Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Should the City Be Funding Flood Related Items

The Spec has an article about KPMG looking for some cuts in the city budget and one they recommend is cutting various flood prevention programs, including one that the city spent $4 million dollars on last year:

"Cash for the popular (3P) Protective Plumbing Program, which gives up to $2,000 per homeowner to install sewage backflow valves, dried up for the second time this year just as the remnants of Hurricane Sandy appeared on the horizon.
The city has spent $4 million on the grants this year — double the budgeted amount."

Four million dollars? Personally I think that people should be responsible for any costs associated with their homes, not the city. I may be biased as a renter, but why should the city subsidize home owners? If you own a house, you should be able to pay for any required repairs, otherwise don't buy it in the first place or sell. I would assume statistically that those owning houses, even those in the lower city have significantly higher personal net worth than renters, so why give them money?

I do realize that there is an issue with the city having sewer problems and this is a good way to encourage home owners to get sewer backup valves and may prevent some further claims down the road, but four million dollars is not a significant part of the city budget.

There's a quote from quote machine and councilor Sam Merulla:

That’s a non-starter. We need to expand the (3P) program, not cut it,” said Councillor Sam Merulla. “I support an immediate top-up ... but we also have to talk about sustainable, permanent funding.

I'm not surprised that spending $2,000 per home owner is a vote getter, but it isn't great for the rest of us.

Bottom line, you buy the house, you pay for everything associated with it, not the state.

No comments:

Post a Comment