Archive for November, 2009

January 6, 2010, 11:13 am

Bernanke and the bubble

Following up on a point I made in Atlanta (along with many others), David Leonhardt takes Ben Bernanke to task for failing to concede that the Fed, himself included, missed the bubble.

But it’s actually a bit worse than that: Bernanke’s presentation suggests that the Fed is still using some of the flawed methodology that helped it miss the bubble.

 

Way back when, here’s what I wrote:

Many bubble deniers point to average prices for the country as a whole, which look worrisome but not totally crazy. When it comes to housing, however, the United States is really two countries, Flatland and the Zoned Zone.

In Flatland, which occupies the middle of the country, it’s easy to build houses. When the demand for houses rises, Flatland metropolitan areas, which don’t really have traditional downtowns, just sprawl some more. As a result, housing prices are basically determined by the cost of construction. In Flatland, a housing bubble can’t even get started.

But in the Zoned Zone, which lies along the coasts, a combination of high population density and land-use restrictions - hence “zoned” - makes it hard to build new houses. So when people become willing to spend more on houses, say because of a fall in mortgage rates, some houses get built, but the prices of existing houses also go up. And if people think that prices will continue to rise, they become willing to spend even more, driving prices still higher, and so on. In other words, the Zoned Zone is prone to housing bubbles.

And Zoned Zone housing prices, which have risen much faster than the national average, clearly point to a bubble.

When I wrote that I was thinking in particular of studies at the Fed that tried to rationalize aggregate national prices, but clearly had no explanation of the much bigger price increases in coastal areas.

Here’s the story of two metro areas, Los Angeles (which has run out of room to sprawl) and Atlanta, the ultimate Sprawl City:

Case-Shiller, BLS

Huge bubble in LA; nothing in Atlanta. Looking at the national data was deeply misleading.

So here’s one of the charts from Bernanke’s paper at the meetings:

Federal Reserve Board of Governors

Yep, he’s using average US housing prices as a bubble indicator. This wouldn’t matter if the division between Flatland and the Zoned Zone was comparable across the advanced world, but it isn’t: other advanced countries lack sprawling metros comparable to Atlanta or Houston. So we aren’t learning much from this comparison.

And the whole thing suggests that the Fed hasn’t learned much about how to identify housing bubbles.

By Emil Franzi, Special to The Explorer
Published:
November-25-2009
Sixty years ago, the late Barry Goldwater was part of a movement in Phoenix called Charter Government that changed their elections to non-partisan. Part of the motivation  was the then-overwhelming dominance of Arizona by the Democratic Party. Like a home-based poker game, it’s always the losers who want to change the rules.

Almost all cities and towns have since converted to formally non-partisan elections, leaving only Tucson until the Republican legislature recently mandated a switch for 2011. The motivation behind this was a belief by many in the local business community that the GOP couldn’t win Tucson elections. Any reasonable appraisal of Arizona election history belies this myth. Arizona (now) leans Republican. Pima County and Tucson (now) lean Democrat. Leaning can be overcome — Tucsonans have chosen seven Republicans in their last six elections. Three of the seven countywide elected officials in Pima are also currently Republicans.

This is the same group who were hustled into believing that Prop 200 was a winner and blew more than enough money on that turkey to have elected both of the other Republican council candidates in the recently close Tucson election.

Another group of perennial losers, minor parties, are pitching the latest political Hula Hoop called the “instant run-off”. This is partly based in the pathological need to replace pluralities with absolute majorities, but mainly in the belief that their candidates would fare better if voters had multiple choices. Most voters have trouble finding one candidate they like now.

From the very beginning, Democrats gamed non-partisan elections better than Republicans who took it seriously. That’s why they dominate in most localities. The nature of their present coalition allows them to do so, particularly where there are strong public employee unions. They also developed an unofficial methodology for running local governments, claiming non-partisanship and sucked Republicans in.

The basic problem for conservatives is that, while developing enough think tanks about government to counter liberal group think on our college campuses on national subjects, they have devoted little effort to how to govern locally at the city and school board level. They have allowed the non-partisan myth to continue. Only recently have groups like the Goldwater Institute begun paying attention to local governments.

Check recent elections in Marana, Oro Valley and Sahuarita, and you will note the overt partisanship of the local Democratic Party. Good — hopefully that will get Republicans off their duffs. We need clear choices.

That occurred this election in Phoenix, where the non-partisan pox originated. The 6th District election became so partisan that the local media began identifying the supposedly non-partisan candidates with a (D) and (R) after their names. Sorry, Barry, but at least the Republican won, 55-45.

It’s past time we clarified positions on local issues and labeled them properly, one of the advantages to formal partisan elections. Another comes from my old friend Tom Volgy, former Tucson Mayor (D) and Professor of PoliSci  at the University of Arizona. He notes partisan elections motivate more people to find candidates and increases voter interest and turn out. He also won three out of four with that system.

Another solid reason is prevention of vote fraud. Partisan elections have built-in poll watchers from at least two sides. Who replaces them — “neutral” bureaucrats?

The Democrats on the City Council are challenging the constitutionality of the new state law mandating both non-partisan and by ward elections. While I philosophically support the latter, I hope they win. I kinda like Councilman-elect Steve Kozachik and there’s no way he’s coming back from a lefty Ward where he was just beaten regardless of label. Ironically, it’s his supporters who got the rules changed.

Hear Emil Franzi and Tom Danehy Saturdays 1-4 p.m. on KVOI 1030 AM.

For Immediate Release                                                 Contact: Becky Bracken 
November 23, 2009                 (602) 462-5000 x233
Goldwater Institute Sues Tempe Over Handouts for Aquarium

Subsidy violates same constitutional provisions as controversial CityNorth mall
 
Phoenix–Today the Goldwater Institute asked a court to strike down an agreement between the City of Tempe and the developer of Sea Life Aquarium, a children’s theme park at Arizona Mills Mall. The agreement provides tax subsidies and concessions to the private business in violation of the Arizona Constitution and state law.

The Arizona Constitution bans giving subsidies to benefit a private business under the “Gift Clause.” The Equal Protection and Special Laws Clauses of the Arizona Constitution also prohibit these types of subsidy deals. In addition, the Arizona Legislature recently passed a statute prohibiting all retail sales tax subsidies in Maricopa and Pinal Counties, and another restricting sales tax subsidies throughout the state. The Sea Life subsidy runs afoul of both the Arizona Constitution and the state laws.
Subsidies offered to Sea Life, a division of UK-based Merlin Entertainments Group, the second largest operator of attractions in the world behind Disney, include rebates on all construction sales taxes to the developer; rebates on all retail taxes to the developer up to $78,000; rebates on planning, engineering, and building safety processing fees up to $70,000; and special assistance from the city on permitting, planning and other regulatory hurdles required of other, non-favored developers and business owners.
Goldwater Institute attorney Carrie Ann Sitren is representing Nick Coons, owner of Tempe-based Red Seven Computers; Interior Concepts, a Tempe business; and Tempe taxpayers Jack Gibson and Chuck Kirkhuff.
“Our client, Mr. Coons, was not offered any assistance from the city to get his business off the ground,” Ms. Sitren said. “The Arizona Constitution is crystal clear on giving taxpayer money to businesses and industries–it isn’t legal.”
This agreement represents a seismic shift in position by Tempe Mayor Hugh Hallman who spoke out against a similar $97.4 million subsidy from the City of Phoenix to build the CityNorth mall. Mr. Hallman even contributed to an article on the subject that appeared in the Arizona Republic September 29, 2009.
“When government gives taxpayer money to a favored business, it must tax the rest of the public with that missing share,” Mr. Hallman wrote. “Small businesses, or those less connected to government leaders, or those who cannot hire lawyers and lobbyists to fight for their own subsidies, are left holding the bag.”
The Goldwater Institute filed suit against the CityNorth subsidy in 2007 and is awaiting a decision from the Arizona Supreme Court on its legality. The Arizona Court of Appeals unanimously declared the deal illegal in December 2008 and until the Arizona Supreme Court reverses that decision, it is the law and clearly makes the Sea Life subsidy illegal.
“The fact that the City of Tempe is offering these illegal subsidies while a similar case is being considered is proof that the courts need to put a stop to this practice once and for all,” continued Ms. Sitren. “They can do that by saying the Arizona Constitution’s Gift Clause provision means what it says, that no subsidy shall be given to benefit a private business.”
Construction is already underway on the Sea Life Aquarium. It is slated to open in June 2010.
This lawsuit, Coons v. Hallman, was filed in Maricopa County Superior Court by the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.
For more information on this and other Goldwater Institute lawsuits visit www.goldwaterinstitute.org/litigation. The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog supported by people who are committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty.

Power generation, solar, coal fired generation, cap and trade the Arizona Corporation Commission aren’t typically topics that would get my attention but after catching Dave Modeer’s commentary on Arizona Illustrated I started to put a number of pieces together and they have my attention now.

The Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) is an elected body that oversees a number of aspects of our daily life. The ACC sets power rates, determines how and what utilities market, they set standards for solar generation, they approve or deny new power plants and determine how power lines are located and established. Issues like solar tax credits to individuals and companies, 15% targets for renewable power generation resources by 2025 and EPA efforts to reduce CO-2 emissions from coal fired plants are going to cost us all a lot of money.

Goldwater Institute recently challened the ACC’s solar power regulations:

The ACC passed its renewable energy standards in 2006, setting a target for utilities to be getting 15 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2025. Part of that was for distributed generation (rooftop solar systems) that would be paid for, in part, by rebates from the utilities to help offset the cost of the panels. Those rebates are funded by a fee that is collected by the utilities from all customers based on the amount of electricity they use, but capped at $3.74 per month per customer.

The institute took up the lawsuit on behalf of several APS customers. It contended the ACC did not have the constitutional authority to set energy policy, and that it should have been left up to the Arizona Legislature.

The threat of the original lawsuit created a challenge for the state as it pursued solar companies to come to the region. An overturned renewable energy standard would have meant a flagging market for solar panels in Arizona at a time when other states were adopting similar programs….

“These regulations may be the largest intrusion into private business in Arizona’s history, and consumers are picking up the tab,” said Clint Bolick, director of the Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation at the Goldwater Institute.

Stay tuned for much more on this topic in the weeks to come. Pay close attention to the next ACC elections because their outcome will hit your pocket book.

Best Place to Raise Your Kids: Arizona

Tucson

Nearest city: Tucson
Population: 523,006
Median family income: $47,472
Runners-up: Yuma, Casas Adobes

Tucson, surrounded by mountains and the beauty of the Sonora desert, is an affordable city that is home to the University of Arizona and University Medical Center, which are among its largest employers. It’s also a relatively affordable place to live, with more than 100 parks, a good public transportation system, and many public and private golf courses.

Published on Friday, November 20, 2009

 
The results of this month’s Tucson city council election shows the electorate is not happy with the status quo. A large part of the campaign focused on incompetence and a lack of economic opportunities. It’s time for Tucson and its leaders to start making the changes that voters and the business community called for during the campaign, and they deserve.

So we thought, alright big-talking radio guys, what would we do if we were kings for a day? Here is what the Wake Up, Tucson Kingdom would look like:

1. The employment mix would have fewer government jobs. The largest employment sector in Southern Arizona is  government — 21 percent of our region’s workers are military, schools or universities and city or county government. By comparison, Phoenix, Denver and Seattle weigh in at between 13 and 15 percent. Tucson’s second largest regional employment sector, at 17 percent, is the service sector. Low on the list are tech jobs, manufacturing and financial service. Not a great stat for a city that isn’t even a state capital.

These lopsided numbers demonstrate that Tucson does way too much handing money back and forth. Fresh capitalist dollars are what we desperately need to grow our economy. Gone are the days when we can just rely on construction jobs to raise the tide. A focus on industries that make things, move things or sell things is needed now more than ever.

2. Roll out the welcome mat to business. An anti-big box ordinance, hostile neighborhood interactions, NIMBYism run rampant and a maze of rules discourage all but the most committed entrepreneurs. Sprinkle in years of regulations, a culture of saying “no” along with zoning and land-use codes designed to discourage the entrepreneurial spirit and you get enterprise exoduses. Businesses are leaving the city or worse, they’re leaving the region altogether.

Last week, we had a prominent local guest on our radio show who talked of how it took 14 development plan reviews and more than nine years to launch his projects. He went so far as to suggest California can be a more business-friendly environment than Tucson. California? Wasn’t Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities (TREO) targeting California companies to try to persuade them to relocate here? How’s that for irony?

3. Less of Pima County would be unincorporated. Pima County has 36 percent of its population living in unincorporated areas outside of cities and towns. In Maricopa County it’s only 6 percent. These are important numbers because our region’s portion of state shared revenues are calculated using these population numbers. These numbers cost our region $60 million to $80 million per year that goes to our friends up north. That pays for a lot of over-budget underpasses.

Annexation and incorporations have been attempted over the decades in Pima County. With minor exceptions, it appears we are at a stalemate. To fix this, the Legislature will have to go against the powerful League of Arizona Cities and Towns to amend state law requiring approval of a jurisdiction to start a new municipality within 6 miles of an existing one. Adjust the law and watch for the Town of Vail to be the first to incorporate. Followed by renewed efforts in Tortolita, Casas Adobes and Catalina Foothills. Even Green Valley might go for it.

4. More competition among cities and towns. Maricopa County has 16 municipalities compared to Pima County’s five: Tucson, South Tucson, Marana, Sahaurita and Oro Valley. More cities translate into more competition as each fights for tax dollars. As Tucson fiddles over Rio Nuevo and rainwater harvesting, Oro Valley, Sahuarita and Marana are picking off businesses and creating places where people want to live. Marana’s now the home of professional golf’s Accenture Match Play Championship, a new Ritz-Carlton Resort and, possibly, a world-class sports stadium.

5. Bureaucracies would be shook up. Doing the same thing over and over again just doesn’t cut it anymore. The world is moving too fast and is too competitive not to change. As the late Gerald Burrill, retired Episcopal Bishop of Chicago, said, “The difference between a rut and a grave is the depth.”

Southern Arizona suffers from a  lack of accountability and vision from a many of the important business groups that represent the rest of us.  While these hand-picked, resume building boards may ensure that things keep humming along, it is at the expense of the rest of that are lower on the food chain. Not all these are bad some do great work. You be the judge based on the actions and results.

Those of you in leadership roles on these chambers, bureaus and associations; take a hard look at who you’re helping and who you’re hurting.  You have a fiduciary, financial and social responsibility to all of us to ask the tough questions, demand transparency, hold your group accountable. 

For the common business owners, it’s time to really reflect on whether you’re continued support is manifested in a thriving business environment.  It’s time to bring accountability one check at a time.

Contact Joe Higgins at joe@joehigginsinc.com or Chris DeSimone at provenpartners@comcast.net. They’re the hosts of “Wake Up Tucson,” which airs 6 - 8 a.m. weekdays on The Voice KVOI 1030-AM. Check out their blog at www.TucsonChoices.com.

Standing on the corner watching life pass by Tucson
MY OPINION: Lack of will
By Lionel Waxman, Inside Tucson Business
Published on Friday, November 20, 2009
What’s this I hear about Tucson wanting to bring in business and industry? Is this a major change in policy or am I misinformed? Up until now all I heard from “the powers” was that growth would strain resources, annoy the indigenous animals and contribute to climate change.

But Tucson always seemed above mere commerce, above crass profit, infinitely diverse. Oh, we have our dreams, expensive dreams, but dreams nonetheless - the crosstown parkway and downtown redevelopment. They will happen when the Tucson Citizen returns to the Circle K.

“But why is that,” I asked myself. Is Tucson too small? Is it too big? It can’t be just right or Boeing would have picked here instead of Charleston, S.C., as the site for the assembly plant to build its new 787 Dreamliner and brought with it those 3,000 jobs. Charleston is smaller than Tucson, with about two-thirds the population. We could use a business like that here. We have 40,000 people out of work. Granted, 3,000 is a drop in the bucket, but if you’re in that bucket it matters to you. Then there are all the collateral businesses that would supply Boeing providing another few thousand jobs.

But small doesn’t seem to be a disqualification. Fargo, N.D., with only 90,589 residents just landed a major Microsoft campus. Why would Microsoft go to North Dakota? It isn’t likely to be for the weather.

And small didn’t seem to put off Korean automaker Kia, which is going to build a major manufacturing facility in West Point in Georgia near the Alabama state line. The population is just 3,571. Surely, everyone in West Point will be working for Kia or one of its suppliers.

Each of these companies’ moves will rescue their respective cities or towns from the recession. The new jobs will mean food and clothing sales, eventually new homes and cars.

Charleston and Fargo have airports that will probably get improved airline connections as demand warrants. West Point is an 80-mile shot down Interstate 85 from Atlanta where there is already excellent air service. Tucson is a scenic 125-mile drive away from Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix and Tucson has an airport that would be better served if the passenger traffic were here.

The cost of living in Fargo or West Point has got to be laughable compared to anyplace on the coast. Neither was put off by a lack of fine restaurants and upscale facilities, which will undoubtedly come to satisfy new demand.

There is one common characteristic of these three venues that the arriving companies all agreed was critical. They are in right-to-work states. They all want to be free of the thugocracy of unions. Oh, if only Arizona were a right-to-work state. Hey, wait. It is.

Comparing Tucson with the three locations that hit the jackpot, there are few obvious differences. In fact, Tucson has better facilities and an educated and multilingual work force as well. Everything about Tucson says we should be getting such industries here. We have the stores, restaurants, rail and highway connections, and proximity to markets. We certainly have the weather and a plentiful availability of utilities of every kind.

We have it all. Except…

We don’t have the will to do it. Tucson grows only by virtue of retirees who come here for golf, sun and a steak. They don’t care about bringing industry to Tucson. We can barely get them interested in supporting the schools in which they have no kids.

Tucson has a disproportionately large number of people who have little to gain from the economic success of the region. They don’t really care what happens to downtown Tucson. If it is uninviting, they just won’t go there.

They allow the election of officials who are incompetent, who can’t get things done, who waste taxpayers’ money, and mostly stand around dumbfounded when sports teams — and now probably, the annual gem and mineral shows — leave.

Alexis de Toqueville is attributed with the saying that people get the government they deserve. Pogo famously said, “We has [sic] met the enemy and he is us.” Now what are we going to do about it?

Contact Lionel Waxman at territorial@waxmanmedia or visit his website: www.newflashpoint.com.

Tucson City Budget:  2010 and beyond

Let’s understand the magnitude of the problem.

The FY 2010 budget has a “Structural Imbalance” of about $45 million or 10% of general fund revenues.

The FY 2010 budget is ‘balanced’ only because of one-time factors; these go away next year.

Borrowing, Rio Nuevo loan repayment, Legal settlement, Personnel savings = $29 million

Defeat of ‘Home Rule’ may prohibit the use of $20 million for at least a year.

Rating Agencies expect ‘Unreserved Fund Balance’ to be 10% or credit rating may fall;
Currently, this fund is about 4.5%; need to ADD $23 million to this fund ‘promptly’

FY 2014 is when budget is forecast to be ‘Structurally Balanced’

Sun Tran & Van Tran

These require a $32 million subsidy from the General Fund – on top of a large subsidy from the federal government.  Can we afford to maintain subsidy at this level?  Perhaps we should consider a combination of fare increases and route reorganizations.  Currently, fares make up only 22% of the actual cost to operate the program.  Yes, fares were raised from $1.00 to $1.25 recently.   In these economic times we may need to consider raising fares to a more appropriate level.  I view this as a ‘User Fee”; you pay for it if you use it.  There may be routes that are underutilized.  We may need to put some routes on hiatus until the budget in healed.

Action Plan:  1) Research transportation systems in similar cities to determine level of subsidy and fare level.  This may show that Tucson is out of line and could help support a fare adjustment.  2) Examine utilization of routes.  We may find that some have very limited utilization.  Make a list and take a hard look at the bottom end.

Parks and Recreation – User Fees

An examination of the FY 2010 Adopted Budget reveals that fees to participate in many Park & Rec programs represent less than 10% of the actual cost to run the program:

Adaptive Recreation = 10%
Aquatics = 3%
Recreation Centers = 6%
Sports = 9%
Teens = 0%
Tennis = 4%
Therapeutic Recreation = 1%

I view these as a ‘User Fee”.  I believe participants will understand if they are asked to pay a larger portion of the actual cost.  In 2006, many of these fees were actually reduced.  Perhaps we at least consider rolling back to the 2006 fee schedule?  Is it possible to maintain these programs at the same level yet lower the cost?  We may find that there is a large pool of volunteers who would very much enjoy facilitating many of these programs – paid staff is not the only way to make these happen.

Action Plan:  1) Review pre-2006 fees.  2)  Research feasibility of volunteer program

Outside Agencies

This area is ripe for favoritism and facilitating ineffective agencies.  This needs to be a thorough and arms-length competitive process.  If you are effective you receive more, if you are ineffective you get nothing.  There is a perception that once your organization gets on the list you are on the list forever.  There needs to be political will to remove ineffective agencies.  I work with and financially support the Community Foundation for Southern Arizona (CFSA).  CFSA has in place a competitive process to evaluate grant applications from charitable organizations.  This includes site visits, program evaluations, financial review, effectiveness evaluation vs. similar organizations, fundraising…  Perhaps CFSA would be willing to directly assist the City with applications.  At the very least we need to adopt this model.

Pension and Retirement Plans
The FY 2010 CAFR will reveal that the various pension and retirement plans are $700 million under-funded: we have promised employees and retirees benefits that exceed the money set aside by $700 million.  This is a drain on the City’s resources.  To show you the impact:  If these plans were fully funded, this would free up about $30 million/year.  Question: Why do we offer pension and retirement plans?  Answer: to attract and retain the best possible employees.  My contention is that these plans have become much too generous relative to the private sector and can be modified.  If employees wish to continue the benefits, we need to ask employees to contribute a larger portion of the actual cost.  If employees do not wish to contribute more, then benefits need to be modified according to the level the City and employees can afford.  I believe City employees have opted out of the Social Security system.  The City would save a significant amount of money if we discontinued the Pension plans and transitioned employees to Social Security.  The vast majority of private industry has terminated their defined benefit plans and converted to defined contribution plans.  Perhaps this should be considered.

As an example, fire and police employees pay a flat rate of 5% of salary – the City makes up what is required to fund the pension program: currently over 22%.  Police and fire employees need to contribute more: I suggest a percentage of the cost of the plan.  Here is the problem:  The pension plan for police and fire is controlled by state statute and can only be amended by the Legislature – Tucson cannot alter it on its own.  So this will take some coordination with other cities and the Legislature.  You can bet the labor unions will have a say.  But is has to be done: the plans are way too generous and are like vampires on the cities’ budgets.

Tucson Supplemental Retirement System (TSRS): This is the plan for most city employees who are not police or fire.  We do control these plans.  We must consider the full range of options to bring costs in line.  New employees pay 40% of the cost, while longer-term employees pay only 5% of salary.

Other Post Employment benefits (OPEB): for some reason we have agreed to pay health insurance for many employees after they leave the City’s employment to cover the gap until Medicare begins.  Why do we do this?  Private employers do not do this.  This benefit is on a ‘pay-as-you-go’ basis; we have set aside zero funds to pay for this.

Action Plan:

1)  Consider he full range of options for TSRS:
Perform a review of pension programs relative to private employers
Ask all TSRS employees to pay 40% or more of pension costs
Review OPEB and consider terminating or modifying this program
Give serious consideration to transitioning to a defined contribution plan

2)  Police and Fire plans:  Begin discussions with other municipalities regarding modifying these programs.  Present a unified front to the Legislature.  Work with the Legislature to modify these.  Given the current makeup of the Legislature, I believe we have a window of opportunity now.

3)  OPEB: give strong consideration to modifying OPEB

Self Insurance Fund
This fund has a $18 million negative fund balance and had a operating loss of $6 million for FY 2008.  At this level, this could hurt our credit rating.  If we get hit with a large loss, we have not set aside sufficient assets to pay and would have to take from general fund.  Some years ago, the City switched from buying insurance from outside insurance companies and decided to self fund.  I am sure it looked good on paper.  The problem is that the political temptations are simply too great to operate this properly.  The Council has chosen to charge City departments rates lower than what is necessary and the large deficit has built up over time.  In addition, there is political temptation to dip into the pool of cash to balance the budget.

Even if the incumbents (and I count Fimbres in that number) get re-elected, there’s no way that they’ll be able to continue with the Pushme-Pullyou, scattershot approach to revitalization. They’re going to have to scale back, set priorities, stick to them and, most of all, stop trying to be everything to everybody. It’s human nature to want to be generous (and to be liked for being generous), but the days of free spending and pet projects are long gone.

It’s probably not a lot of fun to be elected to office, only to find that you only have three major obligations: maintaining healthy police and fire departments, fixing the streets and figuring out ways to pay for the two aforementioned items. Even if Prop 200 didn’t pass, the budget shortfall will force the council to severely narrow its focus.