-
Website
http://thedistrictweekly.com/ -
Original page
http://thedistrictweekly.com/2009/daily/writing-shotgun/bad-news-from-sacramento/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
PatBryant
105 comments · 1 points
-
howardx
1202 comments · 430 points
-
Sam_Lowry
74 comments · 15 points
-
Fisch
77 comments · 25 points
-
Dwight K Snider
167 comments · 15 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
CITY TREE POLICY GETS SENT TO COMMITTEE
21 hours ago · 10 comments
-
THE PALM BEACH STORY
20 hours ago · 6 comments
-
‘PRETTY MUCH AS YOU’D EXPECT’
19 hours ago · 5 comments
-
PASTRANA PREPARING TO TAKE THE PLUNGE OFF PINE–OR TRY NOT TO
1 week ago · 80 comments
-
OF HIGH-RISE SUICIDES, AIRPORT TERRORISTS AND THE DECRYING GAME
3 days ago · 14 comments
-
CITY TREE POLICY GETS SENT TO COMMITTEE
Long Beach certainly has a cash flow dilema, but I question
whether that alone will qualify for bankruptcy if our reserves are not depleted first.
Gerrie, if you can recall, nearly two years ago I stated this would likely happen, when Vallejo contemplated its own bankruptcy, and I drew similarities with Long Beach's situation. That city, laid out the foundation for why it had to take action:municipal salaries & benefits were too costly. Unless your city government, chooses to address that very issue, don't expect any significant results from what you've requested of Pat West's office. Throw out all the disclaimers about the economy. The main catalyst, for Long Beach's budget deficit, has been easily defined. Now, is the time for all of you to do something about it.
Until we as a city start electing officials who are not running for office with the support of union money, we will continue to hear excuses of a bad economy, not of enough tax revenue, prop 13 is the problem, etc.
It's frustrating with Gerrie in particular. On one hand she can be such a great homeowner/resident advocate but on the most important budget issue (pension reform) she is unwilling to advocate for reform.
And if LB declares bankruptcy (heaven forbid, but you never know), what happens to the already existing pensions as negotiated?
And I support the new tier for new employees. But I don't even see that being talked about seriously. All we hear is it has to come from sacramento so it's state wide or LB won't be competitive. That's crazy. Even gov't employees need work these days.
expect this to get worse when the have-nots start wanting.
You are right Gerrie's action on behalf of the citizens is great, except when it comes to reforming pensions. The City Council would sooner cut off their right arm then to go up against the unions.
People will come to realize they are going to pay a high price for keeping people in office that won't face reality. Our fees, costs of tickets, etc. will skyrocket. The dog, bike and parking police are already out looking for ways to penalize the public for additional revenues.
The city currently pays $80Million Dollars for pension costs, plus another $12Million for Social Security out of a General Fund budget of $412Million. The City recently recieved a bill for $40Million from CalPERS for last years losses, which will come due in 2011. The City will be 'smoothing' that $40Million debt over 30 years, because they don't have the money. The pension costs for each employee at City Hall now averages $16,0000/yr. and it will increase substantially next year. It will take almost $50,000/yr. to fund individual top level managers' pensions.
There is an outstanding Pension Obligation Bond of around $80Million that the City took out in 2001, which won't be paid off for another 15 years. Our debt for pensions is increasing faster than any one expense.
Gerrie ignores these facts. If the pension debt increases next year, she will advocate for more 'smoothing' of these losses over another 30 years. Her and her fellow councilmembers refuse to address the pension funding and have the employees pay 1/2 of the pension costs. That would bring in over $30Million a year. That is a substantial amount of money, but the unions have such a stronghold on the Mayor and City Council, it will take the people to stand up against the unions. The City Council does not have the will.
Pensions will be the issue in the 2010 election, and all those sitting on the sidelines with their heads in the sand will pay a price. No union money will elect them.
Gerrie should know the power of Mayor Foster. She should do the right thing for the taxpayers and be a hero. The Mayor already has one of his people running in the 7th District, so I am sure he is searching for someone for the 5th. They will certainly be well funded.
Gerrie could do alot for the people if she would just face reality.
Bankruptcy may not be a bad idea!
How about proposing Measure J to put negotiated public safety worker pay and pension increases to a public vote before signing the contract. That's what San Francisco does and it seems to be working well for them. That is no different than what the police currently have because the police officers conduct a ratification vote before agreeing to the negotiated contract. Why can't the public have that same right?
I believe Measure J would modify the negotiating behaviours of both the Union and the city negotiators. They would have less incentive to ask for the sky for fear the negotiated contract would be rejected by voters.
We have to smooth out our current obligations because the city cannot afford the bump up CALPERS is predicting. We can't change what we are obligated to pay -- only regulate it. We can negotiate future pension benefits when the contracts are open because by law we can't just unilaterally change benefits.
I wasn't supported by police and fire when I ran in 2006 so please stop that red herring. The real issue is that until we can negotiate new contracts the council can't do anything to undo the mess created by those who were here before us.
To start with, I never knew you called a meeting of the Civil Service and
Personnel Committee to discuss the impact of CalERS.
The last time I spoke with you was when Tom Stout and I were at your office
to discuss the pension costs. At that time, you stated that you thought it
was okay to amortize pension debt 100 years. We discussed the superfunding
years and the pension obligation bonds that were taken out to fund the costs
after the 2002 spiking as well.
I am happy to hear you realize the impact pension costs have on the citizens
of Long Beach. The City's demographics are not conducive to putting the
burden on the taxpayers by raising fees and parking tickets to make up for
the deficit caused by pension costs.
Gerrie, I appreciate you speaking out on behalf of the citizens of Long
Beach.
I do understand that while the contracts are open, you cannot talk about
certain aspects of the pensions, but I think it is time the Mayor and City
Council start taking a harder line with the employee unions. The bill from
CalPERS this year should make everyone aware that the status quo is no
longer acceptable.
Kathy Ryan
Perhaps. But a bankruptcy court can.
Also, they must just be waiting because things probably WILL be worse next year. The only thing more embarrasing than declaring bankruptcy is having to declare it twice!
The only thing more embarrassing than declaring bankruptcy is having to do so after declaring that would never happen.