4 thoughts on “Council uses ‘Equity Lens’ for Fresh Look at Budget Woes

  1. I don’t think the municipal court system is supposed to be “self sustaining”. That would mean that there is a system in place to continually bring people into court and have them pay fines to fund that. If no one ever received a ticket, then the same system would need to be there in case someone did, so as things got better the cost would be higher and higher and less “self sustaining”.
    Maybe the issue is that there are too many tickets being issued for actions that don’t really warrant a fine. Maybe the “municipal court system” is too large. That should be looked into.

  2. This is not an equity lens. An equity lens makes sure that no single geography and population bears a disproportionate burden or hardship based on policies or programs implemented. An equity lens looks at each project’s impact to social equity. Your discussion did not speak to how the projects would also look at the specific populations and disproportionate burden they have endured over the years. For instance, the Westside has a much higher need for infrastructure than District 10 and they have a more vulnerable population based on income. So, if there was a true equity lens, services and infrastructure investments would be targeted to the Westside long before District 10.

    The title was about an equity lens in regards to the budget but the article talked about multiple issues that were not tied into an ‘equity lens’. I don’t get this article.

  3. Where are they going to get the data of where the needs are? Where are they getting the stats from? Who is collecting it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *