Since then, I’ve largely taken the summer off from Trenton politics because I was too depressed about the election including the city council contest in which most of my choices lost.  But still there’s hope.

Now here we are, a month into our new government, with a well documented litany of bad and possibly nefarious decisions and revelations coming out of city hall.  The regional and national press is covering Trenton’s train wreck.  Citizens are openly discussing recall elections and State takeovers.  Our murder rate has spiked and absolutely NO progress has been made on actual revitalization.

 Mr. Mack is wrong when he says the election is over. He wasn’t the first choice of a large majority of Trentonians in the first place and even if was, he’d have to win them over daily in order to get the city moving.  Great politicians keep campaigning.

Reinvent Trenton and subsequently the Fix Trenton’s Budget group were set up calmly discuss revitalization policy and budget process.  This is hard to do in the best of times but in an environment devoid of trust, I’d say it’s impossible to initiate brave new policies.

For Trenton to take new approaches like the ones I’ve outlined over the years, we’ll need to take leaps of faith in our leadership.  Our leader will need to bring along not just people like me, but all of the citizens in Trenton.  Tony Mack himself once told me, “Dan, I like your ideas, but how will they play in the Wilbur section?”.  I thought it was an excellent question and I gave him what I believe was the good answer, “Rising water raises all ships”.  No matter who we are, we’re better off with more wealth in Trenton.

To get his administration back on the right leadership footing and to earn the ability to lead us in the policy leaps of faith, Mr. Mack needs to do a few things. 

• Institutionalize transparency,  especially into his own finances

Anyone in Mr. Mack’s financial situation would be desperate.  However, not everyone is mayor of a small but high profile city.   His situation damages his leadership ability but more importantly gives rise to suspicion that he will abuse his power in order to resolve his debt issues.  To abate these concerns, Mack needs to put his finances under official third party scrutiny until he’s resolved his problems.  This is uncomfortable I’m sure, but how else will we be able to establish trust?

• Develop a revitalization plan that passes the test of economic soundness

None of the candidates offered real revitalization plans and to be fair, it would be hard to do so without the resources of a city administration.  So now, Mr. Mack needs to get down to work on this.  So what is  “this”?  The budget is only part of the problem. When we talk about cuts, we’re really talking about surviving.  We have to talk about not just surviving but thriving.  I’ve said many times,  that this is harder than rocket science and therefore we need a serious effort.  We need a solid team led by a serious person.  While Mr. Guhl may have been a serious person, the idea that the solutions to our city’ core problem would be resolved by a volunteer who could easily resign, is ill-conceived.  I’m not saying volunteers shouldn’t be welcome to work on this (I’ve repeatedly volunteered to help and to no avail) however leadership should come from a cabinet level city employee (or at least a paid consultant).

• Slow down and begin operating from a core set of management principles

One of the observations I’ve made about Tony Mack over the years is that he seems to manage in the minutia.  I remember him offering marketing tips to the Marriott when his central complaint was about the ownership structure.  People like this are often shooting from the hip.  Great chief executives don’t do this.  Rather, they operate from a well communicated set of core principles (e.g. integrity in government, create a positive business environment, be fair).  Then they focus on developing and managing their subordinates and fostering communication.  I wrote an article,  “Trenton as a Turnaround Opportunity” a couple of years ago that Mr. Mack will find worth reading and perhaps discussing with his advisors.

On to more important things.

A few weeks ago, Trenton made two uneconomic decisions right in the thick of the election.

1. It approved the receipt of HOPE VI funding to replace Miller Homes, and
2. It approved a tax abatement for Escher Street SRO, a halfway house

Both decisions are emblematic of the path Trenton has been following for the past 20 years and both run counter to the focus on economic recovery most of our candidates espoused.

In 2004, the South Trenton neighborhood comprising the Lamberton Historic District fought against HOPE VI funding which would have replaced one housing project, Kearney Homes, with another. They hoped for better and they’ve gotten it with a 100% market rate development from Ryan Homes.

In the course of that battle two astonishing observations were made concerning the agenda of the Trenton Housing Authority and the City administrations.

1. When asked whether an economic impact analysis of the project had been done, neither the City nor the THA had done one. They had no idea whether the project would be economically good or bad. At one point in the meetings between the neighborhood and THA, I asked about this and a THA official suggested that I prepare the analysis for them. It was a flippant comment, but I went ahead and did it. Sure enough, that project would have been a drain on the city.
2. THA set up meetings with citizens to get input on the project. About ¾ of the way through one of these sessions, several of us realized that no one from THA was actually capturing notes from the input they were supposedly getting from the 100 or so neighbors in the room. It was a rude awakening to the callousness of bureaucrats towards the communities they serve.

I don’t imagine the neighborhood around Miller Homes was nearly as organized as the Lamberton group (I certainly haven’t heard about them). So I doubt there was anybody to raise issues about HOPE VI this time around. And I am sure that no one in the current administration or city council asked for an economic impact analysis. Going forward, let’s please do better.

The abatement on Escher Street SRO was even more ironic. All through the campaign, candidates including the three on the current city council have bemoaned Trenton’s structural deficit and the high number of non-tax-paying non-profit owned buildings in Trenton. They were talking about buildings exactly like the halfway house which had had a previous abatement but had ran out. When it came time to do something about it, city council folded. They passed the abatement measure in the same session where they were forced by the state to actually pass a budget which represented the failed policies of the past. Their actions didn’t measure up to their words when they granted an extension on Escher Street thereby extending Trenton’s structural deficit.

The problem with both of these decisions is that they ignore the basic economics of our city. Trenton is awash in costs for the poor and has no tax base to support those costs. We all know that our per capita income and therefore our ratables are very low, dangerously low.  And yet these two projects add to overall structural deficit.

A HOPE VI project will generate far more costs in the form of school, police, inspections, recreation and social services costs than it will ever generate in the form of property taxes.  As politically difficult as it sounds, the project will be an additional drain on the city.  This is the challenge that a politician faces in Trenton. We can no longer afford to do the cuddly, feel good thing.  We have to make hard choices, and our current council and administration failed to do it with Miller Homes.

The halfway house is even worse. I’m sure the home would have had to close. But presumably it would relocate to a community better able to subsidize its existence. We need halfway houses in this world, unfortunately Trenton can’t afford them at this time. Perhaps, when we’re healthier.

I point all this out to illustrate the kind of difficult decisions our next government faces.  We, as citizens, need to understand that we can’t afford to do everything we might want and that economic analysis can help us separate the good from the bad.  We’re like airline passengers that have lost pressurization in the cabin.  We need to put our oxygen mask on first before we worry about saving everybody else.   

Most importantly, we need to focus ourselves, as well as Council, on economic recovery and away from racial politics.

Neither of our candidates, Manny Segura or Tony Mack have a real plan for Trenton.  They both talk revitalization gibberish so it’s really a bit of a ugly toss-up from a policy perspective. 

Both want to go begging to the state for more money without offering anything in return.  If asked, both oppose the water sale even though they don’t have a good reason why.  Both would support the new HOPE VI project at Miller Homes even though they have no idea whether or not it will have a positive economic impact.  Both talk about selling off Trenton’s foreclosed homes though they have no clue as to how or whether it will matter.

If there’s no real difference between the candidates, then how can voters make their choice?

Voters need to consider the ethical character and financial motivations for Segura and Mack.

Consider Segura who wants no financial commitment from Trenton.  He’s on full disability and therefore says he won’t take a salary.  Ok, great but how can a person on full disability perform a demanding full time job like being mayor.  Mr. Segura won’t talk about this even when asked point blank.  A reasonable person would think he’s hiding something.   

So how will Mr. Segura make a buck as mayor?

Turns out he’s taken a big pile of money in the form of campaign contributions from politicians in North Jersey.  He won’t explain why those politicians felt so generous to him so here’s a guess.  As mayor of Trenton,  Mr. Segura will be in control of nearly $500M in municipal and school spending.  Let’s say contracts happened to go to companies friendly with those same North Jersey politicians.  And in return, those companies made generous donations to the same politicians.  How would we ever detect this form of pay to play?  Is this just a wild allegation?  Perhaps;  but it makes sense and since Manny won’t explain himself and say anything different, we have to go with the most likely story.

Now let’s turn to Tony Mack. 

Tony is apparently hard up for cash.  That by itself is no crime and we can only hope that he finds better financial times.  However, he shouldn’t be doing it on the backs, or behind the backs, of Trenton residents.

Mack owes back property taxes which again wouldn’t be a serious problem, except that he’s running for the job of chief tax collector.  It’s at least a conflict of interest for a mayor of the city to be in charge of foreclosing on his own house. 

So here’s a guy with some serious financial problems and he’s running for mayor, which is a very expensive proposition.  It seems that desperate times call for desperate measures.  Enter Jo Jo Giorgianni. 

Jo Jo is famous in Trenton as the quarter ton rapist.  There’s a long saga from back in the 1980’s where he was convicted for raping a 14 year old girl.  Furthermore, if you ask long time Trenton residents, he’s also been connected to other types of illicit activity. Why does this matter? 

Turns out, Jo Jo is a major contributor to Tony Mack’s campaign.  Election records show that he has donated $2600 (the maximum allowed).  In addition, it is widely rumored that the $20,000 Tony loaned to the campaign actually came from Jo Jo.  It couldn’t have come from Tony because he owes the back taxes, right?

So what does Jo Jo want for all that money?

Tony wouldn’t answer that.  He won’t address the charges.  We can only assume the worst.

Here’s the summary.

One candidate is defrauding the government and owes favors to North Jersey politicians.  The other candidate owes back taxes and owes favors to a convicted rapist.  With only two days to the election and no other options, why bring all this up?

The papers have let us down by not explaining these issues and the candidates have done nothing to explain themselves (I personally asked both candidates to address the allegations).  Somebody needs to let the people know what kind of candidates they’re voting for.  Voters have a difficult moral choice to make.   

As for me, Reinvent Trenton advises on revitalization policy not moral judgments.   You’re on your own.

So I was thinking about what I do for a living, and that I am a municipal public employee… and how I see so much waste everywhere. I also really dislike the perception that we are all just lazy bastards. So how do we really change the City of Trenton employee image and while we are at it, how can we change the image of Trenton? Us, how can we do it as well???  I did some research and wrote this up…

It’s just a few days away now — Election Day. Regardless of who is elected Mayor on June 15, the City of Trenton will close one chapter of its history and begin a new one.
Hopefully the new administration will bring new ideas to the challenges we face as Trentonians: challenges that are economic, challenges that are sometimes uncomfortable, and even though in some cases we will flat out disagree with policy, we hope that the greater good is served.

It has always been a mantra of mine that we are a service-driven industry but, what does that really mean? Those of us that work for the City of Trenton probably feel that we know our job, our role and the responsibilities that come with it. But maybe it might be a good idea to have a refresher course and take the lead from some great groups. At the Disney Company, they recognize that a key element in creating the best environment for engaged employees is great leadership. Leaders take responsibility for creating a vibrant employee experience, understanding that their own behavior and vision drives the creation of a work environment in which employees can be fully engaged. This is needed in the City of Trenton, from all employees.

We also need to take a look at what some folks believe is a sound business plan for public service employees:

• Improved effectiveness – more oriented to identifying and producing results.
• Greater service orientation – developing a culture in which the delivery of an outstanding service to the public is accepted as the norm.
• Improved accountability – performance must be effectively managed, measured, and failure to meet standards should be recognized and dealt with
• Improved financial accountability – the competent management of resources according to a strong “value for money” ethos as a hallmark of the public service. The public needs to see their money is not wasted
• Improved flexibility – a greater ability to work in teams across traditional departmental lines. Especially now with little funds and shrinking departments.

These are just a few things we can do as employees and hopefully  be part of an engaged municipal government. We will all be part of the team that works on behalf of Trenton, from paying our taxes on time, the upkeep of our home or business, to sweeping the street in front of our home – and it is up to all of us to work with the new leadership to tackle those challenges.

Eric Jackson, Frank Weeden, John Harmon, Keith Hamilton and Annette Lartigue are left on the Island along with me.

Don’t even consider voting for any of the others. They have policies and / or personalities that are dangerous to Trenton’s future.

So where are we with these five? I’ll use the Trenton Times, Fix Trenton’s budget survey and Mill Hill forum responses to compare and contrast.

Jackson and Lartique are the most Developer friendly
Hamilton, Harmon and Weeden seem to think forcing developers to hire Trenton workers is the way to encourage development. Jackson and Lartique are less clear about this. Furthermore Hamilton is the only candidate who favors forcing developers to pay prevailing wages. Increasing ratables is our #1 priority and to make life complicated for the developers that might make that happen is the ultimate in counter-productivity. It also demonstrates an attitude that government can and should control the economy. This is currently the Palmer Admin policy and look where its gotten us. People wonder why I’m running and this is it. We can’t afford to have four more years of anti-business policy in city hall.

Lartique is the most aggressive on the budget
Weeden says he will cut budget and hopes unions and Governor will cooperate. He opposed the reassessments necessary to correct our tax policy at the Mill Hill Forum.

Lartique is probably the most open and aggressive in her stance on re-working the budget, creating a strategic plan and doing reassessments. She’s not quite 100% correct on her explanation of zero based budgeting but she’s trying and I’d be glad to help her.

Jackson is the second most aggressive in his stance. He’s a bit more vague in his approach and doesn’t support zero-based budgeting. But he’d at least try. He told Mill Hill he opposing reassessments but changed his mind on the Fix Trenton’s Budget survey.

Harmon keeps saying he can’t explain his policy to reduce costs in limited space. What he doesn’t realize is that by not being able to simply express his approach he’s fairly much saying he doesn’t have one. He opposed reassessments at the Mill Hill forum and was tentative about it in the survey.

Hamilton says he’ll be able to find a $40M surplus. That kind of crazy talk gets people voted off the Island. His answers on reassessment show that he hasn’t thought about it.

Finally I’d have to say Jackson has the best temperament to be Mayor, in 2014
Jackson appears to be as serious and earnest as he comes across. Harmon, wants to be everbody’s friend and keeps talking about resources he’d bring to Trenton. I don’t even know what that’s supposed to mean or why he hasn’t brought those resources before. Lartigue has had some troubling and well documented anger management issues. Weeden is a “lone wolf” and hasn’t solidified support among the very people he thinks should support him, including me. Hamilton doesn’t seem to have serious notions about running a city and his policies don’t seem to be based on a philosophy.

As for me.You can be sure that developer hiring practices would be left to developers. Our city budget would undergo zero-based budgeting which means each department STARTS with no budget and has to prove why they need one given goals agreed by the Mayor and Council. And while I’m sure my temperament isn’t perfect for Mayor it is pretty good for making “by the numbers” business decisions. I won’t care about my political future, just about turning around the city.

For At Large
Jim Carlucci for his knowledge. Al Ward for his smarts. Christine Donahue for her process based business background.

For West Ward
Moriarity for his tenacious exploration of our financial issues and for exposing LA Parker and WIMG.

For North Ward
Roland Laird for making reassessment central to his campaign

For East Ward
Kesner Dufresne for talking about the wage tax and about being pro-business

For South Ward
Carlos Avilla for doing well on the budget survey even though he complained

However, I live in Trenton and own enough property so that high taxes and declining value could be a substantial economic blow.  I am not alone in this precarious situation.  Every home and building owner in Trenton is at risk as our city’s budget comes closer to falling into the financial abyss.

I’ve listened to the candidates and just don’t hear a serious “by the numbers” explanation of how they think we can rescue ourselves.  Instead, I hear a lot of blame being laid on the State.

I also know that many of our candidates have been in public life for many years but have never jumped up and down screaming about the fact that we were so dependent on the State.  Even now, several of the candidates are asking for votes so they can do more for the poor citizens of Trenton.  We’re sinking, as a city, and yet there are candidates talking about new social programs.

There are candidates who either believe or know that citizens want to hear, “that fixing the schools will revitalize Trenton”.  That notion is absurd and tells me that I’m listening to a “Know Nothing”  politician.  In order to magically fix the schools, we’d have to start with the young kids and put them into some magical environment that hasn’t even been invented, wait 12 years, and then perhaps we’d have a graduation rate worth bragging about.  It could be decades before Trenton’s schools are better than surrounding suburbs.  Nobody moves to a city for the schools that are “almost as good”.  Trenton schools need to be “as good, or better”, but we can’t make that happen in time to save our city.

We need a no-nonsense, and dare I say pragmatic (another word for Republican) approach to our problem.  We need a “Bull in the China shop” much like Chris Christie has become for NJ.  We need to do the opposite of what we’ve been doing in Trenton for the past 20 years.

We don’t need balance, we need imbalance.  Trenton has gone out of its way to be attractive to the poor for quite some time and has done little to attract middle class and high income residents.  We’re going to have to change that balance.  We’re actually going to have to find a way to appeal to people with disposable income and lots of them.

As I look at the candidates and at myself,  I’ve come to the conclusion that I have something to offer Trenton.  As a Management Consultant, my job is often to help organizations improve and to do the best things first.  We help our clients manage by the numbers.  As a volunteer in Trenton, I find myself drawn towards the challenging problem of urban revitalization.  It’s one of the great challenges of our time and I want to be a part of meeting that challenge.  ReinventTrenton.com is all about that as is TrentonLofts.com and FixTrentonsBudget.com.

Running for mayor is a thankless job and being mayor would involve some personal and financial pain for me and Michelle (Michelle doesn’t like the idea).  However, if voters look around and decide they just can’t tie their futures to any of the existing candidates and would prefer to take the opposite approach, I will serve.  Probably only for one term, but I’d serve long enough to give the opposite approach a chance to take shape.

I understand that many Trentonians have been fed a diet of rhetoric on revitalization over the years and I’ve written quite a bit to debunk much of it. But, just so there aren’t any surprises, a few of the ingredients a Dodson administration include are listed below.  If you can’t depart with the notion that these sacred cows need to be cast out, then don’t vote for me:

• Create and institutionalize a meaningful budget process
• Reassess on a 5 year cycle and adjust our tax rate accordingly
• Lift the residency requirement for all city workers (we need the best minds possible on the case)
• Call in outside law enforcement support to augment our police
• Reinvent our city processes to enable our staff to have a bigger impact for less
• Make every aspect of Trenton the MOST business and development friendly in the US
• No support at all for subsidized, deed restricted, housing
• Negotiate a fair deal with the State, to gradually get us off of state aid
• Lobby, maybe through the US Justice Dept., for integration of schools in Mercer County and NJ (that equates to busing)

For those that have read my blog over the years, none of this is new.  I just want to make it clear that my firm belief is that protecting the above “sacred cows” is in the way of Trenton’s progress.  Adopting the above is the “opposite” of what we’ve been doing and the “opposite” of the positions for many of the current candidates.

In the end, it’s the voters choice. If called I’d serve and would love the challenge.

Dealing with Trenton’s budget in the long term means

• Having clear goals and focused priorities,
• Turning Trenton into a developer-friendly city,
• Re-tooling our tax system to stimulate investment and to be fair
• Putting a budget process in place that lets our city adapt to change

We weighted the question areas as follows

• Budget goals and levels at 30%,
• Development issues at 40%,
• Re-balancing at 20% and
• Budget process at 10%.

Scores were between 1 and 10.  “No answer” got a zero.

Below are the results of our Scorecard survey.

Christine Donahue and Jim Carlucci both scored well in the At Large race.  Carlos Avila was the only respondent from the South Ward.  Eric Jackson and Frank Weeden did best in the Mayor’s race.  Roland Laird gave the best responses in the North Ward.  Kevin Moriarity was the only respondent in the West Ward.  Verlina Reynolds-Jackson was the only respondent in the East Ward but is far out of alignment with our budget priorities.

Candidates who didn’t respond either don’t have clear positions and know it or are don’t consider it a priority.  The survey took 15 minutes to complete, shorter than many canvassing visits.  The Budget Committee doesn’t recommend any of these candidates.

In this cycle the situation has improved dramatically.

All eight of the mayoral candidates have web sites and 16 of the 27 city council candidates have sites.  Most of the candidates appear to also have a Facebook presence and I’m Facebook friends with many of them or have “Liked” their campaign pages.

In addition several of them are showing up on blogs in town (Keith Hamilton has a recent comment on Reinvent Trenton).

I’d like to think my chastising the group has had something to do with it but I suspect that’s not it.  Rather, the politicians are following the voters onto the web, have availed themselves of relatively inexpensive web solutions (Kevin Moriarity’s blog is an effective mechanism for communicating his views on campaign issues) and are following their Barrack Obama’s example of effective grassroots use of the Internet.

This is a good thing.

It’s inexpensive for the candidates and that’s good for them and for us as voters as they are less beholden to non-citizen funding interests.  It’s good for voters because we get to quickly read more about a candidate’s position than they’ll ever be able to communicate verbally or with their printed material.  Furthermore, many of the websites enable online donations.  I appreciate all of this.

Candidate Websites

———————————————————————————————————-

A Modest Proposal to the Governor For Preventing the Institutions of NJ from being a Burden the Taxpayers and for Making them Beneficial to the Public.

Governor Christie is pushing cuts in state funding for the City of Trenton, including eliminating the Capital City Aid program.  Meanwhile state budget officials and legislators are struggling to balance the budget – and everybody thinks if we can just get through this next year things have got to improve.

There is a solution that addresses both state funding for the City of Trenton and the state budget crisis.  It’s actually quite simple: just sell all the state office buildings in Trenton to the highest bidder.  The buildings can be sold subject to a long-term lease to the state, so state agencies remain in their current buildings.  Purchasers have guaranteed revenue, and if Republicans structure the deal right, also have guaranteed profits.  Private equity funds will jump at the opportunity.

I’m usually opposed to privatization of governmental functions and services.  But given that Governor Christie evidently intends to abandon historical – and completely reasonable and justifiable – obligations to the City of Trenton, then I say let’s call Christie on Republican philosophy.  Privatize the billions of dollars of state office buildings in Trenton.  It’s a win-win for everyone – and state government can continue to ignore Trenton with impunity.

The results are obvious – state government gets cash up front to spend on whatever it wants, purchasers of the buildings have guaranteed revenue streams (and profits) from the state as a tenant, and because the buildings are now privately owned, Trenton gets lots and lots of property tax payments.  With luck, the City of Trenton will get enough in consistent and recurring revenue to actually intelligently plan and budget.

Presumably the buildings are worth somewhere between about one and three billion dollars.  Sure, the state will have to pay rent.  But what’s a little rent (or even a couple hundred million dollars a year in rent) when the state both gets fair market value for the buildings and gets out from under its obligations to the City of Trenton?  And since Governor Christie evidently supports making the rich even richer, state government could sweeten the pot by providing some sort of special tax relief to purchasers of state buildings.  The only caveat – they pay property taxes at the full rate with no abatements or reductions.

It might be argued that privatization is bad government policy, and that it’s better (and cheaper) to own than to rent.  Recent imbroglios surrounding private prisons illustrate limitations to privatization of intrinsic governmental functions.  But this proposal is simply to get cash out of doubtless appreciated, but not revenue generating, real estate.  Taxation and Revenue will still operate out of its not particularly attractive building at 50 Barrack Street.  The only change is that some private equity fund will own the building.

For sentimental reasons, the state could decide to keep a few buildings, like the New Jersey State Capitol Building and the War Memorial.  Heck, maybe we could keep everything built before about 1950.  But all the state office buildings constructed in the 1970’s through the 1990’s should be sold – and given that virtually all are an aesthetic embarrassment, good riddance.

Of course, it may well be that the Governor has another plan in mind, and squeezing the City of Trenton past the fiscal breaking point somehow fits in his plan.  I say we call his bluff and find out.  Let’s sell state government to the highest bidder!

With the tax hike as currently proposed our tax rate will go from $4.69 / $100 with an effective rate of $2.784 / $100 to a rate of $5.49 / $100 and an effective rate of $3.26 / $100.  On a $100,000 home tax would go from $2784 to $3260 or up $476.

We will move into 4^th place in NJ for highest taxes and 1^st place for towns over 25k residents.

That’s all very nice, but we as citizens still have some high finance to sort through.

1)        First, a new administration could decide to abandon the sale all together.  We may not have

2)        If the issue does go to a referendum (and I think it should despite the new administration)

• The ONLY question you should have as Trentonians is: is it a fair price?
• Despite all the risks and loss of future revenue, there is a price at which we should sell.
• The question is, “Is $80M that price?”
• Astute financial analysts should presumably be deployed on both sides of the debate to convince the public as to the correct valuation
• Since the general public, doesn’t typically understand what a valuation is, both sides will resort to non-financial arguments, that will no doubt distort the issue (as they already have)

3)       In reality, you would be voting one way or another because you either trust the people who negotiated the deal to have negotiated in good faith, or you don’t trust them

In the long history of this debate, I’ve not found a single person who would turn down the deal if it were priced at $1B.  OK.  What about $500M?  $100M?

See how it’s really about valuation.

There are plenty of risks:

• Will the company actually buy water from us in 20 years?
• Will our neighbors be mad at us?
• Might our neighbors agree to pay us more money for water in the future, and we would have lost out on our opportunity to squeeze them?
• All future cash flows carry some risk and therefore need to be discounted and turned into a present value

All of these risks can be factored in to a proper valuation and hopefully they were.  An intelligent question for the administration would have been, and may still be, could you show us your math for valuing these risks.

As for whether this is a stop-gap or not, that’s a different issue.

The current plan was to use 80% of the proceeds to pay down long term debt.  When selling off a long term asset, it’s generally wise to pay off corresponding long term debt.  We could argue about whether 80% or 100% should be applied to debt, but the effect will generally be to reduce Trenton’s future interest expense.  This should offset the loss of net income from the water wholesale business.

I understand how this issue got to be emotional, but really it should have just been a business deal.  That said, it’s a BIG business deal and the owners should have had a vote.