On the Parks and Rec merger, I understand and appreciate that connecting the parks more directly to accountability from elected officials has both a down side and an upside. Downside is that elected officials are always looking to the next election cycle and can be short sighted in their perspective, especially when if comes to preservation issues. Upside is that by contrast, elected officials will have an incentive to be champions for parks, to really emphasize that parks are an important part of urban livability, to really go to bat for our parks.

The first version of this merger went too far in terms putting planning and setting the long term agenda solely in the hands of elected officials whose views can be too focused on the short term. The version on the ballot this time does enough to correct that problem while still benefiting from the cost savings of the merger and the added incentive for elected officials to really step up as guardians for the park system. In my opinion it lessens the downside but keeps the upside so I am supporting it.

#2 The preference for local new hires only makes sense as a policy. My only grumble would be that it makes so much sense it already is the policy and passing the ballot will change nothing in terms of actual hiring practices. It could be argued that these kinds of initiatives are clutter for the City Charter. I support raising the minimum wage generally, for example, but I don't think the minimum wage should be part of the US Constitution. Some policies are best left as simple legislation and don't need to be carved into perpetuity. Nonetheless I'll be voting for it with that caveat.

#3 In terms of the City Bond initiative, from breakdowns of where the money is going from the newspapers, all of that money is in my view well invested. However I really, really hate that the city's "plain language" provision does not require a better enumerated version of where the money is actually going. "Economic and Community Development" is just ridiculously vague. As Vince Fumo faces Federal criminal charges on precisely the question of whether the "economic and community development" that Citizen's Alliance does should have included personal enrichment of Fumo himself and political work for candidates he endorsed, it seems kind self-evident that if we are going to have voters cast the final vote for bond initiatives like this, somewhere available for voters - perhaps on the county election board website (as opposed to on the non-profit Committee of 70's website) there should be a more specific breakdown of where the money is actually going. And that should be by law.

So yes the bond initative is in my opinion sound borrowing, but it bugs me that based on the information officially made available to voters they have almost no ability to determine that on their own.

As sort of an aside to any city politicians who might be reading this, I have heard from specifically from several Independent voters supporting Obama in this election that they really, really like that part of his record in the Senate was co-authoring the Coburn-Obama Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 that established the website usaspending.gov. Some voters, including voters who support a liberal economic agenda, like to at least be given the chance to research where their money (or the money being borrowed in their name) is going if they so desire. Just something to think about.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.

Does anyone oppose any of these measures care to shed some light on why? I'm totally ignorant to both city and state budget details, and sure, it sounds good to invest in your community and infrastructure, how does this spending compare to what we've spent in the past? Is this in addition to what the budget has already allotted? Why is it on the ballot in the first place?

My gut tells me it's good to spend money to build a better city and state, but that's a pretty vauge concept compared to some pretty specific numbers here. Can someone break down for me the downside to these 2 budget questions, and more importantly, put these numbers in perspective?