|
| Unfortunately, one of the tasks that falls to me as mayor is debunking what is often written about Richmond. Maybe it’s my imagination, but it seems that Richmond all too often is a target of media for undeserved negativity, often bolstered with one or more quotes from one of our all too easy to find disgruntled but uninformed residents.
Both articles are copied at the end of this email.
Richmond has a spending problem
I’ll start off with “Richmond has a spending problem” by Gary Peterson, the Contra Costa Times’ replacement for recently retired Tom Barnidge. Like Barnidge, I have to give Peterson recognition for at least calling me for an interview before writing his most recent column, but I don’t understand why he felt compelled to continue the Times’ periodic bashing of Richmond and apparently did not understand what I was trying to tell him.
Peterson started off with a Measure U lamentation:
Sixteen months ago, Richmond voters approved Measure U, a half-cent increase in the sales tax touted as an answer to the city's $7 million budget shortfall and much-needed TLC for its crumbling roads… Beyond that is the question of how residents who voted for Measure U would feel about approving new taxes, given that the budget remains an issue and the funds that were supposed to remove the shake, rattle and roll from the city's roadways appear to have taken a detour.
The actual title for Measure U that appeared on the ballot contained 36 words, only two of which mentioned “street paving.”
Shall the City of Richmond adopt a one-half cent transactions and use (sales) tax, to fund and maintain essential city services, such as public safety, public health and wellness programs, city youth programs and street paving?
In fact, the first year’s proceeds from Measure U were used for all these things (“essential city services, such as public safety, public health and wellness programs, city youth programs and street paving”). The budget for street maintenance in this year (FY 2015-16) was substantially increased from FY 2014-15. Peterson could have looked at the budget (http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/34458) and found, for example, that the number of “city blocks resurfaced” rose from 80 to 96, and the number of potholes filled from 2,100 to 3,000. The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) was projected to rise from 62 to 63. The only thing the City did not do, with an abundance of caution, was to immediately float a bond for street repairs that would have tied up Measure U revenue for many years to come.
It turns out that Peterson’s real beef is with the prospect of raising taxes, which clearly he opposes. He says Richmond spends too much, but he offers no opinion on exactly what should be cut or why Richmond’s spending is egregious compared to other similar cities. Like most cities, the bulk of Richmond’s budget goes for public safety, and most of that for police. If there is one thing Richmond residents agree on, it is that they want less crime, and they support an adequately funded police force.
The taxes I have proposed are not exactly regressive, and they would be largely paid by people who don’t live in Richmond. One proposal, the tax on marijuana cultivation already exists but is not being collected. Measure V of 2010 provided for a 5% business license tax on any kind of marijuana sales. By some accounts, Richmond is the marijuana cultivation capital of the Bay Area with some 50 commercial cultivation operations serving a wholesale market that extends to far more than just Richmond “patients.” The potential tax revenue from sales of marijuana gown in Richmond could be in the millions.
Another opportunity I have discussed is raising Richmond’s real estate transfer tax. This is a tax typically paid for by the seller of real property. Richmond currently levies a modest 0.7% ($7.00 per $1,000), far below what many East Bay cities charge, as shown below. This is not a tax paid by low income residents, nor is it a tax paid for by renters.
Alameda |
$12.00 |
per thousand on full value |
Ordinance No. 2987 AMC |
Albany |
$11.50 |
per thousand on full value |
Ordinance No. 02-60 |
Berkeley |
$15.00 |
per thousand on full value |
Ordinance No. 6072-NS |
Emeryville |
$12.00 |
per thousand on full value |
Ordinance No. 14-011 |
Oakland |
$15.00 |
per thousand on full value |
Ordinance No. 11628 CMS |
Piedmont |
$13.00 |
per thousand on full value |
Ordinance No. 546 NS |
Raising the real property transfer tax to parity with other East Bay cities could result in millions of dollars of critical revenue for Richmond.
It is puzzling why Peterson apparently believes it is okay for Berkeley or Oakland to levy taxes that are more than twice that of Richmond, but for Peterson, “Richmond has a spending problem all right.”
This bashing of Richmond for its financial challenges is a continuation of what the Contra Costa Times has been doing for over a year. See Contra Costa Times editorial: No more excuses for ignoring Richmond's fiscal crisis, December 30, 2015. I have always acknowledged we have challenges, and I even invited Dan Borenstein to give a very good presentation to the City Council last year on pensions and OPEB unfunded liabilities. We followed up with a presentation of a five-year budget model in December 2015. Later this month, we will update that and begin discussing long-term solutions, one of which is looking at the revenue side.
Meanwhile, we produced budget surpluses for FY 2014-15, and the mid-year budget report for 2015-16 indicates we are o track for a $1.5 million surplus. On December 23, 2015, Standard & Poor issued the following:
SAN FRANCISCO (Standard & Poor's) Dec. 23, 2015--Standard & Poor's Ratings Services affirmed its 'BBB+' issuer credit rating (ICR) on Richmond, Calif., and its 'BBB' long-term rating and underlying rating (SPUR) on the city's 2009 lease revenue bonds. At the same time, we removed the ratings from CreditWatch, where they had been placed with negative implications on Sept. 1, 2015. The outlook is stable. The CreditWatch action reflects our view of the city's resolution of JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.'s early termination option of the swaps related to the pension funding bonds series 2005B-1 and B-2, eliminating an immediate contingent liquidity risk
There is plenty of other good news out there, including a reduction in overall crime. Through February 2016, Part 1 crime shows an overall decrease of 10% compared to the same time period last year. Residential burglary (home break-ins) show a 48% decrease. While firearm assaults show an increase – 14 incidents, compared to 6 incidents at this time last year -- shots fired across Richmond, too, are down 13 percent compared to the 24-month average.
But you won’t read about it in the Contra Costa Times.
In Richmond, both race and gender really do matter
The second item that caught my eye in today’s Contra Costa Times was a guest commentary by Kate Karpilow, entitled “In Richmond, both race and gender really do matter.” Karpilow can’t even get the title of the program right, writing, “One reason for this turnaround is an ambitious project called Health in All Places, or HiAP.” Actually, Kate, HiAP stands for “Health in All Policies,” not “Health in All Places.”
Karpilow’s complaint is that HiAP does not address race and gender. I wonder if she actually read it. Take a look at the latest report at http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/documentcenter/view/36978. Read it:
Health equity refers to efforts to ensure that all people have full and equal access to opportunities that enable them to lead healthy lives, while respecting differences that include but are not limited to culture, language, race, gender, sexuality, economic status, citizenship, ability, age and religion. (1) Health equity entails focused societal efforts to address avoidable inequalities by equalizing the conditions for health for all groups, especially for those who have experienced socioeconomic disadvantage or historical injustices. (2) These communities include, but are not limited to, women, people of color, low-income individuals and families, individuals who have been incarcerated, individuals with disabilities, individuals with mental health conditions, children, youth and young adults, seniors, immigrants and refugees, individuals who are limited-English proficient (LEP), and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, intersex and asexual (LGBTQIA) communities, or combinations of these populations. Health equity, for example includes, “these communities, but are not limited to, women, people of color, low-income individuals and families, individuals who have been incarcerated, individuals with disabilities, individuals with mental health conditions, children, youth and young adults, seniors, immigrants and refugees, individuals who are limited-English proficient (LEP), and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, intersex and asexual (LGBTQIA) communities, or combinations of these populations. I think that covers race and gender, but maybe I missed something.
Peterson: Richmond has a spending problem
By Gary Peterson, gpeterson@bayareanewsgroup.com
Posted: 03/04/2016 03:08:30 PM PST | Updated: about 18 hours ago
Sixteen months ago, Richmond voters approved Measure U, a half-cent increase in the sales tax touted as an answer to the city's $7 million budget shortfall and much-needed TLC for its crumbling roads.
On Tuesday, the City Council discussed five new taxes that might address an $8 million budget gap.
Diagnosing the city's chronic cash-flow ills, it appears, is a simple task. There are only three choices: 1) Richmond takes in too little, 2) Richmond spends too much, 3) all of the above.
I'm partial to No. 2. But Mayor Tom Butt deserves his say.
"Trying to make a budget for a city, it's not an easy thing to do," Butt said. "Trying to predict from year to year, property tax, sales tax, it's not easy. It's like trying to predict the stock market. You do the best you can."
Richmond Mayor Tom Butt speaks after being sworn in by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom at the Richmond Memorial Auditorium and Convention Center on Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2015. (Jane Tyska/Bay Area News Group)
If diagnosing Richmond's fiscal ills is a simple thing, treating them is not. For starters, there is hardly a consensus on the City Council on how best to make Richmond solvent.
Councilwoman Gayle McLaughlin has addressed spending cuts this way: "I don't think the answer is austerity."
Said Councilman Nat Bates on Tuesday: "We have to evaluate how we spend."
Irresistible force, meet immovable object.
Those taxes, by the way, include a soda tax (a similar tax was defeated in 2012), a real estate tax, a litter tax and taxes for the cultivation and sale of marijuana -- which, it was suggested by Vice Mayor Eduardo Martinez, could be "not moral" given that some people use marijuana for medicinal purposes.
Beyond that is the question of how residents who voted for Measure U would feel about approving new taxes, given that the budget remains an issue and the funds that were supposed to remove the shake, rattle and roll from the city's roadways appear to have taken a detour.
"Frankly, I think it's too early to tell," Butt said when asked about street repairs. "We've only collected a half-year's revenue from (Measure U). The short answer is no, the bulk of that revenue was not directed right into street repairs. But this is a tax that has no sunset. If after five years we see that resources for street repair have declined, then I think it's legitimate to raise that criticism."
It's complicated. Butt portrays Richmond as a confounding riddle, a "poor city" with low-income residents living in houses with low real estate values -- and, thanks to Measure U, the second-highest sales tax rate in Contra Costa County. Meanwhile, polls show the No. 1 concern for residents is crime.
"It's going to be real difficult for us to cut the police force," Butt said. "If you don't cut police, what does that leave? It leaves libraries and public works, recreation, parks, streets and street maintenance, and nobody wants to cut there, either."
Got it. No easy choices.
But there is something more daunting than tough choices, and that's a perpetual economic crisis in which no amount of money ever seems to be enough to balance the books. If Richmond were a relative, forever asking for money and then crying poor, you would take that deadbeat off scholarship at some point.
Richmond has a spending problem all right. It spends too much time discussing ways to wring more money from its residents.
Do you have a column topic for Gary? Contact him at 925-952-5053 or gpeterson@bayareanewsgroup.com. Follow him at Twitter.com/garyscribe.
Guest commentary: In Richmond, both race and gender really do matter
By Kate Karpilow, guest commentary© 2016 Bay Area News Group
Posted: 03/04/2016 07:18:31 AM PST | Updated: 2 days ago
Richmond's motto -- the city of pride and purpose -- is morphing into far more than a snappy slogan.
Compared to 10 years ago, homicides are down and civic pride is way up.
One reason for this turnaround is an ambitious project called Health in All Places, or HiAP.
Through HiAP, hundreds of people are working together, asking themselves: How can all of our residents be healthy, safe and connected?
Richmond's HiAP is one of many efforts throughout the state and nation to promote health equity. It's "based on the idea that health starts ... where people live, work, learn, and play, and that community health is influenced by more than individual choices."
The results are rolling in.
Funds have been raised to build a Unity Park and "green" public spaces. Scholarships are being funded through an investment agreement with Chevron. Projects that reduce gun violence have received national attention. And more.
Addressing conditions that promote health for people of color is a central purpose -- and contribution -- of HiAP. Not only because Richmond is one of the Bay Area's most diverse communities but also because HiAP recognizes that racism can negatively affect health.
Unfortunately, HiAP took what one leader called a "gender neutral" approach and didn't consistently examine how race and gender can both affect the health of Richmond's residents.
This doesn't make sense.
Even in 2016, boys and girls are raised differently; and men and women often have different occupational patterns, parenting responsibilities and caregiving roles. And most single parents are single moms.
To understand health, both race and gender matter.
Consider what was overlooked in Richmond.
There's not one recommendation in HiAP to prevent domestic violence.
Nor are there recommendations to reduce the incidence of sexual assault, even though in 2014 there were more reported rapes (63) than homicides (11).
There are no HiAP proposals to reduce prostitution -- to help the women (and it's mostly women) find employment off the streets and to assist the neighborhoods where they work.
And there's no attention in HiAP to the special needs single parents might have -- related to housing, child care and community services -- even though single parents head 40 percent of all family households with children in Richmond.
In interviews, city officials pointed out that women have been fully involved in HiAP -- participating in public forums and volunteering for projects.
But there's a difference between involving women as community members -- and asking them to identify their priorities as women.
While HiAP leaders plan to document the number of teen births and boost the number of women who own businesses and work as city employees, it's a scattershot approach. They aren't consistently looking at health with a gender lens.
Recall the justifiable criticism when research and policy proposals targeting women and girls have failed to consider race and ethnicity.
The lesson learned? We can't improve the health of women -- all women -- unless we fully understand the impacts of race and gender. Like a mirror image, the same holds true for efforts to promote health equity in Richmond and beyond.
Richmond deserves accolades for taking on HiAP, for launching policies to promote health where people live, work, learn and play.
The next step for this city of pride and purpose is to make sure that both race and gender matter.
Kate Karpilow is executive director of the California Center for Research on Women and Families, based at the Public Health Institute. |
|
