Mistermayor may not share the same orange complexion as our governor (who, let’s face it, now sports a hue somewhere between Irish setter and California poppy), but one important similarity between the two men is that they each are dealing with budgets that are hamstrung by well-meaning yet paralyzing voter-mandated set-asides.
As an aside: A set-aside is an amount of money or percentage of revenue that is legally required to be spent each year on a particular purpose.
“A $6.6 billion budget and we can’t afford nurses AND police?” people rightfully lament. But we only have about $1 billion of that budget to pay for everything that is not protected by a set-aside. That $1 billion is also where any cuts have to come from. The budget for fiscal year 2009-10 anticipates a $438 million dollar shortfall. (Download Budget Letter.)
Obviously, something must be done about these legally required payouts that cause an all-out budget war about the table scraps each year. The problem is that set-asides fund childrens' programs, libraries, rainbows and puppies. What politician would risk being labeled a baby hater?
This issue reminds me of the way Congress has dealt with military-base closures. No one wanted to close a base in their own district, but they all knew it had to be done. In 1990, Congress created the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. Made up of experts and other nonpartisan nerds, the commission reviewed bases and made recommendations every few years. Those reports became law unless Congress rejected the entire report (it could not be amended).
Perhaps The City would benefit from such a commission, which could propose sunset clauses for some set-asides, roll back others a bit and generally try to free up money for basic city services so we don’t have to use a municipal bond to do something as simple as fix our roads.
Granted, any change to the City Charter would have to then be voted on by San Franciscans. But if people felt it was a fair deal to prevent tax increases and dangerous cuts to law enforcement and mental health services (not to mention constant attempts by other groups to get their own set-asides), it just might work.
Perhaps most importantly, it would allow our politicians to save face, while at the same time deal with an important structural problem. I’m open to other suggestions, but ultimately we don’t want to end up in an emergency situation like the state government, which is apparently at Threat Level Orange.
A minor correction: the definition of a set-aside should also contain mandatory staffing and voter mandates that keep police and fire stations open. Although the dollar amount is not specified, the money must be spent.
Posted by: Howard Epstein | July 09, 2009 at 14:49
The real solution would be to elect people who are more responsible and who will put the city's best interest ahead of personal ambition. So long as we keep electing people based on how many junk mailers they sent out or whose name sounds the most familiar. And we need to stop putting every crazy idea one can think of on the ballot.
Likewise, voters need to realize that when they vote for all that "free money" that are known as bond issues, they are issuing debt that has to be paid back. We cannot continue to vote for more borrowing and not expect it to hurt us at budget time.
Posted by: gdewar | July 10, 2009 at 08:51
hello Melissa amazing site and excellent post about Hogtied by The City’s set-asides thanks for sharing!!
Posted by: generic valtrex | February 02, 2010 at 06:28
amazing post about Hogtied by The City’s set-asides thanks
Posted by: buy viagra | February 09, 2010 at 13:07
this is my opinion As an aside: A set-aside is an amount of money or percentage of revenue that is legally required to be spent each year on a particular purpose.
Posted by: generic viagra | February 11, 2010 at 09:08
Thanks for sharing this information about Hogtied by The City’s set-asides. Your blog posting is very good and theme base for which it is liking to every people.
Posted by: Invierta en proyectos | February 15, 2010 at 17:18
Marry a person who likes talking; because when you get old, you’ll find that chatting to be a great advantage. In your article I found very different things. Very characteristic. I've never seen before.
Posted by: viagra online | August 19, 2010 at 08:35