Caravati: Cut Taxes, Cut Services

City Councilor Blake Caravati, who recently announced that he’s retiring from Council, is sounding mighty feisty on the topic of the budget. In today’s Daily Progress, John Yellig writes that Caravati said: “What I’m saying is, don’t be bellyaching about ‘we’ve got all this new money and we want to cut rates to reduce the amount of money,’ and then not talk about services. We all do it, and I’m saying I don’t have to worry about it this year, so I’m going to raise hell about it.”

Caravati is particularly peeved with lone Republican Councilor Rob Schilling, who has not participated in the budget process in the past, and has also voted against every budget in his single term on Council. “Rob doesn’t want to argue about it because he’s an ideologue…. I’m not a lame duck. I’m a wounded duck. And you know what happens when animals are wounded.”

I have to admit that I’m a bit puzzled by Caravati’s comments. Given that assessments are up 18.8% this year, a properly-crafted rate cut wouldn’t need to result in a decrease in funding of city services, as has been done in past years. I, too, deplore passing tax cuts without spending cuts, but it seems to me that, in this case, we can have our cake and eat it, too, at least rhetorically.

4 Responses to “Caravati: Cut Taxes, Cut Services”


  • Waldo wrote the quote up as:

    “Rob doesn’t want to argue about it because he’s an ideologue…. I’m not a lame duck. I’m a wounded duck. And you know what happens when animals are wounded.”

    It was printed as:

    “Rob doesn’t want to argue about it because he’s an ideologue,” Caravati said, adding that he wouldn’t shy away from confrontations in this budget cycle.

    “I’m not a lame duck. I’m a wounded duck. And you know what happens when animals are wounded.”

    So I didn’t necessarily draw the same conclusion one gets when they are paired together in the same paragraph.

    To me that quote (as a stand alone paragraph) suggested some hard feelings about his decision to retire from city council.

  • Hmm. That hadn’t crossed my mind. If he was forced out of his Council seat, that’d be news to me. I’m not sure that anything is lost by stringing those two quotes together, though I’m certainly open to evidence to the contrary.

  • Too bad he’s leaving – we could do with some sunshine and honest talk about revenue vs. services. As much as I appreciate “beautification” projects (from neighborhood grants to plant flowers to the transfer station), I believe the city engages in a lot of un-necessary “pet projects” while allowing basic services to slide. Pet projects are buried in funny ways by O’Connell and his staff so that they aren’t easily excised when the time to talk of cuts comes. Instead, we get trash sticker hikes.

  • Seems to me Caravati is sacrificing his legacy for the party. instead of fading away quietly like a smart wounded animal, he’s decided to pick a fight to weaken the opposition, thereby strengthening his own party. his weapon– his own hypocrisy. since he’s not running for reelection, now he can be honest. but his lame duck antics will bring attention to himself, like a spoiled child who doesn’t have the wits to get his own way. he says he’s not running for a third term because of the politics of no, because Schilling votes no on everything. this implies that Schilling is not making motions for alternatives not seconded by the other 4 members. the solution is to put 2 Republicans on council so new ideas can be forced to a vote and the Dems exposed as the party of no. they said no to an elected school board, remember? Caravati’s grandstanding will only bring scrutiny to his own record and taint the Democratic candidates by association.

Comments are currently closed.

Sideblog