"But absent a big pile of money falling from the sky, there are no other routes to fiscal balance." // But what if there was a way to put off payments into the pension fund for a few years, say... Oh. Right...

Posted by Augmented Ballot | reply to this comment
September 17, 2009 8:33 am

Generally agree. I admire you for putting yourself on the record--most in the media won't, preferring to hide behind some invisible shield of impartially while "stirring the pot" to achieve their political and societal goals. As far as bankrupcy, I have a cautionary note: it's a slippery slope fraught with uncertainities. Placing the "fate" of the city in the hands of one person (a judge) is a bit too scary for my democratic tastes. My experience with bankrupcy matters and courts leads me to believe that two groups will generally benefit from any such action: attorneys and the monied interests they represent. It is long past arguing that mostly justice in US courts is directly dependent on how much money you have; little or no money--little or no justice. That's a pretty scary proposition for the average city resident.

Posted by southof8 | reply to this comment
September 18, 2009 6:42 am

In response to the criticism that we "naysayers" don't have proposals, here it is: INFRASTRUCTURE. Our water and storm drains, roads, sewers, and public buildings all need massive investment. This would stimulate the economy more than yet another tourist attraction, and last a whole lot longer. Plus it's genuine investment benefiting citizens instead of wasted welfare for wealthy well-connected downtowners. Leaders call for what is needed for the city as a whole, not only what's popular with their money-men.

Posted by Fred Williams | reply to this comment
September 19, 2009 6:00 am

For sdbuster: Look, buster, it is not Scott Lewis's job to come up with solutions to the myriad problems of this dysfunctional city (he's certainly free to offer some, if he so chooses, and is to be applauded for coming up with a few). It is, though, the mayor's job to do that very thing. That's why we have elections. He'd better get cracking on that task, because everything so far has been pathetic. I will say, Scott, that I am not particularly enamored of your point number 2. We are being taxed and "fee'd" to death by an incompetent and bloated municipal government. It's time they start earning their keep and show some restraint in expenditures -- like $700,000 for a study of a study on a proposal to expand a convention center that can easily wait until times are better, financially.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
September 19, 2009 8:46 am

You forgot to mention that the city council and mayor are going to have to significantly reduce their staffs and their payrolls. Until they do that, I would never support a tax increase. We're already paying for "revenue enhancements". I refuse to support any tax increases until the corporate welfare in this city is under control. All members of all development boards must take significant pay cuts as should all of the political buddies working for the council and the mayor. As we all know their staffers make a lot more money then the elected officials. I wonder why.

Posted by shawn1874 | reply to this comment
September 21, 2009 11:51 am

• Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
• Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
• Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.