Friday, October 23, 2009

Yep, we sure don't want to use public monies for the wrong purpose, do we?

In Grace Schneider's C-J coverage of the city council gathering Wednesday, during which a budget was approved, there are these illuminating passages:

First, this one:

Councilman Jeff Gahan, who cast the only no vote, said Thursday he's skeptical that the mayor or his staff will follow through. Gahan said he fears the council will end up dipping into reserve funds to balance the 2010 budget, just as it has had to do to balance the current one.

The 2010 budget “leaves us in exactly the same place as we're in now” with the 2009 budget, he said.
Then, this one:

To fill gaps in past budgets, the council has had to draw on riverboat revenue-sharing, rainy-day funds and income tax reserves.

“We've grown accustomed to tapping those funds,” which shouldn't become a regular practice, Gahan said.
Gahan could have been referring to "tapping" EDIT funds to subsidize sewer rates, otherwise known as our Incumbent Assurance Program. Was he?

No?

Gee, what does that make him, then?

(Hint: The word begins with "h")

4 comments:

Jeff Gillenwater said...

The only thing Jeff Gahan is interested in is his own political well being.

You're talking about a man who has said on more than one occasion that the law does not matter. If he ever denies that, he's lying.

Hypocrite isn't strong enough a word. Surely to goodness the people in the 6th district can find someone with an ounce of integrity to represent them. Any party that would hold his self-servicing bullshit up as an example of success worth continuing should be fully discredited.

Iamhoosier said...

As much as I want to believe there is a difference, when you get right down to it, there's really not that much difference between him and Coffey. Gahan has a bit more "polish" to him but that's really about it. I can still hear Gahan telling me that he wasn't going to let 4 or 5 guys tell him what to do--even when it was the right and statutory thing to do.

THEM PEOPLE.

The New Albanian said...

I've edited the preceding to include a link to Daniel Suddeath's coverage of Sewer Board deliberations, which includes a specific reference to the $875,000 yearly EDIT subsidy of sewer rates.

Low Flow: Firm will assess sewer rates, budget; utility low on cash

Jeff Gillenwater said...

I'd point out that the $875,000 is over $100,000 more than the annual CDBG allotment from the federal government that makes up the City's redevelopment budget.

Keep that in mind when anyone on the council tries to act as if they support redevelopment or economic development.