A Timeout for Receivership

Nothing like budget hysteria to reignite the calls for receivership. Let's just end it now, shall we? Look, there are a bunch of reasons to not go into receivership, and not one good one to do it.

First of all, as bad as things might be, they aren't even close to receivership level. Money isn't being "mismanaged." Money isn't being grossly misused. Consider that Springfield and Lawrence have been sucking much harder for much longer, and aren't in receivership. The last community I know of was Chelsea, back in the early 1990s. I don't know the last one before that. It takes real, real, real, real bad problems, not real bad problems, for receivership.

Second, what exactly is receivership going to do? It can force the unions to renegotiate, but renegotiate what? They don't have a contract and I'm not sure what they would cough up at this point that's worth much. What can the state do that the city can't right now? Will it bring in a bucket of money to fill in the gaps? No. Will it force businesses to move to the city and stimulate growth? No (although the state should be doing more business stimulus in most cities. That's a whole other story). Will it wave a magic wand and cure all the problems? No.

Third, receivership is a giant black eye on the community. Consider the other three cities in the post: Chelsea, Lawrence and Springfield. Feel good about any of those towns? Didn't think so, and only one has actualy gone through receivership. The other two are just closer than Fitchburg to that unsightly mark. Receivership is more than a black eye, actually. You might as well dump a truckload of nuclear waste in the center of town. Yes, I'm using hyperbole as a tool, but not by much.

Fourth, in some ways, what is happening this year is a symptom of statewide problem. The revenue system is not working for most communities in Massachusetts. Simply, the city's new revenue this year only covers health-care increases. Other inflationary costs aren't covered. Neither are step raises. Look on the other side of Route 2, where Leominster is making a similar cut to its budget. Leominster has a bigger cushion to ease the blow, but it's making cuts all the same. It's a problem, but it's not overly unusual.

Look, I don't know much about the city's budget right now. I think I'm against the trash fee, but not fully convinced. I think these cuts stink, but I know there's little option. I think it will be very interesting to see what gets cut where, and I don't know what those cuts are yet. But I do know this: Receivership is not just a bad idea right, but it's just not reasonable or necessary right now.

It's not a white-horse option. It's a black mark on the city. We shouldn't be encouraging it, we should be avoiding it all costs.