William Matt
It is my pledge to always seek justice on behalf of the City of Lansing. As your neighbor, I will work diligently to find responsible solutions to our challenges, and lead with a vision guided by a hope of an ever-better city.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Fiscally Irresponsible, thy name is Robinson
Fiscal: Related to the treasury of a country, company, region or city.
Irresponsible: Lacking a sense of responsibility; incapable of or not chargeable with responsibility; unable to respond to obligation.
Today's LSJ talks about public safety in the City of Lansing. Specifically I wanted to point out this nugget: A'Lynne Robinson: "She'd like the city to reconsider how it spends its money before deciding how to finance more police officers. At the same time, she'd like to see the number of patrolling officers increase by about 20." (LINK)
Sounds good, but wait (LINK) A'Lynne again: "I would work to resolve the City of Lansing’s chronic budget deficit by cutting city spending".
The city is facing a multi-million dollar structural deficit, and my opponent proposes adding 2.2 million dollars in salaries and benefits to add 22 police officers to LPD. That is 2.2 million Every Year! To start! She added: "It would certainly assist with the amount of overtime that we also have to cover."
Yes, 2.2 million a year would cover a lot of overtime. (Rolls eyes)
But my problem isn't that this statement isn't challenged or fact checked. My problem is where would the money come from? If she proposes adding 2.2 million dollars to the police salary and benefit line, will the money come out of Fire, Parks, Arts, or programs for the homeless or kids? AND CUT SPENDING?
See, the challenge we face in the city is of making tough decisions. No one wants more taxes, but every program, and I mean every single program we offer in the city is valued by someone. Golf Courses? Cemetaries? Forestry? Leaking Fire Stations? Yes, yes, yes, and YES!
I originally thought that the FOP endorsement went for A'Lynne because of my vote on the camera issue. After all, every single labor organization supports me, except FOP. I am after all a dues paying Union member. Then I realized that Harold Leeman was endorsed by the FOP, and he voted for the cameras. So that couldn't have been the reason.
Besides, Ms. Anti-Camera said this in the LSJ response linked above: I would have no problem with the use of cameras to assist in the process of providing the best possible public service to the residents of Lansing.
SAY WHAT???
I guess I should have promised FOP 50 more patrol officers.
Irresponsible: Lacking a sense of responsibility; incapable of or not chargeable with responsibility; unable to respond to obligation.
Today's LSJ talks about public safety in the City of Lansing. Specifically I wanted to point out this nugget: A'Lynne Robinson: "She'd like the city to reconsider how it spends its money before deciding how to finance more police officers. At the same time, she'd like to see the number of patrolling officers increase by about 20." (LINK)
Sounds good, but wait (LINK) A'Lynne again: "I would work to resolve the City of Lansing’s chronic budget deficit by cutting city spending".
The city is facing a multi-million dollar structural deficit, and my opponent proposes adding 2.2 million dollars in salaries and benefits to add 22 police officers to LPD. That is 2.2 million Every Year! To start! She added: "It would certainly assist with the amount of overtime that we also have to cover."
Yes, 2.2 million a year would cover a lot of overtime. (Rolls eyes)
But my problem isn't that this statement isn't challenged or fact checked. My problem is where would the money come from? If she proposes adding 2.2 million dollars to the police salary and benefit line, will the money come out of Fire, Parks, Arts, or programs for the homeless or kids? AND CUT SPENDING?
See, the challenge we face in the city is of making tough decisions. No one wants more taxes, but every program, and I mean every single program we offer in the city is valued by someone. Golf Courses? Cemetaries? Forestry? Leaking Fire Stations? Yes, yes, yes, and YES!
I originally thought that the FOP endorsement went for A'Lynne because of my vote on the camera issue. After all, every single labor organization supports me, except FOP. I am after all a dues paying Union member. Then I realized that Harold Leeman was endorsed by the FOP, and he voted for the cameras. So that couldn't have been the reason.
Besides, Ms. Anti-Camera said this in the LSJ response linked above: I would have no problem with the use of cameras to assist in the process of providing the best possible public service to the residents of Lansing.
SAY WHAT???
I guess I should have promised FOP 50 more patrol officers.
Labels: 3rd Ward, A'Lynne Robinson, Bill Matt, Budget, FOP, lansing city council
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
