When voters reject a tax increase, it isn't unusual for a city (or even a school district) to make cuts in those services that inflict the <i>maximum</i> pain in the most visible way [1,2,4].<p>Businesses, of course, do the opposite when facing a budget crisis. They cut as far back as possible while still delivering as many of the things that their customers care about as they can [3].<p>It always seems silly to me when people worry about private sector pseudo-monopolies when we haven't figured out how to fix the incentives of that singular cartel that currently controls about half of our GDP.<p>[1] In part they are just living up to the implicit promises they make when asking for the tax hike. The message is never, "we need to raise taxes or else we'll be forced to cut the salaries and benefits of overpaid bureaucrats and work to operate more efficiently." No, it's always, "we need to raise taxes or else the lights will go out, and you <i>wouldn't</i> want that." You wouldn't expect them to let people down?<p>[2] Another commenter here usefully pointed out that this is an example of the Washington Monument Syndrome:<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Monument_Syndrome" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Monument_Syndrome</a><p>[3] When I say 'businesses' above, I'm principally referring to the millions of private companies in the US, not the handful of attention-grabbing public firms where management can extract wealth from the shareholders (and the government, in the case of GM and the banks). There is a different set of perverse incentives operating there. An entrenched (government-supported) monopoly could act the same way, as could (to some degree) a politically entrenched department head of a private organization. The bad incentives derive from high switching costs resulting in monopoly economics.<p>[4] Regarding rigor (questioned below): 1) my claim about what is usual in these circumstances is based on my own personal observations working with local governments; 2) I cited the Wikipedia article for naming of the phenomenon, not for rigorous support of its existence (be your own judge for that), and 3) this is already more rigorous than I intended to be for a simple comment about a common phenomenon that others have observed and noted long before the internet was available for us to debate every ontological question at length.
The lights out Denver actually sounds like a <i>better</i> Denver -- Bravo! No more wasting water on grass. We are facing a real water crisis in the world. No more redundant street lights to pollute the night sky. My car already has headlights and I'd rather see stars and fewer wasted kilowatts and less pollution in the air..<p>Insurance protects people against loss due to fire and if you are relying on the fireman to save you, you're not very wise. I've watched homes burn to the ground right along side the fire crews. We've already crossed the line into police state, so reduction there probably will have little effect. If you want to reduce the need for cops, make fewer things illegal. Isn't dope already legal in Denver?
It is refreshing to see a city being realistic about their budget problems. From what I have read a lot of other American cities seem to just be digging themselves a bigger hole.
I lived in CS for two years - nice little town but the industries there are having a hard time. Intel shut down their fab and the 'Garden of the Gods' business complex is full of huge carcases from other business that have left the area.
Flagged<p>What is it today with these troll bait stories -- there is no interesting discussion about this topic.<p>Votes decide not to enact tax, government cuts services that effect citizens the most -- this has happened throughout history; it's called the Washington Monument Strategy<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Monument_Syndrome" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Monument_Syndrome</a>