effect on the community. One can assume that even if the initiative does not pass this year, the opponents of minicasinos will be back next year, and the year after that.
Under those circumstances, it makes no sense to rely on a source of funding that is constantly under attack. If nothing else, how would you feel to be a city employee whose job is constantly up for layoffs, year after year, depending on an election?
What I propose is that the council gradually cut the core city budget over four years to eliminate the amount produced by the gambling tax. It would mean an adjustment to city services that the public would notice ... but the process would be a lot less painful than having 8 percent of the budget lopped off overnight.
Under this proposal, we would wean the city's essential services off of the gambling tax. We could spend gambling money in the meantime on expenditures that don't have to be repeated year after year, like road repairs and improvements.
A final notion: There would be an additional benefit in terms of clarity of thought. You should decide whether you want to allow minicasinos in Lakewood solely on that issue alone. The whole question of what their tax pays for is a distraction. It's an inevitable distraction because the city relies on those funds right now. But if we got ourselves off an addiction to the gambling tax, voters could make up their mind on the issue of minicasinos alone. That would be a good thing.
