Opinion: 4 Reasons to Vote Yes on Pension Referendum
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Politics/Mayor-Currys-Tax-Plan/i-sQ9KqbH/0/L/LennyCurry_2billionliability-L.jpg)
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2016-aug-opinion-4-reasons-to-vote-yes-on-pension-referendum
I'll be honest - I'm only so familiar with this issue. But it would seem to me that people are going to have to bite the bullet and accept a tax. The city has a responsibility to fund the pensions and that is going to have to be sorted by the taxpayer.
I think a property tax increase makes more sense, as the impact would be seen sooner - but the sales tax is probably the 'fairest' and most palatable option. Although no one really likes to pay taxes, they are necessary.
All that aside - what is the outcome if this issue isn't addressed? This is a serious question. Is it a situation whereby these employees just don't get a pension? Or would it be funded by some other source (the state or something)?
This is just kicking the can down the road. I dont support this at all. The cost is too high. We are just laying a huge burden on grandchildren. City employees shouldn't be promised something that's unreasonable and unreasonable is the name of the game at the good ole boy city hall of Jacksonville. The fist thing is the employees should be paying in as much as everyone else in the world does. Promises of guaranteed returns is just crazy..no one gets that promise. This city is one of the cheapest cities and it shows. We had a massive glut of money in the bank and it just slipped away. Its just rude to be asking for a sales tax increase when our mayor and council hand over cash by the ton to a football team . Its irresponsible and un democratic. This bill wouldn't come due until the mayor is dead and cost too damn much...this scheme smells like poop.
Quote from: Rob68 on August 25, 2016, 07:43:54 AM
This is just kicking the can down the road. I dont support this at all. The cost is too high. We are just laying a huge burden on grandchildren. City employees shouldn't be promised something that's unreasonable and unreasonable is the name of the game at the good ole boy city hall of Jacksonville. The fist thing is the employees should be paying in as much as everyone else in the world does. Promises of guaranteed returns is just crazy..no one gets that promise. This city is one of the cheapest cities and it shows. We had a massive glut of money in the bank and it just slipped away. Its just rude to be asking for a sales tax increase when our mayor and council hand over cash by the ton to a football team . Its irresponsible and un democratic. This bill wouldn't come due until the mayor is dead and cost too damn much...this scheme smells like poop.
So, what's the alternative? It's not the fault of the people with the pensions that the government dropped the ball. Surely sorting out the pensions and also taking action to ensure it doesn't happen again are the solution? If you can't tax people to cover the shortfall, how do you raise the money?
Quote from: Adam White on August 25, 2016, 07:50:37 AM
Quote from: Rob68 on August 25, 2016, 07:43:54 AM
This is just kicking the can down the road. I dont support this at all. The cost is too high. We are just laying a huge burden on grandchildren. City employees shouldn't be promised something that's unreasonable and unreasonable is the name of the game at the good ole boy city hall of Jacksonville. The fist thing is the employees should be paying in as much as everyone else in the world does. Promises of guaranteed returns is just crazy..no one gets that promise. This city is one of the cheapest cities and it shows. We had a massive glut of money in the bank and it just slipped away. Its just rude to be asking for a sales tax increase when our mayor and council hand over cash by the ton to a football team . Its irresponsible and un democratic. This bill wouldn't come due until the mayor is dead and cost too damn much...this scheme smells like poop.
So, what's the alternative? It's not the fault of the people with the pensions that the government dropped the ball. Surely sorting out the pensions and also taking action to ensure it doesn't happen again are the solution? If you can't tax people to cover the shortfall, how do you raise the money?
Paraphrasing from a town hall meeting with Mayor Curry, the only other alternative would be to drastically cut back city spending in other ways. Cutting funding from libraries, parks & rec, and patrol officers all were mentioned.
Is it safe to assume he would halt all city functions before implementing any new tax? Maybe. Is it safe to assume he's blowing hot air up the collective asses of Jaxons? Could be a possibility as well.
Let's forget the idea that this is doing exactly what got us here to begin with...kicking the proverbial can down the road. Let's instead look at a couple of realities. Where is it anywhere stated by this administration that this is a guaranteed thing, that the unions will do exactly what this plan calls for? Even by getting everyone to vote yes, there is no certainty that this whole expenditure of time, money and political capital will not be for nada, zip, squat. I have come to realize two distinct possibilities. One that this gives a lot of power to those unions to get something else that will cost us even more down the road or the administration already knows what it will take to get the unions to agree and it is not pretty. Both scenarios leave me with the impressions that this administration is being anything but honest about this and that there will still be a tax increase.
And lets look at the concept that this tax can only be used to pay on the pension debt. OK, let's assume everything goes more or less to plan and we now have the future sales tax set to pay that debt. Can this future tax be leverage to pay the current payments? Will that increase the future debt even more? And what exactly will the "freed up" funds be used for? Will it actually be used to help us tax payers? Or will it be somehow given away to those fine citizens that donated a million or so to get this passed? Because while the sales tax has to be used for only paying on the pension, there is no such restrictions on the other funds "freed up" by the sales tax. Do you as an informed resident trust this City Council and this Administration to do the right things here and not continue unnecessary give-a-ways with what will be very expensive money?
All the other possible funding sources to pay down the pension debt will certainly, at least on the surface, hurt us tax payers. Increased taxes always will hurt someone. Unfortunately for us, this half baked pension sales tax idea may do the same damage anyway.
So the real issue seems to be: We the people being asked to vote for this simply don't know what will happen if this plan is passed or, for that matter, even what the plan truly is. And yet, to pass something this important, shouldn't we? Perhaps more importantly, shouldn't our elected leaders asking us to pass it?
Quote from: camarocane on August 25, 2016, 08:49:46 AM
Quote from: Adam White on August 25, 2016, 07:50:37 AM
Quote from: Rob68 on August 25, 2016, 07:43:54 AM
This is just kicking the can down the road. I dont support this at all. The cost is too high. We are just laying a huge burden on grandchildren. City employees shouldn't be promised something that's unreasonable and unreasonable is the name of the game at the good ole boy city hall of Jacksonville. The fist thing is the employees should be paying in as much as everyone else in the world does. Promises of guaranteed returns is just crazy..no one gets that promise. This city is one of the cheapest cities and it shows. We had a massive glut of money in the bank and it just slipped away. Its just rude to be asking for a sales tax increase when our mayor and council hand over cash by the ton to a football team . Its irresponsible and un democratic. This bill wouldn't come due until the mayor is dead and cost too damn much...this scheme smells like poop.
So, what's the alternative? It's not the fault of the people with the pensions that the government dropped the ball. Surely sorting out the pensions and also taking action to ensure it doesn't happen again are the solution? If you can't tax people to cover the shortfall, how do you raise the money?
Paraphrasing from a town hall meeting with Mayor Curry, the only other alternative would be to drastically cut back city spending in other ways. Cutting funding from libraries, parks & rec, and patrol officers all were mentioned.
Is it safe to assume he would halt all city functions before implementing any new tax? Maybe. Is it safe to assume he's blowing hot air up the collective asses of Jaxons? Could be a possibility as well.
So, what's the alternative? It's not the fault of the people with the pensions that the government dropped the ball. Surely sorting out the pensions and also taking action to ensure it doesn't happen again are the solution? If you can't tax people to cover the shortfall, how do you raise the money?
Whether or not the police and fire fighters
should have pensions, they
do have them by legally binding contract with the city. Compromises are available, but by and large the city is obligated to pay people by that contract. Even if we could somehow get out of this, it would take many years and a lot of money. By then we'd be in a much worse position than if we just pay what we owe. And that's besides the fact that it would make it much more difficult to recruit and retain qualified people.
Quote from: Tacachale on August 25, 2016, 10:43:13 AM
Quote from: camarocane on August 25, 2016, 08:49:46 AM
Quote from: Adam White on August 25, 2016, 07:50:37 AM
Quote from: Rob68 on August 25, 2016, 07:43:54 AM
This is just kicking the can down the road. I dont support this at all. The cost is too high. We are just laying a huge burden on grandchildren. City employees shouldn't be promised something that's unreasonable and unreasonable is the name of the game at the good ole boy city hall of Jacksonville. The fist thing is the employees should be paying in as much as everyone else in the world does. Promises of guaranteed returns is just crazy..no one gets that promise. This city is one of the cheapest cities and it shows. We had a massive glut of money in the bank and it just slipped away. Its just rude to be asking for a sales tax increase when our mayor and council hand over cash by the ton to a football team . Its irresponsible and un democratic. This bill wouldn't come due until the mayor is dead and cost too damn much...this scheme smells like poop.
So, what's the alternative? It's not the fault of the people with the pensions that the government dropped the ball. Surely sorting out the pensions and also taking action to ensure it doesn't happen again are the solution? If you can't tax people to cover the shortfall, how do you raise the money?
Paraphrasing from a town hall meeting with Mayor Curry, the only other alternative would be to drastically cut back city spending in other ways. Cutting funding from libraries, parks & rec, and patrol officers all were mentioned.
Is it safe to assume he would halt all city functions before implementing any new tax? Maybe. Is it safe to assume he's blowing hot air up the collective asses of Jaxons? Could be a possibility as well.
So, what's the alternative? It's not the fault of the people with the pensions that the government dropped the ball. Surely sorting out the pensions and also taking action to ensure it doesn't happen again are the solution? If you can't tax people to cover the shortfall, how do you raise the money?
Whether or not the police and fire fighters should have pensions, they do have them by legally binding contract with the city. Compromises are available, but by and large the city is obligated to pay people by that contract. Even if could somehow get out of this, it would take many years and a lot of money. By then we'd be in a much worse position than if we just pay what we owe. And that's besides the fact that it would make it much more difficult to recruit and retain qualified people.
Exactly - they were offered the pensions, right? It was a perk of the job. We can't change the rules now just because we don't agree with them. Change the rules going forward, sure.
Quote from: stephendare on August 25, 2016, 11:12:53 AM
Quote from: Adam White on August 25, 2016, 11:00:22 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on August 25, 2016, 10:43:13 AM
Quote from: camarocane on August 25, 2016, 08:49:46 AM
Quote from: Adam White on August 25, 2016, 07:50:37 AM
Quote from: Rob68 on August 25, 2016, 07:43:54 AM
This is just kicking the can down the road. I dont support this at all. The cost is too high. We are just laying a huge burden on grandchildren. City employees shouldn't be promised something that's unreasonable and unreasonable is the name of the game at the good ole boy city hall of Jacksonville. The fist thing is the employees should be paying in as much as everyone else in the world does. Promises of guaranteed returns is just crazy..no one gets that promise. This city is one of the cheapest cities and it shows. We had a massive glut of money in the bank and it just slipped away. Its just rude to be asking for a sales tax increase when our mayor and council hand over cash by the ton to a football team . Its irresponsible and un democratic. This bill wouldn't come due until the mayor is dead and cost too damn much...this scheme smells like poop.
So, what's the alternative? It's not the fault of the people with the pensions that the government dropped the ball. Surely sorting out the pensions and also taking action to ensure it doesn't happen again are the solution? If you can't tax people to cover the shortfall, how do you raise the money?
Paraphrasing from a town hall meeting with Mayor Curry, the only other alternative would be to drastically cut back city spending in other ways. Cutting funding from libraries, parks & rec, and patrol officers all were mentioned.
Is it safe to assume he would halt all city functions before implementing any new tax? Maybe. Is it safe to assume he's blowing hot air up the collective asses of Jaxons? Could be a possibility as well.
So, what's the alternative? It's not the fault of the people with the pensions that the government dropped the ball. Surely sorting out the pensions and also taking action to ensure it doesn't happen again are the solution? If you can't tax people to cover the shortfall, how do you raise the money?
Whether or not the police and fire fighters should have pensions, they do have them by legally binding contract with the city. Compromises are available, but by and large the city is obligated to pay people by that contract. Even if could somehow get out of this, it would take many years and a lot of money. By then we'd be in a much worse position than if we just pay what we owe. And that's besides the fact that it would make it much more difficult to recruit and retain qualified people.
Exactly - they were offered the pensions, right? It was a perk of the job. We can't change the rules now just because we don't agree with them. Change the rules going forward, sure.
Yes, and the cops opted out of social security, so without the pensions, they have nothing.
I guess my way of looking at this is that the citizens have to take it on the chin and do what's right - even if the government was at fault. You can't change what has happened, right? So try to keep it from happening again and do the right thing now.
Edit: I am not necessarily endorsing Curry's plans - but I can't see a solution that would work that doesn't involve taxation. I think Tachacale's article made a pretty compelling case, though.
Quote from: Adam White on August 25, 2016, 11:30:33 AM
Quote from: stephendare on August 25, 2016, 11:12:53 AM
Quote from: Adam White on August 25, 2016, 11:00:22 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on August 25, 2016, 10:43:13 AM
Quote from: camarocane on August 25, 2016, 08:49:46 AM
Quote from: Adam White on August 25, 2016, 07:50:37 AM
Quote from: Rob68 on August 25, 2016, 07:43:54 AM
This is just kicking the can down the road. I dont support this at all. The cost is too high. We are just laying a huge burden on grandchildren. City employees shouldn't be promised something that's unreasonable and unreasonable is the name of the game at the good ole boy city hall of Jacksonville. The fist thing is the employees should be paying in as much as everyone else in the world does. Promises of guaranteed returns is just crazy..no one gets that promise. This city is one of the cheapest cities and it shows. We had a massive glut of money in the bank and it just slipped away. Its just rude to be asking for a sales tax increase when our mayor and council hand over cash by the ton to a football team . Its irresponsible and un democratic. This bill wouldn't come due until the mayor is dead and cost too damn much...this scheme smells like poop.
So, what's the alternative? It's not the fault of the people with the pensions that the government dropped the ball. Surely sorting out the pensions and also taking action to ensure it doesn't happen again are the solution? If you can't tax people to cover the shortfall, how do you raise the money?
Paraphrasing from a town hall meeting with Mayor Curry, the only other alternative would be to drastically cut back city spending in other ways. Cutting funding from libraries, parks & rec, and patrol officers all were mentioned.
Is it safe to assume he would halt all city functions before implementing any new tax? Maybe. Is it safe to assume he's blowing hot air up the collective asses of Jaxons? Could be a possibility as well.
So, what's the alternative? It's not the fault of the people with the pensions that the government dropped the ball. Surely sorting out the pensions and also taking action to ensure it doesn't happen again are the solution? If you can't tax people to cover the shortfall, how do you raise the money?
Whether or not the police and fire fighters should have pensions, they do have them by legally binding contract with the city. Compromises are available, but by and large the city is obligated to pay people by that contract. Even if could somehow get out of this, it would take many years and a lot of money. By then we'd be in a much worse position than if we just pay what we owe. And that's besides the fact that it would make it much more difficult to recruit and retain qualified people.
Exactly - they were offered the pensions, right? It was a perk of the job. We can't change the rules now just because we don't agree with them. Change the rules going forward, sure.
Yes, and the cops opted out of social security, so without the pensions, they have nothing.
I guess my way of looking at this is that the citizens have to take it on the chin and do what's right - even if the government was at fault. You can't change what has happened, right? So try to keep it from happening again and do the right thing now.
Edit: I am not necessarily endorsing Curry's plans - but I can't see a solution that would work that doesn't involve taxation. I think Tachacale's article made a pretty compelling case, though.
Thank you, Adam.
I am curious: How high would the pensions be and when are city employees eligible? Are they a percentage of the last gross salary, a specific amount...
Quote from: stephendare on August 25, 2016, 12:24:26 PM
Except that I disagree that the citizens are taking it on the chin. They are paying for the services of one of the largest public safety operations in the country, services that they rely on every single day.
The best answer so far has been Alvin Brown's. An annual payout by JEA, after years of underpaying the city for the franchise, and a millage increase.
I had reservations about that plan because it capped the amount of money that the JEA contributes to the city.
The city has the right to 20% of the profits from the Utility. For years they have been paying less that 5%.
Alvin's plan raised their contribution slightly, and paid off the plan fairly speedily.
The problem is that whatever profits the city doesn't take is doled out to the bondholders. That group includes several donor families represented by the old regime/curry administration.
This kick the can down the road measure doesn't pay the obligation fully but it add 1.5 billion dollars to the obligation. All to spare a few families cuts to their bond dividends.
And it comes at the cost of tying up money that is supposed to be used for big building projects for the next 45 years.
And for what? So that this miserable mayor can point to a fake 'success' in order to run for governor to replace the jackass he helped to get elected?
In my view its basically a way of getting the taxpayers of duval county to help pay for his political career.
And Im not for it.
Thanks for giving an alternative, Stephen. Was genuinely curious about what other options there are. Why hasn't the city taken its 20% of the JEA profit? That seems ludicrous.
As far as 'taking it on the chin' I meant that sometimes you gotta pay taxes to fix problems. But you're right - you have to pay for what services you expect. This is part of that, right?
Honestly, I think if this sales tax increase happened right away I would probably be more on board with it. There are benefits to it, like having tourists dollars contributing, and being dedicated specifically to the pension, but kicking the can down the road for 15 years is not an option any more, not to mention it costs way more in the long run.
Quote from: Jtetlak on August 25, 2016, 03:39:57 PM
Honestly, I think if this sales tax increase happened right away I would probably be more on board with it. There are benefits to it, like having tourists dollars contributing, and being dedicated specifically to the pension, but kicking the can down the road for 15 years is not an option any more, not to mention it costs way more in the long run.
I concur. I am not opposed to it because it is Curry's plan or because it involves Sales Taxes. I am opposed for the reasons you stated very clearly.
Why not impose a 1/4 cent sales tax NOW. What would be the overall difference by over the 50-60 years we are talking about?
Quote from: Adam White on August 25, 2016, 03:34:49 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 25, 2016, 12:24:26 PM
Except that I disagree that the citizens are taking it on the chin. They are paying for the services of one of the largest public safety operations in the country, services that they rely on every single day.
The best answer so far has been Alvin Brown's. An annual payout by JEA, after years of underpaying the city for the franchise, and a millage increase.
I had reservations about that plan because it capped the amount of money that the JEA contributes to the city.
The city has the right to 20% of the profits from the Utility. For years they have been paying less that 5%.
Alvin's plan raised their contribution slightly, and paid off the plan fairly speedily.
The problem is that whatever profits the city doesn't take is doled out to the bondholders. That group includes several donor families represented by the old regime/curry administration.
This kick the can down the road measure doesn't pay the obligation fully but it add 1.5 billion dollars to the obligation. All to spare a few families cuts to their bond dividends.
And it comes at the cost of tying up money that is supposed to be used for big building projects for the next 45 years.
And for what? So that this miserable mayor can point to a fake 'success' in order to run for governor to replace the jackass he helped to get elected?
In my view its basically a way of getting the taxpayers of duval county to help pay for his political career.
And Im not for it.
Thanks for giving an alternative, Stephen. Was genuinely curious about what other options there are. Why hasn't the city taken its 20% of the JEA profit? That seems ludicrous.
As far as 'taking it on the chin' I meant that sometimes you gotta pay taxes to fix problems. But you're right - you have to pay for what services you expect. This is part of that, right?
I (and many others) never thought the plans to tie pension reform to JEA money were realistic, or necessarily beneficial. As Stephen said, the first one involved JEA paying a big lump sum in exchange for lowering the annual contribution to the city in later years. Over the years, we'd have lost a lot more money from JEA than what they contributed. The second plan I didn't fully get, but I'm skeptical it could, or at least
would be done without a rate increase, at which point, why not just use taxes? At the end of the day, the city spent 4 years on these plans, but couldn't pull them off. After spending all that time and resources, we have little to show for it, and meanwhile our debts have kept growing at unsustainable rates. If there's going to be reform at JEA, it would be better to do it separately from pension reform; the pension needs new revenue a lot sooner than we'll get sufficient money out of those other plans.
Quote from: vicupstate on August 25, 2016, 04:27:08 PM
Quote from: Jtetlak on August 25, 2016, 03:39:57 PM
Honestly, I think if this sales tax increase happened right away I would probably be more on board with it. There are benefits to it, like having tourists dollars contributing, and being dedicated specifically to the pension, but kicking the can down the road for 15 years is not an option any more, not to mention it costs way more in the long run.
I concur. I am not opposed to it because it is Curry's plan or because it involves Sales Taxes. I am opposed for the reasons you stated very clearly.
Why not impose a 1/4 cent sales tax NOW. What would be the overall difference by over the 50-60 years we are talking about?
The mayor's argument is that it wouldn't have gotten through the legislature or governor's office. I doubt it would get through a referendum either. At any rate, it certainly won't get through if this proposal fails. This is the best available option for using the sales tax to help the pension crisis.
^^ Is it that the money is being spent n a Pension instead of capital projects that made a change in state law necessary?
Quote from: vicupstate on August 25, 2016, 05:50:23 PM
^^ Is it that the money is being spent n a Pension instead of capital projects that made a change in state law necessary?
Yes, for the most part. It also specifies how the tax can be implemented, including talking about the BJP portion having to terminate first. The fact that the bill specifically includes that condition (rather than it just being the county's choice) suggests it wouldn't have passed without it.
Quote from: Tacachale on August 25, 2016, 04:29:27 PM
Quote from: Adam White on August 25, 2016, 03:34:49 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 25, 2016, 12:24:26 PM
Except that I disagree that the citizens are taking it on the chin. They are paying for the services of one of the largest public safety operations in the country, services that they rely on every single day.
The best answer so far has been Alvin Brown's. An annual payout by JEA, after years of underpaying the city for the franchise, and a millage increase.
I had reservations about that plan because it capped the amount of money that the JEA contributes to the city.
The city has the right to 20% of the profits from the Utility. For years they have been paying less that 5%.
Alvin's plan raised their contribution slightly, and paid off the plan fairly speedily.
The problem is that whatever profits the city doesn't take is doled out to the bondholders. That group includes several donor families represented by the old regime/curry administration.
This kick the can down the road measure doesn't pay the obligation fully but it add 1.5 billion dollars to the obligation. All to spare a few families cuts to their bond dividends.
And it comes at the cost of tying up money that is supposed to be used for big building projects for the next 45 years.
And for what? So that this miserable mayor can point to a fake 'success' in order to run for governor to replace the jackass he helped to get elected?
In my view its basically a way of getting the taxpayers of duval county to help pay for his political career.
And Im not for it.
Thanks for giving an alternative, Stephen. Was genuinely curious about what other options there are. Why hasn't the city taken its 20% of the JEA profit? That seems ludicrous.
As far as 'taking it on the chin' I meant that sometimes you gotta pay taxes to fix problems. But you're right - you have to pay for what services you expect. This is part of that, right?
I (and many others) never thought the plans to tie pension reform to JEA money were realistic, or necessarily beneficial. As Stephen said, the first one involved JEA paying a big lump sum in exchange for lowering the annual contribution to the city in later years. Over the years, we'd have lost a lot more money from JEA than what they contributed. The second plan I didn't fully get, but I'm skeptical it could, or at least would be done without a rate increase, at which point, why not just use taxes? At the end of the day, the city spent 4 years on these plans, but couldn't pull them off. After spending all that time and resources, we have little to show for it, and meanwhile our debts have kept growing at unsustainable rates. If there's going to be reform at JEA, it would be better to do it separately from pension reform; the pension needs new revenue a lot sooner than we'll get sufficient money out of those other plans.
Not to continue the pattern of Tacachale posting about recent pension history and me posting to set the record straight and correct numerous misstatements, but I feel that I must. Tacachale is a thoughtful poster who I respect, and a good sport about my counterpoints, so I don't think he will mind.
Mayor Brown endorsed two pension debt repayment plans involving JEA.
First, he sought to partner with JEA, which happens to be a City-owned asset with $2 billion in annual revenues. His first plan asked JEA to contribute an additional $40 million per year to the City for 10 years, in exchange for JEA receiving some significant cost-saving measures such as control over their own pension plan. Despite what Tacachale says above, this initiative did not involve any decrease in the annual JEA contribution. While some criticized that proposal at the time, it was later vindicated by a study released by highly regarded public finance consulting firm MAEVA: http://jacksonville.com/news/2015-10-05/story/new-study-says-jea-could-improve-its-bottom-line-and-save-millions-each-year.
Second, Mayor Brown supported a plan was designed by two Republicans -- one of the best financial minds in Jacksonville (former CEO and long-time community leader Charlie Appleby) and one of the most experienced public servants in Jacksonville's recent history (former Council President Matt Carlucci, who served as both a district and at-large Council member). It involved JEA partnering with the COJ to make an significant up-front payment aimed at reducing the unfunded liability immediately. In exchange, the City would work with the JEA on the above-mentioned JEA pension issues and to address some of the utility's concerns about its annual contribution levels. Contrary to Tacachale's statement above, JEA certified that the partnership would have no impact on utility rates.
Now that we have exploded those myths, let me turn to the biggest piece of fiction in Tacachale's post -- the ideas that "At the end of the day, the city spent 4 years on these plans, but couldn't pull them off. After spending all that time and resources, we have little to show for it, and meanwhile our debts have kept growing at unsustainable rates."
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 City's 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.
While we did not reach closure on a COJ funding source, the idea that the city has "little to show" from our administration's work on pension reform is just flat wrong.
All city employees, including those in the GEPP, have no social security benefits. JSO is far from alone in that matter. JSO and JFRD also contribute far less to their pension than other city employees. Just doing a little "fact" correcting.
Quote from: stephendare on August 25, 2016, 09:43:39 PM
Quote from: Elwood on August 25, 2016, 08:34:07 PM
All city employees, including those in the GEPP, have no social security benefits. JSO is far from alone in that matter. JSO and JFRD also contribute far less to their pension than other city employees. Just doing a little "fact" correcting.
So what are you correcting?
You seem to be agreeing that cops decided to forego Social Security benefits.
?
When the comprehensive reform agreement took effect on June 19, 2015 (see 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), current police and fire employees saw an immediate increase in their pension contributions from 7% to 8% of pay. Under the agreement, those contributions will increase to 10% of pay when the City restores the 2% pay cut that firefighters took in 2010 and equivalent pay cut that police employees took in 2012. New police or fire employees hired after June 19, 2015 contribute 10% of pay.
If memory serves, general employees contribute 8% of pay toward their pensions. The City reached tentative agreements with two of the general employees unions in 2013 to raise that contribution amount for both new and current employees, but City Council did not take up those agreements out of a desire to address the police and fire pension issues first.
Quote from: Jtetlak on August 25, 2016, 03:39:57 PM
Honestly, I think if this sales tax increase happened right away I would probably be more on board with it. There are benefits to it, like having tourists dollars contributing, and being dedicated specifically to the pension, but kicking the can down the road for 15 years is not an option any more, not to mention it costs way more in the long run.
EXACTLY!!!
Quote from: sanmarcomatt on August 26, 2016, 08:26:47 AM
Quote from: Chris Hand on August 25, 2016, 06:47:52 PM
In other words, the agreement brought the City's cost of pension benefits under control.
These are defined benefit plans so the "City's costs "(TAX PAYER COSTS) are not "under control". It is the complete opposite.
Agreed that these are taxpayer costs. But Defined Contribution (DC) plans may not be the solution your envision. We ran detailed actuarial studies on the possibility of shifting police and fire employees to a DC plan. Those analyses showed that DC plans would actually cost taxpayers more money than modifying the Defined Benefit (DB) plan to make it financially sustainable.
Moreover, putting police and fire employees in DC plan could put the City of Jacksonville at a competitive disadvantage. No major city in Florida has its police and fire employees in a DC plan. The Florida Retirement System (which provides pension benefits for public safety employees in nearly every FL county but ours) provides a DB plan. Former Sheriff John Rutherford and Fire Chief Marty Senterfitt both told the Jacksonville Retirement Reform Task Force that moving to a DC plan would hurt recruitment and retention.
Really interesting, enlightening discussion on both sides of the vote.
Thanks guys.
TU/UNF poll has the city leaning very, very slightly (just over 50%) toward a yes, 38% no, 12% undecided.
Quote from: Chris Hand on August 25, 2016, 06:47:52 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on August 25, 2016, 04:29:27 PM
Quote from: Adam White on August 25, 2016, 03:34:49 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 25, 2016, 12:24:26 PM
Except that I disagree that the citizens are taking it on the chin. They are paying for the services of one of the largest public safety operations in the country, services that they rely on every single day.
The best answer so far has been Alvin Brown's. An annual payout by JEA, after years of underpaying the city for the franchise, and a millage increase.
I had reservations about that plan because it capped the amount of money that the JEA contributes to the city.
The city has the right to 20% of the profits from the Utility. For years they have been paying less that 5%.
Alvin's plan raised their contribution slightly, and paid off the plan fairly speedily.
The problem is that whatever profits the city doesn't take is doled out to the bondholders. That group includes several donor families represented by the old regime/curry administration.
This kick the can down the road measure doesn't pay the obligation fully but it add 1.5 billion dollars to the obligation. All to spare a few families cuts to their bond dividends.
And it comes at the cost of tying up money that is supposed to be used for big building projects for the next 45 years.
And for what? So that this miserable mayor can point to a fake 'success' in order to run for governor to replace the jackass he helped to get elected?
In my view its basically a way of getting the taxpayers of duval county to help pay for his political career.
And Im not for it.
Thanks for giving an alternative, Stephen. Was genuinely curious about what other options there are. Why hasn't the city taken its 20% of the JEA profit? That seems ludicrous.
As far as 'taking it on the chin' I meant that sometimes you gotta pay taxes to fix problems. But you're right - you have to pay for what services you expect. This is part of that, right?
I (and many others) never thought the plans to tie pension reform to JEA money were realistic, or necessarily beneficial. As Stephen said, the first one involved JEA paying a big lump sum in exchange for lowering the annual contribution to the city in later years. Over the years, we'd have lost a lot more money from JEA than what they contributed. The second plan I didn't fully get, but I'm skeptical it could, or at least would be done without a rate increase, at which point, why not just use taxes? At the end of the day, the city spent 4 years on these plans, but couldn't pull them off. After spending all that time and resources, we have little to show for it, and meanwhile our debts have kept growing at unsustainable rates. If there's going to be reform at JEA, it would be better to do it separately from pension reform; the pension needs new revenue a lot sooner than we'll get sufficient money out of those other plans.
Not to continue the pattern of Tacachale posting about recent pension history and me posting to set the record straight and correct numerous misstatements, but I feel that I must. Tacachale is a thoughtful poster who I respect, and a good sport about my counterpoints, so I don't think he will mind.
Mayor Brown endorsed two pension debt repayment plans involving JEA.
First, he sought to partner with JEA, which happens to be a City-owned asset with $2 billion in annual revenues. His first plan asked JEA to contribute an additional $40 million per year to the City for 10 years, in exchange for JEA receiving some significant cost-saving measures such as control over their own pension plan. Despite what Tacachale says above, this initiative did not involve any decrease in the annual JEA contribution. While some criticized that proposal at the time, it was later vindicated by a study released by highly regarded public finance consulting firm MAEVA: http://jacksonville.com/news/2015-10-05/story/new-study-says-jea-could-improve-its-bottom-line-and-save-millions-each-year.
Second, Mayor Brown supported a plan was designed by two Republicans -- one of the best financial minds in Jacksonville (former CEO and long-time community leader Charlie Appleby) and one of the most experienced public servants in Jacksonville's recent history (former Council President Matt Carlucci, who served as both a district and at-large Council member). It involved JEA partnering with the COJ to make an significant up-front payment aimed at reducing the unfunded liability immediately. In exchange, the City would work with the JEA on the above-mentioned JEA pension issues and to address some of the utility's concerns about its annual contribution levels. Contrary to Tacachale's statement above, JEA certified that the partnership would have no impact on utility rates.
Now that we have exploded those myths, let me turn to the biggest piece of fiction in Tacachale's post -- the ideas that "At the end of the day, the city spent 4 years on these plans, but couldn't pull them off. After spending all that time and resources, we have little to show for it, and meanwhile our debts have kept growing at unsustainable rates."
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 City's 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.
While we did not reach closure on a COJ funding source, the idea that the city has "little to show" from our administration's work on pension reform is just flat wrong.
Off topic, but as before, I disagree. The fact is that the city didn't hammer out a non-tax funding source despite spending another 4 years on pension reform. And now, they've moved away from the prospect to a plan using tax revenue.
Quote from: Chris Hand on August 26, 2016, 10:22:51 AM
Quote from: sanmarcomatt on August 26, 2016, 08:26:47 AM
Quote from: Chris Hand on August 25, 2016, 06:47:52 PM
In other words, the agreement brought the City's cost of pension benefits under control.
These are defined benefit plans so the "City's costs "(TAX PAYER COSTS) are not "under control". It is the complete opposite.
Agreed that these are taxpayer costs. But Defined Contribution (DC) plans may not be the solution your envision. We ran detailed actuarial studies on the possibility of shifting police and fire employees to a DC plan. Those analyses showed that DC plans would actually cost taxpayers more money than modifying the Defined Benefit (DB) plan to make it financially sustainable.
Moreover, putting police and fire employees in DC plan could put the City of Jacksonville at a competitive disadvantage. No major city in Florida has its police and fire employees in a DC plan. The Florida Retirement System (which provides pension benefits for public safety employees in nearly every FL county but ours) provides a DB plan. Former Sheriff John Rutherford and Fire Chief Marty Senterfitt both told the Jacksonville Retirement Reform Task Force that moving to a DC plan would hurt recruitment and retention.
On this, I agree. There's a myth that police and fires are getting disproportionately "rich" pensions. This isn't true compared to other large counties, and besides, good benefits are important in recruiting and keeping good employees. Beyond that, there's just no way to remove current employees' benefits that could be done in a short enough time frame to provide budget relief anytime soon, even if it were a good idea. That dog won't hunt.
This was a very well-written piece, Tacachale. I appreciate your thoughtful insight.
Quote from: Elwood on August 25, 2016, 08:34:07 PM
All city employees, including those in the GEPP, have no social security benefits. JSO is far from alone in that matter. JSO and JFRD also contribute far less to their pension than other city employees. Just doing a little "fact" correcting.
All city employees 2005-1007? So who gets the legislative credit for that?
The pension plan passed by a large margin, per the TU.
Tell my unborn children's children that I tried...
^ I sure hope Mayor Curry doesn't get weak here, and truly gets all 3 existing pension plans closed to new employees.
Quote from: coredumped on August 30, 2016, 10:01:00 PM
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.
Quote from: icarus on August 30, 2016, 10:58:29 PM
Quote from: coredumped on August 30, 2016, 10:01:00 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Chris Hand on August 31, 2016, 01:04:23 AM
Quote from: icarus on August 30, 2016, 10:58:29 PM
Quote from: coredumped on August 30, 2016, 10:01:00 PM
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.
Maybe, strider, maybe not.
Quote from: sanmarcomatt on August 26, 2016, 11:22:36 AM
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.
Quote from: stephendare on August 31, 2016, 09:05:12 AM
Quote from: RattlerGator on August 31, 2016, 08:43:20 AM
Maybe, strider, maybe not.
Quote from: sanmarcomatt on August 26, 2016, 11:22:36 AM
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.
Quote from: stephendare on August 31, 2016, 09:05:12 AM
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.
Quote from: RattlerGator on August 31, 2016, 05:13:29 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 31, 2016, 09:05:12 AM
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
^???
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?
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.
Quote from: Tacachale on September 01, 2016, 03:08:20 PM
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.
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...=)
QuoteThis 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
Quote from: vicupstate on September 11, 2016, 07:01:44 PM
QuoteThis 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.
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.
Quote from: TheCat on September 11, 2016, 03:54:19 PM
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...=)
Everyone has biases, and unless they make a particular effort, they're reflected in the work they do. Some level of bias is unavoidable in a publication, and in some cases it's desirable. Metro Jacksonville on the whole has a preference for urban development, strong planning, transit, etc., and that's a good thing. This is what most of us come here for (additionally, I don't think it's really unfair).
On political issues, as I say, the biases of Stephen and Arash, the Metro Jacksonville owners most active on political topics, are apparent. I don't really care about whether something's "left wing" or "right wing", that doesn't really reflect how things play out in local politics. On this issue, you both made your own feelings about the plan clear. If you're arguing that you didn't let your opinions affect the way the pension issue was presented on the site, well, I disagree. On the front page, you ran one pro-referendum piece (this one), one neutral piece (this (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2016-aug-political-mojo-jacksonville-pension-blues)), and at least 10 that were critical or opposed outright: this (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2016-jun-4-reasons-to-vote-no-on-mayor-currys-tax-proposal), this (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2016-jul-misleading-pension-reform-language-explained), this (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2016-aug-ben-marcus-mayors-pension-fix-is-a-pay-day-loan), this (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2016-aug-opinion-referendum-1-totally-fails-to-reform-pension), this (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2016-aug-arash-kamiar-w-tom-majdanics-on-currys-pension-tax), this (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2016-aug-pension-tax-opposition-on-this-weekend-in-jacksonville),this (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2016-aug-stephen-joost-answers-pension-plan), this (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2016-aug-stephen-joost-urges-voting-no-on-pension-plan), this (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2016-aug-bill-bishop-answers-the-pension-issue), and this (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2016-aug-referendum-1-the-most-progressive-conservative-plan). In the numerous threads on the issue, you frequently framed it negatively (eg, here (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=27598.0) and here (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=27481.0)). MJ's social media presence was almost uniformly negative. It's not much of a stretch to think that such representation affects the discussions, and the tone of the site in general.
The tone bothers me more than the slant. In fact, I appreciate the gonzo style, so long as there's no pretense of neutrality. However, discussions here often devolve into needlessly heated and tangential back-and-forths, and the moderators don't do enough to keep it in line. Apparently, this environment is keeping people from participating when they otherwise might. If we really want intelligent discourse where people disagree vehemently, keep that in mind.
Just reading this thread, I happen to agree with Tach.
I've been discouraged from posting on threads relates to FDOT, transportation, development, and the like because my opinions didn't fit the motto of MJ. That's sad, because I can bring a lot of perspective about the inner workings of FDOT and it's decision-making.
I find it rather interesting to believe that development patterns are political. Sure, any topic can be turned into political discussions, but good Lord, some topics don't deserve it. Urban sprawl is right wing politics? Density is liberal? Official Republican platform against bikes/peds? Really? Sheesh.
And finally, politcal discussions are more productive without throwing around "conservatives", "liberals", "left-wing", "right-wing" and every other political label. Talk specifics, not generalizations. Save it for Fox, CNN, HuffPost, and Breitbart.
It's not a matter of perception. It's a fact that you and Arash were against the pension plan, as you just reiterated. It's also a fact that the site ran a lot more articles, threads, etc. that were against the plan than were in favor or neutral. Sorry, but I don't believe those two facts are unrelated.
The thing is, I'm not even suggesting the site be unbiased. It can do a better job being an open environment debate even if it has an editorial slant. However, the slant is rather obvious.
Clearly, I've struck a nerve. I'll give you the Lori Boyer video, I must have missed that one. I stand by the rest of what I said regarding your coverage of this issue.
Quote from: stephendare on September 13, 2016, 10:38:59 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on September 13, 2016, 08:52:50 AM
Clearly, I've struck a nerve. I'll give you the Lori Boyer video, I must have missed that one. I stand by the rest of what I said regarding your coverage of this issue.
You may stand wherever you like, clearly, but it won't make anything more or less factual. ;)
I take it then that you did see the Lenny Curry video on the Pension plan, but just don't feel like including it today?
Well then, giving me the Lori Boyer video is especially generous then, and I accept the gift feeling beggared by gratitude.
I missed the Melissa Ross Curry vid too, but I was focusing on your own content. So 3 positive articles, and 10 negative ones, plus all the other stuff.
Quote from: Tacachale on September 12, 2016, 03:04:05 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on September 11, 2016, 07:01:44 PM
QuoteThis 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.
Come one Taca, you don't believe that.
Why is it that the civic council refused their support of Brown's plan?
Why is it that they supported Curry's plan?
Curry didn't sell his plan. He bought it. We'll all pay for it.
The coverage would not have been different from me. I've never been a Brown supporter except for when I had to choose between him and Curry. Further, I didn't oppose the pension tax because Curry pitched it. I opposed it because it is fiscally irresponsible, incredibly unethical and full of ambiguity.
Quote from: TheCat on September 20, 2016, 04:59:34 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on September 12, 2016, 03:04:05 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on September 11, 2016, 07:01:44 PM
QuoteThis 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.
Come one Taca, you don't believe that.
Why is it that the civic council refused their support of Brown's plan?
Why is it that they supported Curry's plan?
Curry didn't sell his plan. He bought it. We'll all pay for it.
The coverage would not have been different from me. I've never been a Brown supporter except for when I had to choose between him and Curry. Further, I didn't oppose the pension tax because Curry pitched it. I opposed it because it is fiscally irresponsible, incredibly unethical and full of ambiguity.
The Civic Council et al did support the good portions of Brown's plans. In fact, they'd been trying to get him to move on the pension for years, which is one of the main things that finally got his administration to act (as much as it did). If he'd proposed an equivalent (or better) funding mechanism to this one, they would have supported it. As for MJ coverage, I might have believed you before the last election.
Quote from: Tacachale on September 13, 2016, 08:52:50 AM
Clearly, I've struck a nerve. I'll give you the Lori Boyer video, I must have missed that one. I stand by the rest of what I said regarding your coverage of this issue.
I loled at "Clearly, I've struck a nerve".
In other words, Stephen, "Thou dost protest too much!" ;D
Quote from: TheCat on September 20, 2016, 11:09:52 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on September 13, 2016, 08:52:50 AM
Clearly, I've struck a nerve. I'll give you the Lori Boyer video, I must have missed that one. I stand by the rest of what I said regarding your coverage of this issue.
I loled at "Clearly, I've struck a nerve".
In other words, Stephen, "Thou dost protest too much!" ;D
Oh, but y'all will keep y'all's word.
Quote from: Tacachale on September 20, 2016, 05:28:57 PM
Quote from: TheCat on September 20, 2016, 04:59:34 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on September 12, 2016, 03:04:05 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on September 11, 2016, 07:01:44 PM
QuoteThis 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.
Come one Taca, you don't believe that.
Why is it that the civic council refused their support of Brown's plan?
Why is it that they supported Curry's plan?
Curry didn't sell his plan. He bought it. We'll all pay for it.
The coverage would not have been different from me. I've never been a Brown supporter except for when I had to choose between him and Curry. Further, I didn't oppose the pension tax because Curry pitched it. I opposed it because it is fiscally irresponsible, incredibly unethical and full of ambiguity.
The Civic Council et al did support the good portions of Brown's plans. In fact, they'd been trying to get him to move on the pension for years, which is one of the main things that finally got his administration to act (as much as it did). If he'd proposed an equivalent (or better) funding mechanism to this one, they would have supported it. As for MJ coverage, I might have believed you before the last election.
Tacachale:
I have great respect for the Jacksonville Civic Council (JCC) and the contributions it has made to the pension reform debate. I often credited the JCC for its efforts during the many community and Council presentations I made on the subject.
I am particularly grateful for Steve Halverson, who served as the Jacksonville Civic Council Chair when I was Chief of Staff. Steve is an outstanding community leader and great person who took a thoughtful, constructive approach to the issue. I really enjoyed working with him, even on occasions where we disagreed. The other JCC Pension Reform Task Force members also invested a lot of time and effort, as did JCC President Jeanne Miller. Some members, like David Boor, Sherry Magill, Bill Rupp, and Greg Smith, spent nearly a year on the Jacksonville Retirement Reform Task Force chaired by Bill Scheu.
You would be absolutely correct to say that the Jacksonville Civic Council's dedication to pension reform, especially under Steve's leadership, was a crucial factor in forward progress. The JCC work improved the final product and helped ensure enactment of the comprehensive agreement that became law in June 2015.
But I will correct one statement you made: "[T]hey'd been trying to get him to move on the pension for years, which is one of the main things that finally got his administration to act (as much as it did)."
Pension reform was a priority for the Brown Administration from day one as we recognized its major importance. The City engaged an actuary to review the Police and Fire Pension Fund (PFPF) in the first part of 2012 and we presented our first benefit modification plans in collective bargaining negotiations with the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and Jacksonville Association of Fire Fighters (JAFF) later in 2012. The first tentative agreement with the PFPF was reached in May 2013. In other words, the first two years of the administration saw a lot of activity on the subject.
As I said above, the JCC played a vital role. But the idea that our administration did not move "for years" or someone else "finally got [the] administration to act" is not accurate.
Metro Jacksonville: Fair and Balanced ;)
Can someone explain why moving them all to the FRS would be a bad thing for COJ? Seems to me like doing that - like every other major metropolitan area in the state - would effectively get us out of the pension business.