WPCNR MR. & MRS. & MS. WHITE PLAINS VOICE. August 15, 2005: Last week, a WPCNR reader criticised Common Council Candidate John Carlson's positions on the city debt. Mr. Carlson replies:

Dear Mr. Bailey,

"Ian" tried to nitpick and complicate peoples' understanding of the City's debt. Remeber, if the City's debt doesn't repaid from money that grows on trees, the debt gets repaid by the citizens who pay taxes and fees.

Moreover, Ian said that the City's operating losses (deficits) were "intentional."  Well, if that mindset is allowed to run White Plains, the City will end up bankrupt like NYC and Yoners were some years ago. Indeed, White Plains needs a change and that is the reason I'm running for Common Council:

Let me make a few simple points:

"Ian" (no last name) got it all wrong. The City's auditors, Investment Bankers and the City Budget have pegged the City's debt level at, or close to $79 million. So, I'm correct. Moreover, the City's 2005-2006 Budget pegged the City's debt at $1,500 per person.

The City of White Plains' debt was $42 million in 2001. The City was on the verge of a full "triple A" rating at that time. Now, 4 years later, the City's debt is almost double.  Ian, I know you'll try to correct so I'll be more exact and say the current debt level is around 180% more.

Fortunately, the City is still rated "double A." However, being put on Negative Outlook is "not a good thing." Remember Ian, Moody's "straight" Aa1 rating is better than Aa1 with a negative outlook. Being on negative outlook is the step before the City is placed on watch. Being on watch usually leads to an outright downgrade. By the way, Ian, in Mayor Delfino's 2005 State of the City address, he recognized the fact that the City's rating has the negative outlook "attached."

Remember, Ian, debt is real money as long as the citizens pay taxes and fees that are used to service the City's debt. Themoney eventually has to come from somewhere. When I speak to fellow White Plains residents they complain about such things as "higher real estate taxes," the "ticket blitz" and "increased parking fees" that the City has been using to help make ends meet.

You missed again Ian. Refinanced debt and, as you say, refunded debt are the same. Indeed, if debt can't be repaid the debt is usually refinanced or refunded. But the debt doesn't vanish or otherwise go away. So, what's your point?

Ian, consider this. After the Common Council recently approved a $1.9 million debt increase, the authorized lovel of the City's debt reached $78.5 million, which corresponds to $1,500 per person; $3,900 per household. The authorizations were for specific expenditures (i.e., vehicles and building rehabilitation), which I believe the City should have funded the expenditures differently, rather than with an increase in debt which will need to be paid sometime in the future with tax and fee revenues.

Ian, you are wrong again. The most recent financial statement that the City issued was for the 3rd fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2005. At that time the City's debt level was $73.3 million/$76.5 million authorized. The Common Council just authorized $1.9 million more in early August. The City has not released its fiscal year-end numbers as of June 30,. 2005 and furthermore, the City hasn't released any financial statement as of August 5, 2005. In fact, I'm told by the City that the fiscal year-end results won't be released until "after Election Day." I wonder why?

Ian, I hope you don't work for the City. Your view of debt and budget deficits alarms me. You quoted the Moody's report that the City's debt position "remains minimal..." You must remember that Moody' writes to advise or inform the investor (eg, a hedge fund or money manager for high net worth individuals). Moody's does not intend to offer its analysis as advice to the citizens of White Plains.

However, I am trying to communicate with the citizens of White Plains. I believe it is meaningful for them to know what the City's debt level per person or per household actually is. Indeed, $3,900 per household is very significant to most people, unless they are very wealthy.

I'm not a deep pocket, nor are most of our fellow citizens. I love the City and I care for its citizens. My wife and I want to be able to afford to retire here. We want our children to be able to afford to live in White Plains. More debt makes it more difficult to achieve these goals.

I'm not blowing smoke, you are. Why don't you visit my website www.carlson2005.com? You'll get a better idea of who I am and what I stand for.

Sincerely,

John Carlson

Candidate for Common Council