Here is an example from far to the north:

http://www.arcataeye.com/index.php?module=Pagesetter&tid=2&topic=3&func=viewpub&pid=683&format=full

A water district is fighting against bottled water ( economic freedom) because it is bad for the environment and isn't any cleaner frequently ( public interest). In fact, a few brands are tap water.

The water district could be hurting the bottom lines of bottled water sellers in the process of protecting the environment.

Great post Brian. An issue and debate I see not just in Ventura County, but up and down the state. Ironically, may be the most divisive debate many don't realize and it crosses party lines.

Jarrod,

So how do you think any of the local cities that you know of do? Which city is really good at balancing the competing interests?

I believe this will be THE issue in the Ventura City Council race. A majority of the residents of this town seem inclined to want slow growth, as shown by the large amount of people who rejected the measure to build in the hillsides and who continue to be active in the Hillsides Conservancy. Then there is the current antagonism toward Wal-mart. There is also a new group which rejects multi-story development in Midtown.

But there is also a group of business folks who clearly think we should be doing more to make it easier to build and start new businesses in this town. They feel expanding the tax base will help pay for city sevices.

So our City Council must walk a fine line between these two factions.

Along the lines of biz development, the Council has initiated some interesting new projects such as an innovative loan program which will help our workers find housing and a business development fund which I think holds real promise.

I am particularly pleased with Ventura's current program to attract arts-related businesses as the "New Art City." The arts industry in Ventura creates $18.6 million in economic activity. And the renaissance of Downtown has been exhilarating.

Alex Fiore was an expert at balancing developer wants and the common good of the community. The citizens took ownership of the decision making process. The citizens made up for lack of money with tenacity. When a developer calculates what his or her profit may be for building project they must be made to consider how it affects the entire community.

I believe if food carts pulled in millions of dollars a year and Waste Management made foot cart money Bill Davis would be asking me if I want mustard on it right now.

There isn't alot of math involved in these problems.

Those of you that thought you could vote Republican and sit back and enjoy the family values are learning a hard lesson.

Of course I have my biases and some will think I am sucking up, but I truly believe that Simi valley and Santa Clarita have balanced property rights vs. conservation better then most. For example, Simi Valley was one of the last cities to implement a SOAR Ordinance in the County and the year SOAR passed in the County and majority of cities, it failed in Simi. Tells me that the residents were happy with the progress of the City. The current debates surrounding WM and Runkle have extenuating circumstances beyond the normal no development stances.

And while I may be scoffed at considering the growth in the Santa Clarita Valley, it is important to note that a lot of that growth is in the County Unincorporated surrounding the City. The City recently adopted a tax measure to preserve open space and has successfully used developer dollars to buy and protect two sensitive canyons around the City. They have done good job balancing the two.

I am sure there are other areas that have done well, such as Burbank, but obviously I would be more in tune with the cities in and around Ventura County.

Jarrod,

Do you think the people of Simi Valley would support a tax hike for preserving open space?

Good question. When Measure B was put before the voters a couple years ago, Supervisor Bennett was advocating strongly the proposed Measure A. That would have been a county wide open space sales tax for an open space district. He attempted to combine the transportation and open space measures together in one measure, but polls showed that combined measure would show poorly - that the transportation sales tax had a better chance of winning without the open space increase with it. Therefore, the Board of Sups if I remember correctly, voted to keep the Measures seperate along with a majority of agreement from the Cities. In fact, I remember Supervisor Bennett going before the Simi Council asking them to support the combined measure.

That was a long winded rehash to basically say that back then the voters didn't seem to support it, and I don't think Simi voters today would support it. A lot of the concern was "the devils in the details" rationale. Who would govern the District, who would allocate the tax dollars, etc. Never know what the future holds, but I don't think the politicial will is there.

There is a contradiction in using tax dollars to preserve open space while simultaneously using tax dollars to provide affordable housing. All that does is give it to the taxpyers from both ends. Preventing development by using tax dollars to buy up open land will further restrict development and drive up land value (simple supply and demand). Then everyone will whine that the government needs to do more to keep housing affordable. You can't have it both ways. If you want to preserve open space you need to accept that our community will only be open to those wealthy enough to live here or fortunate enough to have bought land while it was still affordable. Everyone else, including our children, will have to find someplace else to live.

Hi Brian

Great topic.

A lot of strong analysis from Bubba, Marie, and Jarrod. I know a lot of people accept the premise that one is either pro-business or working in the public interest. I think that is a bit of a false choice.

Isn't allowing economic growth, which creates jobs, raises the standard of living in the public interest?

An area I'd like to see looked at is reducing the sales tax. I'd love to see the sales tax rate drop to 5%.

The breakdown of who gets what would be as follows.

State - 1%
Local jurisdiction (place of sale) - 2%
Transportation fund - 2%

This way, local governments gets majority of the funds to meet local needs. I believe this would be a great start to making California a better business state and job creator.

As the Board of Equalization breaks it down now:

State -6.25%
Local jurisdiction - .75%
Transportation fund - .25%

Since local jurisdictions only get aggregate 1% (unless they vote for an increase) this forces them to continue to approve projects to get more sales tax volume into their local government.

In my view, the current tax breakdown produces government motivations that create disequilibrium between jobs, housing, transportation, retail locally. It is definitely something that needs to be looked at.

Scott brings up an excellent point. In pursuing big box retailers local government is simply doing what makes sense from a fiscal perspective. You cannot change these incentives without a fundamental reform of our tax system while addressing the underlying distribution of those funds. The problem is that there are too many vested interests that aren't willingly going to give up control over billions of dollars of tax revenues.

Great Topic Brian

I choose to comment on a basic subject, the City council members of Simi Valley.
After watching several meetings I have to say that I am not impressed with these folks and at the next opportunity would, at this time, vote most of them out. If a person is going to represent the needs of the citizens I feel that they should do just that.
What I see are "individuals" who do not instill a lot of faith and trust in me with their individual actions. A few of those folks are scary and it worries me that they have any control at all.
I can only suggest that as a group they need to review the way they appear to the public.

Scott,

Wouldn't your proposal really impact the state's budget? 50 % of the state budget at least is required to go towards education. Where do you think they would make it up? What am I missing here?

I didn't put forth the argument as an either or situation.

For example, the city has been tinkering with the rules over street vendors including hot dog vendors and the family that sells strawberrys.

Regardless of what choice the local government makes I am not going to be financially impacted and my lifestyle isn't going to change.

But it is a question about economic freedom.

Although, you might argue it is about freedom for brick and mortar stores versus others.

In response to Bubba's post above, I absolutely agree. We could take Warren Buffett's advice and reform Prop. 13, which will NEVER happen.

The state is also taking tax dollars away from cities for education. Beginning in 1992, Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds I and II reduced tax revenues coming back to Ventura. This represents more than $41 million lost since 1992 and is more than $4 million annually in lost revenues. But nobody would propose spending LESS for education, either.

So cities need sales tax revenue from businesses to provide basic city services or they need to increase taxes. In Ventura, we tried to pass a Public Safety Initiative which would have increased the sales tax by 1/4 percent. It needed a 2/3 majority to pass and fell short by only a few points. So now they are adding public safety officers piecemeal and throwing all available revenue into public safety, at the expense of other things we need.

It's a tough balancing act and you can't make everybody happy no matter what you do.

With all that being said Bubba and Scott how is Simi Valley doing in the quest to protect economic freedom and watch out for the community?

How free is Simi Valley?

Some of the issues are not the city council. I know of HOA's that try to ban work trucks but allow even larger SUV's. Just another strike against a person trying to start out in the world.

Sorry, Brian, I have a tendency to go wonkish. I have probably bored everyone. I should stick to defending my friend on that other thread. Far more interesting. BTW, I hope everyone noticed Christy did go on there to correct the record and answer questions. Then I think the thread got hijacked by Carroll Dean Williams. Oh well.

Ventura County already has lower sales taxes than LA County. It seems bigger cities have more expensive taxes. Yet we have to grow to have a bigger tax base. Which somehow if history repeats itself will cause taxes to go up.

Why do we want to grow into a high tax area?

Simi Valley is friendly to some businesses like white collar office workers, but is less friendly to blue collar businesses. And the economic freedom of cart pushers, hot dog vendors, and storage facility owners is not a priority at this time.

Brian

When the rare tax cut occurs, actual revenues increase because the profit motive is improved and growth occurs. The problem is the rate of increase in spending and debt financing often makes tax cuts look as though they actually cut revenue.

In the sales tax case, I've seen a study that says by cutting sales taxes on just manufacturing equipment alone would allow manufacturers to create close to 50,000 more jobs in the state of California.

And yes Brian, I understand pretty well all the mandatory commitments the state has to ensure taxes are always high and will remain high. This is precisely the role of new laws in the state. To centralize government power/money and ensure that any tax cutting notion is undermined by making these commitments in perpetuity.

It is also why things like redistricting, which expands electoral choice and diversity are tabled because it threatens the tax machine and those that benefit from the way things are in the state.

Your primary concern seems to be about the state, but what about the producers and consumers who work, pay, and are impacted by these taxes?

Scott,

Here was my question to you:

"Wouldn't your proposal really impact the state's budget? 50 % of the state budget at least is required to go towards education. Where do you think they would make it up? What am I missing here?"

Are you arguing that cutting the state's share of sales tax down to 1% would cause so an explosion in the economy that revenues would be through the roof and there would be no cut in the education budget?

I think voters have made education a priority through the years and your system appears would cause a major shift away from state funded education.

Are you arguing for more locally funded and controlled education spending?

Being that most of the money in the state budget is for education I added the word education to this paragraph you wrote:

"And yes Brian, I understand pretty well all the mandatory commitments TO EDUCATION the state has to ensure taxes are always high and will remain high. This is precisely the role of new laws in the state. To centralize government power/money for EDUCATION and ensure that any tax cutting notion is undermined by making these commitments to EDUCATION in perpetuity."

So, how do we fund education with less state funding? Who picks up the tab?

Scott Blough said "In the sales tax case, I've seen a study that says by cutting sales taxes on just manufacturing equipment alone would allow manufacturers to create close to 50,000 more jobs in the state of California."

Scott raises a good point...do you think we should bring back the Investment Tax Credit for businesses. A fortune 500 manufacturer that I am a major stockholder of and intimately aware of cut their USA, engineering workforce by 25% last year and outsourced it to Asia or India.

The same company is currently being bought by a private equity investment firm for $8 billion dollars...they will be taken off the NYSE, all current stockholders will be required to sell their shares to the private equity firm. The big question and quandry is that the new investment firm is not regulated by the SEC and their investors may be from outside of the country, the public will not know. The new leadership's first order of business is to cut capital expenditures by 50%, meaning a large amout of manufacturing projects-tooling will be halted...what does that mean...most likely they will be outsourced to another country who will make the capital expenditure and make components on foreign soil and ship to USA.

These private equity firms investments are not available to the common investor... in other words a miliion dollar investor is a pitence to them, the common USA investor will not have a stake in this privately held company (that was previously a USA company), that was once regulated on the SEC and more transparent.

Katie and the CAPC worry about campign finance transparency, that's a good thing, what about transparency for who is buying up USA companies being held by private equity firms...is this contributing to the financial institution crises that our nation is experiencing? We should know which private equity firms are donating to Candidates, if a candidate is accepting money from them are those firms Patriots or are they outsourcing to foreign soil.

When will the USA realize that we are selling our Country to foreign investors, where does Homeland Security factor in to this equation.

Brian...the more impotant question to ask is "Is our COUNTRY business friendly?" That's a tough call, the EPA, workman's comp, organized labor are driving our wall street driven companies to foreign soil. Any doubts consider GM, Ford vs Toyota, Honda. The list goes on.............

This entry was about how business friendly Simi Valley currently is, how did that get shifted into first the state and now international business.

BTW...the sell of this CA firm will be a boon to CA taxes when the stockholders will be forced to sell and pay capital investment and personal income taxes on their stock options, we are looking at paying taxes in a HUGE lump sum because of being forced to sell our shares. I am VERY familiar to the insider holdings of these shares and who is from CA, this sell out will bring many 100's of millions in personal taxes to CA. This is what drives taxpayers to list their primary residence to another state and their secondary residence in CA when we have propositions that have the "millionare" penalty taxes.

Simi Valley?

The result of this company being sold will mean that citizens of SV will lose their jobs to overseas workers.

Simi Valley?

Do you think SV residents and therefore their elected officials want manufacturing companies on their turf..NO they want antiseptic industry, or CLEAN industry.

Don't get me wrong, I want that too, but we live with double standards, NIMBY's

Lowering Taxes Crowd:

I am wondering how you are defining the "tax machine"? If, as many of our free marketer bloggers advocate, the state reduce taxes, what services would/should they cut by reducing taxes?

The major reason CA has such high sales taxes is the consequence of Prop. 13. Bills have to be paid, and as individuals take on additional jobs to pay their bills, our local governments needed to increase sales taxes (one of the only "additonal jobs" they were able to take on) to pay for public services, like police, firefighters, public works, sewage treatment, park maintenance, regulatory enforcement, etc.

Marie has a great working knowledge: she has been intimately involved in increasing revenue for our police, fire, and resource officers (they work on gang and drug prevention on our school campuses).

No new taxes? How about NO NEW SERVICES?

* How about collapsing bridges?
* How about no clean water?
* How about low-quality construction going undetected?
* How about delayed police responses when a burglar is entering your home?
* How about fast spreading September fires because the lack of adequate firefighters? How about untreated sewage?

I don't know all the of details of Milton's theories. I genuinely want to understand and perhaps I might learn how our State is out of balance in terms of being "overtaxed."

If our freemarketers think that reducing taxes and public services would be more efficient and effective if private industry did those services, then I ask, what happens to citizens who cannot afford the rates private industry would charge?

Would communities that cannot afford the cost of bridges just be left without them? Roads? What then would happen to the stability of commerce?

In my view, what has significantly contributed to our country's and state's wealth has been our TAXES paying for, as one example, infrastructure that allows easier transport of goods and services.

What has protected our country and state from catastrophic epidemics has been TAXES that provide for clean water, sewage control, quality, healthy food, reduced particles in our air, etc... which, in turn, has provided a stable environment, therefore a healthy and stable work force for private industry.

One specific example is worth a thousand theories.

Freemarkerers: Please give one specific (in one of our VC cities) freemarket example we could discuss, so we might understand how Milton's free market works better than a mixed market, one in which government and the market are interdependent.

Thanks.

Hi Brian:

You're really pushing the scare tactics on education. I'm a little surprised as you usually don't fall into such demagoguery. Remember to breathe.:)

If you don't believe me, take a look at an example from former President Clinton's era. In 1997, Clinton compromised with a Republican Congress on the Taxpayer Relief Act in 1997. Over the strong opposition from liberal democrats, Clinton signed the law. This essentially cut capital gains down, which allowed investors to move money with less punishment from government.

The law also increased the capital gains exemption on single family homes as well.

Well, the economy shot up, especially in silicon valley as capital aligned with ingenuity creating some great advancements, higher standards of living, and new products that made work more efficient, which created even more growth.

The government got higher income tax receipts as a result as these companies began to hire more people and independent ventures began to pick-up.

Again, I believe choosing between the public interest and being pro-business is a false choice.

I keep hearing that the only way to raise revenue is to take more from taxpayers, but as my dad was fond of saying, "Money doesn't grow on Trees". We the taxpayers only have so much and when you slice people's wallet's in half, this means we only have half to spend. Raising taxes and having a high tax structure has nasty consequences on economic growth.

Last, Since you brought up education, I'm surprised teachers as intelligent as the ones I've met don't seem to be pro-economic growth. If the private sector is able to grow, this means teachers get larger raises and their pensions get fully funded. When government steps on the private sector as "outsourcing" has pointed out, we see pressure to fund such commitments because quite frankly, there is no profit motive to grow one's company, hire more people, and expand into new markets.

I believe in win-wins.

Last, I believe we should take a look at tax exemption status for teachers, firefighters, public employees, and police. It always seemed odd to me to have these employees get taxed on money that came from taxes.

Back to the original question, I think that our Simi Valley city council has, in the 30 years I have lived here, done a pretty good job of balancing community concerns with business concerns. There will never be a consensus on any issue charged with that much passion. The only thing I would like to see changed is the City Logo, two mountains with a valley in the middle. For the sake of truth in advertising, they should do some cut and fill on those mountains and add some large commercial buildings and housing developments... and a DUMP.

Back to the original question, I think that our Simi Valley city council has, in the 30 years I have lived here, done a pretty good job of balancing community concerns with business concerns. There will never be a consensus on any issue charged with that much passion. The only thing I would like to see changed is the City Logo, two mountains with a valley in the middle. For the sake of truth in advertising, they should do some cut and fill on those mountains and add some large commercial buildings and housing developments... and a DUMP.

I'm going to have to strongly disagree with Scott on one of his recent posts. I don't believe that any class of individual should be exempt from taxes while the rest of us have to pay. That is a very dangerous precedent to set, especially when it applies to some already well-paid government employees who have benefits, pensions and job security well beyond that of most people in the private sector. A recent article in the Star showed that public safety employees were among the highest compensated government employees in the county. And now Scott wants to make them exempt from taxation?

Before I get bashed for being anti-police or anti-teacher I want to state for the record that I recognize the value, contribution, and sacrifice that many of these employees make. But we have to be very careful about creating special classes of citizens that don't have to abide by the same rules as the rest of us. We should all obey the laws of our country, and we should all PAY TAXES.

Besides, where does it end? Shouldn't soldiers then be exempt from taxes? Aren't prison guards law enforcement officers too? What about those poor single mothers? And how about those who are socially disadvantaged, like minorities? People who are HIV positive? The handicapped? What is a handicap? If obesity is a disease then should fat people pay taxes?

You get my point. Once you open this up you will be unable to put the genie back into the bottle. And I certainly don't see why a police officer who makes $100,000 per year, or a teacher who makes $60,000 per year should be exempt from taxes, while an MTA bus driver who makes $40,000 per year should have to pay. Give me a break.

Do senators and assembly people have to pay taxes? Social Security? What about people who work for the federal government?

Elected officials pay personal income taxes. Government employees pay personal income taxes. Even the President of the United States pays personal income taxes. If it is OK for the president to pay taxes then it should be OK for everyone.

Scott,

My original question was about how business friendly is Simi Valley. But since that has been subverted I will indulge you.

You say taxing teachers and other selected government employees doesn't make sense. Well, what taxes? State or Federal?

What about an employee with outside income? I bet business owners would hate to compete with someone that doesn't have to pay the same taxes. Imagine a real estate agent that offers a lower commission because they don't pay taxes.

What about capital gains taxes? Should all teachers be exempt? Estate taxes? Great the Walton family will go into teaching to save billions in taxes.

I don't think teachers should be exempt from funding the war. In a democracy sacrifice should be split amongst the social classes.

Besides, if you eliminated taxes on all teachers, firefighters etc. wouldn't you need to raise taxes on other professions? Or are you trying to force the government to shrink by taking away its source of money?

And to your earlier post about cutting the state share of sales taxes from 6.25 % to 1 % and cutting the overall rate to 5%.

Do you really think that the very next year this tax cut and shift would cause a massive growth in the economy so that 6.25% is equal to 1%?

That is optimistic thinking.

The state's budget would need to be cut and the number one expense is education. Unless you are going to cut something else.

One reason that schools are funded by the state is so that poorer ares have decent resources even if the local area can't fund it. Do you want to tamper with that?

Who do you want to be in charge of school funding if not the state? The local city council? Will the school board and the council fight over money? Will Peter Foy have to break it up? Foy looks tough but I doubt an enraged Rob Collins/Paul Miller duo could be stopped by mortal forces.

If you want to cut taxes to force government to shrink just admit it. But if you think a massive tax cut will ALWAYS lead to increased state revenues no matter the size of the tax cut your proposal will lead to a growth in government, no?

I would bet one of your goals is to force government to shrink by cutting off its supply of money. That sounds great in a soundbite until you replace "government" with what the government does.

If your proposal was really going to excite investment that much why stop at 5%? Wouldn't 4% cause an even bigger growth surge?

Brian:

One of the biggest impacts on growth in the state is the way the sales tax is structured as I pointed out before. As Bubba pointed out, it impacts development and local growth patterns. Upon writing my comment you brought up education. Since this is your blog, you reserve the right to control the dialogue and the topic. I thought you wanted to talk about state education funding because you brought it up.

Bubba:

In my comments I wrote, I think we should take a look at tax exemption for teachers, firefighters, cops, public employees not that we should do it. I haven't evaluated everything you've brought up, but I do think it's worth taking a look at it. I also should have written that I just felt the exemption should apply to state income taxes not federal.

I have a few friends that are either a public employee themselves or they work in the private sector and their spouse is a public employee. Because we are a community property state, I think a state income tax exemption for a public employee in this way could really increase financial stability of these families or allow for new capital investment or spending growth into the marketplace.

But, I'm open to counter-arguments.

Not every public employee makes a six figure salary. Some do and I'd accept means testing it if that is your concern.

According to the IRS, our soldiers overseas are income tax exempt if they are serving in a designated combat zone. Some have left their families in precarious financial situations. I believe tax exemption for soldiers in this case is a fantastic thing and I support it.

I don't think this contributes to societal delinquency. I believe most people think soldiers income tax exemption is earned. And I'd wonder how the public would feel about it for other groups.

Brian:

I hardly think a 2.25% cut on the sales tax can be classified as massive. You keep setting your sights on the 1% state revenue and saying this would have a massive impact on state programs, but I must point out that you are assuming that all these programs appear to be perfectly run and needed. I can send you a laundry list of waste that would more than make-up for a paltry 2.25% cut if that is your concern.

Last you said, wouldn't my proposal just grow the size of government. The answer is an emphatic no.

If economic growth and standards of living increase, less people are on poverty programs. If economic growth occurs, citizens have excess income to buy more training programs, so their kids are ready for school instead of having the state continuing to spend excessive amounts on catch up programs.

If standards of living are raised, people can spend more of their own earned money on the things they need to improve their lives and there would be less need for government services. Government would most likely cut taxes because less people would need the services.

Scott, I know your heart is in the right place. Economic freedom goes hand in hand with political freedom in a democracy. Every person should be able to profit of off their hard work and gifts.

What can Simi Valley of other neighboring cities do to make that happen?

Brian:

I'd say for the most part Simi is pretty economically free.

Simi Valley is not responsible for the burdens placed on individuals and businesses by the state and federal government in the form of regulations and taxes. Still, this city does have high standards when it comes to local ordinances regulating things such as signage, setbacks, lighting, density, design, etc, etc. There is always that need to balance the interests of the community as a whole against pure economic freedom. If we had pure capitalism it would be OK to open a strip club next to a pre-school, yet clearly we don't allow these sorts of things.

I would say that on the whole our city does a decent job walking the fine line between being business friendly and still maintaining a high quality of life that can sometimes negatively impact freedoms to some degree. Residents can enjoy having access to a local mall without having to put up with vendors setting up carts on their front lawn. It is all a balance, and if I didn't think Simi did a good job managing this I wouldn't live here.

How would you guys rate surrounding cities? I think Simi Valley has much less restrictions good or bad. In Thousand Oaks there seems to be some barrier to drive through food. I also can't imagine talks about expanding a landfill there. Projects we might like or not like are about economic freedom vs. the public interest.

I like to vote and thanks to SOAR I can vote on projects which avoids politicians taking campaign cash from developers.

ya, lke $600 can buy a vote...get a life!

Council Member Williams I am surprised you thought this barb was aimed at you. I was thinking of all the ways around the current system. One of the more creative ways is to fund a political party and then have that party send membership communications.

I am not stating that this has happened with developers and our current officials but I do have a serious question for you.

Why would a developer who doesn't live in Simi Valley give money if he or she thought it would have no impact. That sounds like a foolish choice. Are they trying to elect favorable candidates or influence them?

Either way I didn't say the donations buy off a politician I said SOAR avoids them voting on it and instead I get to vote on it.

I like to vote.

M.L., the free enterprise system and government will never be truly interdependent. There will always be tension between the two because each is striving to achieve something completely different from the other - free enterprise largely has a profit motive, while government strives to provide services to the public that the free market system cannot or will not provide. Simply stated, free marketers are in it for the buckaroos and government is in it to provide service with no profit motive. So, while there can be some level of cooperation and co-dependence between the public & private sectors, I would submit that they are, in many ways, too much at odds to be truly inderdependent.

Jill,
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." Edward Abbey

ML, I think you missed my point completely. I'm not advocating growth for growth's sake. I'm simply saying growth is inevitable if you wish to sustain or improve the quality of life in your community. Ventura has gotten itself into a complete bind and, quite frankly, is stuck in paralysis regarding quality growth to improve its tax base and pay for such quality of life services as additional police & fire staffing (which, I agree, we desperately need).

That's because it's City Council is far too beholden to special interest groups, such as "Livable Ventura", the United Food & Commercial Workers' Union, and the various community councils, all of which have stifled or stalled a lot of meritorious projects (like the redevelopment of the K-Mart center on Victoria, which would have yielded $400K in additional annual sales tax revenue for the City). Instead, it chose to rely on government to solve its problems, which resulted in P6, which failed at the ballot (rightfully so). The current City Council, therefore, has a huge trust gap it has to contend with in the November election.

Jill, you aren't saying growth for growth's sake but according to you Ventura will go don the drain unless it keeps growing? Where does it stop? How many people? How many strip malls and big box stores? How many miles of cars lined up?

Is there some other choice?

Now, nobody is arguing that a blighted shopping center shouldn't be cleaned up but the idea that Ventura will only be saved by building a WalMart is foolish.

Good Afternoon Jill:

We've been in relatively good economic times for the past few years. If the city of Ventura is struggling with it's tax base in good times, what would happen if we had a few bad quarters or even a recession?

I'm not trying to scare it up, but if one isn't getting the necessary revenue to support their services when times are good, how do you think Ventura will look if times aren't so good and revenue declines further?

Do you think this will be a "change" city council election?

Scott, without a doubt, this will be a "change City Council" election. BTW, so far, the candidates I hear that are making the most sense, in terms of actually proposing change for the better, are Mike Gibson and Doug Halter. The others, especially the incumbents, Morehouse, Fulton, and Weir, are advocating a "stay the course" approach for the City, which I think will doom us for the future, especially, as you say, if the economy starts faltering. These 3, along with the City Manager, are planning us into oblivion. We're not actually building anything, we're planning on what we're not going to build - how twisted is that? Projects in the development pipeline are facing delay, after delay, after delay.

In the previous post, "Not Edward Abbey" says that the notion of saving Ventura by building a Wal-Mart is foolish. I would actually agree with that statement. In fact, it's going to take a lot more than Wal-Mart to save Ventura, in my view. We have to be more open to retail development in this City, frankly, to move us forward into the future. I don't think the argument should center on Wal-Mart replacing K-Mart on Victoria. Whether it ends up being Wal-Mart, or another store, I think that decision should be made by the free market system, not special interest groups, like "Livable Ventura", or the retailers union.

Jill,

What is your point re: free markets? If I read your entry correctly, you seem to define free marketers as wanting to make proftis only. In short, profit for profits sake. That view does not consider any moral or ehtical consideration. Free market growth (profits) for growth (profits) sake.

Government, in its smartest and best expression, takes into consideration a checks and balance so to ensure the well-being of citiizens. The Bill of Rights and government ensures that the quality of life is not based on those who profit by greed alone. There is more to life than materialism. Profit needs to be defined by more than material profit.

How do you feel about producing long-term wealth that is sustainable and helps improve the quality of life for more than the greedy?

As an example, While Wal-Mart creates profit if we only look at Wal-Mart's plus and minus columns plus short-term sales tax columns, it does not take into account the cost re: quality of life of its employees or the loss of manufacturing jobs in the United States, or the cost to the state and to local communities in terms of health care and housing.

So when we talk in terms of profit, how are we defining it? Narrow and short-term or long-term community prosperity that does not force us to subsidize out-of-state corporate wealth?

When we talk about profits, are we considering our communities' wealth or only the wealth for those who really have little contact with our communites' costs or a sustainable local economy?

Is wealth for a few, for most who do not live locally, offset the price our neighbors' pay for cheap and unhealthy products (think cheap imports with toxic paint)?

"Livable Ventura" is advocating an economic model that provides wealth-producing activities that helps local wage earners rather than supporting an economic model that produces wealth for those who have no long-term interest in Ventura.

Finally, evidence shows that public investment (through taxes) in police, firefighters, public works, public schools attract economic development and help produce weath in communities.

Public service and investments attract better markets for sustainable growth.

For sustainable wealth, it is not the Wall-Marts that sustain wealth; it is public investment that attract commerce that is more profitable than what the Wal-Marts in our "free markets" have to offer.

Government providing stable services and infrastructure ATTRACTS high quality for-profit enterprises that, in turn, create healthy, profitable markets.

To argue that markets and governments are opposing enterprises seems to argue that seflishnessness is more powerful than alturism.

Looking at the the "good looks" of candidates and market appeals to greed seem to be a very shalow view of our political and economic enterprises.

I believe that most citizens are no longer taken in by the appeals to those two cynical impulses.

Cynicism and appealing to the lowest common denominator perpetuated by the Repubican Party have exhausted itself.

Maybe, democrats should catch up with Republican in the charity gap before they give us a lecture on how selfish we are.

Liberals are charitable. They tax other people and redistribute the money.

ML, unfortunately, your arguments only play well in the context of some theoretical classroom discussion or debate on the respective roles of free enterprise and government in impacting economic growth. But here in the real world, where the rest of us live, I think we need to focus the discussion on what we can actually do to stimulate economic growth to sustain the quality of life in the City we love and cherish so much. The harsh reality is that the free market system and government are largely self-interested entities that will always be in conflict on how best to grow the economy. Proof of this would be the multiplicity of special interest groups that exist on both sides of the issue, even in a community as small as Ventura. Like it or not, that's the world we live in.

Another reality is that people do not like new taxes, regardless of the merits of their use. Case in point, the failure of P6. Now, you can argue until you're blue in the face, as the current City Council continues to do, that the majority of the voters approved P6, but this does not negate the fact that it failed, and for very good reason. The 2/3 majority for approval of new taxes is an important safeguard that prevents elected officials from reaching into taxpayers pockets with relative ease every time they get a brilliant idea about how to raise money for the government to spend on something they feel is important. In the case of P6, the system worked exactly as it was intended to.

We should get over this, stop whining over the milk we spilled, and look at where we go from here with an active economic development program that pays more than lip service to the community. The current Ventura City Council has not gotten this message yet, unfortunately.

Jill:

Have you considered running?

Scott

Scott, while I am flattered by the suggestion, I have to throw my complete support behind Mike Gibson who has the right stuff to make it happen - brains, ideas, motivation, and commitment. I think Doug Halter has the connections in the community to make things happen as well. They would be my dynamic duo for change in Ventura in 2007.

Jill,

I see development happening all over Ventura. There are at least seven new building projects in the works in Downtown area alone. One is a new 4-story office building on California Street. They are working on fast-tracking the Olivas road extension behind the Auto Mall to bring in a Bass Pro or IKEA. Several new exciting projects are in the pipeline for the Avenue area, which could completely revitalize that part of town. A new boutique hotel is planned for Harbor and Figueroa.

More is planned for the Pacific View Mall area. However, since the voters approved the measure years ago that gives some of the tax revenue to the mall's developers to pay for construction costs, the city does not see as much of the revenue there as it could.

I believe our existing council does a good job balancing the desires of the city's residents. As I wrote in an earlier post, the majority of our citizens do not want us to grow exponentially. Slow, steady growth is preferred by most. We value our open space and cherish our sleepy, beach town lifestyle. The citizens have spoken through the ballot box. They do not want us to build over our hills or pave our agricultural land.

It says something about our voters that 62 percent of them were fine with raising the sales tax 1/4 percent to pay for increasing police and fire services. And a recent survey showed that an equal amount do not want Wal-Mart in town.

So, If you were elected by the people of Ventura, would you completely ignore that sentiment? Good governing is about balance. You listen to all sides. And our present council is doing exactly that.

Jill, how do you know Mike Gibson? It is my understanding that he is a relative newcomer to Ventura and is an unknown that has the blessing of the Republican Central Committee. Why would he be better than Lou Cunningham or Jerry Martin?

Are you on the Republican Central Committee?

None of us who are involved in city government and grassroots activities here in Ventura have ever heard of Gibson before this. It is my understanding, through articles in the Star, that he has only lived in Ventura two years and works in Santa Barbara.

Thanks Marie, I'm thinking that Jill might be part of his team. I'd like to hear from her. There is a reason that a conservative Republican might want to hook up with someone like Doug Halter. I just wonder if Doug Halter knows what's involved - I don't think he would like it.

Marie: Well said. Our current council members are neither ideologues nor shortsighted.

Conservatives Give More:
Not necessarily.

The book cited, “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism,� by Arthur C. Brooks has some glaring flaws, not the least, it seems, it’s conclusion.

Liberals, even in this book, really don't do so badly:

"Most of the difference in giving among conservatives and liberals gets back to religion. Religious liberals give nearly as much as religious conservatives, Mr. Brooks found. And secular conservatives are even less generous than secular liberals."

From: The Chronicle of Philanthropy: http://www.philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

This article offers a balanced review.

Is Mr. Brooks spinning much ado about nothing?

The different studies Brooks cites show the percentage of U.S. households that give to charity as between 50 and 80 percent of households. To top it off, the studies were based on in-person and phone interviews, not any hard data.

How accurate could any conclusion be from such weak sources?

Another book, the “Handbook of Nonprofit Research� published by Yale University Press, provides some contrasting data and conclusions more objectively.

Finally, I don’t think it benefits society to pit charitable foundations against government. We need both. Typically, they work together and are mutually beneficial.

Jill:
My views come from my experiences growing up with a father (born 1912) who was a Veteran of WWII and the Korean conflict and lived through the Great Depression and a mother who survived my father and built a small business with my two younger sisters.

First, what I learned from my father.

My father was born into a comfortable family in Tennessee. While most of us have read about the great stock market crash in 1929, my father’s family who owned a mill and farms felt it earlier. The double whammy came with the market crash. Some of his family stayed, squeaking through the depression and was able to hold onto some of the land and the business, others migrated to California. All in his family, both Republicans and Democrats, were grateful for the programs FDR implemented. It brought stability to the markets and to many families who earned a living off the land. My great aunt was in banking when few women were, and she, too, spoke favorably about FDR’s policies.
My father’s family was neither naïve nor neophytes in terms of the financial market.

My father fought in the Pacific Campaign of WWII. When he returned, he, and later his children, benefited from the GI Bill that was enacted in 1944. The prosperity of the 1950s and 1960s was in large part produced by the upper mobility of the young men who came back from war and were given free college education. Additionally, the safety nets put into place by the New Deal allowed these veterans and others to build a more sustainable wealth that was passed on to the next generation. Wealth accumulated at many more levels of American society.

If we look historically and even contemporaneously, governments that create support networks that protect and help develop a strong middle class are more stable and have more sustainable wealth than countries where great disproportion between the wealthy and the poor with a shrinking middle class exist.

Second, from what I learned from my mother:

Because my mother had the safety net of having some income and VA health insurance benefits after my father passed on, my mother was able to grow a small business that provided a livelihood for my sister who is learning handicapped. As many small business owners know, health insurance costs hamper business growth. Until my sister was 25 years old, she, too, was a beneficiary of the VA health insurance. As my mother was working to build the business, those years were lean. By the time my sister was 26, the business was making enough to be able to afford private health insurance and a 401K. My mother also received much guidance from the federal Small Business Administration. Through hard work and the safety net of wise government policies, my mother is able to provide my sister a dignified life now to when she grows old.

That, for me, is what a liberal view of government sustains: dignified lives for all our citizens.

My liberal views do not come out of theories or out of a vacuum.

As a liberal, I value open markets working with government to create fairness and avoid exploitation and unhealthy practices.

Government is about a well-functioning society and about protecting freedom. It is about the well-being of its citizens.

That's a nice real-life story, ML. Thanks for sharing.

Jill: One thing I forgot to mention last night (it was late) is that Ventura's per-capita retail sales level already significantly exceeds that of the county.