Something that was knocking around City Hall the day I was sworn in was a public-safety levy. The idea, as I understand it, is to put an additional couple of cents on the real-estate tax and dedicate that revenue towards public safety projects of the capital variety – new buildings and the like. Keep in mind that, as of right now, 1 cent of real-estate tax brings in around $500,00 in taxes. Also stash in your brain that it requires about $500k to fund a single 24-hour police officer position (you need 3 guys, cars, gear, training, etc). Normally things like this are handled by taking out a loan (called a “bond” at the governmental level) and building it that way. The City would not currently appear to be in any position to issue a bond as tax revenues are declining and the real-estate tax rate is going to have to increase just to keep tax revenues flat. I haven’t heard what we need to build but the City does have an urgent need to bolster some of our troubled neighborhoods that are suffering the effects of overcrowding, crime, etc and I’ve arrived at three options:
1. Implement a public safety levee but dedicate the money towards a “Neighborhood Safety” program. This would go to policing GTS and other problem areas. In addition, it would add real meat to our Neighborhood Services program that looks to control overcrowding and increasing the overall health and safety of our neighborhoods. or
2. Implement the levee and dedicate it solely towards capital infrastructure. or
3. Let it ride and do nothing.
#
I’m thinking a hybrid of 1 and 2 might be workable as long as the levy has a sunset provision and we are willing to look at taking money from other places in the budget to hlep pay for it. If the City is to get our neighborhoods straightened out we are going to have to participate in ICE, hire more officers and some staff (we currently have 1 dedicated to this) to work with residents of all kinds and their communities to get things going. This will require money. If the money from the levy was dedicated solely to this function, I think it is a decent starting point. Clearly there needs to be an actual plan put around this but the concept seems to be a reasonable one. In addition, note that the benefits of having these problem areas (which probably comprise 20% of city residents) being safe and functional again would bring tremendous benefits to the City in terms of livibility and safety let alone better home values and stronger schools. I think we have the beginnings of this program already in City Hall but it needs a shot in the arm.
Whaddya think?
January 2, 2007 at 1:24 am
Andy, what a great honor to be the first to post on your blog.
Please please please dont start with the levy way of taxation. Its the easy way out when legislators face difficult budget decisions.
A levy for this, a levy for that, next thing ya know half of the citizens property taxes are going towards levy’s.
Just work out your needs within the property tax rate.
My 2cents worth. Keep up the good work you are doing on council. We are proud of you.
January 2, 2007 at 2:51 am
Andy,
God bless for standing up to these issues publicly. Let me ask you a very basic question… Can you place a dollar value on something that is of a tangible, but non-financial value to you? When you say that improving community policing must come at the expense of some other tangible benefit to the community, why do you say that? Can you not say to to a rational citizen, “We are faced with a hightened threat to the safety of our community (for whatever reason), and therefore I believe it is appropriate to ask each hosehold to pay an additional $50 per year (or $75, or $100, or whatever), so that we can place additional police officers on the street to address this problem”? It is a mystery to most people who run a business or budget a household to hear a city leader respond to a new threat by demanding less community participation (e.g., taxes). You represent more than the impoverished, the stupid and the selfish. Your blog is a wonderful effort, but please think through the second and third order effects of the actions you champion. Your constituents are all not stupid hillbillies. Give us some credit for understanding that there are some things, some values, some tangible benefts worth paying for. The police department, the schools, the capital improvement program, are not enemies of the people. They are the means through which the community as a whole expresses its values.
January 2, 2007 at 2:58 am
Jackson Miller has zero credibility on budgeting issues. Marc Aveni and Andrew Harrover are taking all of the heat for Miller’s self-gratifying and utterly irresponsible decisions on the Manassas city council. I am a life-long Republican, but I vote Jackson Miller “Most Likely to Deliver the House of Delegates to the Republican Party”. Look at the guy’s resume…. I don’t know anybody with more part time jobs (unless their under the age of 16).
January 2, 2007 at 3:02 am
Of course, I meant Democratic party in my previous post… I’m just used to typing the phrase “Republican Party”. I type fast when I’m fully engaged, but apologize, nonetheless, for the misspellings.
January 2, 2007 at 8:27 am
Andy, you are a brave fellow to actually address the hard nuts and
bolts issues of local government in a blog – you deserve a gold star.
Good luck!
January 2, 2007 at 8:28 am
oh great, another blog to check on. At least “t” hasn’t discovered it yet.
BTW, I suggest a unique angle for you- a gossip column!! Inside poop on City Hall doings, Old Town scandals, who hates who, who is &%#@ing who.
Just an idea.
January 2, 2007 at 8:32 am
Antonio:
That won’t be happening. The government needs input from its citizens and maybe this way will help. No more, no less….well, I might rant about the folks in Richmond from time to time….:)
January 2, 2007 at 8:53 am
Tudor Hall, welcome to the blogosphere. I Cant usually catch all of the posts as Im often too busy with all of my “part time” jobs, but it is fun to start to learn all of the post names as time goes on. Im also glad to have a lifelong Republican – Im sorry I meant to say Democrat – come into a Rupublican blog. It makes things more interesting.
BTW, I work 2days a week as a sworn Prince William County Police Officer.
Real Estate is full time. The Politics is supposed to be part time but unfortunately requires full time hours. Three jobs make for a tough schedule but it makes life interesting.
January 2, 2007 at 9:11 am
Andy,
Being sick and at home, bored folks turn to the internet! LOL Nice site and glad to see that SOMEONE on City Council is asking the people what they want. HOWEVER, my friend, NO MORE TAXES…call it what you want…it’s still a tax. Learn to live within your means.
Yes, I understand that things change and new “stuff” costs money…but cut some place else…for instance…I don’t feel that the City of Manassas should be in the museum business. That should be handled by a “local private group” or whomever but not a political governing body. Bigger isn’t necessarily better in this instance.
I could ramble on…but you know where I’m going…be the good Republican that I know you can be! ;0
January 2, 2007 at 10:23 am
Good thinking WSGFN – sorry you are sick, but apparently your
right knee still has a stong jerk – of course, the answer to
everything is “NO MORE TAXES”. We may have had flawed leveees
in New Orleans, poorly trained folks at the gates on 9-11,
and inferior equipment for our brave troops in Iraq – but, by God,
we saved a buck! Right?
Of course, liberal cries of “Spend, Spend” are the flip side and just
as dangerous to our nation, state, and city.
Yes, it is more difficult, but how about an intelligent, rational, balanced
examination of needs and resources and a clear cost/benefit
analysis of the budget.
My hope for Andy’s blog is that it would be a notch above the typical
blah, blah, rants of extremists and be focused on real solutions for
real challenges.
Stop, look, listen – and THEN move forward.
Note: The museum could close tomorrow and save the average home-
owner in Manassas the price of a large pizza each month. The real
money is in education, public safety and public works.
January 2, 2007 at 10:32 am
You are right Big Dog, the goal of the blog is to get more ideas and feedback. It’s a bit of a twist on the normal blog scene so it will take some doing to get a group of regular contributors who provide that kind of input but it can be done.
There will be extremist rants but I don’t think WSFGN’s input is off-topic or bad. When talking about levy’s it’s ok for citizens to tell the gov’t to find the money elsewhere. Wether or not it works out that way may be an open question but it is feedback and that’s what we need!
January 2, 2007 at 10:56 am
Well Big Dog you sound like those folks in Richmond…8 million isn’t enough for new roads so let’s use that money to put in a rose garden!
$8 x 12 months x # of homes in MC = $$$
Penny’s add up…just check out the “immigrants” at Food Lion cashing it in…we all need to save our penny’s and use them wisely. There is still wasteful spending in the City.
Andy was discussing a levy of $100 per house per year…so according to the math above (according to Big Dog) would equal what Andy is looking for…job well done!
January 2, 2007 at 11:20 am
OK, back on topic – “A Public Safety Levy – Yea or Nay?”
Points to Ponder:
-Cost are going way up due to intense pressure in Northern
Virginia for trained/certified individuals – especially since 9-11.
(Wingnuts – it isn’t germane if you or I got a raise last year –
this is about the job market – supply and demand. If PWC or
Fairfax offers 10K more per year for the same job you are doing
in Manassas would you stay?)
– To keep well trained and dedicated volunteers in fire
and rescue – Lord love them – then we need first rate facilities,
equipment and training. Once again, we are in competition, with
surrounding areas – and don’t even mention bingo requirements to
most of the younger volunteers.
– If we want to keep first rate police, and fire and rescue in Manassas
– then we have to find a way to fund them.
– The proposed levy should be placed on the table during the
preparation of the 2007-2008 budget. It deserves a fair examination.
January 2, 2007 at 11:29 am
BVBL sent me.
January 2, 2007 at 11:35 am
I’m not a cheerleader for the museum, but to “decommission” it
could be a large expense and supervising the various properties
in Manassas wouldn’t go away – for example, what would you you
do with the Liberia House? (And the council just added the Speiden
house to the list). What about all the grants, trust and articles
donated to the museum through the years – a giant yard sale?
Imagine the museum will come under the budget microscope
this year – Hal Parrish is the new chair of the Finance Committee.
January 2, 2007 at 12:10 pm
If I lived in Manassas and a job move to Fairfax was a 10K increase would I stay…abosolutely…my time with family is way more important.
You figure AT A MINIMUM it’s an hour each way to where ever in Fairfax because of traffic. Let’s say you make $25.00 an hour with the extra traffic…that’s $50.00 a day of wasted time which would equal $13K of wasted time on the road not to mention the extra gas money, etc.
Look at history of taxes and levy’s…EVEN THOUGH, bless his heart, Andy speaks about a “sunset provision” …they usually are there FOREVER. As they say nothing is forever except Death and Taxes!
If ONLY we could trust politcian’s enough to keep their promise to NOT TOUCH THE MONEY… but we can look at other deals and see where that has not happend. We need to be prudent in our fiscal responsibility and AT A VERY VERY VERY LAST DITCH EFFORT…tax it.
OH So much that goes on in the City away from unaware citizens…
January 2, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Keeping Us In Our Place Dept: “Politics for me has become a bit of
a carnival freak show” – Craig’s Musings. Now he has done it –
offended the two headed midget and snake woman.
January 2, 2007 at 2:25 pm
BigDog, I’m not brave, just a naive optimist. I figure that if I can come up with some things that work out for the citizens then the rest will take care of itself. If I can’t then I shouldn’t be there and no amount of talking will fix it. This blog is an attempt at getting useful input from people to further that end.
Back on subject: given your familiarity with what worked in GTS last time, I wonder if you might put together a short tretise on the subject. If it worked last time, chances are that it is a good starting point this time.
January 2, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Thank you Andy – I’ll focus on that during the next month.
One thing I know now, though, is everyone has to work together.
It is a loser’s game for residents to blame the city for everything
and vice versa.
January 2, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Andy H.,
Welcome to the blogsphere. This is a very interesting first post. Strong out of the gate and guaranteed to get an interesting bit of feedback. As someone who lives in PWC and not Manassas I say levy away. Okay, just kidding. This is one of those damned if you do and damned if you don’t issues, i.e. “You can’t please all of the people all of the time.” I wish you all the best.
As an aside, it is always nice to get quoted so I just wanted to say a big thanks to Big Dog. I need to go back and edit that post since I now realize that I was being insensitive to people working in the entertainment business. It was very unkind of me to compare these hard working folks to politicians.
January 2, 2007 at 10:22 pm
A very spirited and interesting group! OK, I’m a bit calmer now. Anyway, I actually am a life-long Republican (Jim Webb is the first Democrat for whom I’ve voted in a state-wide race, though, admittedly, I’ve made the occasional departure previously at the local level). I guarantee you that I’ve known George Allen longer, and have worked harder for him over the years than anyone else in Manassas (going back to his second race for the state house). In any event, my basic concern is what I consider to be the devolution of the state Republican party from being a group of moderate, rational and pragmatic citizens focused on solving tangible problems to a sloganeering, negative ideologues who couldn’t fight their way out of a wet paper bag to solve the state’s pressing problems. It’s reminiscent of the old joke… “Republican belief in quality of like starts at conception and ends at birth”. The fight about transportation funding is the perfect example of this new dynamic. If you were to say to virtually any working parent (no matter their political persuasion), that they could save two hours a week in commuting time in exchange for an extra $100 a month in taxes or user fees, I am sure that the vast majority would enthusiastically support such a trade-off (8 hours a month with family in exchange for $100). Yet, inexplicably, the new brand of Republican won’t even consider such an analysis, nor, in Virginia, will they even allow localities to present the question to voters. What bedrock principal of Republicanism is protected or advanced in this case? What about family values, personal responsibility and all that? Right of way acquisition and asphalt cost money, period.
January 2, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Tudor Hall, Im glad you have had the chance to calm down. Your last post however is getting way off Andy’s subject.
If you have known Gov. Allen longer and have worked harder for him than any other person in Manassas you must be John Gregory (Gov.Allen has told me that Mr. Gregory is his oldest friend and hardest worker in Manassas. I tend to believe Gov. Allen on this issue. Not a blog pseudonym named Tudor Hall) Plus, I know John Gregory voted for Allen and would never have voted for Web.
In other words, most reasonable people reading this blog are well aware that you probably have never voted for a Republican in your life, but it really helps to bolster your arguement to say “the party left me, I didnt leave the party”. I will admit that it was a good try. Just didnt work this time.
All that being said, I do look forward to reading your points on this and other blogs.
January 2, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Umm, In my previous posting I meant to say ‘quality of life,’ not ‘quality of like.’ From now on, I’ll reread what I’ve typed before I submit my comment. Sorry. 🙂
January 3, 2007 at 12:03 am
I worked tirelessly for George Allen as an undergraduate member of the College Republicans at UVA long before anyone in Manassas had ever heard his name, going door to door in Charlottesville on George’s behalf, when he had only a tiny band of enthusiastic supporters. I played a much more substantive role in later campaigns, before becoming totally disillusioned as he began the weird transformation into the George Allen that most know today.
I abandoned George Allen much later, while he was governor (well before the Virginia Republican party abandoned rational realists, like myself, in the late 1990s). The final straw for me was George’s championing of a bill written by the attorney for Lee Sammis (a California developer), submitted verbatim, that gutted regulations to protect historic lands. At that time, Lee Sammis wanted to build a racetrack on the site of Brandy Station, the largest cavalry battle of the Civil War.
I have seen George Allen undergo a complete transformation, from easygoing sincere valleyguy (sans cowboy boots, faux southern accent and trophy wife… kind and wonderful as she is) to his new persona as slack-jawed hillbilly race-baiter.
Interestingly, as fate would have it, I have gone on to have a significant business dealings with Lee Sammis, who now has holdings in Manassas (though outside the City limits).
I mention all of this only because of George Allen’s transformation from rational realist to shriveled sloganeer is emblematic of what’s happened more broadly in Virginia and now, finally, sadly, in Manassas.
I’m going to swerve back into the lane of Andy’s blog now, as you suggest.
Also, please do not associate John Gregory’s name with the dark and regressive brand of Republicanism espoused by the new breed. Mr. Gregory is a man of accomplishment and action, with a positive outlook, a muscular, forward-looking political ethic and a profound love of this community. The tangible results of his life’s work exist all over Prince William County. He is a good man with positive, progressive ideas, like the other great men, the traditional “old school’ Republicans, who built this community, and who, sadly, ,J. Miller has worked so hard to discredit.
John Gregory and his wife have been generous supporters of George Allen for all of the right reasons, as they see them… but Mr. Gregory can speak for himself.
What positive ideas do the Republicans have in Manassas and Prince William now? What are you actually and your cohorts actually for?
And to A. Harrover… what are you doing to contribute to the good life in Manassas, in the wonderful tradition of John Gregory? What are you trying to build, if anything?
January 3, 2007 at 12:29 am
I’ve gotta agree with Delegate Miller, a levy is a slippery slope at best. What about deterrent action? Such as stiff, severe measures against the offenders and their enablers. Those that commence and foster the issues for all the COM are not paying their due share. And before I’m labeled as just another tighty righty, let it be known I’d pay 12 times your proposed “public-safety levy” for a specific term, if this would right all the wrongs we’re now confronted with. A worse fate….. one way or another, we’ll probably pay more than 12X the amount to fix half the mess at hand.
BTW, Thanks for taking the extra time to consider more of the impacts and betterment regarding the “Gateway Partnership”. Without the benefit of due process or public comments it was exactly what should’ve been done under those imperious circumstances. After all, we know high density residential only exacerbates the aforementioned issues.
(Oh yeah, almost forgot to mention the BVBL referral)
January 3, 2007 at 9:29 am
Tudor Hall:
What am I going to contribute? Well, one thing at a time. Please remember that this is very much a learn-as-you-go process. That’s why I’ve stuck this blog up here – to get input. Attacking Delegate Miller and defending your credentials isn’t helping me get input on a very specific problem.
January 3, 2007 at 9:59 am
Good start for a new blog — to have well over 20 substantiatve comments on a first post is definitely a sign of success.
I’m not a big fan of levees. While the intent is to dedicate revenues towards a specific purpose, the end-around play is to reduce the amount of general revenues that would otherwise be dedicated, and regardless of how much levee money shows up it’s still not enough. It creates a hat trick opportunity to raise spending from the general fund and still cry that there’s a shortfall.
If the intent is to improve the public safety environment, we have to ask whether funding is the current problem. It isn’t. These problems didn’t develop because of a lack of money, they came to be as a result of low home ownership rates, illegal immigration, and the cowing of the local populace. More money for enforcement can band-aid the problem (and would certainly help to some degree), but the overall problem is going to persist as long as these realities plague neighborhoods.
Does this require additional zoning inspectors? They may be less costly than FTE police officers. Does it require looking for additional solutions regarding illegal immigration? Those may be cheaper also. So before we arrive at the “we need more police” solution, let’s look more deeply at the problem, find the solution that targets those specific problems, and then start looking at spending.
And since Senator Colgan has so helpfully provided funding to the Manassas Museum from the state budget this year, I figure that in this tight budget year the museum can take a flat budget rather than a big increase and some funding can be diverted to more pressing needs.
January 3, 2007 at 10:29 am
Pleezzee – let’s cut out trying to slime folks and get back to the real
issues – I don’t always agree with Delegate Miller or Andy Harrover,
but I respect their hard work and open minds – they are two of the
good guys.
The issue: How do we pay for rapidly increasing public safety cost?
First rate service is expensive, but second or third rate,
experience shows, eventually cost much more.
One idea was to close the museum system. I don’t agree with it,
but least it is a concrete idea. (The poster of this concept wins
a free coffee with Ann Harrover and Sue Parker!)
January 3, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Big Dog, you are correct in that the costs are skyrocketing on many fronts. It will be a very difficult budget year for the City Council.
I will say however that you fund your departments through the general revenue stream. Dont start hiding the property tax rate increases by calling it a public safety levy.
January 3, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Wow Big Dog…I didn’t know that Sue was such a supporter of the Museum…I thought she was just a great cook. Guess I’ll have to call her for coffee!
Great Blogs, Great ideas, glad I’m not in your shoes…source of the problem needs to be addressed as Greg L. states. I believe that MOST of the problem areas HOA’s have more power than they think they do…and would be best served to have a GREAT ATTORNEY help them out and “punish” the owners of the property.
I know the City will confiscate vehicles if the driver is convicted of a drug offense (or what ever the official verage is)…I don’t understand why more isn’t being done toward land owners keeping their tenents in line!
John and Angela are great folks as well…Helped my father out when he first moved to NVA in the 50’s.
January 3, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Sue is chair of the historic resources board….
January 4, 2007 at 10:30 am
Great start for “My Side of the Fence” – almost motivated to start
my own – “Over the Hedge”.
Anyway, a thread idea for you – What course should the City Council
take with business in home request?
1)Leave the same – with the current restrictions.
2)Add restrictions – such as NO customers at the site and/or not in
the Historic District
3)Eliminate – business in home – period.
This issue flared up in 2006 and, no doubt, will come back again,
perhaps in a new location, in 2007.
–
January 6, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Public safety is not just police and the city is not just GTS. Do we have issues with our fire and paramedic organizations that can be helped with a levy? What about an incentive to retain volunteer folks or add staff around the clock? Lets do all we can to help those folks too. I am glad we have the brave men and women keep the city from burning down around us and save lives. Forget about home based busniess for a while. If the house burns down it is a bigger problem.
January 7, 2007 at 10:13 pm
a tax is a tax is a tax. At least real estate taxes are deductible on Federal returns. If we do the public safety levy, what’s next? If we’re going to tax something new, let be something that tries to get at overcrowding (which is a major part of the cause of the need for the public safety levy).
January 9, 2007 at 9:35 pm
5 cents worth: overcrowding is not the evil incarnate cause of every problem in Manassas. Come on now you have to realize that our public safety personnel are stretched to the max and need help. Firefighting is a staff-intensive job: you need lots of people to fight a fire efectively and safely. Time to “belly up” and get off another buck to ensure the best public safety services possible are available to our City.