Duluth City Hall: Help us balance the budget
“I need help.”
It can be a hard thing to admit. Especially publicly. Yet public servants at Duluth City Hall have done just that with its citizens budget committee.
If you missed the story, give it a read. Duluth city officials are seeking citizen input on ways to further slash the town budget. The city’s $17 million has already been sliced and diced. More is needed. An expected $4 million revenue shortfall is expected for fiscal year 2010.
Talk about civic transparency. Talk about solid leadership. Hard to find fault with this approach.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2009 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
23 comments Add your comment
Mark, The Original
April 9th, 2009
1:28 pm
To avoid confusion with the Mexican Mark, and the White Supremist The Original Mark, I will start using the name “Mark, The Original”. This way I won’t be mistaken for those other retards. When replying to me, please refer to me as Mark, The Original. Thank you.
Bubba
April 9th, 2009
1:40 pm
Good luck getting rid of DPD. They bring in too much $$$ for the city coffers.
Bubba
April 9th, 2009
1:45 pm
Too, it would have been smarter to rezone the roads through downtown before they started building stuff. Would’ve been nice to find a way to get people in and out of there before creating high rent buildings for business owners who can’t physically draw customers. The roads are like a moat around the castle: no one gets in, no one gets out.
Cathy
April 9th, 2009
2:22 pm
Jais, obviously you don’t pay for anything. You blog 24/7. When do your UE benefits expire? At least the illegals work.
jim d
April 9th, 2009
3:02 pm
$21 million? a peice of cake–write a couple more tickets.
Michael H. Smith
April 9th, 2009
5:10 pm
WoW! That’s quite a piece of cake. I’m glad I don’t dine in DooLuth.
Morehouse Guy
April 9th, 2009
5:43 pm
The City of Atlanta should seriously consider this model (not necessarily the Duluth approach, but the model). I’m sure the mayoral candidates will include this as a part of their agendas (as will the City Council Presidential candidates). Citizen confidence in City Hall is at a nadir and anything that opens up the historically opaque city budgeting process is probably a plus.
Here are my questions: (a). budgeting is an arcane, technical process — can citizens actually be informed advisors? (b). I’d be particularly concerned about how time-consuming this could be — is there a time window for citizen participation? (c). Because I’d want to avoid the most unreasonable recommendations (see the first posting, lol.) how do you properly screen citizens? Let’s be honest folks, do we want EVERYBODY’S opinion? I’d think not. The model is good; it’s a welcomed departure, but it’ll need a little more tweaking to ensure that it’s manageable and useful for policymakers.
Bubba
April 9th, 2009
8:32 pm
(a). You don’t need a law degree or an accounting degree to be an informed advisor, Morehouse. Are you suggesting that being a citizen only entitles me to vote on who gets to spend my money, and not in how my money is spent? (b) I don’t mind setting a time window, but I want that window to be more than a token “here’s your chance to be heard. You got 48 hours.” (c) How do you properly screen citizens? How do you properly screen elected officials?! ‘Cause I gotta tell ya, dude, I know of some “common, peasant citizens” who would be eminently more qualified to render an informed opinion than some of the numb nuts who currently hold an elected – dare I say privileged? – position.
Sounds like elitist arrogance to me.
LT5000
April 9th, 2009
8:59 pm
Is the same Blubbering Badie commending Duluth for trying to balance the budget while in his last column was demanding more state funding for MARTA?
Morehouse Guy, Squirrely Franklin has no interest in balancing Atlanta’s budget. Unless her drug dealing son in law cuts her in on the action. Does anyone remember Shirley pulling strings to get him out of jail?
Yeah, that was another column Blubbering Badie didn’t write.
LT5000
Michael H. Smith
April 9th, 2009
9:01 pm
How do you properly screen a citizen from the first amendment?
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and “to petition the government for a redress of grievances”.
Government better want EVERYBODY’S opinion. Whether we want their opinion or not is fine, because we are not obligated to hear any redress of grievances, period. The day any government at any level sets a policy or makes a law refusing to hear SOME citizen’s opinion/redress, it is going to be a pretty good day in court for SOMEBODY and the ACLU, IMHO.
Morehouse Guy
April 9th, 2009
9:41 pm
Again, if taking everyone’s opinion were a viable option I’d be all for it. But, you can’t. Further, you could only imagine if everyone had something to say, the process would be inundated. It would be a nod to practicality to limit access through some sort of screening device (e.g. in the case of Atlanta using NPU leadership to make budget recommendations where neighborhood meetings are ALWAYS open to the neighborhood).
I guess no one cares how long the process would take. Are we to assume that every voter has a valid opinion? Mr. Smith, your opinion counts at the ballot box — a process that has shown itself to be more than able to accommodate as many takers as the precincts can handle. It would simply be impossible to get everyone’s opinion on every particular policy decision, hence why we’ve chosen our representative form of government.
Mr. Smith, I’m an attorney. You need not cite the constitution to me. I’m well aware of what the First Amendment says, but if you were actually a student of constitutional law, you’d know that this right (or any other right in the Constitution) is not absolute — they can be subjected to various limitations placed on them (where the level of scrutiny is a function of the right at stake).
They currently have open legislative processes in every county in this country (not necessarily for the budget per se, but town halls, county council meetings, committee meetings, etc. — an even in Atlanta you can speak at the budget committee hearings). So, Bubba you have ample opportunity now to redress your grievances if you’d like, and I’m sure that if the opportunity was made available to you in your jurisdiction, you’d be a welcomed addition to the conversation. But again, there would have to be some sort of limitation to make the process manageable and useful.
Of note, even at almost every public body where citizens can speak, they (the body’s house rules) can limit or “abridge” how long you can talk and know that they would not have a legal issue on their hands (if they did don’t you think that they would’ve brought suit already?).
Imagine how chaotic it would be if a disgruntled citizen could effectively filibuster every legislative matter that wanted (e.g. no limitations on citizen input on legislative matters). Why wouldn’t this happen without an unregulated citizen access mechanism? That’s all I’m asking for, some clarity on how you will make this process both manageable and useful. We do have a right to redress, but for everyone to express their right in a particular jurisdiction would be down right infeasible and the questions I raise get the process that much closer to striking the balance between citizen access and efficiency.
The process must be managable and worth a legislative body’s time and effort to expand citizen access. It can’t be done all “willy-nilly.” It’s got to be systematic and well-planned, and unfortunately, will require some limitations (that will not be subject to any constitutional limitations).
And for the record, I think most elected officials are clowns (especially in Georgia, per our most recent legislative session) and I am well aware that they themselves may not know much about budgeting. But at least in their capacity, they have the power to call committee hearings, rely on expert opinions (have experts offer their opinions unsolicited) and hire staff to make the learning curve less steep and have the capacity to find out relevant information if they so desire.
Conceptually, it’s a great idea. But, we’ve got to have practical limitations to make it work. Elitist arrogance? No, it’s about practicality.
Morehouse Guy
April 9th, 2009
9:49 pm
Meant to say *aspiring attorney* and not “attorney.” Currently a law student so I know precisely what the First Amendment says and what powers citizens have under it.
LT5000
April 9th, 2009
10:08 pm
Yeah Michael, how dare you quote the Constitution to a lawyer?
Saying a lawyer knows the Constitution is like saying a lawyer knows what Justice is. I can cite the ACLU defending child molesters and terrorists.
**The American Civil Liberties Union has asked a judge to dismiss what it calls an “unconstitutional” lawsuit against a national pedophile organization being sued in a wrongful death case after two of the group’s members brutally raped and murdered a 10-year-old boy**.
True elitist arrogance on display. By Morehouse Guy
LT5000
Michael H. Smith
April 9th, 2009
10:29 pm
I don’t think you are as aware as you think. But go ahead Mr. Aspiring Attorney, I betting that you missed what limited powers the government has under the first amendment. In fact, I believe, if memory serves me right, I have a local case in my back pocket memory that says I’m right.
The case involved a local man and a certain City in here Gwinnett. The City dismissed the man as out of order during a council meeting refusing to hear his redress. Needless to say the ACLU got involved and as memory serves me this City got the message loud and clear. To my knowledge this City stop violating the man’s rights of redress. (I left out the names intentionally though others who may read this probably know exactly the incident I’m talking about.)
Nice try on the rebound but your original comment did not express limits, only an indication to completely refuse or as you said, avoid to hear some opinions as you would consider them an unreasonable redress.
“Because I’d want to avoid the most unreasonable recommendations (see the first posting, lol.) how do you properly screen citizens? Let’s be honest folks, do we want EVERYBODY’S opinion?”
Les Miles
April 9th, 2009
10:34 pm
LT5000 you’re the stupidest person I have seen on any blog..anywhere.
Michael H. Smith
April 9th, 2009
10:54 pm
Oh and a question Mr. Aspiring Attorney, the first comment in this blog that you dismiss as unreasonable, on points 4 and 7 do you find that part of the redress as unreasonable?
Does this sound vaguely familiar?
“He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.”
It should, it was the founders compliant made against a tyrannical King.
BTW, tyranny, Justice Scalia spoke to in his opinion on the second amendment – the prefatory clause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
LT5000
April 9th, 2009
11:07 pm
Les, earning his Morehouse Guy and Rick Badie kneepads. You have great company with resident Badie jock sniffer Bruce Wilcox.
LT5000
Teacher
April 10th, 2009
9:32 am
Duluth has more problems than this budget. A huge issue is the widespread apathy. Many of the people don’t seem to care enough to stand up to the corrupt pig (chief of police), who regularly dictates that his officers “generate income” but does nothing to rid the town of the illegals and their illegal activity. I ate lunch with one of these officers one day and when I asked him what he did when he came upon illegals. His reply was disgusting. “Nothing, they are too much paperwork.”
Instead of worrying over the color of the trash bags in the city limits, why not save tons of money and get rid of the chief. The department is run rampant with nepotism and those who are willing to play the game. Another officer was told they wrote too many tickets to the wrong people and that they should learn to choose better friends. Meaning they should keep company with the lazy pigs who choose to do nothing rather than the few that try to make a difference. That same officer was passed over for promotion several times because they refuse to play the game, despite being more qualified than the ones in higher positions, who are willing to play.
Proctor Square is filled every morning with illegals looking for work. If they were gone, it would open up jobs for hard working LEGAL citizens. It would reduce the number of people waiting at the emergency room for medical treatment. I spent three hours waiting with my daughter (who had pneumonia) on a Friday night because the emergency room was filled with illegals who couldn’t speak English and didn’t have money to pay for treatment. Guess who is paying for that? Tax payers.
Dont be fooled into thinking the police do not know where these illegals live. I did a citizen ride along with the department and believe me, they not only know, they can tell you how many in each dumpy apartment behind Big Lots. Those who think “at least they work” don’t be fooled either. They might work but they send most of the money back to their home country, so that does nothing for the economy. They aren’t paying taxes either, because they get paid cash.
WAKE UP! DEMAND CHANGE!
Bubba
April 10th, 2009
11:22 am
Teacher, you hit the nail on the head. The widespread apathy in Duluth is learned, not inherent. Those who have lived in the area for a while have been conditioned to know how the game is played. Rasise a concern? My, my, my. All of a sudden the police think you are a bad driver. You speed, you follow too closely. “What is that pill in your car? Is that a pot leaf? Lie face down on the ground for the next 45 minutes while a team of us search your vehicle and rip your car apart. This tire iron is a concealed weapon because it’s under the passenger’s seat. Same with the plastic butter knife in your door console – you could use that to injure me. Expect this to occur on a weekly basis.”
It’s not about not caring enough. It’s about being conditioned to be a good plantation worker.
The original Mark
April 10th, 2009
12:51 pm
Mark, The Original, How mature of you! You just proved who the actual retard is. What a loser!
Michael H. Smith
April 10th, 2009
4:00 pm
Yada Yada Brucie, don’t you think it’s about time you stopped your little antics? Yes there are limits to all rights but “screening rights”? That is going down a very slippery slope that at some point will step all over someone’s constitutional first and probably fourteenth amendment rights. If left unchecked unchallenged it is the pathway to despotism. And, no, the rights of free speech and redress did not die with the hippies. The ACLU has more than the cajones to challenge the very things you say no one cares about anymore and they really are “Perspiring Attorneys”(actual lawyers) not just want to be lawyas.
Teacher
April 11th, 2009
12:40 am
I just left Duluth. 30 minutes ago…even in the rain they run rampant and as usual Duluth’s finest is afraid they’ll melt and sat in the car. No doubt the fool was asleep.
Bruce Wilcox
April 11th, 2009
12:54 pm
Now Mr. Smith the embarrassed Republican, like when bush visited a place they took the protesters off his route, isn’t consided screening?
Your defense is one case in dinky town USA won by the very Liberal ACLU, do you get tired from speaking from your butt hole?