So, one would think this is an easy answer… Right?
Also, note that my statement in the video about the budget ended up incorrect. The final budget was smaller than 2008 but still bigger than 2009.
I learned in December that we were charging a fee that was so low that it did not cover the public safety expenses related to pawn shops. City staff had prepared a consent agenda item asking us to lower the fee because one of the items that the fee covered had been lowered. Even in the prepared materials staff acknowledged that the fees did not cover the costs.
So I said, “Wait a minute, why should taxpayers subsidize pawn shops?” Where is the public benefit?
I brought this up and explained my concerns and the city council reduced the subsidy. This should have been unanimous, Right?
My resolution actually passed 5-2.
Don’t Subsidize Pawnshops:
Subsidize Pawn Shops: