The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

Dumb cuts all around. Read the full story over on al.com. It is unlikely it would shut it down, but it won't do it any favors.

Considering that they have commitments for the use of Legion Field through 2022, there is little chance of the stadium shutting down.

I do find it highly arrogant of the Birmingham City Council to propose cuts such as these after giving themselves a very significant pay raise.

Looks like a big middle finger to city residents from the council. How many of these jokers are up for re-election next month?

Like any family, the city must make expenses square with income. Municipal income is from taxes so if tax revenue is decreased or has flat growth, expenses must be decreased as well. The arguments arise when people realize THEIR "ox is being gored" rather than someone else's. Whichever "ox" is least defended is usually the one that gets sacrificed.

Right now, Legion Field on UAB game days is the safest place to be in the metro area. Any decrease in police presence is likely to be manifested in traffic control on access routes to and from games. When attendance increases as winning becomes more the usual, this could be a (desirable?) problem. We could see more of this stadium responsibility fall upon the UAB Police Force.

Before we complain, remember an increase for UAB Athletics is also in that budget.

I like how they cut spending, but added 500,000 to the "Office of Women & Minority Inclusion," like there's a problem with that in Birmingham City Government. They also added on an additional 50,000 for "council discretionary projects."

Not sure how they think they can cut transfers out to "Land Bank Authority" from 350,000 to 250,000. You usually only budget for things like that if they are guaranteed payments by law. I doubt that is something they even can cut, but maybe the error was on the Mayor's side when he put out his budget.

I have no issue with the police cuts. Going from 97.2M to 96.5M with another 2M for fleet renewal is not a cut, especially when the Chief is quoted as saying "the department is understaffed with 842 sworn officers. For fiscal year 2017, the department was budgeted for 913 officers." They clearly have wiggle room since they didn't even meet their budgeted payroll numbers, and I know enough about the Jefferson County Personnel Board to know they aren't going to get 50 people worth hiring in a single year in a single department...ever.

I did find where they can get most of those police "cuts" back in an area where it is just complete waste, though: $665,000 to the BOE for "community schools." That money is a complete waste of funding as the council defines what it can be used for, and it isn't enough to actually do anything with. Just move that off that line and either group it in with everything else the BOE is doing or tie it to something like the after care program, or do like I just mentioned and give it to the police department to shut up the Chief.

Why did they add on 1.75M to demolition and an extra 1.25M over what the Mayor proposed for "weed abatement?" Is that really that big of a problem?

Under "economic services," there is a line item listed for "Adah." It's not in all caps or spelled out, so I don't really know what that is supposed to represent. Anyone know? Also, what's the "Air National Guard Flight Simulator Project," and why does it need 1.5M from the city of Birmingham?

I think before posting in this particular thread you should be required to prove you live in the city limits of Birmingham. I have opinions on what Birmingham should spend their money on, but I'm not a voter, so it's not my place to say. If the voters want them to spend $500,000 on women and minority inclusion, that's their democratic right

(07-31-2017 06:39 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  I think before posting in this particular thread you should be required to prove you live in the city limits of Birmingham. I have opinions on what Birmingham should spend their money on, but I'm not a voter, so it's not my place to say. If the voters want them to spend $500,000 on women and minority inclusion, that's their democratic right

I'm a Birmingham voter and think that's a waste. When all the roads, sidewalks, streetlights, overgrown lots, vacant houses, crime issues, and schools are fixed....then maybe do stuff like this.

(07-31-2017 09:33 PM)hooverblazer Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 06:39 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  I think before posting in this particular thread you should be required to prove you live in the city limits of Birmingham. I have opinions on what Birmingham should spend their money on, but I'm not a voter, so it's not my place to say. If the voters want them to spend $500,000 on women and minority inclusion, that's their democratic right

I'm a Birmingham voter and think that's a waste. When all the roads, sidewalks, streetlights, overgrown lots, vacant houses, crime issues, and schools are fixed....then maybe do stuff like this.

It is important to remember that many (perhaps MOST) of those vacant houses and overgrown lots belong to people who don't live in the city of B'ham. The city lacks the legal rights to demolish vacant homes without the owner's consent and it is difficult to make them pay for demolition &/or cleaning up property that they hold as investment / rental property. They desire to maximize their profits by not fully insuring their tenant houses while spending as little as they can on upkeep.

Crime issues and school issues go with poverty issues and there is more of that in the city since many "middle class folks" left it. Jeffco has about a dozen independent school districts because after leaving B'ham, they now want to get the county's "Riff Raff" out of their schools by leaving the county system.

Neighborhood roads, Sidewalks and streetlights are desirable, but they are almost 100% expense but produce little to no revenues. That means that the city must lower their priorities in favor of revenue producing projects.

(07-31-2017 06:39 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  I think before posting in this particular thread you should be required to prove you live in the city limits of Birmingham. I have opinions on what Birmingham should spend their money on, but I'm not a voter, so it's not my place to say. If the voters want them to spend $500,000 on women and minority inclusion, that's their democratic right

No need to live there. If you work in Birmingham, then you pay taxes in Birmingham. Your money is being used. The voters can ignore your voice to their own detriment.

Even without that knowledge, what the city of Birmingham's government does actually does have an effect on the surrounding areas. They affect the entire metro region with their decisions.

Even if you simply live in Alabama, this is the largest city in Alabama and what they do has an effect on the entire state as a whole. That can be good or bad, but with Birmingham it is usually bad.

I would even go so far as to say that federal taxes are propping up the city of Birmingham's entire school system, making it the most well-funded school system in the entire state, so if you pay federal taxes you are paying for the city of Birmingham's broken government in some way by allowing them to give less to their city school system than would otherwise be necessary.

I would not worry about it. It's all posturing.

Fatkid, your last post is naive in the extreme. Birmingham voters seriously don't care about what people outside of B'ham think when they vote. B'ham politicians barely care what B'ham residents want, and don't give two dry turds what non-residents think unless they pay them. The state of Alabama at large has an extensive history of not giving a crap about the welfare of Birmingham, largest city and economic engine or not.

Ask Bamandblazerfan, I'm certain that he can give you numerous examples of that last one.

+1

(08-01-2017 10:23 AM)imjustafatkid Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 06:39 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  I think before posting in this particular thread you should be required to prove you live in the city limits of Birmingham. I have opinions on what Birmingham should spend their money on, but I'm not a voter, so it's not my place to say. If the voters want them to spend $500,000 on women and minority inclusion, that's their democratic right

No need to live there. If you work in Birmingham, then you pay taxes in Birmingham. Your money is being used. The voters can ignore your voice to their own detriment.

Even without that knowledge, what the city of Birmingham's government does actually does have an effect on the surrounding areas. They affect the entire metro region with their decisions.

Even if you simply live in Alabama, this is the largest city in Alabama and what they do has an effect on the entire state as a whole. That can be good or bad, but with Birmingham it is usually bad.

I would even go so far as to say that federal taxes are propping up the city of Birmingham's entire school system, making it the most well-funded school system in the entire state, so if you pay federal taxes you are paying for the city of Birmingham's broken government in some way by allowing them to give less to their city school system than would otherwise be necessary.

I worked in the city limits for about 8 years, and lived there in total about 3. I know how the taxation system works and how the city works. My point is if you don't live there, you don't vote there.

(08-01-2017 11:21 AM)UAB Band Dad Wrote:  Fatkid, your last post is naive in the extreme. Birmingham voters seriously don't care about what people outside of B'ham think when they vote. B'ham politicians barely care what B'ham residents want, and don't give two dry turds what non-residents think unless they pay them.

I didn't say they cared. I said they ignore it to their detriment. History shows that statement to be true.

(08-01-2017 11:21 AM)UAB Band Dad Wrote:  The state of Alabama at large has an extensive history of not giving a crap about the welfare of Birmingham, largest city and economic engine or not.

Ask Bamandblazerfan, I'm certain that he can give you numerous examples of that last one.

I'm sure there is plenty of blame to go around, but Birmingham has only itself to blame for its problems. Blaming the state would not cover it, and would not hold up under scrutiny. Huntsville is quickly gaining on Birmingham as "largest city and economic engine," and I would say most of the blame for that lies squarely on the shoulders of Birmingham's citizens for electing decades of poor leaders while ignoring the hopes for the city from others from outside the city limits.

(08-01-2017 01:26 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  My point is if you don't live there, you don't vote there.

This is absolutely a true statement, but I'm certainly not going to be moving there to send my kids to Birmingham City Schools just so I can vote in their elections. The schools and teachers themselves are not subpar, but it's clear the parents of the majority of the student population isn't interested in pushing their children to succeed. That shows not only in test scores, but also in whom they elect to represent them. I want the city of Birmingham to be successful because it can be, and it would be good for our state as a whole if it was. I don't even work in Birmingham anymore, and my company would totally survive a complete and total implosion of the city of Birmingham, but I still want the city to succeed and that budget is not a recipe for success. Hopefully someone who actually does vote in that city will read my very quick and not at all thorough analysis of their budget and take note.

B'ham and Jeffco have been under unwavering attack from Montgomery and much of the rest of the state since the 19th century when the "B'ham (Industrial) Barons" were perceived as "carpetbaggers" who came from the north to get rich at the expense of helpless Alabama citizens. In 1968, when I was a delegate to what turned out to be the last Alabama State Republican Convention (in Mobile), the floor microphone resonated with repeated vituperative references to "Imperial Jefferson" - a reference mainly to B'ham since many major suburban cities did not exist in the 60s.

Many punitive state statutes in the early 1900s were passed that applied only to Alabama cities that had a population over 300,000. Care to guess how many fit that description then? Care to guess how many counties have had their occupation tax repealed by state action? What state city was the target of the law forbidding municipalities from raising the local minimum wage above the federal level (thereby guaranteeing that Alabama workers will always be among the cheapest workers anywhere in America)?

Add to these the refusal of the state legislature to provide state funds to match generous offered federal grant funds to improve public transportation in the city and county. And don't ignore that one reason we are still talking about Legion Field is the refusal by Gov. Riley to provide state supplementary support for building the MPF to replace it.

Probably the main reason we are still dominated by our state's 19th century Constitution (though adopted in 1901, its authors were all 19th century adults) is that few citizens trust the politicians of one of the most corrupt state governments in America to write a new one and do any better. Instead we keep the most inefficient document with its over 1,000 amendments to run this state into the 21st century. Is it any wonder that Alabama is presently the ONLY southern sunbelt state to be projected to lose yet another seat in Congress after the 2020 census? The state's "war" against B'ham and Jeffco has not been good for Alabama.

Blaming the state for Birmingham's problems is a large part of Birmingham's problem. I'm not even sure why you think the state should be helping fund grants to the city of Birmingham or the building of a multi-purpose facility at all. The budget posted in this thread makes it clear the city does not need that help to fund such activities.

The occupational tax was shot down by judges, not the Legislature. I guess we can call that "Montgomery," but I think most people think of the Legislature when someone says "Montgomery," not the Alabama Supreme Court.

I'm not sure how a discussion about Birmingham's minimum wage increase attempt makes sense in a discussion about city government funding, or how laws from over 100 years ago make sense in a discussion about the city of Birmingham today.

(08-01-2017 04:43 PM)imjustafatkid Wrote:  Blaming the state for Birmingham's problems is a large part of Birmingham's problem. I'm not even sure why you think the state should be helping fund grants to the city of Birmingham or the building of a multi-purpose facility at all. The budget posted in this thread makes it clear the city does not need that help to fund such activities.

The occupational tax was shot down by judges, not the Legislature. I guess we can call that "Montgomery," but I think most people think of the Legislature when someone says "Montgomery," not the Alabama Supreme Court.

I'm not sure how a discussion about Birmingham's minimum wage increase attempt makes sense in a discussion about city government funding, or how laws from over 100 years ago make sense in a discussion about the city of Birmingham today.

The Jeffco Occupational Tax Law was repealed by an act of the state legislature in 1999. The State Supreme Court years later knocked down a replacement because of a technicality over how it was advertised. The original action was a vindictive act meant to punish the County Commission for refusing to hand over a portion of that tax revenue to the delegation members to use as a "slush fund" for their personal discretionary political use.

The state brags about the many industries and services it has helped Huntsville, Mobile and others attract to their cities. Have you heard any bragging from the state about any industry brought to Jeffco? The Governor did not take an industrial group to Europe just to see the sites. BTW, has anyone heard any news updates about that Chinese "Golden Dragon Copper" business the state procured for Wilcox County?

Regardless of your personal feelings about the MPF, Legion Field Forever, the suppression of state wages or whether there should be any Home Rule capability in Alabama, the fact remains that "laws passed 100 years ago" still are in force today and the state's leadership has allowed some special interests to run it into the ground for their own benefit. Many other southern states have adopted updated constitutions while Alabama continues to abide its 1800s style document.

What about the gold seats at Legion Field? How do they factor into all this?

(08-01-2017 02:18 PM)imjustafatkid Wrote:  I'm sure there is plenty of blame to go around, but Birmingham has only itself to blame for its problems. Blaming the state would not cover it, and would not hold up under scrutiny. Huntsville is quickly gaining on Birmingham as "largest city and economic engine," and I would say most of the blame for that lies squarely on the shoulders of Birmingham's citizens for electing decades of poor leaders while ignoring the hopes for the city from others from outside the city limits.

You're just wrong on so many levels. Huntsville has grown because of the insane amount of federal money being funneled there. And the state does have some culpability there, for example the biomedical research institute that is going there should really be in Birmingham at UAB instead of near UAH. And to say the state has no impact on Birmingham's problem totally ignores the Constitution of 1901

(08-01-2017 04:43 PM)imjustafatkid Wrote:  Blaming the state for Birmingham's problems is a large part of Birmingham's problem. I'm not even sure why you think the state should be helping fund grants to the city of Birmingham or the building of a multi-purpose facility at all. The budget posted in this thread makes it clear the city does not need that help to fund such activities.

The occupational tax was shot down by judges, not the Legislature. I guess we can call that "Montgomery," but I think most people think of the Legislature when someone says "Montgomery," not the Alabama Supreme Court.

The state should pitch in because the state will benefit. The state collects sales taxes just like Jefferson County and Birmingham do. They should pitch in because they pitch in for incentives and rebates for automotive plants in every podunk 100 population rural county from Houston to Lauderdale counties.

And yes, "Montgomery" is to blame for the occupational tax debacle because they are the ones who screwed up the procedure when they passed it, they are the ones responsible for the lack of home rule in Alabama, and they are the ones who refused to pass a new occupational tax when the old one was struck down. An occupational tax isn't unconstitutional on its face, Birmingham has one. The problem with the Jefferson County occupational tax was a procedural technicality with the way it was passed.