Opinion: 4 Reasons to Vote Yes on Pension Referendum

[icarus]

Tell my unborn children's children that I tried...

I truly think a lot of us got caught looking at the tree instead of the forest on this issue.  The sales tax referendum is no guarantee and certainly not the only thing we can do solve the pension issue.

You have to look at this referendum in the same way you would a prequalification letter from a bank for the purchase of a house.  Now that the Mayor can prove he is 'prequalified' to buy,  he can negotiate with the unions.  Brown could never close any deals he attempted because there was no funding source.  Now, we are starting with a funding source and have the ability to deal.

After that, nothing prevents us from continuing to pay down pension costs out of the general fund as we have been doing or to go back and resuscitate the JEA deals to increase contributions from JEA.

By itself, yes, the referendum is a bad deal but in the greater scope .... its a great first step.  Now its just up to us to keep the pressure on the Mayor and City Council.

[Chris Hand]

Tell my unborn children's children that I tried...

I truly think a lot of us got caught looking at the tree instead of the forest on this issue.  The sales tax referendum is no guarantee and certainly not the only thing we can do solve the pension issue.

You have to look at this referendum in the same way you would a prequalification letter from a bank for the purchase of a house.  Now that the Mayor can prove he is 'prequalified' to buy,  he can negotiate with the unions.  Brown could never close any deals he attempted because there was no funding source.  Now, we are starting with a funding source and have the ability to deal.

After that, nothing prevents us from continuing to pay down pension costs out of the general fund as we have been doing or to go back and resuscitate the JEA deals to increase contributions from JEA.

By itself, yes, the referendum is a bad deal but in the greater scope .... its a great first step.  Now its just up to us to keep the pressure on the Mayor and City Council.

Respectfully, your statement that "Brown could never close any deals" is incorrect.

On June 19, 2015, Mayor Brown signed into law a comprehensive pension reform agreement with the Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund (PFPF). You can read all about it here: http://www.coj.net/welcome/news/mayor,-pension-board-accomplish-historic-reform.aspx and http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2015-06-19/story/major-jacksonville-pension-reform-bill-gets-green-light.

The pact significantly modified benefits for both current and new public employees to make them financially sustainable and lowered the City's cost for new employee pension benefits to about 10% of pay. That's roughly the same as what private employers pay when they make their 6.25% Social Security contribution and provide a 401(k) match. In other words, the agreement brought the cost of pension benefits under control.

The agreement also enhanced accountability and transparency at the PFPF through stringent governance reforms. This step was critically important for preventing the COJ from ever again finding itself in this kind of pension situation. Finally, the agreement established a structure for both the City of Jacksonville and the PFPF to jointly contribute additional pension payments each year through FY2028 to bring the unfunded liability under control.

[strider]

Now that the referendum has passed, Curry must get the unions to agree to the terms.  Unfortunately for us, this give the unions a lot of power as Curry will in no way want to win the general vote only to loose in the end because he can't get the unions to agree to the terms.  This will end up costing us a lot more than projected in the end. 

[icarus]

Tell my unborn children's children that I tried...

I truly think a lot of us got caught looking at the tree instead of the forest on this issue.  The sales tax referendum is no guarantee and certainly not the only thing we can do solve the pension issue.

You have to look at this referendum in the same way you would a prequalification letter from a bank for the purchase of a house.  Now that the Mayor can prove he is 'prequalified' to buy,  he can negotiate with the unions.  Brown could never close any deals he attempted because there was no funding source.  Now, we are starting with a funding source and have the ability to deal.

After that, nothing prevents us from continuing to pay down pension costs out of the general fund as we have been doing or to go back and resuscitate the JEA deals to increase contributions from JEA.

By itself, yes, the referendum is a bad deal but in the greater scope .... its a great first step.  Now its just up to us to keep the pressure on the Mayor and City Council.

Respectfully, your statement that "Brown could never close any deals" is incorrect.

On June 19, 2015, Mayor Brown signed into law a comprehensive pension reform agreement with the Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund (PFPF). You can read all about it here: http://www.coj.net/welcome/news/mayor,-pension-board-accomplish-historic-reform.aspx and http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2015-06-19/story/major-jacksonville-pension-reform-bill-gets-green-light.

The pact significantly modified benefits for both current and new public employees to make them financially sustainable and lowered the City's cost for new employee pension benefits to about 10% of pay. That's roughly the same as what private employers pay when they make their 6.25% Social Security contribution and provide a 401(k) match. In other words, the agreement brought the cost of pension benefits under control.

The agreement also enhanced accountability and transparency at the PFPF through stringent governance reforms. This step was critically important for preventing the COJ from ever again finding itself in this kind of pension situation. Finally, the agreement established a structure for both the City of Jacksonville and the PFPF to jointly contribute additional pension payments each year through FY2028 to bring the unfunded liability under control.

Well, call me provincial but signing an agreement that requires the City to pay $350 million from unidentified sources over the next 13 years really isn't closing a deal. To use football parlance ... its at most a first down in the 4th quarter with no time outs left on your last possession of the game.

[RattlerGator]

Maybe, strider, maybe not.

I find it fascinating that  "detailed actuarial studies"  show a switch to a defined contribution plan would "actually cost tax payers more money". I love the use of terms like "actually" using completely hypothetical assumptions. On a side note, and this is just me thinking out loud.... but I wonder how often actuaries are needed for Defined Contribution plans vs Defined benefit plans.

Are you aware of what the brilliant actuarial studies "actually "showed for various assumptions and long term results years ago? I wonder why so many were changed? I guess it was just dumb luck that the shocking result was drastically under estimated  tax payer funding needed to pay the benefits.

Oh, But these actuarial studies are different this time. Got it.

This begins to get at the problem, sanmarcomatt, and -- unsurprisingly -- has generated no follow-on comment. The public, however, is beginning to figure out the racket upon which these public sector unions (including our first responders) feed. They have unsustainably gamed the system in a circle of half-truths that overstate the need for x, y, or z in order to competitively recruit good employees. Everybody then uses the same damn language, they then target vulnerable politicians, and all of a sudden you have local and county employees making significantly more than their state employee peers.

This simply isn't sustainable.

We need to systematically review the legality of public sector unions all across this country and how they have affected the public discourse. This issue in Jacksonville could serve as Exhibit A. They (the public sector unions) are unfortunately incentivized to bleed unprotected taxpayers (and that's what they are, unprotected), in part because everyone acts as if these poorly-thought-through pension promises are inviolable.

Newsflash: they are not. Ask Detroit.

I don't write this as someone who disrespects first responders or public servants. In fact, I benefit from this system. I've served in the military and worked in state government. Presuming continued health, I will get a state pension along with social security. However, any objective analysis will prove the combined public sector salaries & benefits are too generous and the private sector is burdened with paying benefits that far outstrip what a significant number of them, the backbone of the taxpaying public, can hope to attain. That is an upside-down situation in any legitimate universe and ultimately unsustainable.

Sooner or later there will be genuine haircuts. Not the tiny little trim this accomplished in Big Duval. The Free Shit Army doesn't want to hear that but it is coming. So, strider, it could be those upcoming discussions with the unions should be had alongside a discussion within the state capitol on the legality of, or the necessary limitations placed upon, public sector unions.

That might offer some much-needed counterbalancing leverage.

[Chris Hand]

Maybe, strider, maybe not.

I find it fascinating that  "detailed actuarial studies"  show a switch to a defined contribution plan would "actually cost tax payers more money". I love the use of terms like "actually" using completely hypothetical assumptions. On a side note, and this is just me thinking out loud.... but I wonder how often actuaries are needed for Defined Contribution plans vs Defined benefit plans.

Are you aware of what the brilliant actuarial studies "actually "showed for various assumptions and long term results years ago? I wonder why so many were changed? I guess it was just dumb luck that the shocking result was drastically under estimated  tax payer funding needed to pay the benefits.

Oh, But these actuarial studies are different this time. Got it.

This begins to get at the problem, sanmarcomatt, and -- unsurprisingly -- has generated no follow-on comment. The public, however, is beginning to figure out the racket upon which these public sector unions (including our first responders) feed. They have unsustainably gamed the system in a circle of half-truths that overstate the need for x, y, or z in order to competitively recruit good employees. Everybody then uses the same damn language, they then target vulnerable politicians, and all of a sudden you have local and county employees making significantly more than their state employee peers.

This simply isn't sustainable.

We need to systematically review the legality of public sector unions all across this country and how they have affected the public discourse. This issue in Jacksonville could serve as Exhibit A. They (the public sector unions) are unfortunately incentivized to bleed unprotected taxpayers (and that's what they are, unprotected), in part because everyone acts as if these poorly-thought-through pension promises are inviolable.

Newsflash: they are not. Ask Detroit.

I don't write this as someone who disrespects first responders or public servants. In fact, I benefit from this system. I've served in the military and worked in state government. Presuming continued health, I will get a state pension along with social security. However, any objective analysis will prove the combined public sector salaries & benefits are too generous and the private sector is burdened with paying benefits that far outstrip what a significant number of them, the backbone of the taxpaying public, can hope to attain. That is an upside-down situation in any legitimate universe and ultimately unsustainable.

Sooner or later there will be genuine haircuts. Not the tiny little trim this accomplished in Big Duval. The Free Shit Army doesn't want to hear that but it is coming. So, strider, it could be those upcoming discussions with the unions should be had alongside a discussion within the state capitol on the legality of, or the necessary limitations placed upon, public sector unions.

That might offer some much-needed counterbalancing leverage.

omg.

you literally never know what you are talking about.

Unfortunately, I did not see SanMarcoMatt's post or I would have responded earlier. So my apologies for the delay.

I can't speak to what "actuarial studies...showed for various assumptions and long term results years ago" because I have not reviewed past studies from years ago. I can only speak to the numerous actuarial studies produced during the time I was at City Hall. Those analyses were conducted by one of the most respected actuarial firms in the nation (http://us.milliman.com/about), which is very familiar with Florida because it also represents the Florida Retirement System. The studies were not "hypothetical". They were based on reasonable assumptions, and showed that switching police officers and firefighters to DC plans would cost Jacksonville taxpayers more money than modifying the existing defined benefit plans.

But don't just take my word for it. We have the experience of other governmental entities that made the switch. Here is a report worth reading: http://www.rsa-al.gov/uploads/files/Case_Studies_State_Pension_Plans_that_switched_to_DC_Plans.pdf

Even if they didn't cost the City more money over time, the importance of recruiting and retaining public safety employees weighs against going to a mandatory defined contribution plan. Jacksonville competes against 66 other counties (all of which have their employees in the Florida retirement system) and numerous Florida cities of comparable size. All of those jurisdictions use defined benefit plans. Switching to a defined contribution plan could put us at a competitive disadvantage, especially since our public safety employees do not receive Social Security on their City of Jacksonville service.

[RattlerGator]

omg.

you literally never know what you are talking about.

Why thank you. Coming from a man who clearly doesn't understand much about the real world, that's quite an earned compliment. Fortunately, I read beyond a man who thinks a Jacksonville neighborhood -- at a time when Florida was, by far, the smallest populated Southern state, used to be the Harlem of the South.

New Orleans, Atlanta, Charleston, Memphis and Nashville would like a clarifying word with you.

As for another insight into pensions and the never-ending leftwing search for other people's money, take a look:

http://city-journal.org/html/private-pensions-public-risks-14709.html

Expand your blindly partisan horizons, Stephen. You don't have to agree with any of the perspectives but to act as if there's not even a point legitimately being made is embarrassing . . . even for you.

I mean, OMG (OMG!), you might benefit from reading something like this:

https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/pensions-101-understanding-illinois-massive-government-worker-pension-crisis/

Probably not, though. Literally.

[bill]

omg.

you literally never know what you are talking about.

Why thank you. Coming from a man who clearly doesn't understand much about the real world, that's quite an earned compliment. Fortunately, I read beyond a man who thinks a Jacksonville neighborhood -- at a time when Florida was, by far, the smallest populated Southern state, used to be the Harlem of the South.

New Orleans, Atlanta, Charleston, Memphis and Nashville would like a clarifying word with you.

As for another insight into pensions and the never-ending leftwing search for other people's money, take a look:

http://city-journal.org/html/private-pensions-public-risks-14709.html

Expand your blindly partisan horizons, Stephen. You don't have to agree with any of the perspectives but to act as if there's not even a point legitimately being made is embarrassing . . . even for you.

I mean, OMG (OMG!), you might benefit from reading something like this:

https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/pensions-101-understanding-illinois-massive-government-worker-pension-crisis/

Probably not, though. Literally.

And literally MJ and SD were wrong on EVERY candidate and referendum. It was because the voters were all racist and stupid. There is literally no other explanation. Why would Dems vote out a indicted corrupt representative that brought so much largesse to Jacksonville? Dumb

[TheCat]

^???
There are a lot of opinions on mj. And, who said anything about voters being dumb or racist?

I'm sure there are Billions of dumb and/or racists voters throughout the world. Probably tens of millions in the United States alone. At any given time  any one of us can be either or both when voting. So, what are you saying mj said?

Just because a measure passes or a candidate is selected doesn't mean it was right. When did this conversation become about the Donald Trump...

If I'm going to cast shade on this election, it's not because of dumb or racist voters.  It's because we have new,  improved and  sophosticated political machinery in Jax( and it is seriously effective).

If  that machinery was opposed to Yes for Jacksonville, you would have voted against the plan.

If that machinery was backing Corey or shirk, they would have stayed in office.

What do you think? I'm willing to bet you would oppose the sales tax if the same people who pitched it were opposing it.

Post-curry, the political gamming is up in Jax.  And, it's not always a position I'm opposed to.I'm happy Nelson is the state attorney. But, im not pleased with the rhetorical demagoguery of Rutherford ( pretty disappointed actually).

Please clarify the opinions of mj? I'd like to know how the community was  wrong on every candidate and referendum.

I like the word literally too and  tend to overuse it when I want to add  emphasis. I'd like more explanation as to what you mean, though. It feels like you are talking about another election cycle or the coming presidential campaign?

[Tacachale]

While individuals on the forums have a variety of opinions, there's also a "house point of view" that tends to prevail in discussions. On political topics, it's driven in large part by Stephen and Arash, the two MJ owners who speak the most about politics. Their interests and biases affect the editorial tone in the main page articles and on social media.

On the forums, there's more diversity, but people who share the house position tend to have a considerably easier go of things. The moderators are much more tolerant of rudeness and name-calling from people they agree with, for instance, and not infrequently they join in. People with divergent opinions can feel ganged up on and sometimes even shouted down. That makes them more reluctant to weigh in on these topics (or to respond with attacks of their own). I know that when I wrote this op-ed, I got responses from multiple people who were in favor of the referendum, but didn't want to weigh in here and fight with people.

My perspective is that it's fine to have a bias, just don't try to pretend that you don't have one. If you're going gonzo, go gonzo all the way.

[strider]

While individuals on the forums have a variety of opinions, there's also a "house point of view" that tends to prevail in discussions. On political topics, it's driven in large part by Stephen and Arash, the two MJ owners who speak the most about politics. Their interests and biases affect the editorial tone in the main page articles and on social media.

On the forums, there's more diversity, but people who share the house position tend to have a considerably easier go of things. The moderators are much more tolerant of rudeness and name-calling from people they agree with, for instance, and not infrequently they join in. People with divergent opinions can feel ganged up on and sometimes even shouted down. That makes them more reluctant to weigh in on these topics (or to respond with attacks of their own). I know that when I wrote this op-ed, I got responses from multiple people who were in favor of the referendum, but didn't want to weigh in here and fight with people.

My perspective is that it's fine to have a bias, just don't try to pretend that you don't have one. If you're going gonzo, go gonzo all the way.

On the small "voting" thread, I commented that though the sampling was small, I do wonder if it is not a representation of how MJ readers voted. (the referendum would have failed by about 20%) I also wonder if the fact that there were frank discussions disclosing many facts on both sides of the issue made a difference between the public vote and the MJ vote. Frankly, I knew it was going to pass as soon as I received three to four Yes flyers and only one No flyer.  That's exactly what the majority of the voters based their votes on; what they read in those few flyers. The MJ voters were exposed to many more of the facts than the public voter ever got to see.

So, while you may wish to believe the majority of MJ readers are sheep, I much prefer to believe they are thoughtful, informed and are not afraid to have true debates.

[TheCat]

I define someone with bias as a person with a propensity to interpret, disregard or apply facts in a way that validates his/her predetermined opinions, feelings, thoughts, and sins.

Bias is much more than a differing opinion. Bias is an unwillingness or inability to look at information objectively.

When Metroj is labeled bias (or worst) it's usually because someone is interpreting the site as left-leaning, which it is not.

Well, maybe it is. Just arguing against sprawl is considered a left-leaning position, FYI. The official Republican platform opposes density, public transportation and ped/bike friendly networks.

Yes, we all have biases. Yes, we should all try to push through them.

The word bias has been thrown at me usually when the perspective is one that is determined to be on the left. Not once, have I had the word bias thrown at me when I posted what is typically considered on the right-wing of things.

A perfect example of this are the two opinion pieces we published this year. One in favor or Hillary and the other for Trump.

On social media, you would have thought Metroj called H. Clinton the mother goddess and the real son of God based on the comments and messages I received. On Trump, not so much. No one threatened to "never read metroj again" or "welp, you lost me as reader. Good luck..." Certainly, there were caustic statements regarding Trump BUT these statements were about the piece not about metroj.

During the last mayoral election, I did not support Curry, the Republican. I did; however, back Sheriff Mike Williams, a Republican, over sheriff candidate Ken Jefferson, a Democrat. Metroj had pro-mike Williams content on the site. More than I was comfortable with...not once did anyone call me bias for supporting Mike. I was dismissed as bias for not supporting Curry.

I was and am also dismissed by some as biased for not supporting Referendum 1. A plan that is fiscally challenged and lacks any conservative principals.  I am biased because, in this case, I am too conservative for the Republican party...but the individuals  calling me biased somehow think my rather recent lefty tendencies cause me to believe we should err on the side of fiscal responsibility.

This is bias; I cast shade on Republican supporters of this plan. It is MY BIAS that causes me to believe that if this plan was pitched by Alvin Brown if would NEVER have been accepted as a viable solution.

I'm on a tangent now...=)

[vicupstate]

This is bias; I cast shade on Republican supporters of this plan. It is MY BIAS that causes me to believe that if this plan was pitched by Alvin Brown if would NEVER have been accepted as a viable solution.

+1000

[Tacachale]

This is bias; I cast shade on Republican supporters of this plan. It is MY BIAS that causes me to believe that if this plan was pitched by Alvin Brown if would NEVER have been accepted as a viable solution.

+1000

Most of the people who supported the referendum would have endorsed it under Brown. Even those who were generally critical of Brown supported the viable elements of his pension proposals. I doubt Brown would have been as good at selling it to the voters as Curry. On the other hand, I expect that Metro Jacksonville's coverage would have been a lot different.

[icarus]

Isn't the point of intelligent discourse to disagree and sometimes even vehemently.  I supported the referendum but as a first step.  I read a lot of the comments here on this discussion and quite frankly it made me refine my opinion which I expressed on here.

I for one tend to value the opinions of people that disagree with me rather than the ones that blindly agree especially based on party lines.