With all the hype of being conservative Republicans, the majority of the City Council are anything but. With Sojka and Foster both in the advertising business, how much of this $100,000 will end up in their pockets. Simi Valley has had a "shop Simi first" campaign for at least fifteen years. Now Sojka says "we will have to give at least $100,000 a year for another five years". What has he been smoking? Local government has to subsidize local business with taxpayer dollars? This sucks! Barbra Williamson did the right thing in voting NO! Sojka and Foster have got to GO!

With all the hype of being conservative Republicans, the majority of the City Council are anything but. With Sojka and Foster both in the advertising business, how much of this $100,000 will end up in their pockets. Simi Valley has had a "shop Simi first" campaign for at least fifteen years. Now Sojka says "we will have to give at least $100,000 a year for another five years". What has he been smoking? Local government has to subsidize local business with taxpayer dollars? This sucks! Barbra Williamson did the right thing in voting NO! Sojka and Foster have got to GO!

With all the hype of being conservative Republicans, the majority of the City Council are anything but. With Sojka and Foster both in the advertising business, how much of this $100,000 will end up in their pockets. Simi Valley has had a "shop Simi first" campaign for at least fifteen years. Now Sojka says "we will have to give at least $100,000 a year for another five years". What has he been smoking? Local government has to subsidize local business with taxpayer dollars? This sucks! Barbra Williamson did the right thing in voting NO! Sojka and Foster have got to GO!

With all the hype of being conservative Republicans, the majority of the City Council are anything but. With Sojka and Foster both in the advertising business, how much of this $100,000 will end up in their pockets. Simi Valley has had a "shop Simi first" campaign for at least fifteen years. Now Sojka says "we will have to give at least $100,000 a year for another five years". What has he been smoking? Local government has to subsidize local business with taxpayer dollars? This sucks! Barbra Williamson did the right thing in voting NO! Sojka and Foster have got to GO!

Spending taxpayer dollars to support private business flies against every Republican ideals I can think of - this is a very bad piece of legislature.

If it is true that Soijka and Foster are both in the advertizing business, they should have recused themselves from the vote.

I am shocked! Shocked to learn there are be others who question the wisdom of this raid on city funds. I think it is a superb move! Sure, I have heard all the rumors of hard economic times and those misguided souls who believe that the dollars - far from being spent out of the area - simply to not exist. Imagine the nerve!

Out of loyalty to my local SV chamber of commerce and the four musketeers who champion their cause and carry water for them on the city council, I pledge to:

1.) yet again delay my house payment another month so I can buy my wife all those new appliances for the redo of the kitchen; and

2.) cut back on my medical payments enough so I can afford to eat at the local one star dining establishments at least 3-4 times each week; and

3.) grow a victory garden in my back yard so I can save enough on food so that I can afford to buy a few more high priced rags from the local mall for my prevent my kids from falling behind the latest styles; and

4.) encourage my out of work neighbors to hold a huge yard sale, so he can buy one of those new SUVs locally for their families to live in when they lose their homes.

There are those that even think smarter marketing and better business planning would be the answer for the local merchants! Like that would be the American way! Where do they get such chutzpah!

Isn't the price of gas going to have a much more dramatic impact on local shopping habits than a $100K welfare programs for local advertisers?

$100K could have gone a long way to paying for free bus trips and for mini street events that would attract traffic to various commercial centers.

OMG, rampant socialism in Simi Valley! Soon, the City will be spending money on parks, recreation, adult classes, schools for our kids, a senior citizen center, a fire department, a police department, crossing guards, a cultural arts center, youth services, a citizens advisor who would respond to citizen requests about landlord/tenant issues, business disputes and neighbor disagreements, auto repair problems, etc..

I think I've listed enough to show that Republicans do not honor their own position that government should not enter into the previously "private sector."

The only significant question is whether this program is effective and, let's face it, there is no way to reasonably determine its effectiveness.

Bottom line, it's a good idea; it may work; and it's not a lot of money.

The second biggest problem I see is that the participants are advertising industry proponents; they would want to advertise anything.

The biggest problem is the old advertising saw: 50% of advertising doesn't work; you just don't know which 50%.

OMG, rampant socialism in Simi Valley! Soon, the City will be spending money on parks, recreation, adult classes, schools for our kids, a senior citizen center, a fire department, a police department, crossing guards, a cultural arts center, youth services, a citizens advisor who would respond to citizen requests about landlord/tenant issues, business disputes and neighbor disagreements, auto repair problems, etc..

I think I've listed enough to show that Republicans do not honor their own position that government should not enter into the "private sector."

The only significant question is whether this program is effective and, let's face it, there is no way to reasonably determine its effectiveness.

Bottom line, it's a good idea; it may work; and it's not a lot of money.

The second biggest problem I see is that the participants are advertising industry proponents; they would want to advertise anything.

The biggest problem is the old advertising saw: 50% of advertising doesn't work; you just don't know which 50%.

OMG, rampant socialism in Simi Valley! Soon, the City will be spending money on parks, recreation, adult classes, schools for our kids, a senior citizen center, a fire department, a police department, crossing guards, a cultural arts center, youth services, a citizens advisor who would respond to citizen requests about landlord/tenant issues, business disputes and neighbor disagreements, auto repair problems, etc..

I think I've listed enough to show that Republicans do not honor their own position that government should not enter into the "private sector."

The only significant question is whether this program is effective and, let's face it, there is no way to reasonably determine its effectiveness.

Bottom line, it's a good idea; it may work; and it's not a lot of money.

The second biggest problem I see is that the participants are advertising industry proponents; they would want to advertise anything.

The biggest problem is the old advertising saw: 50% of advertising doesn't work; you just don't know which 50%.

I think that Brian nailed it, the price of gas is sufficient to keep shoppers in their own back yard. I also believe the Simi VAlley Council is selling it constituents short and not giving them credit to already know to Shop Simi Valley First. I believe this is a gratuitous jesture for the Chamber of Commerce.

I also want to know who the printer and advertiser will be for this campaign. Can we find the records from the past. Why can't the Chamber foot this bill?

This reminds me of the $40,000 the city spent to put three uncontested seats on the ballot. What a waste of taxpayer money that was.

The program simply doesn't work. It's a web site, period. No money is invested in advertising it, and the site is just a laundry list of local businesses - nothing special.

And once you're on, you're on whether you're out of business or not.

The consulting company with the contract is from Thousand Oaks.

Any questions?

Why didn't they "Shop Simi Valley First" when picking a consultant.

Is there really no local Simi Valley company that does this type of work? With a 5 year, $100,000 a year from the city contract why didn't a local person start a company?

How much does the chamber of commerce give to the program?

They probably wanted to go with Strickland's "California Club for Growth" or Kunicki & Valnezano's hand picked lobbyist firm when they chose the company, but ultimately outsourced it to a subsidiary of Darin Henry's mail house.

Typical Republican tax and spend nonsense.
Remember the people pushing food carts selling corn on the cob? They didn't need to leach off the tax-payers!!! Why do these big multi-billion dollar retailers?

People buy from whom they like and this is just another reason not to like Simi Valley. Every time a person buys something in Simi Valley they are condoning this Republican tax and spend behavior. Cut them off at the knees and stop shopping in Simi Valley.

Indeed this is a stupid program. Great point. Shop Simi First consultant isn't in Simi Valley. What a joke, especially when the City has a significant budget shortfall.

Hey,

I like the style of corn on the cob the people with carts used to sell legally in Simi Valley.

I know I can get it in parks but is there a local brick and mortar store that sells the same style corn?

I would think for a $100,000 I could get the same level of service from a store in town.

Please post a link. It is a great summer treat.

I am open to reading how this program pays for itself.

Can someone help me with the math here. If the city gets 1% of sales taxes how much additional local spending would this program have to induce just to pay for itself?

Before I run the numbers I am wondering what other data we need.

Read this link:

http://www.cityoffullerton.com/depts/city_manager/focus_on_fullerton/2001/january.asp

Looks like other cities use a similar packaged program to encourage local consumption.

Have any of you been convinced to buy something in Simi Valley from this campaign? Do you know anybody that has been shopping here more often?

How exactly does advertising for local private schools increase the sales tax base? Do they pay sales tax?

http://www.shopsimivalleyfirst.com/listings.aspx?Action=CatList&CatID=11

In response to question re: private schools, the program, even though it may be focused on sales tax revenue to the city, may have a broader purpose, i.e., promotion of the Simi Valley community in addition to the SV economy which should help us all a la a trickle down theory and also increase sales taxes eventually (and pride and brotherhood within the city).

If one spends dollars on a private school in Simi Valley, that money goes to pay for an employee laboring in Simi Valley. Intuitively, that employee is more likely to spend money in SV (maybe even buy a house) than an employee working in SFV or TO.

Remember folks, it takes a village. :-)

Looks to me like the City's program has to increase consumer spending in Simi Valley by an additional $133,000,000 per year to break even. Sounds like a bunch of bull to me.

Make that $10,000,000 per year to break even or about 28 additional new car sales per month spread over five or six dealers. Sounds like it could work after all.

Brian,

Lots of questions, few answers on this:

How was this problem diagnosed in the first place, is this the right solution to it and how will the results be measured?

Has anyone seen any bone fide research that since this business downturn has begun that indicates this area is losing more business to the San Fernando Valley, Thousand Oaks/Weslake Village, Moorpark or elsewhere than before? This seems highly illogical in view of the fact that there are a larger number of more diverse types of businesses here now and gas is at $3.99 per gallon, so there would seem to be less reason to go elsewhere. If consumers are going elsewhere, what is causing this?

Could it be that the type of businesses needed here in these hard times are not even present in Simi Valley? If they are doing so, how are merchants in other areas able to attract business from Simi Valley residents? Has there actually been a shift away from local businesses in Simi Valley? If so, why? If so, why are not local merchants able to take the steps they need to counter these challenges on their own? (Better marketing and advertising, etc.?)

Finally, who will the city's expenditure actually benefit and how? (I noticed that the "Shop Simi Valley First" website is selective in its listings - not all local businesses in the area are automatically included there.) Explanation, anyone?

On the surface, this decision by the city does not appear to make much sense, but if there is a logical basis for it we should be able to read about it and the likelihood of a return on the city's investment.

Brian, would you allow any of those four council members who voted for this come onto this blog and explain the basis of their decision? How about the president of the chamber of commerce? Or perhaps you could speak with The Star's news editor and see if a smart and conscientious reporter might interview those supporting and opposing this decision to provide a full explanation of the wisdom and risks involved so citizens could better gauge if the decision was worth the expenditure.

Clearly Steve Sojka-Money Mailer and Michelle Foster-Printmasters have a conflict of interest to vote on this, since they both advertise on Shop Simi Valley First. Printmasters offers and additional 10% off if someone mentions Shop Simi Valley First.

If this is paid for by taxpayers, all businesses should be able to list on the site for free.

Do businesses have to pay to be listed on the site? Maybe Barbra Williamson could answer that question.

Being listed is free.

The city has an attorney that gives advice to council members about when they need to recuse themselves from votes.

I of course would allow anyone to explain how the program works and how effective or ineffective the plan is in regards to altering shopping habits.

Maybe it is just me, but I shop in Simi Valley because I live here. Why would I drive to Thousand Oaks when we have plenty of great places here to eat and shop?

Cars Brian, it's about cars. We are very limited in Simi Valley and most cars are purchased outside of Simi Valley. A Shop Simi First campaign is not going to solve this leakage. Not by a long shot.

I have never bought from a dealership outside of Simi Valley.

Do you think the program pays for itself?

Did you see any figures on what The Chamber of Commerce contributes?

If someone is looking for a car they should go where there is the greatest selection of vehicles. The Thousand Oaks Auto Mall has the largest selection of cars in the world. I rather shop for a car where the dealers make their money by selling cars in volume instead of a dealership that needs the tax payers money to promote themselves.

The legal standards make it pretty difficult for a council member to have a conflict of interest on an issue such as this; the benefits to an individual are far too small and diffuse to qualify as a conflict under state law. In some cases a council member will recuse himself or herself anyway if there is an APPEARANCE of a conflict, but that would also be a stretch in this instance.

That being said, I think this expenditure is a very bad idea. The marginal impact of $100,000 of advertising will be minimal in effecting which grocery stores or restaurants or gas stations we use. About the only big ticket item which could conceivably be affected (and which also brings in big tax bucks) is auto sales, as others have pointed out. And even then the $100,000 would have to be concentrated in that area rather than just being frittered away in a diffuse "shop Simi Valley" message. But focusing it on auto dealers would too obviously constitute an advertising subsidy to those businesses.

All other things being equal, I will generally choose to shop in Simi Valley. I buy my gasoline here, unless I unexpectedly need to fill up elsewhere. I buy my groceries here. I would buy a car here if the deals were as good as outside of Simi, but most of the time a little research on the Web and a few phone calls or emails will locate a better price elsewhere. I'll gladly spend my money locally, but local businesses have to EARN my patronage. Snowing me with advertising won't do the trick.

As for the City of Simi Valley, the city budget is tight this year (although when isn't it?). Priorities need to be set and adhered to. This is not the kind of thing taxpayer money should be spent on.

I don't need the largest selection of cars when I know what I am looking for.

Sounds like a good program to me. It promotes economic development wihin the local community, which is something you would hope your local government is doing, especially during these difficult economic times.

Do you think it works or is it just a feel good method to say we are doing something?

Earlier someone brought up the idea that council members could have a conflict of interest. I just thought of something that applies to any council member involved in advertising.

Their line of work is to convince people to use their clients. They do this by making people aware of their products and/or services. The Shop Simi Valley First campaign does this at no cost to the business. So in a way, it could be argued they are voting AGAINST their economic interest.

Just a thought.

Yesterday, Peter Foy wrote an op-ed piece regarding the state budget and how out of control it is. Perhaps he should focus on programs like this which are under his nose. It really undermines his credibility.

Foy doesn't have any control over what the Simi Valley City Council does. He's on the Board of Supervisors, remember Kutie?

Oh, just the state now I suppose eh Mango?

Mr. Foy does represent the citizens of Simi.

Ya just hit him and yourself with your pom-pom.