You can’t always get what you want. But it is hard not to wonder if Mayor Byron Brown proposed a 5% tax increase for this year’s budget in the expectation of an inevitable reduction by the Common Council. The 3.5% he got is still an increase, and it is closer to 5% than to zero.
In any case, the hike is reasonable in light of the fact that it is only the second tax raise the mayor has proposed over his 16 years in office.
Brown also correctly notes that recent one-shot chunks of revenue that have arrived as part of pandemic relief or federal infrastructure funding can artificially inflate city coffers, leading to deficits down the road.
The city’s final $568 million budget still includes increases to the youth employment program, small business development, enhancements to plowing services that will make it easier to find plows and target the streets that need them, and – a big item – more police detectives to investigate and resolve cases.
In a meeting with The News Editorial Board, Brown mentioned that by far the most commonly mentioned issue wherever he went and whomever he spoke to was crime.
People are also reading…
This compromise makes sense, and it is closer to the incremental tax increases that Common Council members and others cite as softening the sticker shock.
And it is just as well that increases in garbage and recycling user fees were rejected. The efficacy of recycling throughout Western New York (and the state) is a big question mark at this point.
Many legislators and environmental advocacy groups feel we urgently need to find a way to have less to recycle, rather than filling up bins with materials that end up in landfills anyway. That is where we should be putting our efforts.
The Common Council also decided that a sharp focus on crime reduction does not require ShotSpotter technology, which is designed to register the sound of gunfire and determine where it came from, all within a minute before alerting police.
According to its adherents, this makes it more likely that those with gunshot wounds can be treated sooner, and also ensures quicker police responses and crime resolutions.
However, ShotSpotter has received mixed reviews that swing between full-throated enthusiasm and a chorus of boos.
University at Buffalo Law School professor Anthony O’Rourke has written an op-ed for The News in which he cites a study from the MacArthur Justice Center at Northwestern University’s Pritzer School of Law. The study found that in 89% of ShotSpotter deployments, police find no gun-related crime on the scene.
Rourke concluded that “these dead-end deployments aren’t just a waste of time and money, they are dangerous to residents – and police,” and reiterated those views at a public hearing on the city’s proposed budget earlier this month.
In another News op-ed, SpotShotter’s CEO, Ralph Clark, cites many cities that have experienced marked reductions in crime using the technology, stating, “The technology is a focused tool – highly accurate and unbiased in delivering evidence of a gunshot incident, including recorded sound of gunfire and the time and location of a shooting.”
A 2021 study undertaken by Johns Hopkins University is one of many that show no significant impact in crime. A New York University study shows a reduction in crime. These and many other studies are disputed, either by SpotShotter adherents or by naysayers.
It is understandable, given the horrific events of the past two weeks, that gun crime is on everybody’s minds. But we agree with the Common Council that this mixed bag of negative and positive testimonials does not justify a $350,000-plus expenditures, at least not now.
In the meantime, we’ll be watching to see if the new investments in snow removal and small business development – which is so desperately needed in many city neighborhoods – pay off in measurable results.
What’s your opinion? Send it to us at lettertoeditor@buffnews.com. Letters should be a maximum of 300 words and must convey an opinion. The column does not print poetry, announcements of community events or thank you letters. A writer or household may appear only once every 30 days. All letters are subject to fact-checking and editing.
