By David Anderson
People have to heat their homes and cook their food. Given the current economic times, we didn’t think it was wise to increase that tax.
So how does spending nearly $20,000 for an infomercial reflect those valued bare-necessities?
When then Lakewood Mayor Doug Richardson was championing the cause of the poorer among us in defeating then City Manager Andrew Neiditz’s proposal to increase gas and utility taxes late last November as reflected in his heat-and-cook quote above, it was with a thankful sigh we could return to the just-scrape-by daily struggle.
Then we read the rest of the article.
There was another reason council members said no: They don’t want to aggravate Lakewood voters before asking them next year (2013) to raise property taxes to pay for road work and street maintenance.
Adding insult to injury, now we learn – at least if it’s true and not the Tacoma News Tribune’s Friday spoof, that Lakewood spent $19,800 for a commercial that, in Maclean’s January magazine, was No. 26 of ‘99 Stupid Things the Government Did With Your Money.’
Perhaps in one regard Lakewood’s newest version promoting itself is an improvement over the ‘Welcome to Our Town’ video produced by the Lakewood Chamber in January of 2012 which featured gambling at local casinos introduced at the 1 minute mark of the four-minute piece.
As if losing your money in Las Lakewood was a plus.
There is no rolling of the dice in the latest commercial, although, given what the Tacoma News Tribune is reporting, anteing up $20,000 in this heat-and-cook economy is a questionable gamble.
Money plunked down on the felt now for a commercial is a harbinger of how the public will have felt in the likelihood the City pleads pot-hole poverty in putting a property tax hike on the ballot later this year.
Sometimes you have to spend money to make money. Advertising draws business & growth. Why shouldn’t Lakewood try to attract new business and residential development? This is a beautiful City with a lot to offer, but it has a dangerously skewed public image of crime and blight (and not helped by constant, public hand-wringing over casino revenues) that has to be overturned to attract outsiders. Lakewood needs this wider perception ‘makeover’. Times are tough, but my money is on attracting a bigger tax base first, passing a bigger (higher) tax second. Both are needed to offset the inreasing cost of operating a city. Bitter reality is that tax increases are long overdue, and I’d rather have a moderate increase spread over continued growth than a high ‘city survival’ increase wrung from our existing population. Just my two cents’ worth. Feel free to put it where it helps: on taxes or an ad campaign.
Mr. Anderson,
Perhaps it will help if you try looking at the big picture. The city did not “plunk” down $20,000. The city invested $20,000. The video presentation does an effective job of promoting our city for those who might consider becoming a part of our neighborhood.
If more productive businesses and individuals move into our city, the result will be more tax revenue, some of which will go to support the people you do a good job championing.
Instead of being negative and critical about this film, you may wish to thank the city for their big picture foresight as they spend a penny to may you a dollar.
Joseph Boyle
Midlander and Joseph,
When we as a community wrote grants to receive funds from Lakewood, a maximum of $1,200 annually for the few years the city was able to offer the program, we had to provide understandingly proof up front that best practices had been researched and that specific outcomes would be met with follow-up documentation to that end.
Since the Chamber conducted this experiment in 2012 and now the City has done so again in 2013, what evidence can be provided that such advertising was indeed a worthwhile investment and not mostly, or entirely, an expense?
As noted in the article I wrote, and as former city leaders and current councilmembers acknowledged, we’re in tough times economically – tough times that call for tightened purse strings and an honest assessment of our fiscal responsibilities. From ink cartridges to computers to campaigns, nothing should escape a rather ruthless and transparent display of frugality.
Take U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky, for example. In a news conference this past February 20, Paul announced he is returning $600,000 to the U.S. Treasury, money he said he saved through frugally operating his Senate office over the last year.
“In promoting his thriftiness, Paul said the savings were realized by ‘watching every purchase,’ including keeping close tabs on expenditures for ‘computers, paper, ink cartridges. Everything we buy.’
“‘We are frugal from top to bottom,’ Paul said, adding that he believes the savings is true to a campaign pledge he made to cut federal spending. ‘It’s not an enormous savings,’ he said, but the savings would add up, if purse strings were so closely watched throughout government.’”
Including our own.
http://www.thesubtimes.com/letter-somebodys-watching-me/#more-43895
It would be interesting to know if the city did a Cost/Benefits Analysis (CBA) on their advertising campaign(s). Also noteworthy would be an understanding of the audience of the ads/infomercials. Any insights anyone?