Opinion: 7.5 Reasons to VOTE NO on Referendum 1

[Tacachale]

There is no "30 year agreement", no matter how much that phrase keeps getting used. The city always had options in dealing with the contract that for whatever reason were never used. However, the benefits aren't the entirety of the problem.

You are correct, the agreement was not for a 30 year period. The agreement appears to be of an infinite period, which is also barred by the city charter.

No, there wasn't actually any agreement of that nature. It's just how the union and PFPF tried to frame things to avoid changes to the benefits. The actual contract always allowed benefits to be reduced or a new contract struck or imposed pending changes in the economy. The city just never did it. And either way, the benefits themselves aren't nearly the problem that inadequate funding of the pension (and the Recession) was.

[Faelinn]

Many of the discussion points offered by others are strong and valid. I'll add my concerns to the pot.
1. We (because we vote, we are the government) supported the union negotiations and agreements made over the years to the workers.
2. Remember in many cases the lack of a raise or a fair raise was deferred to the pension "make less now, but we will take care of you later"
3. We (the voters) didn't pay adequate attention or believed the sheisters peddling lies about not paying the pensions so we could "invest" in other things around town. We were assured these investments would bring more jobs and economic activity. If that happened, the revenue from that was then squandered rather than paying our obligation.
4. This new tax, because that's what it is, does not have an obligation to make the payments they say they will pay if we trust them with the money.
5. Because this whole issue is a violation of the public trust, the referendum should specifically state the tax can ONLY pay the pensions from the first penny to the last and when the last penny is paid, the tax expires. What it actually states is that the tax is good for 30 years or until the pension is paid which ever comes first.
6. I would put money on their still being an open obligation in 30 years that our grandchildren are trying to work through.

I've already voted, and I voted no. I don't trust our politicians to do the right thing because they are not willing to take the hard stand and restrict future leaders to uphold our obligations of today. I don't have the luxury of telling my mortgage company I'll start paying them after I reach Social Security, trust me, wink!  Neither should our government have that ability.

I say the city should issue bonds (borrowing doesn't get any cheaper than it is today) and then structure a tax ( call it what it is) to pay for those bond payments for the next 30 years. Paying the fund in full today will net a much lower amount needed, thanks to compounding interest in the funds (future cost of money, inflation and all that). Tie the two together so the money cannot be deferred to anything else. Then pass a law that says they cannot jumble up the spending like this again without renegotiating when there is a short fall due to economic slow downs. County and City employees should suffer with the rest of us when there is a downturn. The last one wiped out my retirement saving and I am having to rebuild. All government employees should be on par with the citizens in the private sector they serve.

C. Thomas

[Noone]

^Great first post.