Don't let anyone tell you the American dream has faded. The truth is the U.S. is still minting lots of millionaires. Glenn Goss is one of them. Goss retired four years ago, at age 42, from a $90,000 job as a police commander in Delray Beach, Florida. He immediately began drawing a $65,000 annual pension that is guaranteed for life, is indexed to keep up with inflation and comes with full health benefits. The pension is worth over $2 million, not bad for a high school graduate. The common presumption is that public servants forgo high wages in exchange for safe jobs and benefits. The reality is they get all three. State and local government workers get paid an average of $25.30 an hour, which is 33% higher than the private sector's $19, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Throw in pensions and other benefits and the gap widens to 42%. Meanwhile in the private sector, employers are phasing out pensions and workers are challenged to save enough for their own retirements. More than half of Floridians do not have a pension plan and must rely on their own savings and Social Security. Even those taxpayers fortunate to have a pension plan at work receive a defined benefit contribution with no lifetime guarantee of payments. Why do civil servants get better pensions and benefits than the taxpayers who support them? For many government employees, the lifetime pension is equal to half their pay at retirement. For some, it approaches full pay. That is in stark contrast to the situation faced by private-sector workers. The Employee Benefit Research Institute estimates that about half of U.S. workers have less than $25,000 in retirement savings, and 36 percent of workers 55 and older have that much or less. In the sake of fairness to taxpayers, we recommend that the pension for government workers be comparable to the private sector. Not comparable to a private sector company with great benefits, but to the private sector as a whole. WIDESPREAD PENSION ABUSE The golden parachutes and pension abuses decried on Wall Street are common in Florida government. State and local government workers can retire, collect a pension, and go back to work the next day. Some workers collect not one, but two pensions, plus a paycheck at the same time. This is known as the DROP program and participants in DROP should be dropped from the government payroll. Other pension abuses are allowing overtime in the calculation of retirement pay. It is common for government workers to receive hundreds of hours of overtime in their final year to boost their retirement pay. This practice is a fraud committed against the taxpayer and must stop. When city managers or other government officials do not get along with their council they are paid large severance packages to go quietly. In addition, retiring government workers are often paid bonuses of as much as a year's salary. It is unfair to the taxpayer to pay a government employee anything above and beyond what is clearly stated in the employment contract. Employment contracts should not allow for golden parachutes or severance payments because the average taxpayer does not have those benefits. TAXPAYER LIABILITY FOR PENSION FUND LOSES
The Florida Retirement System (FRS) had $137 billion invested in about 14,000 securities. Florida's state pension plan was fully funded a year ago. Now it's at least $28 billion, or 22%, in the hole. "Taxpayers are on the hook," says Susan Mangiero, who maintains Pensionriskmatters.com. Retirees getting their monthly pension checks don't need to worry because their benefits, along with a cost-of-living raise each year, are guaranteed. Any gap between the promise and the financial reality is covered by taxpayers. Millions of American workers lost an average of 27% of their 401(k) retirement savings in 2008 due to dramatic market declines. Those same taxpayer will be forced to make up the losses for government employees. In addition, the number of retirees is growing faster than the number of workers. UNREALISTIC PENSION PLAN GIVEN LIFE EXPECTANCY The government pension was established when the average person lived into their 60's. Given the recent technological and medical advances, future generations will live into their 90's. A government worker can work for 25 years to the age of 47, and get paid for 75 years (to age 97). The methods to calculate pension contributions do not take into account medical advances that will allow people to live longer. The plan also is changing from mostly contributors to mostly beneficiaries. In 1995, the plan paid retirement checks to 25 people for every 100 active workers. By the end of 2006, the ratio was 47 to 100. At some point the payments from the fund will exceed the contributions to the fund especially as the average age lifespan increases as medical advances allow people to live longer. That means workers in the private sector, most of whom don't have pensions, will probably be paying more to guarantee comfortable retirements for an increasing number of government retirees. The current government pension plans are unrealistic and unsustainable. We recommend major changes as follows; 1. The government will contribute into a defined contribution 401K account a maximum of $8,000 per year per employee. 2. The amount will be 8.39% of the employee's base salary without overtime or bonuses. 3. Once the contribution to the employee's 401K account is made the pension obligation for the worker is severed for that time period. 4. Existing employees will start 401K accounts under the same formula. 5. DROP programs participants will retire under the same formula.
POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS We estimate the savings from pension reforms to be in the tens of billions of dollars over the next few decades in Florida. Orange County alone will save several billion dollars during that timeframe. That is 200,000,000 lunches bought in our restaurants, or 100,000,000 haircuts or 50,000,000 oil changes. What we do not give our government goes into our economy and helps everyone.
It is time to level the playing field between our government and the taxpayer. Join us in our mission to make our governmentaccountable.
I gathered maps and facts on the ambitions of our local government and planners. To this group, commuter rail "is just the beginning.' In addition to the $1.25 BILLION commuter rail project (and the average cost overrun for rail projects is over 100%) are proposed rail projects called; I-Drive circulator; East-West circulator; UCF circulator; Innovation Way circulator; Airport-Convention Center circulator; South Orange-North Osceola Circulator, US 192 Circulator and the Light Rail Transit North Expansion Area. My rough estimate of the cost of these additional rail lines is $10 billion. I sat at a table for 30 minutes and listened to the plans. Some objections were made such as "electric cars might negate the need for rail" and "no one walks in the Florida heat," but the moderator suggested those might not go over well in "this crowd." You should expect an article stating "community leaders got together and planned our future," when in reality this is a small group of people trying to plan other people's lives. The 100 car parking lot was full, so I had to park in overflow. There was a single bicycle in the rack, yet these "leaders" want to determine how future generations of Floridians should live. I wanted to address the crowd of government planners and elected officials (including Mayoral candidate Bill Segal) and explain to them that every dollar of rail spending will come at the expense of small business. Because of Save Our Homes almost all future spending will fall on the backs of small businesses that are already taxed to the point of extinction. But as I watched the events unfold I realized there is an end game to the urban planning. These people want to convert central Florida into a densely populated city that predominantly uses mass transit similar to many east European cities. Sounds dramatic, but listen to the moderator for this group. Linda Chapin is a former County Commissioner and now head of urban planning at the University of Central Florida. She now "thinks up ways to slow down Orlando's growth, and humanize it." Obviously Chapin is secure in her job, while tens of thousands are unemployed because of the lack of growth. Most Floridians are proud of their homes and their communities, but in an interview with National Geographic magazine in March, 2007, Chapin said, "Just because we've ruined 90 percent of everything, doesn't mean we can't do wonderful things with the remaining ten percent!" What Chapin means by this is she wants to force peopleto live in urban areas, use mass transit, and use public funds to purchase land in the suburbs to avoid "sprawl." I moved to central Florida because I like living in an area with modern conveniences but with low population density and low crime. I moved from the most densely populated state, New Jersey, to get away from crowds and crime. But now "my" government is trying to tax small business to create an eastern European utopia. First they will tax the "beneficiaries" of commuter rail with a transit district tax like they already do in Colorado. Next they will tax parking lots like they already do in California. After that they will add to the gas tax to fund more rail and then the final straw; our government will tax you more to live outside the city core. Seems farfetched? Florida is already charging suburbs more for impact fees. Metroplan, our publically funded transit agency, prepared the "Proposed Transit Vision for Central Florida. " The map shows the end game along with "Trend 2050", which shows our densely populated county. There are two problems with this approach. First, in Europe they did not spend billions on highways like we have in Florida. They chose rail over roads. We cannot afford both and we already paid for the roads. Second, there has been no vote to convert our society into an eastern European transit based community. Most of us moved to central Florida because we like the way it is. We do not agree with Linda Chapin. The problem with Linda Chapin and Bill Segal is they have bought into a trendy idea called New Urbanism. This far left agenda paints a rosy picture but they ignore the costs and consequences. If Bill Segal becomes Orange County Mayor, and makes this "vision" a reality, every small business will fail and people will still use their cars to drive to the government jobs that remain. That too, is an eastern European economic model. I, for one, have chosen to alert our citizens to such a future and the economic consequences of going down this path. Join me in creating a more efficient government that focuses on the core mission of government; education and public safety. Please send this to ALL of your friends and ask them to sign up and join the cause.
Matthew Falconer Orlando-Orange County Taxpayer Budget Review Board
The general public has received details about the proposed commuter rail project primarily from two sources; government and media. Both groups are firmly supportive of commuter rail and present what can be considered the "best argument" for commuter rail. As part of my study on greater government efficiency (www.TaxpayerBudgetReviewBoard .org), we are looking at transportation. This article comes out in advance of our study because there are developments pending this month that will affect the future of commuter rail. Please know I am not against mass transit, I simply want to ensure the public is getting a wide array of facts and the taxpayer money is well spent. Commuter rail is a 99 year commitment with billions of local taxes at stake. I have made available on our web site, under "Commuter Rail," the studies I reference in this article. The most important report is the November 2007 report by the Federal Transportation Agency, who must approve the funding for commuter rail. Under "Making the Case", the government agency in charge of rating our project give our case a "LOW" rating, because "the project shows no justification why a significant investment in rail is necessary in a corridor when existing bus service is "limited." (FTA Nov. 2007 report) What the federal government is telling us is that ridership will be low otherwise bus service would already be at capacity. They are telling us the $1.25 billion we are considering spending on commuter rail is not a good investment. A similar rating for the Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project "rendered it ineligible," according to a January 24, 2008 letter from the US Department of Transportation. The cost of the commuter rail project is changing daily and the true cost cannot be determined because the cost of the debt to finance the project is unknown. When the project was initially proposed debt was 5% and plentiful. Now debt is scarce and the State of Florida is looking at a downgrade in its credit rating. It may not be able to raise the funds for the project, and if it can, it will cost much more than originally planned. Here is our current projection of costs; Capital Costs: $605,000,000 Station Construction and other Compensation to CSX*: $150,000,000 Purchase 61 miles of track $ 23,000,000 Relocate Taft Rail Yard to W. Haven $198,000,000 Construction of CSX S-line projects $ 52,000,000 A-line Rand Yard Construction projects $214,000,000 Construct 5 grade crossing $ 9,000,000 Toward infrastructure for CSX's ILC TOTAL: $1.25 Billion Dollars
Breakdown Local Government Capital Costs Debt Service
Volusia $ 94,700,000 $54,717,000 Seminole $183,300,000 $70,610,000 Orange $160,400,000 $70,104,000 (Winter Park pays $11,300,000 and Maitland pays $11,300.000) Osceola $107,000,000 $41,446,000 Orlando $ 54,300,000 $23,713,000 TOTAL $605,000,000** $260,590,000
The agreement proposes the local governments to pay 25%, or $151,250,000, the State of Florida pays 25% for $151,250,000, and the Federal grant application is for 50%, or $302,500,000 for the initial construction. There is no guarantee of federal funds, or any limitations on cost. It is routine for rail projects to be 25%, 50%, and even 100% over budget. And small local governments have a virtually unlimited exposure to the cost overruns. Local funding partners (Counties and Orlando) will have to pay 50% of "what FTA does not pay." That means another $150 million if FTA disapproves a federal grant, plus any cost increases.
The number one reason people support commuter rail is they believe it will reduce traffic congestion. But not even the proponents of commuter rail will suggest congestion on I-4 will be reduced. And the traffic in small cities along the route will be forever snarled because of train crossing and stops. In busy Winter Park a train will stop traffic every 15 minutes in rush hour. In Minneapolis rail was added parallel to Hiawatha Avenue and rail supporters said it would "reduce traffic a significant degree." Yet when the line opened in 2004 drivers noticed a huge increase in traffic congestion. Traffic flows were interrupted and all attempts to mitigate congestion failed. Officials admitted traffic in Hiawatha will forever be impaired. Even worse, documents uncovered after completion revealed the State officials had been aware of the future congestion problem but ignored them because they "wanted to give an advantage to transit." (Reason.org 2004 Rail Disasters). It is likely that vehicle traffic in every town along the rail route will increase and congestion will get worse. This will certainly be the case when a rail train hits an automobile. In Houston, where they built a mere 7.5 mile rail section between downtown and the sports stadium, there were 67 rail/auto accidents in the first year, more than one a week. Media reports we receive do not clearly outline the ridership. I have friends that support commuter rail, but no one I know plans to use it. My informal survey reached 5000 people and had 32 responses. Only 3 people that said they will use light rail on a regular basis. Metro Plan did a study last year that said only 9% of central Floridians support commuter rail. "Community leaders" imagine they are adding a travel option; for the most part, though, they are cannibalizing existing bus services. A significant proportion of the "new" rail transit riders turn out to be former bus riders. In Los Angeles, it is estimated only 10 to 15 percent of the riders on the newly constructed rail lines are attracted from automobiles. The remaining 85 percent to 90 percent were former bus riders. This phenomenon is not unique to Los Angeles. It is common wherever new rail lines are implemented. Even worse, the high cost of rail construction may lead to cutbacks in bus service. In Los Angeles, total transit ridership is now about 30 percent lower than it was before the rail lines were opened (Reason Public Policy Study #243). There are alternatives to expensive fixed rail mass transit. Among them is an "express bus system." It is one-fifth the cost of light rail, and actually can take you from where you are to where you want to go (versus taking you from where you don't live to where you don't work). The express bus system can help solve the school transportation debacle. It has worked marvels in places like Brazil, where they do not have the resources for rail but have demands for mass transit. It is clear to me after conducting my own research that commuter rail is not a good use of taxpayer funds. It does not reduce traffic, pollution (the trains are 1970s diesel technology), or help the average citizen. Writing in Transport Reviews, April, 2008, Jonathan Richmondof Harvard University has opined, "In no case has new rail service been shown to have a noticeable impact upon highway congestion or air quality." And government projects do not create long term jobs, they create long term liabilities. Five years ago commuter rail was a bad idea. Today, with service cuts and teacher layoffs commuter rail is a really bad idea. The State of Florida is proposing to increase FDOT funding by $300 million while decreasing school funding. We have the best road network in the country already, and our schools are among the nation's worst. The City of Winter Park (and potentially other communities) has until the 27th of January to terminate its agreements to fund commuter rail. We encourage you to email your elected officials in every community to say "NO MORE COMMUTER RAIL". Our economic future is uncertain and our local governments must focus on essential services more than ever. The financial burden of commuter rail will only cause more businesses to fail, increase traffic, and cut the flow of revenue to important government functions like education. Please act, email your local elected official today. Orange County 2010 Orange County Mayor Richard Crotty mayor@ocfl.net District 1 Scott Boyd district1@ocfl.net District 2 Fred Brummer district2@ocfl.net District 3 Mildred Fernadez district3@ocfl.net District 4 Linda Stewart district4@ocfl.net District 5 Bill Segal district5@ocfl.net District 6 Tiffany Moore district6@ocfl.net
City of Orlando phil.diamond@cityoforlando.net tony.ortiz@cityoforlando.net robert.stuart@cityoforlando.net patty.sheehan@cityoforlando.net daisy.lynum@cityoforlando.net samuel.ings@cityoforlando.net Winter Park Mayor David C. Strong DStrong@cityofwinterpark.org Commissioner Phil Anderson MBridges@cityofwinterpark.org Commissioner Margie Bridges PAnderson@cityofwinterpark.org Commissioner Karen Diebel KDiebel@cityofwinterpark.org Commissioner Beth Dillaha BDillaha@cityofwinterpark.org
Maitland Mayor Doug Kinson dkinson@itsmymaitland.com jflowers@itsmymaitland.com pbonus@itsmymaitland.com lfrosch@itsmymaitland.com breponen@itsmymaitland.com Ocoee Mayor Vandergrift svandergrift@ci.ocoee.fl.us ghood@ci.ocoee.fl.us sanderson@ci.ocoee.fl.us rjohnson@ci.ocoee.fl.us jkeller@ci.ocoee.fl.us
Thanks for caring enough to be involved in local government.
Matthew Falconer Orlando-Orange County Taxpayer Budget Review Board www.TaxpayerBudgetReviewBoard.org mjf@falcondevelopment.net
September 13, 2008
Build your own stadium
The Rays want to build a new stadium and profit from the business of baseball. They are entitled to the greatest possible profit they can legally make and that the market will support. I will personally buy tickets in the new stadium.
However, they can't expect the taxpayers to finance a new stadium, which will cost at least $500-million, as well as $125-million to pay off the old stadium and $3-million to $4-million a year in operating costs. They can't expect our communities to neglect core, vital government services as government also increases the tax burden. They can't expect the economy to do well as the tax burden remains high.
So yes, Rays, build your stadium. If you want the profit, you take the risk. Find some private investors and make your private profits with your money — not taxpayer money. Don't expect the hard-working middle-class taxpayer to bear the cost of your profit on their backs. Especially not if you expect only the rich to show up and sip wine and eat sushi while the taxpayer stays home and drinks beer with the game on the tube.
David McKalip, chair, Florida Taxpayers Union, St. Petersburg
August 30, 2008
Subject: The Proposed New Baseball Stadium Coalition
by Rod Moran
I question that Mr. Lyash, CEO of Progress Energy, is the right, unbiased individual to head the above subject coalition which could recommend the additional expenditure, or lengthy continuation, of millions of dollars of the city and county taxpayers. Why? Mr. Lyash was recommended by Mayor Baker who kept the public is in the dark for seven months about ongoing city negotiations with the Rays on a new waterfront stadium. Why trust him on this one. The Rays stated that Lyash will have absolute authority over the coalitions inner workings ( Times July 04,08, article, page 5B ). Absolute authority!! Sound unbiased/neutral to you? I also question the small number of committee members ( 9 ) that Mr. Lyash has proposed, including himself, to consist of the members of the new stadium coalition. This coalition should include many more additional diverse city taxpayer members from POWW ( Protect our Wallets & Waterfront -- they only protested the waterfront location for valid reasons -- no ballpark AC, insufficient parking, wrong land use, etc. -- and will be open-minded), local city activists, neighborhood associations, and most importantly, many baseball fans who are hard-working "regular" city taxpayers. But guess what? Most "regular" city taxpayers will NOT be able to serve, since they'll be working to earn a living, as the coalition members will NOT be paid or reimbursed for their time or expenses. The coalition is to be funded by private donations. I have to wonder who those well- off donors are and why that non-funding coalition member requirement was levied? If the coalition does materialize, I propose that the Rays fully fund this coalition and to at least double the small coalition member number ( 9 since there are 9 players on the field -- valid management logic ? ) proposed by Mr. Lyash. And once the greatly increased diverse members are finalized, by an unbiased /neutral "regular" member selection committee -- certainly not the Mayor or city and county officials, they should then vote to "elect" their coalition leader. I believe that proposed new stadium coalition is nothing more than Mayor Baker and the Rays management team who are already millionaires, trying to "maneuver" the new stadium project to the city/county voters and spending their tax monies again for an MUCH longer period of time. The Rays are ignoring that the city & country are in an period of RECESSION as, I guess, millionaires have no idea of what that word means to "regular" city & county residents & taxpayers!!
Sincerely,
Mr. Rod Moren Overtaxed taxpayer
August 6, 2008
by Rod Moran
Where did the City Charity Monies for the city's needy go?
Today I read the Times Neighborhood Times article on Quote - The lack of affordable housing in Pinellas combined with a deteriorating economy is creating a financial vise squeezing some families and leaving them hard-pressed to pay for basic needs. - end quote. Then I remember how Mayor Baker, and the all- to- agreeable city council, deceptively slipped through a city 12.7 million dollar "hand-out" of hard-earned city taxpayer monies to the wealthy Jabil company, known only as " Project Extreme." Then I remember how the St. Pete Housing Authority (SPHA) , all of it's members appointed by Mayor Baker, is preparing to sell the entire city Graham- Rogall low-income housing complex located just East of the Trop, to condo developers. Selling it now in the present recession, I think, would create an even greater void for this type of housing. Then the SPHA plans to spent about 3 million dollars from the sale to build a new office building for themselves! What? I've been in their present building on Ulmerton and it's not of poor quality or rundown by any means. The present SPHA directors salary is more than $220,000 and he's paid even more then the HA directors of Chicago and NYC who have larger staffs and more responsibilities according to earlier Times articles. Go figure!! When St. Pete budget cuts had to be made, due only to the state legislature demands and not through any city " extensive budget or management actions" by the Mayor or council, the city eliminated or reduced taxpayer monies to numerous city charities and other worthwhile public assistance organizations to adversely affect the city's needy. Where's the conscience of the Mayor and the other city elected officials for the needy? I guess there's not enough funds remaining for the needy after the city spends millions of city taxpayer dollars to pay the property taxes and maintaining the Trop for the Rays owners who are all millionaires, upgrading the Pier and the Mahaffey Theater, spending $800,000 for a 10-foot-wide concrete sidewalk on the North side of 62nd Ave NE for cyclists ,which many don't utilize thus impeding traffic, since most of them don't know it's available to them as it's so poorly designated/marked, etc., etc. If this is how a "Strong Mayor" form of government typically functions by using deceptive tactics and ignoring the city's needy , then I propose we vote to replace it with an qualified professional city administrator type of city government.
Mr. Rod Moren, Overtaxed City Taxpayer
July 29, 2008
by David Simpson
Economic Development is a tricky tightrope to walk.
We have seen local and the state giving out money and perks to large businesses to relocate or build new facilities. Just today the Times reports that MIT spin-off will hire 165 at two facilities with 30 million in economic incentives. These are great opportunities for ribbon cutting ceremonies by public officials but these handouts have a history of not living up to their hype.
Timothy J. Bartik from W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research has made recommendations to mayors regarding economic development
"Target tax / financial subsidies more carefully because tax and financial subsidies for economic development are expensive per job created. Such expensive subsidies make more sense for high unemployment areas. Because the unemployed are more desperate for jobs. Even expensive subsidies may not have enough benefits. In low unemployment areas, many persons obtaining jobs because of an economic development program could have obtained jobs anyway. The high costs of subsidizing new jobs may not be worth it in unemployment fast growing areas. Tax and financial subsidies for new jobs make more sense if the jobs pay a high wage premium.More effort should be devoted to programs that help small and medium size businesses. Metropolitan cooperation is essential to economic development. Competition for jobs among jurisdictions within the same metropolitan area uses public resources without changing overall labor market opportunities in the metropolitan area. "
He goes on to say that a tax abatement or free land for a company would be an unproductive subsidy. He describes unproductive subsidies, as discretionary subsidies provided to one company that would not have any permanent effect on the local economy if the firm leaves.
We have seen over and over that economic development goes to some of the most prosperous companies that have the most clout and who least likely need the help. There are over 1.5 million businesses in Florida that could use some of the more than 450 million dollars that is spent in economic development. Florida is notorious in touting the advantages of getting large companies but does little to make sure there are additional jobs created. Many times jobs are not tracked and can be skewed by big salaries of a few executives. Because the tracking is not kept with, many jobs promised beforehand are shipped overseas after a short while or the company will include low paying outsourced jobs in their final totals.
It is important that small and medium size businesses that are in Florida receive more of these benefits if it is to be given out. Local governments officials need to have less high profile dealings with these companies without voter approval and if approved do more follow-up regarding the use of public money. It is proven over and over again that these programs do not live up to their potential with job growth. If we must give these perks out, we might as well give it to the business people already established in Florida, as it is their presence that has a better chance of improving the economy.
July 24, 2008
Economic Developments final word
Howard Troxler from the St. Petersburg Times says it so eloquently when 30 million dollars of taxpayer money is being handed out to bring big business to our town, and offers a solution to the problem. As always, Howard you have hit the nail on the head. His column can be seen at www.tampabay.com/news/business/economicdevelopment/article735759.ece
July 13, 2008
Big Business pressures Economic Development
by David Simpson
Once again big business is holding up a city for the most perks one can offer. Jabil circuit is being coy about what its intentions are. They say they might relocate or they might not. What their really saying is how much is it worth to the city to keep 1900 jobs in place.
Unfortunately past precedents are haunting this city government. As a city we have given more than we can afford in the past, usually just shy of giving up the city keys. Businesses see economic development as a tool to weasel as much money out of an area as possible.
In this case the biggest part of the 34.4 million would be provided by the state. The county would be 1.7 million and the citys part would be 12.7 million in grants, tax refunds and road and utility improvements. For our donation as a city, what do we get in return. In this case not much, $300,000 dollars annually in tax revenue. WOW, lets check this out, It would take 42.3 years to pay off the city contribution of 12.7 million. Is there anything else.?.. Oh the promise to hire 858 more workers at an average rate of pay of 42K. At that salary range, I wouldn't believe it had the power to provide an economic stimulas to our area. My real problem, why does this seem like such a great deal to our elected leaders who sit on the council, and why must this deal be kept a secret? Is it the fact that it smells so badly on paper they do not want other people to know. Looks like a red herring to me.
July 10,2008
The fallout continues regarding Jabil Industries bailout by Council
There will obviously be further discussions regarding the sweetheart deal that was made between the St Petersburg City council and the privately held company Jabil. City Council is busily circling the wagons for an onslaught of public scrutiny. Details and more information is available in the St. Petersburg Times Opinions at :
I guess deceiving the public must be all the rage these days. Who cares about the St. Petersburg voters, it certainly is not the St. Petersburg City Council. Under secrecy they have hid the fact that they are giving 12.7 million dollars toward a 34.4 million dollar handout to Jabil Circuit, so they will stay in town. Somehow in my mind, I can hear this whole group laughing in the back room of city hall on how they pulled another shenanigan on the St. Petersburg voters. Is there no shame. As the letter says below, it is pure arrogance. At the head of the debacle is Jaime Bennett the chairman of the council and Mayor Rick Baker. Our group concurs with Times columnist Howard Troxler that it is time for Bernie MCabe, the state attorney to step in. A full investigation should be held to make sure this does not remotely have a chance of occuring again and to investigate wrong doing of the council by a grand jury.
The old saying "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" certainly rings true. It is indeed a very sad day for St. Petersburg.
July 6, 2008
Open Letter to St. Petersburg City Council Members
by Rod Moren
Hello to all of the St. Pete city council members, I read in the July o4, 08 Times article about city councilman Jeff Danner rationalizing as to why he voted to approve the Jabil million dollar "giveaway." He was quoted saying that " he had been elected to make decisions on behalf the citizens ,that he couldn't take everything to referendum or hold a public hearing on everything as we would never get anything accomplished." Note that spending large sums of scarce city taxpayer monies without any prior public and city taxpayer discussion does NOT justify his above arrogant statement and action. He just "accomplished" an multimillion-dollar "giveaway" for the Jabil company and did not concern himself with the city citizens taxes. This is an absurd "cover up" of an Mayor Baker and city council multimillion-dollar taxpayer money "giveaway" to an local multimillion-dollar company in these times of local & national recession, high rate of foreclosures, high unemployment, and the ever increasing costs of essentials such as food and gasoline. Plus no one can be certain that the Jabil company will continue to do business locally long enough in order to fully compensate for this city taxpayer million-dollar "giveaway" such as was illustrated in the recent case of the Neilson Ratings company in Oldsmar, who is presently outsourcing some of their products overseas and reducing their local workforce despite an earlier agreement with the city. I respectfully propose ,that from this time forward, all city council consent agenda items involving any large sum of of city taxpayer dollars ( say any total sum -- no breaking up of the item into smaller amounts allowed -- greater than $750,000.00 ), MUST be disclosed to public view & prior adequate comprehensive public discussion be taken before consideration and approval by the city council. Since you are NOT bound by the city's and company's confidentiality request, this should an easy requirement/task for each RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTED CITY COUNCIL MEMBER. If you feel that you cannot comply with this request in the immediate future, I believe you are not trustworthy of the important city council positions that you were elected to by the city citizens and that you should resign immediately.
Sincerely,
Mr. Rod Moren
St. Pete, FL 33703 An St. Pete resident/activist and WAY overtaxed taxpayer
Rays Pull back on referendum
June 26, 2008
Maybe it was the 68 percent of voters that did not like the timing, or the idea of a new waterfront stadium at the old Al Lang site. Maybe it was the lukewarm response they got from city leaders that never firmly got onboard their project. The reality is that the Rays have slowed down the project in hopes of getting a better foothold on the issue. It has been painfully evident that in a time of belt-tighening and budgets cuts, there was little appetite for spending at all from local leaders. This was probably the reason for not having a prominent community leader come forward as a cheerleader for this project. Whatever the reason, Rays management feel the better part of valor is to come back and fight the fight another day. Perhaps 2010, A informal community led group organized with the help of Progress Energy CEO, Jeff Lyash will reach out for a new stadium with a non-official timetable. At least without the pressure of a 2008 ballot looming.
City and county leaders apparently relieved that decisions would not have to be met so quickly, applauded the Rays management and felt that all would be best served by the wait. One notable statement made by St. Petersburg mayor Rick Baker, apparently wants to leave the door open for the waterfront property by saying he favored the property to stay as it is for now. He seems to think college games or amateur events could be played there. The mayor apparently does not want to close any doors on the Rays regarding this location. Alternate locations will obviously be discussed during this period but at least for the time being Red and White signs should be coming done but not necessarily thrown away.
posted by, David R. Simpson
New Stadium Decision Tough Sell
June 22,2008
The Rays are obviously doing better in the ballpark, but outside of it.... Lets just say, It's the bottom of the seventh and it doesn't look like theres any qualified personel out there to get it to the end of the ninth. To most onlookers it has been an extremely tough sell in an obvious weak economy. Optimism is declining. St. Petersburg City Councilman Herb Polson believes although not completely dead in the water.. it certainly is on life support, echoed also by County Commissioner Bob Stewart. There has not been a strong ally for the Rays by any local political connections.
The way I see it, most voters are trying to either keep their jobs in a declining labor market or their homes from a ravaged property fall out. It's not that we don't care, sure we care but now is not the time to talk about it. Trying to redevelop the Tropicana property with numbers to make it work with any degree of accuracy is a stretch. In declining market conditions any developer including Archstone-Madison would find it difficult to justify anything more than 65 million for the trop site. And guarantees... Don't even go there.
The voters are looking for ways to pay less on their property taxes and stretch their finances... so look for amendment five to pass, anything that looks like a tax decrease whether it is sound policy or not will look good. I say come back later when the voters are in a much better frame of mind. Posted June 22, 2008 Mike B
