For all the talk about the Columbia Association defining itself as a public or private agency, there is at least one area where CA's identity is clear.
When it comes to budget matters, the association seems not much different from arms of our government that borrow heavily to pay for services they could not otherwise afford. And like some of those agencies, CA finds itself periodically bombarded by the competing demands of constituents, some of whom want more services offered while others clamor for cuts.
The lack of clear consensus bedeviling the Columbia Council's budgeteers is a dilemma that affects government at all levels. The situation is further complicated for Howard's planned city by election rules that effectively disenfranchise many residents. That, in turn, undermines the ability of elected officials to be effective representatives.
How can we be certain that decisions made by the Columbia Council, in its role as overseer for the association and Columbia's many recreational amenities, accurately reflects the will of the people when so many are denied the right to vote or discouraged from participating?
In forging its fiscal year 1996 budget, the Columbia Council must carefully balance the interests of those who want more with those who are demanding less. But the council must also do a better job of educating the community about its spending priorities and how they are being pursued.
Much of the debate over Columbia's budget has centered on the association's debt, which has grown over the past four years to its current level of $88.6 million. There are plans to begin cutting the debt within two years, but critics of the Columbia Association contend that is not soon enough.
In the meantime, the association has embarked on a deficit reduction program designed to pull the debt in line. Deficit spending is expected to reach $16 million this year, but officials hope to eliminate it by the year 2000.
That seems a reasonable game plan. Unfortunately, it does not take into account the demands being placed on residents to support CA's level of spending. It seems reasonable for the association to seriously consider giving residents some relief -- and that can only be accomplished by reduced spending.