Trying to figure out the code compliance budget

Over the next month or so, you'll hear a lot about what the bureaucrats and the bosses downtown want to do with the city budget. The important thing: Find out what they do, and pay very little attention to what they say. Case in point is the code compliance budget.

Code compliance matters because code compliance is a cheap and easy way to fight crime, something that every expert and police officer I have ever interviewed has said. Get rid of graffiti, abandoned buildings, and junked cars, can you can cut the crime rate without putting one cop on the street. So consider these numbers:

In 2001-02, the city spent about $20.5 million on code compliance, which includes animal control, inspecting homes and apartments, enforcing zoning, citing litter and weeds, and the like. In the proposed 2007-08 budget, the city wants to spend about $23 million. In other words, the code compliance budget has increased less than 2 percent a year this decade, despite various councils, the mayors and city managers calling it a priority. In that same period, the city budget has increased almost 16 percent, or more than 2 percent a year. (All city budgets since 2002-03 are available here.)

What does this tell us -- other than that the city spending has remained remarkably flat, despite the cries of waste from Mayor Park Cities and his cronies? That code compliance is not a priority, and has never been one. In fact, it's on its third director since February, when Kathy Davis -- brought in a couple of years ago to revitalize the department with promises of new employees -- retired.

Comments

[Angela Hunt]

This is why it frustrates me that the council only got this budget a week ago. I've asked for an explanation for every budget program that changes (up or down): what is the money being spent on? What are we cutting? It takes time to sift through all that information (which I haven't yet received, having requested it last Monday), and yet we'll be approving this budget in less than six weeks. We -- the council -- are already taking this budget around to townhall meetings to get resident input. How can we explain this complex budget to residents if we don't have a firm grasp of it ourselves? Knowing the broad brush strokes is one thing, but digging deeper is another, and we've been given much too little time to dig into the details.

You hit the nail on the head with code. Aside from police/crime, that is the number one issue that residents have. Why allocate so little to it, compared to the rest of the budget, if indeed it is a priority? And how can residents or councilmembers make intelligent recommendations about the budget (not just nudging $100,000 here and there) with so little information?

[Paula]

I was at a neighborhood meeting a couple of weeks ago, and it became pretty clear to me that much of the budget is being wasted running the vocal minority's agendas.

Case in point - Coyotes. Head of Animal Services told me only 1 in 100 people he's talked to are in favor of doing anything about coyotes - yet, he is obliged to fulfill his job duties by organizing trapping and such to keep this tiny minority of misinformed underoccupied complainers happy because they have plenty of time to get on the phone to their councilpeople, who then call Animal Services.

When questioned, he admitted that he knows of NO instances when a coyote has harmed a person, certainly not within his jurisdiction. He admitted that most reports of pet-eating 1) could have been prevented by proper pet handling and 2) were unconfirmed, i.e., urban legend. A cat is more likely to be attacked by a dog or another cat than a coyote.

Furthermore, every authority consulted has lined up, and Animal Services agrees, to say that you cannot eliminate coyotes by removing them because they are hard-wired simply to produce more young to populate their areas. To quote Texas Parks & Wildlife, "Trapping and similar nuisance control actions cannot eliminate urgan coyote problems....The real solution and the greater need facing Texans right now is public education. We need to inform and empower people to take steps to coexist with coyotes and other urban wildlife."

On top of that, they have been trying to trap for years and had very little success. Yet, money is now being spent on a coyote bounty hunter, who has little or no restrictions placed on how he will bring in the bounty. Spring traps have been used before and are inhumane, to say the least. Once the coyote is caught, it will be euthanized, though many people like to tell themselves that it will be relocated, as some other townships see fit to do.

So I have a suggestion for our budget: Stop catering to habitual complainers who do not represent the majority, habitual hysterical complainers who make the conscious decision to move into one of the only wooded areas in Dallas and then complain that there's wildlife! Everyone knows it's only the complainers you hear from. The City Council should meet with their Animal Services people and Parks & Wildlife and become informed on the subject so they can give their constituency assurance that there is no danger rather than assurances that they will elimiate coyotes! If you have any doubts that these people are in the minority, then get out and poll a few people at the local grocery store or something. Stop using our budget to placate the misdirected few rather than enhance the lives of the majority.