I’ll take the PubDog’s 3-step process of determining whether a public purpose is served by the City keeping these local organizations on the public dole.

Just because stupidity and wastefulness are widespread doesn’t justify it. In fact, that probably explains in large part the financial problems so many levels of government are having, starting with the Feds (including Bush’s “faith based initiative” funding) and working down to Park Ridge, the Park District and District 64.

As I said, so long as Brickton, the Sr. Center, Teen Center, etc. live off what they earn and what private donors will contribute, they can wallow in mediocrity and inefficiency – and lose money – for as long as they want. But if they dip into the public treasury, then the public body should effectively “own” them and they should be as accountable to the taxpayers as the government itself.

If “12.5K” of tax dollars is going to be spent by the City, then it should be spent for “City” things like road repair, flood relief, etc. – not “for a program that does provide services to PR children.”

We took the low-hanging fruit precisely because we wanted to show that balancing the budget might be able to be done as simply and easily as 8 cuts – instead of 100 or 1,000 cuts.

Based on what we currently know, we would have no problem voting “yes” on the cuts we proposed. But we also have no problem with Staff or the Council coming up with their own alternatives, so long as the result is a balanced budget.

That being said, if one of those cuts isn’t the 100% pass through of the water rate increasee, we would seriously question what cuts were substituted for that one.

So what you seem to be saying is that absolutely no “public” money should be going to organizations like this unless they meet your driteria for overarching public purpose. What exactly is that definition? For many it would seem to be whether or not it applies to them.

The world must be a very frustrating place for you to live. Our tax dollars are given out to all kinds of private organizations. Ever heard of the Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)? The Department of Health and Human Services gives out money to organizations like United Way all the time. You must have gone crazy with George Bush and his “faith based initiatives”. That was over 3 Billion if I am not mistaken.

Do I find all of these programs to be or overarching public purpose? No but some of them I have never used and many others I am very greateful do not even apply. I do bleieve there are children and adults that are helped and find value in Brickton or the Senior Center or Teen Center…etc.

I guess it depends on how one looks at it. I find it difficult to get all worked up over 12.5K for a program that does provide services to PR children when PD found 900K in one project. Why is it that as soon as we have budget issues the first place some go is to the community organizations. Put another way, addressing the no bid Halliburton Iraq contracts would probably fund S.O. for the next 100 years.

I have no problem with Brickton relying on private donors all they want. But if the people who started Brickton did so with the intention and expectation that they would be getting tax dollars, then a pox on them and on any elected official who votes to give them money that could and should be used for PUBLIC purposes, not given to a private “business.”

And a half-baked “art gallery” cannot be equated with the Special Olympics, although I might very well be willing to apply the same standards to the S.O. because I’m not exactly sure what overarching public purpose is being served by them that warrants support via taxation.

I love PD’s budget reduction exercise. I think it is hysterical and pathetic that a blog comes out with a map to reduce the budget yet we hear nothing from our elected officials. But even PD’s analysis, only 73K comes from funding for community groups. Almost 50% of the reduction comes from one freakin’ project. There has to be more projects that can be delayed or eliminated to reduce the budget shortfall. As previously stated, they could skipped repaving my street.

For example, check out Brickton Art Center on GuideStar.org. In its fiscal year 2007 (the last Form 990 posted), it shows almost 48% of its revenues coming from contributions (public and private) and only 52% from operations. That means Brickton is on welfare…and performing about as well as you’d expect a welfare recipient to perform, seeing how it booked a $37,111 loss even with all those public and private donations.

What that tells me is that either Brickton provides goods and services for which there is no viable market, or that Brickton is badly managed. Or both. So why should the taxpayers be forced to subsidize it, especially when there are so many other demands and uses for the money the city keeps giving it?

No, you can’t equate Mayor Schmidt’s part-time wages, or even the part-time wages of the aldermen, with the wages of full-time employees who have to live off what the City pays them. But it’s about $%@&-ing time WE THE PEOPLE who are PAYING them to do a job actually started doing their $%@&-ing job!

For Hock to even propose a $2 million deficit budget is inexcusable. And for the city council to pass it is outrageous.  Instead of those aldermen throwing candy to the crowd in the Memorial Day parade, they should have been dodging rotten fruit and vegetables from the spectators.

PW is absolutely right on passing through increased costs to service users at 100% of the cost, starting with water rates. And Frank Wsol should take his political head out of his political a** and support that, or else tell the taxpayers the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about why he doesn’t want to raise water rates – because this b.s. about “the taxpayers have already paid for the water” is so ridiculous on its face that either Wsol is a nut case or he’s a bold-faced liar.  Which one is it, Mr. Wsol?