If a serious citizen wished information on binding arbitration and Vallejo's Measure A, I for one would not call upon JT or JD Miller (April 25) to provide relevant opinions. If I wanted opinion, innuendo, emotional gurgling, and mismatched fact/fictions, they would be a good choice. I would also say that if they aspire to storytelling, I strongly recommend not losing their day jobs.

So how about some real information on Measure A from a Times-Herald reader?

Binding arbitration, contrary to JT's scary "Wall Street" insinuation about the city being run like a business, is a standard for the business world, particularly commercial transactions. And it has relevance to "contracts" which offer an exchange of promises with a remedy for a breach of those promises by either party.

And why so down on business JT? Well-run business is how I made money in my life and, were it not for a lot of them, we'd all be subsistence farmers or indigents.

If we look at the bottom-line reason for the problem, whether we solve it in court or through binding arbitration, Vallejo city revenue stream does not match its expenses in the current world. This may be courtesy of a lot of perhaps incompetent, perhaps misled, perhaps misguided, perhaps disinterested, perhaps parochial, public servants that preceded the current mayor, council and city management personnel. But that is history and we are here today with a problem, so crying over spilled milk just isn't all that helpful.

And

what is the problem?

* In past use of arbitration, was the arbitrator actually neutral? Was the case of the city poor? Were the needs of the city servants compelling?

* Only the bloated governments, which are all falling down around our ears whether at the federal, state, county or city (Vallejo) level due to an insufficient revenue stream, seem to be living in a fantasy land of retiring at age 50, with special long-term benefits and retirements.

* Given the insane spending streak the federal government is now on, the tax load, health care cost load, 16,000 new IRS agent load, and so on, it doesn't look really good for our disposable income growing so that we could all revert to pensions and lifetime health benefits. And it certainly doesn't seem that city revenue will grow much, given the new business start-ups in Vallejo, unless they tax us to pay out all that continually supplied binding arbitration-awarded funds.

* Binding arbitration seems only to have helped the government worker who produces no revenue, not the guy paying the taxes that the government worker will enjoy.

So I'd rather lose binding arbitration and square off in the courtroom, where both sides have an equal chance at the outcome. Maybe we will get lucky and win an even percentage. And maybe some visionary city government will get rational and change the benefits systems to what the business world uses, and can afford!

There isn't any free lunch; somebody always has to pay, so we best learn to carry our own weight and water if survival is the intended outcome. And I don't see that binding arbitration lightens our load in that regard.

Gary W. Smith

Vallejo