Have you been following the situation up in Lawrence?
The city is currently in dire fiscal straits. The budget is so far out-of-balance that city officials can’t figure out how bad the problem really is. And until they figure that out, the city can’t send out tax bills to residents, which is making the problem even worse.
City officials have turned to the state for a $35 million bailout. That bailout could be voted on soon. But there are two glaring problems with that plan.
First, Lawrence isn’t the only community in our state that’s experiencing financial trouble. But it is one of the few communities that has caused many of its own problems, and it’s currently the only one getting any form of preferential treatment. Aside from the fact that I’m no fan of bailouts, this just doesn’t seem fair to the 350 other municipalities in our state who are struggling just as much to make ends meet locally.
And second, the bill stops short of placing Lawrence into receivership. Past experiences in Chelsea and in Springfield show us that receivership is the best option when a city like Lawrence is unable to solve its own problems. Giving more money to the same local officials who can’t manage the money they already have won’t solve any problems. It’s time for new leadership to straighten things out and to get the city back on track. And it’s unfair for the current mayor of the city to hold onto that position (at a reported salary of $100,000 a year) and to also serve as the city’s state representative at the same time (at $60,000 a year).
I’ve sent a letter to state officials asking them to look deeper into the issue of receivership and to present their rationale for or against receivership to the House when a vote is scheduled. I know why the good people of Lawrence need assistance, but I’m curious to hear why my colleagues might think that local officials there deserve to be bailed out.
What do you think? Are you in favor of a bailout? Please post a comment below.
