Well, it seems that she is still looking at ways to tax the bejeezus out of us. Can a transportation bond measure be far behind?

Here we have a workshop promoting alternative means of transportation which will free us of our dependence on fossil fuels and this bonehead blogger above wants to knock it.

The thing I want to knock, "Hummer", is this effort, disguised as a "workshop", to get yet another tax measure approved for our already devastated economy. Just what we need right now.

Now who's the bonehead blogger?

A conference sparking worthwhile conversation about transportation, land-use planning and how these issues can be dealt with to provide a brighter future for us all is always worthwhile. If the voters wish to pay for mass transit and road improvements through a tax measure, that is their decision to make.

Mass transit is not the answer. No one will ride it unless it is extremely affordable and accessible, neither of which is possible with the way southern California cities are laid out.

We need to deal with reality here and widen and expand our freeway system, with the funding that has already been set aside for this purpose. Unfortunately for us, we have a bunch of do-nothing Democratic Legislators in Sacramento (the same group that Jackson was part of when she served in the State Assembly previously) who have chosen to tap into our State roads & highway funds to help solve the budget deficit, which they created over the years by their unbridled spending.

That's why I see Taxin' Jackson as more a part of the problem than the solution.

As the election is over you could stop the name calling. I agree that some freeways need to be widened but the only answer to our transportation issues isn't freeway widening.

Dismissing any other solution or worse yet any discussion of any other solution is close minded and the type of thinking people often do before elections.

Actually it is Phony and Fraudra Strickland who continually advocate for gas taxes to go away, thus eliminating funding for road projects.

And our state government is such an excellent steward of taxpayer dollars that every dime of fuel taxes is spent effectively and efficiently on road projects.

That's why, as the third highest taxed state in the nation, we have the third best state economy and services to show for it.

It's a good thing we doubled the size of state government in the last ten years. Who can argue with being twice as awesome?

I was at a meeting this morning and it was announced that approximately 1,000 teachers in this county will be losing their jobs under the budget scenarios being floated out there now.

Many more under any no-tax proposal the Republicans are calling for.

I'm sick of this negative, anti-government line of thinking. It makes not one positive contribution to society.

Marie,

And you're telling us we should be proud of our wonderful State Legislature that has done such an admirable job of managing our tax dollars lo these many years?

I'm with BS. No new taxes and let the chips fall where they may.

Do I believe it's actually going to turn out this way? Not on your life!

Flamo,

If Democrats and the governor offered the Republicans spending reforms including limits on increases in spending, a rainy day fund, and they offered serious cuts in spending you would want your legislators to vote against it if it contained modest tax increases?

What if they also added spending reforms including more local control of school budgets and a reduction or elimination of some of the boards in Sacramento?

Why even negotiate if you aren't putting anything on the table? It sounds like you would rather get nothing then only some of what you want.

Brian,

Sorry, my previous post was a bit huffy and reflects my frustration with the whole situation, but, yes, I would certainly accept some "modest" tax increases if the other items you mention were adequately addressed.

But, I guess if I had my druthers, the methodology for formulating the budget plan would work as follows, in priority order:

1. Serious cuts in spending across the board, with no sacred cows and no exceptions.

2. Limitations on future spending, by constitutional mandate, if possible.

3. Establishment of a rainy day fund to help shield the State against future revenue downturns.

I realize this thing needs to be negotiated and I am hopeful that the folks in Sacramento are getting real close, as the governor keeps telling us they are.

What some people don't recognize is there are places like Cupertino, California that balance their budget properly. There is a lottery to get into their schools. Why? They aren't arrogant, ignorant tight wads. They aren't afraid to pay a little more for the important things because in the end it's the important things that matter not the money.

Brian:

While it is always interesting to hear different points of view on the issues of the day from losing candidates for the State Legislature, voters must take them with a grain of salt..

Support for environmental issues and transportation issues is fine and good, but the essential existential challenge facing the State of California is the absence of a balanced, timely, economically sound and just State-budget.

Unfortunately, while running for the State Senate, Ms. Jackson failed to clearly articulate a fiscally-sound, politically practical, and timely plan to balance the then $10 Billion, now grown to $18 Billion structural deficit in the current fiscal year’s budget. Had she done so, perhaps she would have attracted sufficient DTS and Independent votes and been elected our State Senator instead of Tony Strickland.

Similarly, during his campaign for State Senate, Tony Strickland never strayed from his written pledge to Grover Norquist swearing to oppose any increase in State taxes whatsoever. Nor since his election, has Tony offered any public support for a bi-partisan budget compromise plan introduced by moderate Republican State Senator Mimi Walters from Laguna Nigel.

Senator Walters' plan would keep the two-thirds vote requirement for raising taxes, but lower it to a super-majority (i.e. 55%) in order to approve State budgets. The critical caveat would be that annual State budget growth would be capped at somewhere between 3 to 5% over the previous year. Roughly that same plan was offered by Democratic Controller John Chiang, in early December. Can we say Bi-Partisan Compromise, Tony and Hannah Beth.

It's this kind of politically self-absorbed, selfish, egotistical, and uncaring behavior by Democratic and Republican legislators alike which has California voters giving the State Legislature a 21 percent approval rating. Why that's even lower than George Bush's ratings!! (Check out the Contra Costa Times news article on the above URL).

My prediction is that the final budget deal will include something like this. Keep the two-thirds vote limit for raising taxes, but lower it to a supermajority for budget approval, subject to annual spending caps for State General Fund budget growth percentages.

Raise the VLF back to 1.5 to 2% of vehicle's value, and increase the Sales Tax by .25 to .50 of a percent. Depending on whose economic projections you believe, those two revenue raising measures would generate something on the order of $6 to $8 Billion per year.

Finally, since the Terminator is adamant about this, there will likely be some sort of compromise regarding expeditious CEQA processing and increased design-build flexibility for about a dozen, high-value, high-cost, and high-profile transportation projects statewide.

My Sacramento sources tell me that there already are sufficient numbers of Republican Assembly members who will back this deal. But the critical mass of Republican State Senators is not quite there yet.

Hopefully, this excruciating budget agony will be over by the end of this week. If it's not, then I say, "..A pox on both your houses, State Legislators. Democrats and Republicans alike. It's time for a State Constitutional Convention."

NostraDemus

NostraDemus,

I understand your longing for detailed budget plans from both candidates during the race, but politics are such that such specifics often get distorted by your opponent's campaign.

In the case of Hannah-Beth, she advocated for taxing oil extraction in California and many reforms which would have narrowed the budget gap. Anything beyond that would have been twisted and distorted even further than her already fine record was. She believes in balance and compromise.

Strickland is avoiding even to this day talking about what his plan would do to public education. I am sure that is why he skipped out on the meeting with superintendents.

Here's another example for you:

There are many ideas generated by the legislative analyst's office that deserve consideration. There is a proposal to shift 14,000 low-risk prisoners – drunken drivers, drug abusers, etc . – to local rehabilitation programs paid for by increasing the VLF. This plan would save the state money while reducing prison overcrowding. I've linked to the plan above.

I don't know whether Hannah-Beth would advocate for that or not. But if she had, can you imagine how it would've been distorted? I can hear it now: "Jackson wants to raise your taxes to let prisoners out of jail!"

I think that rather proves my point.

And to my old nemesis "Mongo": I am glad to hear reason has finally entered your thought processes. But does that mean we can now call you "Tax Hike Mike"?

Not even, Marie. How about "Can't Blame Flamo" (when the economy tanks further with all these tax hikes in the works)?

The State is looking at putting a "regressive" statewide sales tax measure (possibly as high as 1.5 percent) on the ballot as part of its budget fix. I can support some "modest" tax increases, but the magnitude that's being discussed at the State level I think is too high.

The Ventura City Council is now looking at putting a local half-cent sales tax measure on the ballot (either this summer or as part of the regular November 2009 City election). If this passes, along with the State sales tax, it will constitute a double whammy on the folks out there that are struggling to hang onto their jobs so they can continue to put food on the table and make their monthly mortgage payments. Bad idea!

The City of Ventura's sales tax is now at the state minimum. Eighty percent of the state's citizens pay more than we do. We are looking at a devastating $12 million reduction in services in our city which will cause extreme hardship in many corners. The impact of many of these cuts will fall hardest on our low-income population.

I spoke last night and advocated for this sales tax increase which has already been passed by the cities of Oxnard and Port Hueneme. I also advocated for our unions -- especially those in public safety who have lobbied for extra compensation and benefits -- to come back to the table and make some concessions. While they certainly earn their pay, givebacks might be necessary to save personnel in their own ranks.

It was tough doing that with them all sitting there watching me. I also asked for everyone else to make sacrifices now, too. The NIMBYs need to abandon their fervor as well.

But everything will have to be looked at in context of what the state does, yes. I would not shut the door on any workable option, now.

The trouble is, Marie, this City Council has lost all trust of the voters. That was not the case in Oxnard and Port Hueneme.

Need I remind you of some of the foolhardy things this Council has done in recent times:

(1) The extremely ill-conceived and downright stupid 911 tax (both the City Manager and the City Attorney should be fired over that one).

(2) Losing $10 million in bad investments in corporate notes with Lehman Brothers & WAMU (the only city in the County with such risky holdings).

(3) Giving away the farm with enhanced retirement benefits for City firefighters while the economy spirals downward before their very eyes.

(4) Advancing a poorly conceived development plan for the Victoria Corridor that stifles economic growth and limits retail establishments to 100,000 square feet, effectively eliminating a likely candidate for the vacant K-Mart site (Walmart), which would have generated well over $1 million in annual sales tax to the City.

(5) Raised utility rates by an exhorbitant 14% at a time when residents, particularly seniors, are having a hard time putting food on the table, let alone making their rent or mortgage payments.

(6) Continued to spend frivolously on unnecessary and redundant consultant services, such as the $110,000 they authorized for "technical assistance" for a City Council requested "view task force" that is charged with establishing building height standards for development that is not occurring now anyway in the City.

(Incidentally, the real purpose of this task force is to usurp the effort underway by VCORD, which has qualified a ballot measure for November to let the voters (not the Council) decide how high buildings should be allowed in the Midtown).

Need I go on?

Sorry, but I won't be supporting giving another $7 - $8 million to this group to fritter away. I will instead be voting to replace the four that are up for reelection this fall.

1) The 911 fee has been rescinded.

2) These were NOT "risky" investments but rather formerly AAA-rated blue chip investments and they represent just 6 percent of the city's total investment portfolio. Many other communities across the country have had worse investment troubles.

3) I did not agree with this particular vote, either. But many in our community view public safety investment as critical. It was passed 4-3.

4) The Victoria Corridor Plan, through public input, has been modified to a very cogent and workable scenario and follows our citizen-generated General Plan's specifics for that area. Your point is utterly moot as Wal-Mart is definitely moving in.

5) Every city is raising utility rates. Oh, please!

6) The View Task Force chair estimated $25,000 tops to me for this task. I have attended their meetings and watched the modeling presentations made by Torti Gallas and they were necessary.

I don't know why I bother with you. You distort, spin and are completely uninformed.

... Resident Mike Gibson applauded city leaders for being creative and following through on a pledge to provide greater safety resources. Officials estimated the revenue would allow the city hire six police officers and three firefighters and buy necessary equipment.

"The fee is the most palpable and acceptable approach," said Gibson, who ran unsuccessfully for a city council seat last month. He said the roughly $20 annual cost per phone line "is a small price to pay to add six officers and three firefighters on the street." ...

-- Ventura County Star, Dec. 11 2007

Marie,

It seems that people inside a city either think their city is far better run then other cities in the area to the point they don't see mistakes OR they think their city government is doing the worst job in the area and have few good things to say.

I know you have been critical of your city government, and I am glad that you keep an open mind to the mistakes they sometimes make.

Flamo,

Is it possible the reason you think Ventura is so poorly run is because it is the city government you pay the most attention to because you live there? Are you sure that Fillmore, Santa Paula, and Oxnard are all making better choices?

One problem I have is explaining city government is often viewed as being "pro government." But I work very hard on my accuracy. Yes, I have close friends on the City Council but I don't always agree with them and they will verify this.

No city government is perfect. Our neighbor Oxnard is spending over a million a year to prop up its Downtown theaters and has financed its street repairs in a rather controversial way. They have completely overbuilt. Thousand Oaks wanted to spend $89,000 on a branding campaign. They're also looking at deep budget cuts. Simi also gave its police force a big pay boost in this down economy.

"Mongo" is just grumpy because he's an ultra-conservative newcomer in a decidedly blue city. The people who live here are really slow-growth advocates. We were the first to pass a SOAR initiative, have voted against building in our hills and have two anti-development ballot measures up this fall.

Despite our current revenue issues, Standard & Poors just upgraded our city's credit rating and said the city was being run very well. Fortune named us a top spot to start a business. Today, national retail clothing giant Urban Outfitters announced they are opening a new store Downtown, despite the lousy economy. Our per capita retail sales are the second highest in the county.

We have a lot of issues as an older, full-service city. We don't have a parks district to run our parks nor do we contract to the county for fire services.

I love my town. I've lived here since 1983 and I am an unflappable booster of it.

Nothing but more spin from a pro-City Council person (Marie). They all walk on water as far as she's concerned and she's constantly quoting directly from the Rick Cole "spinmaster playbook" to support her contentions.

She will never acknowledge any of the failed policies of this Council because she has too much emotionally invested in them (just check out her "Making Waves" blog topics and her views on City issues as ample evidence of this).

Brian,

Im terms of comparing Ventura's failed policies and the public's perception of its elected officials to other cities, I will simply point to the successful passage of sales tax measures in both Oxnard and Port Hueneme in November as evidence of the public's support and trust it its elected leaders.

IMHO, a general sales tax measure will not pass in Ventura because the public trust has been seriously compromised by the current City Council.

Fillmore & Santa Paula also seem to be making better choices and have their act together in terms of their finances as compared to Ventura. Yes, they're having budget problems like all cities are right now, but they seem to have solutions in motion that do not include imposing more taxes on an already financially stressed and overburdened citizenry. Ventura wants to go right to more taxes!

In City Manager, Rick Cole's, most recent blog entry, he makes the statement that economic development to help solve the City's budget woes is "taking the easy way out." I wonder how he would categorize the new sales tax that he's proposing that the City Council consider? Is this not also an "easy way out" for the City?

Talk about spinning things?

"Mongo," I don't have a problem with the current composition of our City Council at all. We have two Republicans, two DTS, and three Democrats. This is very representative of the makeup of our town in general. The Dems tend to be very moderate in their views.

Whether you like it or not, the majority of the voters here are anti-growth. This has been reinforced at the ballot box over and over.

You are an incredibly negative newcomer to our community and hold extreme viewpoints that the majority of our citizens do not hold. You are a global warming denier and once told me you would've voted against our 1997 school bond measure if you had lived here then. That measure built Foothill High School, which has the highest API scores in the county.

You don't want the voters to decide for themselves whether or not they want to be taxed, yet you spoke in favor of the 911 fee?

Polling indicates the tax measure would pass overwhelmingly. I have all the data sitting here.

Marie,

Democrats have 3/7 seats in a majority Democratic town? And all three are moderates? That doesn't sound representative to me.

Marie,

Now you're starting to sound like Gavin Newsom ("whether you like it or not"). Or, maybe it's just from hanging around the City Council so much, since they're always trying to force things down our throats (like new taxes & fees).

I totally disagree with you on the voters being anti-growth. Generally speaking, the voters here in Ventura are very pragmatic and moderate in their views toward growth and development. I spoke to thousands of them personally during the last City Council campaign and the view I heard expressed consistently was that the power elite at City Hall (the Council, the City Manager, the Community Development Director and few others in the upper echelons of city government) have very biased viewpoints on growth and development and do everything in their power to discourage and limit it, despite the economic impacts and the long-term consequences on the City's financial health.

This is what I heard first-hand, over and over again, from those I spoke to in the community 2 short years ago and I think these sentiments are still prevalent out there.

I'm sorry that you mistake my strong opinions and convictions and opposition to the status quo at City Hall as "incredibly negative." Obviously, I view it otherwise. I just feel very strongly that the people in this community who have a differing viewpoint from the current City leadership deserve to have a voice. That's what are democratic principles are all about.

Your elitist attitude comes through clearly when you refer to me as a "negative newcomer." Perhaps, the old guard at City Hall could use a little shaking up from a newcomer. Isn't that the theme our new President ran on (himself a newcomer to the national political scene and Washington D.C.)?

You are so wrong when you say that I don't want the voters to decide for themselves whether they want to be taxed or not. Where did you get that idea? I have absolutely no problem with the voters deciding this. In fact, it's probably a good idea.

When the sales tax measure fails, which I'm confident it will, the City Council will finally have the voters final word on this. So far, they haven't listened to them at all. Maybe this will convince them to do so in the future.

While I did speak somewhat in favor of the 911 fee initially, with many express reservations (which were conveniently left out of your quote from the newspaper), I reversed course quickly when I heard about the "opt out" feature, which I had a huge problem with. I've told you about my position on this before and you continue to ignore it.

Dragging out the tired old "elitist" mantle, are you?

I think Council member Neal Andrews does a great job representing the conservative point of view, but he does it in a very civil way, unlike you. He also doesn't troll the blogs night and day throwing bombs and harassing women. I think you've exercised very bad judgment in this matter. It's certainly not the sort of behavior I would expect from somebody who is running for office.

Nobody at City Hall has asked the voters to place multiple anti-growth measures on the ballot. The people have done it themselves. I've lived here long enough to understand my own town and am involved in many, many community efforts.

Your newspaper quote was placed in its entirety -- I didn't edit it -- and why on earth do you persist with this Mongo thing still? How silly.

I'm done arguing. Let's just agree to disagree and call it a day. It's pointless.

Marie,

Oh, please...

You know absolutely nothing about me, so stop already with the judgmental comments. Because I disagree with several people on the blogs, who happen to be women, I'm harassing women? That speaks far more about your self-image than it does about me.

I also find your criticism about "trolling the blogs" quite amusing as well, coming from someone who hangs out on Dennert's blog and others day and night while simultaneously hosting her own blog (nothing but a public relations tool for the City of Ventura).

The newspaper quote was a snippet of my comments on the 911 fee and you know it (you're a journalist) and certainly did not reflect my entire views on the matter.

Posted by MakingWaves on December 31, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mike Gibson (banned from Star blogs for posting inappropriate comments to blog moderators),

I think we all appreciate Ms. James' thoroughness in this matter. I am content to let the courts do their work.

--
Posted by mgibson on December 31, 2008 at 3:03 p.m.

Marie,

Not sure where you're getting your bogus information. I was never banned from any Star blogs. I post on Brian Dennert's and Helen Conly's on a regular basis. Sorry that I haven't been posting on yours' lately though. The decline in your readership reflects this clearly. I found your one-sided presentations of issues a little off-putting, however.

I am quite content to let the courts do their work in this matter as well, now that it's been placed in an objective arena. I'm sure you'll agree that this is a politically and emotionally-charged case and I am certain the courts will take this into account as it moves forward to trial.

Sorry if we differ on your presumed objectivity of the AG's Office. You must admit though you're being a tad bit naive here, yes?

--
Posted by MakingWaves on December 31, 2008 at 3:30 p.m.

You were banned by the Star from posting on my blog for inappropriate comments directed at me and you are fully aware of the circumstances. My blog traffic is fine. Comments are actually up.

Blogs are opinion pieces, much like letters to the editors are. Brian, Helen and I are all encouraged to post our own thoughts.

My advice to both you and Joel Angeles is from one of my favorite Bible passages: Galatians 6:7. For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

--
Posted by mgibson on December 31, 2008 at 5:23 p.m.

Correction. I was banned only from your blog based upon your direct request to the Star. The issue was significant differences of opinion regarding various actions of the Ventura City Council, which you couldn't seem to handle given your undying support of virtually every action they take as elected officials.

The problem, apparently, is that I like to speak my mind and express my opinion without reservation, which you seem to have an issue with. That is why your blog is of little interest to me (and many others) any longer. A mutual separation to be sure.

--
Posted by MakingWaves on December 31, 2008 at 6:09 p.m.

OK. You are now admitting it but before you said it was "bogus"?

You were banned for posting that you and I need to "get a room quick," and for threatening another blogger (I think you offered to twist his nose until it turned red), among many other nefarious comments. I am sure if you posted the room comment toward Brian Dennert he would react even worse.

I have numerous bloggers who share your viewpoint on issues. I welcome dissenting points of view. I have zero tolerance for smarmy comments directed at me personally.

You could of course apologize.

Happy New Year Mike!

--
Posted by mgibson on December 31, 2008 at 6:47 p.m.

Marie,

I am sorry that you find my sometimes offbeat sense of humor so offensive, but any comments that seemed "smarmy" to you were simply that -- my (obviously unsuccessful) attempts at humor. And for that, I do apologize.

The same is true of the "nose-twisting" comment. As I recall, this was directed at "Skip," as he and I have had ongoing back-and-forth jabs at one another. I meant no offense by it, of course, and I think he realized this.

Anyway, folks are probably getting bored with our ongoing debate here, so I will sign off now and wish you a very Happy New Year as well!

Again, my sincerest apologies for the off color comments.

Marie,

You offer this as proof of harassment? Sorry, I don't get it. Sounds like a normal, relatively civil exchange to me.