Double Trouble
S.F. needs to pay closer attention to its finances: I read with disgust Joe Eskenazi's article on "double dipping" by the police of San Francisco ["Double Drain," Feature, 4/13]. What the hell were the Board of Supervisors thinking? Or were they thinking?
Anyone with basic math skills could have figured out what the Deferred Retirement Option Program [DROP] consequences would be. No one was minding the store, and now the taxpayers will be bitten in the ass by more taxes and spending cuts than we can possibly live with. Are there any honest accountants out there who S.F. can hire to get us back on track and keep us there?
Any initiative or proposition needs to be taken apart, word by word and explained in simple English so the voters know just what they are voting for. No more slippery solutions, thank you very much.
Arlene Miles
San Francisco
New cops create costs as well: Okay, so let's say the [SFPD] didn't do this [let police work and be retired], and the department had to hire new officers. Know how much it costs to train a new cop? The initial hiring is a written and physical test, a psychiatric interview, and an oral board, then the academy [and] then Field Training Officers. They're making a salary this entire time, plus taking up the time of several officers to train them. So in the long run it probably was cost-neutral, they kept good cops on the force, and the city stayed protected. The naysayers are just jealous that their career doesn't allow them to do this!
Ex_cop
Web Comment
Your taxes, their retirement: It boggles my mind to try and wrap my head around how any taxpaying citizen can think this is a good idea. I work in the private sector and recently did my 2010 taxes. What makes me angry is not the money I paid last year, but knowing that I'll have to scrape by and save every penny I possibly can from now until at least age 70, hoping I'll be able to retire by then with no safety net and no guarantees.
Then I read an article like this, and realize that the money I'll have to pay every year for the rest of my life will be funding a lifestyle for people who can retire at 55 or 60. They get a big windfall of my money that I'm working hard for, and then get a paycheck to sit around for the rest of their 30 or 40 years, riding on my back, while I'm still working. This is the reason so many of us in the private sector are so angry and don't want to see higher taxes, as we know there is still a lot of fat to cut! There's no guarantee for us but death and taxes, while the (pampered) people in the public sector get the golden parachute.
John
Web Comment
DROP should be dead: What is it going to take to get police and fire departments (wages 35 percent above Bay Area counterparts) to stop draining the city treasury? I cannot think of another example of people taking an absolute reservoir of goodwill and exploiting it for financial gain. Just awful.
Why is Eskenazi letting the Controller's office (Ed Harrington, again) off the hook here on the standard ballot understatement of the cost of new employee benefits to taxpayers and the voting public? The Controller stated it was "probable" that DROP would meet its goal of being "cost-neutral." People should be skeptical that they'll get an honest answer from the Controller's office as to the cost of the program, given its long history of misleading statements on employee benefit costs. It's how we got into this mess in the first place.
RborBust
Web Comment
Blog Comment of the Week
In response to another pedestrian being hit by a car on a dangerous stretch of Masonic Avenue: This news hits home ["Jogger Hit by Careless Driver as City Ponders Safety Fix," Matt Smith, the Snitch, 4/11]. I not only live off Masonic, I was also very nearly hit just yesterday while legitimately crossing Fell and Masonic on foot.
I hate to say this danger isn't something new to my experience as a pedestrian in my neighborhood. We need better protection now. Visibility, speed limits, restrictive turn signals, and police enforcement would be some great starts to saving our lives from preoccupied drivers who have the unfair advantage when up against a jogger, bicyclist, or a resident walking home with groceries. Let's get loud about this, neighbors!
Turk/Masonic Neighbor
Web Comment
