[FRIAM] Whew!

Sat May 6 13:37:13 EDT 2017

Let me throw some things into this mix

Some estimates (SFNewMexican 
<http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/voters-smack-down-mayor-s-beverage-tax-proposal/article_3971faf0-2f9c-11e7-8374-532a52cd354f.html>) 
suggest in total over $3.12 million was spent by both sides on the 
campaign while the expected cost of the Pre-K to be funded was 
$7.7million in the first year. Subsequent years ought to be less because 
facilities would already be in place.

Some roughly 800  Pre-Ks (4 yr olds) would be included. That's 
~$9,000/yr per child which sounds like a good deal based on Frank's 
numbers. Pre-K <> child-care btw. Some 160 teachers+assistants+extended 
care providers would be needed to run a 5 day program for 40 classes of 
20 students each (2 teachers/class + 2 for extended day care).

The Santa Fe Public Schools are expected to expand their free (to 
parents) Pre-K programs 
<http://www.sfps.info/cms/One.aspx?portalId=115105&pageId=150523> 
subject to legislative funding but I don't know details of when, 
probably never 'cos NM State budget is at an impasse.

A possible but unconfirmed motivation for the Mayor's proposal was to 
get to a point where Pre-K would be indispensable and thus get 
sustainable funding and not have to depend on hopefully declining soda 
tax revenues.

According to the New Mexican again 
<http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/half-truths-falsehoods-create-confusion-in-soda-tax-fight/article_68ac5a30-7159-5a1d-913a-a625dfa36e8d.html>, 
lemonade powder would be taxed on the made up quantity changing the 
price from something like $7/can to $28/can - bad 'optics'.

Some claimed tourists might be big contributors to the soda-tax revenues 
anyway.

Some people suggested they would buy sugary drinks in order to support 
Pre-K.

Others suggested the beverage industry ('Big Soda') could not stand the 
idea that the soda-tax would be a seen as sin-tax and are trying 
desperately not to get it labelled as such.

No-one on the for side in the campaign I saw made any suggestions on 
what folks should switch to to avoid the tax, e.g. flavored water, 
water, plain teas and coffees. The last being more profitable for 
businesses.

Based on district voting the people most likely to benefit health wise 
voted against it. Sound familiar?

It's claimed the for side didn't play up the health benefits enough in 
their campaign and that Big Soda came over as the local group while the 
the for side came over as elitist and out of state.

If passed, lookout for Soda stands outside the city limits.

So it all looks a little silly. I support both ideas tho' living in the 
county I couldn't vote.

The questions remain: how to fund Pre-K and how to cut consumption of 
unhealthy sugary drinks? The against side said it should be funded from 
the 'surplus' the city has but there are legal restrictions on those 
funds apparently. The city has it's own component of Gross Receipts Tax 
(which is like a Sales Tax but applied more broadly).

So what's the real problem and how do we fix it?  The mayor is still 
looking for good ideas.

Robert C

On 5/3/17 9:43 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>
> < $13-16k per year is a huge number. Does this include "child care" .. 
> i.e. taking care of the child for working parents? That is a lot more 
> expensive than "pre-school".>
>
> Doggy day care is about half that.  If a dog has the intelligence of a 
> 2 year old, and pre-K child is 4, then a linear extrapolation to an 18 
> year freshman’s day care (tuition) is about $63k a year.  Must be the 
> complexity of the control system that is required!
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/  by Dr. Strangelove

-- 
Cirrillian
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170506/e7432131/attachment-0002.html>