City walking over dollars, looking for dime

On Tuesday night, the city council was reminded again about the impending budget crunch due to new accounting regulations known as GASB45:

GASB refers to the General Accounting Standards Board, an operating arm of the private Financial Accounting Foundation. GASB establishes standards of state and local government accounting. And Section 45 is a policy adopted by the board in 2004. It requires that governments must account today for future costs of guaranteed medical benefits for retirees…. [Those] higher costs, when the bills eventually come due, must be paid for by higher taxes or reduced services.

Standard and Poor’s, which takes this seriously because it rates government credit, said in a December 2004 report that GASB could uncover much higher costs that could “seriously strain operations” or uncover conditions in which governments “are unable or unwilling to fulfill these obligations,” which could hurt governments’ credit ratings.

So, Peoria is going to be facing some potentially drastic measures, such as making cuts in health care coverage for employees. Since that’s unpopular, every item of business, no matter how small, came under scrutiny. They even spent time haggling over hiring a part-time training coordinator for a mere $5,000.

I would be more sympathetic to these conscientious cost-cutting measures if it weren’t for the fact that the city council is poised to throw away a $565,000 asset without giving it a second thought. While they’re haggling over $5,000, the park district can hardly wait to get the word that it’s okay to tear out a half-million dollar rail line known as the Kellar Branch — a rail line for which there is a willing buyer or lessee — so they can turn it into a hiking trail. The irony is that the city could get the money and the trail, too, if they’d accept Pioneer Railcorp’s offer to buy or lease the line.

If the city council is really interested in plugging the GASB45 gap, then they should stop walking over dollars to pick up a dime.

Everybody’s the exception

Phil Luciano’s article today once again highlights the no-win situation of city code enforcers. You know, if they don’t enforce the law on the petty issues, people complain about them not doing their jobs and wax eloquent about how important it is to fix problems when they’re small so bigger violations aren’t likely to happen (aka the “broken window theory”). But if they do enforce the little issues, then people like Phil Luciano complain that (a) the ordinance is stupid, and/or (b) this person who’s breaking the ordinance should be an exception.

In this particular case, apparently Phil thinks that code violation officers, upon seeing someone violating some ordinance, should immediately find out how much money the person has put into their house, interview the person to see if they have a justified reason for breaking the ordinance, perhaps interview a few neighbors to see how they feel about it, and then make an informed decision on whether to enforce the law or not based on those factors. Most importantly, if the person threatens to move, immediately tear up the citation and allow them to break any code they want.

Obviously, the problem is that everyone has an excuse for breaking an ordinance. Rare is the person who flagrantly violates the law without some reason for doing so, no matter how flimsy that reason may be. I’m sure code enforcement officers have heard them all.

Question: Do we want the code enforced? If not, let’s get these ordinances off the books. If so, stop complaining when the code enforcement officers do their jobs.