Budget Process Needs Leadership

Ah Dick, the mayor is far down the road to perdition, and is hopeful that as many of us as possible catch up to him before he arrives!

If you want to reach him, there is a short cut. For additional details contact either Bob Habbish or his good buddy Bill Cannon.

Regards.

There is "no logical reason to even challenge the need" to fund DARE? How about the fact that it simply does not work. All research studies conducted on the effectiveness of the program have unanimously concluded that it has no impact on kids.

Dick:
You might want to also ask the Mayor why Zillow.com tells me that City of Brookfield home values have dropped 35.6% in the last year while most other Waukesha County cities, towns, etc show almost steady values. Couldn't possibly be our City taxes, could it???

dbear. Whose studies ? The fact is that DARE is the only anti-drug program we have and the police do a good job in teaching . There are competing interests who want to get into the act and out dare dare. Forget the stats and look at our children who try drugs every day. The mayor is an ex-dare teacher and yet proposed to abolish the program.

Hey people. This blog is not about one program or another. It is about non-essential spending and the right of the electorate to decide for themselves. We have a mayor who is beholden to everyone but the residents.

Yes Larry our city taxes are too high. Our residents must pay their taxes on time which is a credit to all of us guys. In Milwaukee and Waukesha there must be lots of arrears although I have no stats. An interesting thought is why cannot the taxes be lowered and the expenses be lowered also ?

Lawbnelson - You make an interesting observation about the zillow.com data.

First of all, the number shown is the "Zillow Home Value Index" which is defined as "Mid-point of Zestimate valuations for Brookfield. Half the Zestimates are above this number and half are below it." So, it's not a mean (average) but a median.

The graph shows this median for the last 5 years. In early 2005 it was $260,000 and in late 2007 it was $267,100. In mid-2008 it launched to almost $380,000. And, as you stated, in 2009 it dropped back to $240,800.

So, why aren't you questioning why the zillow.com value had a 40%+ increase in a single year, especially when that year is 2008, the height of the financial meltdown? Do you really think Brookfield house values rocketed up by half?

My interpretation is that more than half the sales in the low years were lower cost homes while the spike in 2008 was a large number of average or high priced homes. The sale prices themselves were as fair and consistent as they ever were, just the distribution shifted for a short time. Perhaps there were lots of first time home buyers taking advantage of low interest rates. Maybe they were young couples buying their first home and choosing Brookfield for its good schools, convenient location, easy shopping, low crime, etc.

By the way, the assessed values of Brookfield houses averages $335,000 which is well above both the 2007 and 2009 zillow.com numbers and only slightly below that 2008 spike which tends to support my interpretation.

BTW, Dick, why weren't you at the 11/17/09 budget meeting? You knew when and where it was, you have an obvious interest in it, you must believe others think like you do or you wouldn't keep demanding Mayor Speaker's ouster based on taxes. Why was such a tireless champion of fiscal restraint suddenly absent?

With all due respect Judge, your continued vitriol and negative posts, thinking some great actions come from posting to or writing a blog, are the greatest of misdeeds to the taxpayer. IF you are really serious about tax/budget reform, then stop writing about it and do something about it. Actions speak louder than words, and at the moment you are but whisper when it comes to the problem/solution.

Zillow had a statistical abberation in their valuations occur last year which had my own home going from it's assessed value of about $ 400K to well over $800K within a short period of time. The entire city displayed the same abberation, and I assume it was a programming fat finger error. It eventually was fixed after anyone who saw their Zillow valuation was ready to list and sell for those inflated valuations. So now Zillow shows a huge percentage drop in valuations over the past year. If you look closely at Zillow, the comparables to your own property are not in any sense comparable: no consistent comparisons to other properties of the same square footage, age, quality of construction, amenities. Zillow used to upload assessment data that was several years old for their valuations. I have no idea what they use now but the Zillow data is all over the board and is highly suspect as to accuracy.

I believe that the market valuations in 53005 and 53045 have dropped about 10-20% in many cases, with the higher priced properties selling for a greater discount to assesment than the lower priced properties. I base this on comparison of 2009 published selling price vs the Waukesha County tax warehouse data base with the assessed valuations for 2008. It is likely everyone's property is overassessed compared to what you could sell for in the market today. However, if everyone is equally overassessed, the effect on your tax bill would be negligible. The problem is that not all properties are equally overassessed. You only know how the market really prices your property if you try to sell.

I was talking to a couple of realtor friends who sell a lot in Brookfield. Both agreed the average price has been around $335,000 (the official average from the city appraiser) in recent years but has dropped in 2009 by about teh same percentage as everywhere else. They went on to make two interesting comments.

First, one said the hottest segment is the notch just above average, say $350,000 to $500,000. Those houses are selling at a 20% discount and buyers stretch to get a bargain. Since they plan to stay in Brookfield for many years, they are positive the value will come back to the previous levels and then some. I interpret that as confidence that Brookfield will remain a good place to live with steady increases in home value.

Second, they said a lot of mortgage appraisals are off base because the comparables don't always consider the condition of the house. That is, the age, square feet, number of bathrooms, etc. match up but the appraisal ignores the 30 year old furnace, carpeting, kitchen appliances, roof, etc. I've purchased two houses in Brookfield and know that to be a problem. Long time residents have all those happy memories of their life in that house and refuse to see the $50,000+ of updates needed.

I just have to comment regarding Judge Steinberg's statement that DARE is a valuable program and should be funded because "it is the only drug program we have."

None other than the United States Government Accounting Office found DARE to be ineffective. Worse, the GAO further expounded that the clout of DARE programming among "officials" , whether they be state, county, judicial or municipal, inhibited the implementation of more effective anti-drug initiatives.

I obviously don't live in Brookfield so I'm "glad" to see that Judge Steinberg endorses spending (or is it WASTING) tax money on DARE because there aren't any alternatives and "the police do a good job teaching it".

West Allis got rid of DARE for the above-reasons. The WAPD started a new program designed for the West Allis community w/o additional tax increases. Instead of "doing a good job teaching" maybe your Police Department should do a good job innovating Brookfield-centric anti-drug programming.

Mr. Steinberg ask "whose studies". We have one answer above. A simple search (on the computer or at the library) will reveal many more. Try googling "Does DARE work?". At least the first 20 results unanimously point to studies that answer "no."

The first google result points to an interesting study (Wysong et al, Social Problems Vol. 41 No. 3, August, 1994). They make the following relevant conclusions:

* As a result of attempting to prevent all drug experimentation and/or use, D.A.R.E.'s objectives are not only unrealistic but also possible counter-productive because they are obviously unattainable.
* For example, some studies have shown that adolescents who experimented with illicit drugs (especially marijuana) are better adjusted than either abstainers or frequent users and were more socially skilled with higher levels of self esteem than abstainers.
* The finding of significantly high hallucinogen use among the D.A.R.E. group raises the possibility that drug education programs may increase student curiosity about drugs and lead to earlier and greater drug experimentation.
* [On comparison of D.A.R.E. vs. Non-D.A.R.E. students:] There was a sharp decline in positive attitudes toward police, and a growing unwillingness to condemn peer's consumption of alcohol.
* D.A.R.E. was judged by all group members as having no lasting influence on student's drug-related attitudes or behaviors.
* Imposing D.A.R.E. upon divided student audiences produces outcomes likely to diminish the program's effectiveness, especially among resistant students. Other studies confirm this prospect and demonstrate that when "socially-deviant youths are required to participate in the school setting in peer-led denunciation of activities they value, they are more likely to become alienated than converted."
* After tracking D.A.R.E. for five years, our quantitative and qualitative data both point in the direction of no long-term effects for the program in preventing or reducing adolescent drug use.

Well dbeardda, the fact that the program has absolutely no efficacy whatsoever makes it an excellent candidate for implementation by the O'Bama administration. We'll just call it 'stimulus', throw a few billion into it and claim we're killing two birds with one stone.

And while we're at it, we can rest knowing that the government is finally doing something Dick assures us is important.

Perhaps Dick won't have to demonstrate in front of city hall after all.

Satas Elf, Wow, really clever snarky sarcasm. Very constructive contribution.

You can count on me, db, to enhance almost any conversation you can originate. By the way, a fine bit of googling in your previous comment. Demonstrates you are up to seriously considering virtually any bogus topic - even those offered up by Dick himself. Perhaps further on you will get into the use of 'boolean logic' to search out those really difficult topics. You know: and, or, not, ...

Elf, I am afraid I can't figure out what point you might be trying to make here.

See www.darewisconsin.org/ for statewide support of the DARE program. Our neighbors Menomonee Falls, New Berlin and Wauwatosa are active. My choice over a 1994 Google and West Allis allies at city hall. As I said there are competing forces trying to get recognition with their anti-drug solutions. 2 cents: free speech gives us all equal rights. Scott. A friend, not a realtor,suggests my personal time is none of your business.

Ah,..., well, oh,.., ok Dick! But I do believe that your friend Scott (not the real Scott, of course. That is, not the Scott whom we who don't know your Scott know.) would agree that it's time to take the bull by the horns lest he reverses fate and gets his horns on your bull.

Recognizing that your stated choice was expressed when you said: "My choice over a 1994 Google and West Allis allies at city hall.", I remain adamant that you can declare that choice any time you want as long as you stay clear of my business!

On the other hand, perhaps a toke or two would add immeasurable clarity to this debate - DARE not withstanding!

I'll get my bong and meet you in Jeff's office asap!

Elf, its more than that but its also time to close out and respect our ancestors who gave us a time to be thankful for.