Participatory Budgeting: A Flawed Model for Municipal Decision-Making

Participatory budgeting is the city’s program that allows community members directly decide how to allocate a portion of a public budget. Each participatory budgeting cycle increases the amount of city funds to be disbursed; the current cycle allocates $2 million in city funds; $7.5 million has been allocated to date. Each time I’ve received the city’s participatory budgeting mailer, I’m struck that some are essential projects that unquestionably should be undertaken, some are feel-good projects, and a few that are superfluous. Some are ridiculously overpriced (a Tree/Garden Coordinator at $410,000 or 250 rat traps at $1440 each). Others are safety issues that the City should implement without question, like last cycle’s installation of high-visibility poles for fire hydrants. Upon reflection, I realize that participatory budgeting is a poor substitute for careful policy decisions.

Participatory budgeting programs have gained traction in various cities around the world., Proponents of these programs argue that they enhance democratic engagement, empower marginalized communities, and foster transparency in government spending. However, a closer examination reveals significant flaws in this approach, particularly in its implementation and impact on equitable distribution of resources. 

Participatory budgeting essentially transforms budget allocation into an internet popularity contest, where projects with the most votes receive funding. While this may seem superficially democratic, it inherently favors segments of the population that are more internet-responsive and enabled. In instances where access to digital technology and internet proficiency are unevenly distributed, participatory budgeting can amplify existing disparities, diminishing the effect of marginalized groups in the decision-making process. This creates a skewed representation of community needs and preferences, undermining the principle of equal representation in democratic governance.

Moreover, the prioritization of projects based on online popularity overlooks the expertise and nuanced understanding that elected leaders bring to budgetary decisions. Unlike the general public, elected officials have the responsibility and experience to assess the broader implications of budget allocations, considering factors such as public safety, long-term sustainability, alignment with strategic priorities, and impact on vulnerable populations. By relinquishing this responsibility to a ‘popularity contest,’ participatory budgeting risks prioritizing short-term, attractive projects over those that address underlying systemic issues and serve the greater good. For example, projects that enhance public safety, bring the city into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), or provide essential services, should not be subject to a popularity contest.

Further undermining the supposedly democratic nature of participatory budgeting, City agencies have been using municipal email and resources to lobby the public on behalf of certain proposals. This not only serves to widen the ‘digital divide’ but also has the appearance of violating the state’s conflict of interest laws. This unequal access to mailing lists and citizen attention highlights the problems with a ‘popularity contest’ to determine budget lines and appears to violate state conflict of interest laws.

Participatory budgeting fails to account for the complexity of the municipal budgeting process and the trade-offs involved in resource allocation. We elect leaders to balance competing demands and make difficult decisions that prioritize the common good over individual preferences. When over $2 million dollars are taken out of the budget and redirected to participatory budgeting, instead of allocated through a more thoughtful and deliberative process, democracy is actually undermined.

To engage citizens, the City Council should aggressively pursue public input to our municipal budget. Participatory budgeting is just one way to build knowledge and participation. Perhaps an allocation of $100,000 per year would be more than adequate to generate ideas that the citizens could consider, many of which should be integrated into the general budget because they are essential to public health and deal with climate change. It is the responsibility of our elected leaders to intelligently review and determine which projects and improvements would benefit those in greater need, rather than outsourcing this crucial task of spending $2 million to a popularity contest than can be swayed by those with more resources.

-30-

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Don’t Confuse What Goes on in This Building with Democracy

Don’t Confuse What Goes on in This Building with Democracy: The disappearance of democracy in the Massachusetts State House At the Massachusetts State House, I stepped outside of a packed hearing on updating the state’s bottle bill to speak with a young reporter for a western Massachusetts weekly. I had been “holding court” with the press all morning – giving them the Sierra Club’s point of view on this proposed legislation. I enjoyed this type of work immensely, as reporters were generally sympathetic to environmental bills and asked interesting questions. But on this day, I was tired, frustrated, and not in a very good mood. “How will the vote go?” a young reporter asked me. “What vote? They’re not voting today” I replied. “When will the vote be? Next week?” he asked. “Probably never,” I shot back. “But isn’t the majority of the committee in favor of it? Won’t they call for a vote?” he queried That moment, I broke an unspoken but absolutely firm rule among l
Read more

Costs and Risks of Cambridge's Proposed Municipal Internet System

The City of Cambridge is considering implementing a municipal fiber optic internet system at a cost of $194 million. While everyone in Cambridge should have access to high-speed internet, this proposed plan is not the best solution considering the cost, the fast-paced technological advancements in the digital age, and the availability of other internet service providers in the area. Furthermore, the cost of implementing a municipal fiber optic internet system is exorbitant, and this investment could be better spent on other essential infrastructure or services.  There are numerous examples of municipalities that have faced significant financial challenges or cost overruns when implementing municipal fiber optic systems, including: Burlington, Vermont : In 2006, the city of Burlington launched a municipal fiber optic network, Burlington Telecom. However, the project ended up costing the city significantly more than expected, resulting in a financial crisis. The city's credit rat
Read more

Report Shows Municipal Broadband is Not Economically Feasible

Report Shows Municipal Broadband is Not Economically Feasible Each household could face thousands in costs or more , regardless of whether you sign up for it. After waiting for years, the City Council has finally been given a cost analysis for building a municipal fiber-optic cable system. This detailed analysis makes some serious errors highlighted below, and estimates a cost of up to $194 MILLION for installation. The analysis provided to the city uses old models, e.g. fully constructed municipal internet systems. One comparison used in the analysis is Chattanooga TN, but Chattanooga isn’t comparable – they installed their system 15 years ago. Technology didn’t stand still, and 15-years is ancient history in technology. If we had done this 15-20 years ago, it may have been a good idea. But Cambridge missed that opportunity. The report hypothesizes that the $70/month “average” for Comcast broadband would be the same as a municipal system. The report also theorizes that a munic
Read more