View Single Post
11-21-2012, 08:06 AM
Tortious Beadicus
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,214
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
Here's why: there's an "expenditure reduction" line item in FY13-FY16, i.e. the effect of service cuts is presented separately. It has much larger amounts if the team stays than if it goes. In other words it's not "Coyotes stay" vs. "Coyotes leave", it's "Coyotes stay + big cuts" vs. "Coyotes leave + smaller cuts". The only reason the first scenario looks better in the long run is because of those bigger service cuts.
Yep, I'm watching the video right now. The "with team" scenario contemplates making immediate large scale cuts. The GF impact of those reductions is compounded annually to the point where at the 15-20 year mark, the fund balance is higher with the team... even though the GF balance is negative and the city has been in austerity for two decades.

Originally Posted by Thomas L View Post
It is a truly amazing display of governance failure. And when the projections don't materialize again, there literally will be nothing left to cut. Might want to start studying Chapter 9

CasualFan is offline