Posted on 03/26/2006 6:52:32 PM PST by NormsRevenge
Molly Bowman-Styles doesn't have anything against libraries or after-school programs for kids.
But Bowman, an official with the local chapter of the American Heart Association, thinks it might be nice if the city of San Diego spent at least some tobacco-settlement revenue on programs that stop kids from smoking.
For several years now, she and other anti-smoking activists have been on a crusade to figure out exactly how the city of San Diego spends the millions it receives every year under a $206 billion 1998 legal settlement between 46 states and the major tobacco companies.
And like their counterparts in many other cities, the activists have been waging an uphill battle to make sure a portion of the money is spent on what it was supposedly meant for: to cover smoking-related medical costs and prevent people from lighting up.
Last month, Mayor Jerry Sanders proposed using future tobacco revenues as collateral to borrow money and pay off a portion of the city's $1.4 billion pension shortfall. In past years, the city has shuffled huge chunks of the money into its general fund while also earmarking some for parks, libraries and an after-school program for kids.
If the city has spent a dime of the revenue on any sort of anti-smoking campaign or health-related program, it's awfully hard to tell from looking at the previous six years' budgets. The city has received roughly $66.5 million in tobacco-settlement revenue since 2000, and a spokesman for Sanders, who took office in December, said the city doesn't appear to have spent “one red cent” on anything related to smoking-prevention or health.
Trying to account for all the money has become something of an obsession for Bowman and other local health advocates, many of whom still recall their elation when the settlement was announced eight years ago. At the time, they figured the cash bonanza would usher in a new era of public consciousness about the dangers of smoking.
Since then, their group – the San Diego County Tobacco-Free Communities Coalition – has watched with disappointment as tens of millions of dollars have vanished into the city's general fund, making the money as difficult to trace as a drop of water in a stream.
“The money wasn't meant for cities and counties to do anything they wanted,” said Bowman, a senior advocacy director for the heart association. “People paid for that money with their lives.”
Complaints spreading
Across the country, anti-smoking groups have been raising similar complaints. Cities and counties have spent the money on everything from golf-course sprinklers (Niagara County, N.Y.) to enforcement of pooper-scooper laws (Lincoln, Neb.).
The problem, the activists acknowledge, is that nothing in the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement mandates that the money be spent on anything in particular, even though the 46 states ostensibly brought the litigation to recoup the public-health-related costs of smoking.
California is expected to receive $25 billion in tobacco-settlement revenue through 2025. The state keeps half the money for itself, then distributes 45 percent to every county and the remaining five percent to four cities: San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Jose.
“If you listened to all the fulminating by all the politicians when this was settled, it was all about protecting kids,” said Danny McGoldrick, vice president of research for the Washington, D.C.-based Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. “But then the money grab started.”
According to a Web site maintained by McGoldrick's group, only four states are spending even the minimum amount recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on anti-tobacco programs. Those states are Maine, Colorado, Delaware and Mississippi.
The organization has also compiled a list of what it labels particularly “egregious” expenditures of the tobacco money. North Carolina has used it to promote a horse park that holds polo matches. Alabama funded boot camps for juvenile delinquents. One New York county upgraded its computer equipment and fire alarms. Alaska made dock repairs.
Deficit diversion For San Diego anti-smoking activists, the mayor's idea of using the money as collateral to help pay off the pension deficit is only the latest reminder that the money isn't going to combat smoking.
At a Feb. 6 City Council meeting, the activists said Sanders' plan might jeopardize the money should the city default on bond payments.
“The American Lung Association is opposed to securitizing the funds, but we anticipate that you will do so nevertheless,” Debra Kelley of the American Lung Association's San Diego chapter told the council.
She noted that “not a dime has been spent on keeping tobacco away from kids.” In a subsequent interview with The San Diego Union-Tribune, Kelley said the city “has never been able to tell us what it has done and accomplished with this money. It just points to various black holes.”
During the Feb. 6 hearing, the council was shown a spreadsheet of what has happened to the $66.5 million the city has received. More than half the money has been placed in the city's general reserve or general fund. An additional $4 million has been spent on libraries, $13 million on parks and $9 million on the 6-to-6 after-school program for kids.
A spokeswoman for the San Diego Unified School District, which runs the 6-to-6 program, said “there's no organized anti-smoking” component to it. Spokeswoman Music McCall did note that police officers affiliated with the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program have participated in after-school lectures at some elementary schools.
“The anti-smoking and anti-drug message may come in that way,” McCall said.
According to recent city budgets, $250,000 a year has also been earmarked for enforcement of underage-smoking laws. Most if not all of that money goes to the San Diego Police Department, which uses it to fund a summer camp for kids, according to a police spokesman.
Over the years, city officials have noted that the county, not the city, is largely responsible for addressing public-health issues. And the county has made a concerted effort to spend its tobacco-related revenue on public health, although not necessarily on nonsmoking projects.
In 2001, the county Board of Supervisors adopted a policy that all the revenue must be spent on health and human services programs, according to Terry Hogan, finance director for the county's Health and Human Services Agency. Those programs range from alcohol-and drug-addiction services to health care for the indigent.
Fred Sainz, a spokesman for Sanders, said he realizes the city hasn't spent much, if anything, on a concerted anti-smoking campaign. He also predicts that won't change in the future.
There are simply too many other holes to plug with the money, he said. The pension crisis has created too many strains on city services.
In recent weeks, the anti-smoking coalition has been lobbying the City Council to pass an ordinance that would require tobacco retailers to obtain a license. They've suggested that the licensing fees would pay for the cost of enforcing the new law, meaning the city wouldn't have to dip into its tobacco revenue.
But the activists haven't given up hope that the tobacco money – or some of it, at least – will someday be used to combat smoking.
Kelley, of the lung association, said the anti-tobacco coalition will continue to plug away in San Diego, lobbying local officials, attending council meetings, doing the same things they've been doing the past eight years.
“We feel like we've met with almost everyone in the entire city,” she said. “It's like the city has been pouring buckets of water in a swimming pool. You just don't know where it's going.”
I hope I live long enough for the truth to come out.
However, I'm not optimistic.
Boycott the ACS indeed.
Each state has their own pet programs so no, sorry, I don't know how they spend the money.
I just know how Maine is spending the money and Mass using the money to build a $175,000 big ole Golf Course.
Most state are using the money to balance their budgets. Nice, heh?!
Absolutely Correct!!!!!!!!!!!! Ping!!!!!!
Absolutely Correct!!!!!!!!!!!! Ping!!!!!!
Here's another dirty little secret: look around the city of San Diego (or any other burb that took tobacco money) and you'll see private sector lawyers who got in on the deal. I know one in Georgia, though he'd never admit it.
I was a smoker for years and didn't get a dime. The lawyer was politically connected and got tens of thousands.
You couldn't come up with a more evil, corrupt criminal enterprise if you were Mario Puzo writing Godfather XX.
That's because they have borrowed to the hilt against future payments from the companies. The whole deal was the greatest lie and manipulation ever foisted upon a stupid, witless public.
There should be a law making it ILLEGAL for lawyers to hold office..
Call it conflict of interest.. as pure a conflict of interest as was ever invented..
Lawyers making laws to be lawyerly about.. DuuuuH..
Its like accountants allowing you some of your paycheck to spend.. the rest they keep..
Its a very parasitic world we live in.. and the hosts are oblivious.. paralyzed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.