Note: The Lawrence Times runs opinion columns and letters to the Times written by community members with varying perspectives on local issues. These pieces do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Times staff.
Would you like to send a letter to the Times? Great! Here’s how to do it.
All of us likely have experienced “The Talk” — those difficult, unpleasant if not downright traumatic discussions about topics that affect our lives and those around us. If you’ve been keeping score at home, you’ll know that after extensive analysis, muscle-flexing, hand-wringing and much back and forth between the City of Lawrence administration, the City Commission, Lawrence-Douglas County Fire Medical and other influential voices, the 2025 city budget is baked and out of the oven.
However, as City Manager Craig Owens made clear, the 2025 budget recipe won’t work for 2026 and beyond. Hence, the unavoidable Talk — frank community dialogue about the 2026 budget, which must confront the painful reality of aligning our expectations for public services with the revenues required to provide them.
There seem to be four common viewpoints on budgeting for local public services.
The first holds that a healthy community must necessarily grow its way out of fiscal shortcomings. This viewpoint is reflected in the plainly aggressive capital spending program that has been central to the 2021-2025 city budgets. We’re skeptical of this line of thinking, but more to the point, even if enhanced development functions as advertised, it’s still a long-term proposition so that the resulting increase in revenue to support public services isn’t likely to be available in this decade.
The second perspective seems to be that we can keep our accustomed high service levels without increasing the property tax burden — all that is required is just more efficient delivery. Cut the wasteful spending and our fiscal problems will be solved. Surely there are opportunities to improve current operations, and that approach clearly has to be part of the Talk. However, in our opinion, the notion that efficiency gains will eliminate structural budget issues, and with efficiency gains all our services can be maintained, is at odds with the 21st century Lawrence reality.
The third perspective is the privileged and comfortable one — no offense intended, but it is our opinion that a fair number of residents, while they might grumble, see increasing property taxes as more palatable than a reduction in services. Unfortunately, this perspective works directly counter to many of our expressed community values — including, among others, affordable and attainable housing and building a diverse community.
The fourth perspective follows the widely held ostrich myth — put your head in the sand and hide from the obvious danger. Our contention is that engaging in the Talk, as unpleasant and difficult a chore as it likely will be, is far superior to ostrich behavior and represents the community’s best path forward.
In its broadest contours, we believe that the Talk should incorporate these elements:
- Start early. Budget-building goes on nonstop in local government, but The Talk should be well underway before city staff begins its formal budget processes in early 2026.
- A successful Talk rests on more than token engagement. Positive engagement cannot stop with “We appreciate your input.”
- Think radically. In our opinion, nibbling at the margins of efficient service delivery will not get the community where it needs to be.
- Be a thoughtful and attentive listener, and please be civil.
Sincerely,
Phil and Peggi Englehart, Lawrence
If this local platform matters to you, please help us keep doing this work.
Don’t miss a beat … Click here to sign up for our email newsletters
Click here to learn more about our newsletters first
More Community Voices:
Letter to the Times: City should create oversight committee to guide pool renovation project, rebuild trust
”Our petition’s 1,764 signatures, our supporters’ 75 letters, and our research into the extensive flaws in the (pool renovation) community engagement process all indicate that the previously proposed plan did not reflect public opinion,” Holly Krebs writes in this letter to the Times.
Shawn Alexander: Say his name – Fred Harvey Smith (Column)
”Racial violence has been omnipresent in American history, and in far too many of the incidents, the perpetrators of the crime are acquitted or not even brought up on charges. When I think of such cases I am often haunted by the heinous murder of Fred Harvey Smith here in the land of John Brown in May 1936,” Shawn Alexander writes in this column.
Letter to the Times: Are veterans’ sacrifices for democracy worthless?
”My father (Navy), mother (Army), and many other family members served our country in World War II. … They gave of themselves, in countless ways, to stop the spread of authoritarianism, suppression of freedoms and tyranny of the many by the few,” Sandy Sanders writes in this letter to the Times.
