Editor:
Measure Y proponents on the City Council have been quick to make gloomy prophecies about what will happen if Measure Y is defeated. But none of the Council’s self-described “numbers guys” have ever backed up these prophecies with real fiscal projections.
The City Council has never been given any projections by Staff or Mayor John Chiang that failure to pass measure Y will automatically lead to reductions in public safety services and specifically EMT services. In fact, Council has undertaken no planning in the event Measure Y does not pass. If the outcome will be so dire, shouldn’t a prudent, forward-looking elected body plan for such eventualities? It seems very reckless not to do so.
Councilman Garrett Keating in a recent online comment has suggested that “there is zero probability that public safety services would be cut.” The gloomy prophecies seem like electioneering and fear-mongering by the Measure Y’s proponents.
Piedmont’s unfunded $40M liability in pension and benefits for current employees present a greater risk of cuts to these services. Once again, the City Council has never been presented hard numbers, although Staff have implied that Piedmont faces some difficult choices over the next 8 to 10 years as these pension obligations come due.
Piedmont voters should demand real projections from City Hall before
backing a tax renewal. Until then, vote no on Measure Y.
Ryan Gilbert
Piedmont
Editor's note: Letters to the editor are published at the discretion of Piedmont Patch's editor in accordance with the site's Terms of Use. If you have a letter you would like to have considered for publication, please e-mail it to dixie.jordan@patch.com. Letters should be no longer than 600 words and will not be posted anonymously. Please include a daytime phone number with your email in case we need to contact you for verification or questions. Your phone number will not be published.
Don't miss a day of Piedmont news, opinion and events. Sign up for the Piedmont Patch e-newsletter here.
The problem in Piedmont has been exacerbated because 8 years ago the Council voluntarily chose the most expensive benefit package available and then paid all the employee and employer share. One example is the recent retirement of Chief Ravazza; her final monthly salary was $14,791, her initial monthly pension is $18,918.
I assume the current cost savings you mention is due to shifting benefit costs from the city to the employees. Assuming this can somehow be done legally, is the amount of potential savings even close to replacing the lost revenue if measure Y fails?
Besides the out of control compensation system, enumerated so well by Mike Henn, all of the current parcel tax was spent on such "essentials" as $2.45M to the Undergrounding Debacle, $616,00 to the Hills/Sea-View Underground District litigation defense (the Judge characterized the City's anti-Slapp motion as unworthy of any competent attorney) and the failed Blair Park Sports Fields project which has cost close to $500,000 despite being told repeatedly "no taxpayer cost." The final bill is still unknown. The potential Blair Park project went forward with none of the risk assessment lessons learned from the Undergrounding Debacle in place. I suggest you review the following material and that at www.noonmeasurey.com. The 2011 MTRC chairman and Council Keating agree, there will be no loss in essential services. http://piedmont.patch.com/articles/letter-measure-y-piedmont-fire-department http://www.piedmontcivic.org/2012/10/16/opinion-why-i-am-voting-against-measure-y/ http://www.noonmeasurey.com/check-the-facts/public-safety-neednt-suffer-if-tax-not-okd