Readers Supportive of Park Bond Debt
Last week more than half the readers that voted in the poll support the city taking on debt to fix our many parks:
Q: Do you support St. Louis selling bonds to fund park improvements?
- Yes, investing in our park infrastructure will help the city prosper! 52 [54.17%]
- No, the debt will be a burden on city revenues 21 [21.88%]
- Possibly 12 [12.5%]
- unsure/no opinion 6 [6.25%]
- Other: 5 [5.21%]
The other answers were:
- If we need bonds, then do a bond issue. Tax revenues are for ongoing revenue.
- like better parks. don’t like debt. hm?
- why not sell bonds to improve failed school district?
- No. there are at least a half dozen more pressing needs than park maintenance
- I support the bonds but agree with JZ71 – funding needs to be more distributed.
Time will tell if this was a good decision. Improved parks may make city neighborhoods more appealing, attracting residents, businesses and jobs. Increased revenues cover the debt. On the other hand service cuts might be needed in the future to deal with the debt payments. The original post had some spirited comments.
– Steve Patterson
A couple of the “other answers” deserve a response:
1. “If we need bonds, then do a bond issue. Tax revenues are for ongoing revenue.” Huh?  Selling bonds is the same thing as taking out a loan. Future tax revenues are used to pay off past bond issues. While I’d rather see government use / get back to pay-as-you-go budgeting, you have to weigh that old Midas ad – Pay me now (when things are still fixable) or pay me (more) later (when they’ve totally failed).
3. “why not sell bonds to improve failed school district?” The problems with our failed school district go much deeper than money. We already spend more per pupil than most school districts in the state, and bonds are typically used for construction, not for payroll or benefits. We certainly don’t need to build more school buildings when we’re trying to figure out which ones to close!
The challenge with parks is that a lot of ongoing costs aren’t sexy / don’t create any photo ops for politicians. Putting a new roof on a structure costs money, but it’s much less expensive than having to replace the structure when it fails because of water damage. Fences and playground equipment get used and abused and need replacement. Bridges, roads and paths wear out. Yet, because many of these expenses can be put off for a year or two, with few immediate consequences, they do end up being deferred for more years than they should.
A bond issue both provides the funds needed to catch up and to essentially lock in future spending, preventing it from being diverted to other priorities. It’s not perfect, but it seems like the best alternative currently available. My only real concern is that half the money is going to one park (Forest Park), while the other nearly 100 parks get to split the rest. I get it, Forest Park has a lot of ardent supporters, but it also already has a dedicated tax. Our other parks need the same love as FP, they just don’t have the same level of private or public support.
A couple of the “other answers” deserve a response:
1. “If we need bonds, then do a bond issue. Tax revenues are for ongoing revenue.” Huh? Selling bonds is the same thing as taking out a loan. Future tax revenues are used to pay off past bond issues. While I’d rather see government use / get back to pay-as-you-go budgeting, you have to weigh that old Midas ad – Pay me now (when things are still fixable) or pay me (more) later (when they’ve totally failed).
3. “why not sell bonds to improve failed school district?” The problems with our failed school district go much deeper than money. We already spend more per pupil than most school districts in the state, and bonds are typically used for construction, not for payroll or benefits. We certainly don’t need to build more school buildings when we’re trying to figure out which ones to close!
The challenge with parks is that a lot of ongoing costs aren’t sexy / don’t create any photo ops for politicians. Putting a new roof on a structure costs money, but it’s much less expensive than having to replace the structure when it fails because of water damage. Fences and playground equipment get used and abused and need replacement. Bridges, roads and paths wear out. Yet, because many of these expenses can be put off for a year or two, with few immediate consequences, they do end up being deferred for more years than they should.
A bond issue both provides the funds needed to catch up and to essentially lock in future spending, preventing it from being diverted to other priorities. It’s not perfect, but it seems like the best alternative currently available. My only real concern is that half the money is going to one park (Forest Park), while the other nearly 100 parks get to split the rest. I get it, Forest Park has a lot of ardent supporters, but it also already has a dedicated tax. Our other parks need the same love as FP, they just don’t have the same level of private or public support.
Perhaps the comment for 1 was to do a traditional bond debt, paid off by new revenues that sunset at the end. Bond issues traditionally in Missouri have meant a vote of the people, generally on a property tax increase to cover the revenues. In recent years, the City of Saint Louis, like many other jurisdictions, has been taking ongoing sales taxes and allocating future revenues to bonds. But traditionally, bond issues were presented to the people in package, voted on, and then the revenues would be dedicated and then sunset when the time came.
Perhaps the comment for 1 was to do a traditional bond debt, paid off by new revenues that sunset at the end. Bond issues traditionally in Missouri have meant a vote of the people, generally on a property tax increase to cover the revenues. In recent years, the City of Saint Louis, like many other jurisdictions, has been taking ongoing sales taxes and allocating future revenues to bonds. But traditionally, bond issues were presented to the people in package, voted on, and then the revenues would be dedicated and then sunset when the time came.