Dear Editor,
One of the first things I learned in my college economics class
was that we live in a world of limited resources. Gold, silver,
oil, water, money and time are all limited. This limitation is a
driving force in economic theory.
Dear Editor,
One of the first things I learned in my college economics class was that we live in a world of limited resources. Gold, silver, oil, water, money and time are all limited. This limitation is a driving force in economic theory. Therefore, you and I have to prioritize our desires and make choices based on the value and availability of any particular item or service. Simply put, we cannot have everything.
This philosophy applies to individuals and institutions – businesses, schools, churches and cities like Gilroy. Every institution has to make decisions by measuring need versus cost and assessing the available dollars. That brings me to Gilroy’s police and fire dilemma. Every law-abiding citizen desires and expects Gilroy to be protected by those in uniform. We appreciate and honor those who keep order and provide safety. Wouldn’t it be great to have a policeman or fire fighter/paramedic on every corner?
Our quality of life would likely improve immensely. Unfortunately, police and fire personnel cost money – a limited resource! Between the two public safety divisions, our city expends about 80 percent of its annual budget, a significant reason why our city, a financially strong one, is operating at a loss.
I’ve been paying pretty close attention to this fire fighter/binding arbitration situation. What I have noticed is that the unions representing both police and fire could care less about the city’s financial responsibilities. The union has one goal – higher pay and better benefits for its members.
Our City Council has disappointed me and sold you and I out to the union. A majority have opted for keeping their cushy seat rather than standing up and trying to repeal binding arbitration. If repealed, our elected officials would have been able to make financial decisions that are best for its constituents based on the city’s priorities and limited resources. Currently city taxpayers are at the mercy of an unelected, unaccountable arbitrator.
My recommendation is for the fiscally responsible people of Gilroy to initiate a referendum with three goals:
n Public safety’s future budget for wages and benefits be tied to general fund annual revenues as a percent using 2005 as a baseline, say 80 percent.
n Public safety’s annual budgetary increases shall not exceed 3 percent above previous year.
n Eliminate binding arbitration.
If passed, the city would continue to fairly compensate public safety personnel while effectively neutering the union and their heavy-handed tactics. Financial predictability would return to our leaders. Since our City Council won’t make the hard decisions, the people must.
Vic Vanni, Gilroy
