Why I will vote yes twice on May 8 in Ypsilanti
As much as I love politics, it’s not what comes naturally to me. What I am truly good at is science and math. I am an engineer at heart and by training. I write software for a living. I spend my time following complex and intricate logic until I lose track of time.
It is this devotion to science, empirical understanding, that has lead me to decide to vote yes twice on May 8. Although the logic that got me there is much simpler than what I deal with at work, it is no less sound. I’ve read the studies, followed the numbers and done the math. Ypsilanti has been dealing with a consistently falling revenue stream for many years now. When dealing with a situation like this a municipality has two options. Spend less or increase revenue.
To date, Ypsilanti has done an amazing job of spending less. City staff has been reduced by a third, police and firefighter levels are down to the lowest levels considered safe for a city our size, parks maintenance has been reduced to infrequent mowings, in some cases community groups have taken over public facilities and done a wonderful job taking care of them while offsetting the cost of those facilities from the city.
As much as saying so will make people want to accuse me of fear mongering I can look at the numbers and see how continuing to allow revenue to fall will go. Fire and Police levels will be reduced. It is frightening, but it’s also true. Without adequate police and fire coverage our community will become less and less appealing. Population will continue to fall, property values will follow and we’ll be forced into further cuts including police and fire.
The proposals on this ballot represent an opportunity to replace the revenue lost, avoid the downward spiral of public safety cuts and keep Ypsilanti vibrant. We, as citizens of this great city, have the opportunity to empower our city to provide us the public services and safety we need. I encourage you to vote yes twice on May 8.
Adam Gainsley
Ypsilanti
Comments
Sneezy
Thu, May 3, 2012 : 2:31 a.m.
I am curious to know if the author is a homeowner within the city of Ypsilanti. City proper (not Township) has some of the highest real estate taxes in Washtenaw county. Higher even than parts of neighboring Ann Arbor. To add an income tax as well? It's absurd. Reference again a "city of this size" (folks, it's Ypsilanti, and it's small) and I start to believe that Ypsilanti could learn to do even more with less. Taxing the citizens even more is not the answer.
eastsidemom
Thu, May 3, 2012 : 9:36 p.m.
Voting against these two proposals is a vote for all the citizens of Ypsilanti and the people who come here to work as well. It also supports our hardworking business people already here. Join in voting no on both.
greg, too
Thu, May 3, 2012 : 4:30 a.m.
Why do people continually cite how little city pays per capita? The citizens have some of the highest millages in the state, only slowed by laws put in to limit the amount of millages they can charge, coupled with average at best services, and the city is still asking for more....so how is this a good thing? To me, that seems to show that the powers that be are not seeking out and finding other revenue streams, instead choosing to sit back and rely only on taxable revenues and draconian cuts to services to keep the city afloat.
Stephen
Thu, May 3, 2012 : 3:37 a.m.
Ypsilanti has 21,000 residents. And while Ypsilanti's tax *rate* is high the dollar amount that homeowners pay compared to median income is normal. What you need to look at is the city's budget. Ypsilanti is one of the lowest spending cities in the region per capita. Our budget is tiny. Revenue is down $2M annually compared to five years ago. Our council has cut and cut and cut. There's nothing left to cut while doing a reasonable job of taking care of our city. Voting against these props is voting against the citizens.
The Black Stallion3
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 10:51 p.m.
Fantastic.......My two (2) NO Votes will be canceling your yes votes.
lumberg48108
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 5:20 p.m.
I cannot vote but have a stake in the race and Adam Gainsley makes many valid points. If I could vote, I would vote yes. My only question is, should this pass, why will things be different in 3-4 years and what is to stop the council for asking for more? Basically, you want my money, fine. Now, what will be different going forward? That is a question no one is asking or is afraid to answer.
greg, too
Thu, May 3, 2012 : 3:56 a.m.
I kinda thought it was a tax increase to pay for a wasteland that will never be sold and an income tax that supposedly could keep the huns at the gates, keep crime low (oh wait, it isn't low now), and our insurance costs low (wait, they're high too). You know, taxes to keep the status quo and not promote an iota of growth. So Stephen, since you are obviously more in the know than most of us, please explain all of this to us. Please include what is the plan for May 9 through the end of the millage to make the city more viable and not require more millages? Please, also explain the plans for the future because all that I have seen are shaky numbers on a spreadsheet without any actual growth plans outside of praying for an economic rebound so our property values increase and they can tax us some more. Tell me what the city is going to do to sell the land and increase revenue without taxation. Please enlighten us. And lest we forget, the last 5 year plans was off by millions, so please forgive me if I do not trust the city councils figures.
Stephen
Thu, May 3, 2012 : 3:34 a.m.
Wow notfromhere, you don't even know what you're voting on next week do you. Good job. Now go stay home while those of us who understand the situation take care of business.
greg, too
Thu, May 3, 2012 : 3:07 a.m.
Yeah, thats not in the 5 year plan. Or any of the pro tax plans. There is nothing about changing the culture or decision makers that have not fixed this mess. They are just being reactionary and trying to solve a short term problem that they have done little or nothing in the past to solve. And with all of the press about the Water St. debacle, who in their right mind will pay anything close to a decent price on that land? Why would they want to build something large in a city with oppressive taxes? And if someone was nuts enough to even want to buy the land, it would require so many tax abatements that the city would never make a dime off of the land, which is the usual complaint about EMU. The land will be empty 30 years from now...well unless they give it all away for parks and rec building that generate no revenue. So voting yes on the millage will stick you with 30 years worth of taxes with no increase in services.
Macabre Sunset
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 5:18 p.m.
From a purely mathematical perspective, you may be right in the short term. The question is what harm this will cause in the long term. This will depress real estate. If you're not used to paying city income tax, having another tax return to prepare and pay will be an incentive to live elsewhere. So your property tax revenues will decrease over time. This will depress the job market. Prospective employers will look at the income tax and realize they'll have a harder time attracting talent. Ypsilanti will lose its opportunity to attract skilled new business. If you're going to add a new tax for something, you have to ensure you're offering something unusual. Ypsilanti doesn't. Unfortunately, Ypsilanti will have to provide better police protection and make cuts elsewhere if it wants to avoid Flint's fate.
Martin Church
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 5:09 p.m.
As much as I don't want to see police and fire cut, raising taxes uncontrollable does not correct the real issue. investment of tax payer dollars without accountability. In 1999 the city council was told this was going to be a problem if they went ahead with the water st. project. The Water St. Project cut from the tax rolls a number of working businesses that were paying taxes in both property and personal property taxes. We were told the revenue would be replaced by the redevelopment of the property. replacing businesses with apartments and condo's at a lesser tax rate. (this should have already raised red flags). then the developer backed out when the enviroment results came in and determined they could not make a profit with the uncoming ecomonmic collapse. the city ignored the warning and moved forward. Now the city is back to asking for more revenue, they claim they only need 1/2 of what they are requesting, thier plan is for 5 years of the 30 years the bond issues will be collected. If your'e into math you do the work. we are leaving the city able to tax and spend money that we have worked many hours to make. This increase in taxes amount to three weeks of labor I have to sacrifice to pay. It means I will not be able to make needed home repairs which will be needed to sale the house to get out of the city. and we still have no proof that the funds will be returned to the citizens if the water street project turns a profit. In order for me to accept this plan I want the following. A sunset clause that states 5 years from now the city council will bring the plan back to the citizens for reauthorized. also I want the exact amount that will be collected in the langaue not something greater than is needed. I also want the city council to repeal all benefits and pay during the time this millage is used. The city manager must take a 50% pay cut from the old manager wages not some new item. In the mean time I will vote NO on both
Stephen
Thu, May 3, 2012 : 3:32 a.m.
Wow way to cut off your nose to spite your face. And to top it off you're trying to screw the rest of us over while you're at it. Once again I hope these pass and drive people like you out of this otherwise cool town.
EatKeyLimePie
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 3:50 p.m.
Since you pointed it out in your letter that people will accuse you of fear mongering, let me be the first... You are fear mongering! Crime is already a problem, the public saftey departments have learned to do more with less. The comment that states, with the decreased police presence insurances rates will go up.... I am sure the rate at which insurance could possibly grow to would be marginal in comparison to the extra 1,400 a year that a family with an income of 100K will pay in additional taxes. Ypsi does not need new taxes discouraging new residents from starting families in Ypsi, this will just perpetuate the decreasing property tax revenue issue the city is already facing. New taxes are simply a band-aid to much larger problems, possibly the city of Ypsi should consider swallowing their pride and condensing some services with the township. At what point can you stop the taxes and encourage home buyers to buy in Ypsi? An emergency financial manager sounds like a better solution than the tax scenario the city is putting on the ballot.
Julia Grant
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 3:42 p.m.
I appreciate Adam's reasonable tone. The opposition just keep shouting NO NO I don't want to pay! But I believe Adam's right in that, if we want to keep our city vibrant and city services stable, voting yes is the only way. It's an honest plan that's right out there with numbers that can be reviewed and understood. We know what we will be getting. Nobody ENJOYS paying taxes. Instead, we pay taxes so that we can enjoy the fruits of these shared costs: good streets, garbage pickup, quick police response, professional fire department, a reasonable and satisfying urban life. Voting YES twice, and thanks Adam.
ypsi 1
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 3:09 p.m.
Outstanding points Adam G. One also can point out that if core services are cut further: police, fire, local street repairs, etc. insurance rates will go up. When those costs are figured in, the small tax increases are a bargain.
EatKeyLimePie
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 6:05 p.m.
I don't know about you but my homeowners insurance would have to increase nearly 70% to equal out to what the "small" tax increases would be. I do not see insurance rates increasing 70% or more on speculation of decreased public safety, these tax increases are far from a bargain, more like a gestapo money grab.
shutthefrtdoor
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 3 p.m.
I'm just glad this measure has gotten good press time so folk's can make an informed decision...
pseudo
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 2:16 p.m.
I have looked at those same numbers and have come to the same conclusion. I agree with your assessment of the data and facts and its was wonderful to read a opinion based on just that data and facts.
EatKeyLimePie
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 5:58 p.m.
"The proposals on this ballot represent an opportunity to replace the revenue lost, avoid the downward spiral of public safety cuts and keep Ypsilanti vibrant." Is an opinion, not a fact jack.
Bilbo
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 1:58 p.m.
Great points, Adam. The city doesn't have much else to cut, and if these don't pass, they are going to have to cut things that really matter - like police and fire. It's not about scare tactics, it's about math. The numbers of dollars needed to fund the city aren't there anymore, and there have been cuts, so what we have to do now is bring in more dollars to keep the city worth living in.