Editor’s Note
Back in the old days — that’s less than a decade and before there were such things as blogs and interactive conversations with readers — editors used to respond to their newspaper readers with an “editor’s note.” Sometimes it clarified a point made in a letter to the editor. Sometimes it offered a correction. Sometimes it was just a simple explanation. An editor’s note was a handful of sentences; maybe a four or five paragraphs. It was always a personal link between the editor and the reader. Only difference between it and today’s blog is the immediacy and the platform. Welcome to Editor’s Note.

$400,000 city subsidy to OTW: Get real

April 23rd, 2009 at 09:17am Linda Grist Cunningham

Tucked at the bottom of Isaac Guerrero’s story in the Register Star this morning was this juicy nugget:

“Though On the Waterfront’s operating budget hovers around $1.5 million a year, the city provides the agency with in-kind police protection. Money for those police wages — $400,000 or more a year — comes from a special city fund aimed at improving downtown. Morrissey wants to switch that annual subsidy with something else that better serves On the Waterfront, taxpayers and downtown.”

Egad and little fishes! How fast can that cash be switched away from On the Waterfront and on to more productive purposes?  I used to love OTW as much as the next guy, but these days I think it’s OK to ask: What the heck is OTW really accomplishing for the couple million it spends? And, let’s be honest. That line of questioning must take a straight path directly to this: Should it just be killed?

One thing for sure. The city of Rockford ought not be spending $400,000 from a downtown improvement fund on OTW expenses of any kind. If OTW cannot completely generate the revenue stream to fund itself, then it’s time to cut it loose.

Entry Filed under: Uncategorized

5 Comments Add your own

  • 1. pundit  |  April 24th, 2009 at 12:36 am

    Don’t forget to add the overtime wages of the public works employees who have to clean up the mess each night of On the Waterfront. What city fund does that come from? Also, is the city charging storage fees since On The Waterfront keeps their equipment in one of the city owned acquisitions (empty buildings)? Your question is right on target. “What the heck is OTW really accomplishing for the couple million it spends? And, let’s be honest. That line of questioning must take a straight path directly to this: Should it just be killed?”

    The people’s needs should take precedence over the wants of On The Waterfront.

  • 2. Paul  |  April 24th, 2009 at 10:43 pm

    Who pays the $1.5 million for OTW’s operating budget?

  • 3. Mike  |  April 27th, 2009 at 8:49 am

    Check the math it does not seem to add up:
    $400,000 for a 4 day event is $100,000/day.
    Let’s say they pay $100/hr per officer that is 1000/hrs @ $100/hr…now lets say each officer works 10 hours which would mean 100 officers on the street at OTW for 10 hours each day.

    Now $100/hour does see a bit to much to be charging the event so lets say it is $50/hour which seems more reasonable but it also means that there are now 200 officers (nearly the entire force) on duty for ten hours each day at OTW…..? The numbers do not add up which might make for a story.

  • 4. chris73456  |  May 1st, 2009 at 8:24 pm

    It was a lot more fun years ago when they kept it simple–i think it has run its course and should be “put down” like the crippled cow that it is. But it wont happen because it make too much sense and ther are too many people justifying their jobs…….

  • 5. JGreen  |  May 8th, 2009 at 6:36 pm

    “If OTW cannot completely generate the revenue stream to fund itself, then it’s time to cut it loose.”

    I agree!

Leave a Comment

Required

Required, hidden

Security Code:

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed