Override Question Plans Ditched

Mayor Lisa Wong said today the plans to place a bunch of non-binding override questions on this November's ballot are not happening. You can get some background through the story at the Fitchburg Pride website. In fact, I'd say read that short story first, and then read on here.

Let's just say this situation is kind of confusing, in that there's different deadlines for different types of questions. It took two calls to the Secretary of State's office for me to get it all straight, and in the second call, we weren't sure if the non-binding part of the situation or the override part took precedence (it was the non-binding), and that was an important distinction because there were two separate deadlines.

Anyway, as of last week, city officials were saying they were aware of the deadline, and expected to move forward. But early this week, a new curveball popped up (which I found out in my second call to SOS) in the form of the need for special legislation. That, really, was the deal killer.

The SOS needs stuff by Sept. 5. If it was simply local approval, the council could have passed the questions on Sept. 2 and walked the questions to the secretary's office in plenty of time for the 9/5 deadline. However, the special legislation could only move forward after the council approval. Or, it would have to be filed, passed, and signed in three days. During informal session. On what might be precedent-setting legislation in that no one is sure if a community has offered non-binding override questions before.

Before yesterday's meeting at City Hall, Council President Tom Conry said in an e-mail "I suppose" the deadline could be met. Rep. Steven DiNatale was also talking like a guy who thought things were moving forward -- but honestly said he wasn't sure it was possible.

But the reality of the situation is that the three-day window between the Sept. 2 council meeting and the deadline was probably too small. For this to have gotten done, the council probably needed to see and approve the questions before the August recess. I'm not sure when everyone figured all this out, but the result is the deadline and the window are going to be missed.

Trash Fee or Override?

I know most people would answer the above with "neither," but humor me here.

The initial trash fee plan would probably cost me about $200 a year. The annual fee alone would cost $100. I figure at the $1.50 per bag, I'm good for about $100 a year. If the city passed an override, according to FY08 figures, every $1 million in override money would cost the average homeowner $74 a year.

I know we're talking shades of less horrible here, but I'd argue that an override would cost less than a trash fee. While it still seems unlikely an override would pass, I think it's really unlikely that voters would approve more than $1 million in new spending. Geez, it could $2 million and I'd still probably be saving money.

That said, the trash fee has a better chance of getting done than override. While the council might still be considering a trash fee, I see no circumstance where a majority of the council would support an override effort. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if not one councilor supported an override effort.

I know, I know. Most people say cut, don't spend more. But the fundamental fact is that revenues won't keep up with new, basic costs like energy, personnel and insurance. It just won't. So you just keep cutting year after year, or you do something. If the city can get new growth moving, this becomes a smaller issue, but when will new growth significantly help the city? I'd say not in the next few years. Five years? 10 years? What do you do in the meantime? People don't like seeing the library cut to part-time and don't like to see police officers and firefighters laid off, but until something changes, those kind of things will be an annual fact of life.

So, even though the final answer will be "nothing," I think it's an interesting question. What would people rather have -- a cheaper override, or a more costly trash fee? When you forget the politics and the knee-jerk reaction to the term "override," it might be the better option for your wallet. And the way this override discussion is likely to be focused -- a series of questions targeting specific departments and expenditures -- it would give voters the opporunity to target that new spending the way they wanted.

Eh, there's my Friday ramble. Time to tell me I'm an idiot and that we should just keep cutting.

A Different Override Question; About Last Night

Mayor Lisa Wong said this morning she wants to put non-binding override questions on this fall's ballot, and then proceed with perhaps some binding override questions early next year. You can read all about it at the Fitchburg Pride website.

It's an interesting move. It opens the override discussion, but doesn't create a one-and-done atmosphere that makes override debates so heated. How hard to advocates push in November? What's the threshold for getting onto the early-'09 ballot? Has this ever been done before?

It does give residents a clear say in what they funded. Even if nothing passes in the end, it gives some a road map to city officials of what people want to see money put toward.

It will be very interesting to see how this turns out. In November, voters would be essentially given a wishlist. Do you want money to be spent on X, Y and Z? But early in '09, it will be, do you want to spend money on X, Y and Z? That's a big different. I'm guessing a solid majority of people support the idea of spending more money on the library. But would a majority of people actually support the funding? I'm sure there will also be a bloc of folks who will vote "no" on everything through sheer principle.

I'm not sure if this has been done anywhere else, but it should be an intriguing experiment.

-----

If you're a Celtics fan, you have to pleased with how last night turned out. The Celtics and Lakers both played well, and except for the back end of the second quarter, you felt like the Celtics were either in control or close to taking control of the game. The last three minutes of the third and the first 10 minutes of the fourth were particularly well-played by the Celtics. In short, if the Celtics play well, they can win games.

Some interesting stuff out of L.A. in the aftermath. After spending almost the entire night outside of the paint, Kobe Bryant said he just missed a lot of "bunnies," and he was getting good looks. Of course, SportsCenter then shows a series of 15-foot fadeaways with a hand in his face (including that second-half airball) and other tough shots. Will Bryant go 9-for-26 again? God, I hope so. But that's kind of unlikely. But was shooting 49.7 percent in the playoffs before last night, so what is it? Bad shooting night, or good defense? Or both?

Also, Bill Plashke falls for Phil Jackson's bizarre whining after the Paul Pierce episode last night. Jackson questioned how hurt Pierce actually was. Plashke takes it a step further in his column this morning. I don't know how hurt Pierce is, but Mike and Mike were on point his morning when Golic questioned how Pierce could have the presence to fall down, immediately act very hurt, and know that his triumphant return would get the place charged up. That's a lot of scheming in about a half-second. But whatever. As a Celtics fan, I'm hoping Pierce was faking it, because they won't this series without him. They get an extra day off with Game 2 on Sunday, so hopefully he's ready to go.

In the end, a good start last night for the Celts. Now they have to take care of business Sunday night and really put the pressure on the Lakers.