I am writing to express my concern relative to the city's retirement program status. I have been led to believe that in the current program, the payouts over a period of time are unsustainable within the city's budget. Over a period of time, they will bankrupt the city, similar to what happened in Vallejo. Therefore, it would seem that they have to be modified somewhat.
I am not opposed to having excellent retirement plans for Police and Fire. However, to stay on target for the city's funds, the issue has to be addressed. One of the candidates for the council, Mike Tracy, reportedly receives a $186,000-a-year retirement income. If he is elected, with the help of his union, do you think he will be sympathetic with the problem? The same logic applies to the other three councilmen supported by the union -- Ed Summers, Brian Brennan and Jim Monahan. That amounts to four foxes guarding the henhouse.
As a physician, I thought that I had enough in my IRA to retire and did so. However, unfortunately at the age of 78, I have had to go back to work again in order to pay my monthly expenses because of the meltdown. Fortunately I have found work.
I have often wished that I had a retirement program like the city's so that I could retire for good.
Neal Andrews is being targeted by the union as the man to be defeated. He is the only running incumbent who feels that there is a need for city retirement modification. I happen to like Mike Tracy, and his work in the community has been outstanding. But I am not certain, with union pressure, that the retirement problem will be addressed appropriately by him, since he is a beneficiary of his peer group.
So vote for Neal and skip the incumbents!
-- Jack Broms, M.D., Ventura