Every month I pick the most well-written, thoughtful comment on my blog entries and give it an entry of its own. February's winner comes from blogger Melissa and was written in response to "The Star vs. City Hall" entry. Thanks for posting Melissa!
THIS FIASCO COMES DOWN to a couple of things. First, the city did not take seriously the community's verdict on Measure P-6 and just sought a way to get around it. With only 62% of voters affirming the tax proposal that would have funded more police and fire personnel, it failed. I felt at the time that the measure failed because of a lack of any sense of urgency on the part of the public. It seemed at the time like the motivation for the proposed tax increase was coming solely from the top rather than from an urgent and well-communicated need that, while expressed by the public safety officials and city staff, was actually felt (lived) by the public they serve. In other words, reports and data seemed to be driving the measure rather than public perception or experience.
Perhaps some members of the public were feeling (or continue to feel) the diminishing margin of safety, as the city manager referenced, but this was not adequately communicated to the voting public prior to the proposition being placed on the ballot. Efforts to do this during the election seemed overly political, and by then the battle lines had been drawn anyhow and there was enough suspicion to doom P-6.
Fast forward to the recent attempt to fund more police and fire, the 911 fee. The same situation ( a lack of urgency on the part of the public and poor communication of the problem) combined with an increasingly frustrated city council and a now suspicious public. Clearly, city staff and the council have reason to be frustrated by the idiotic public funding structure in California, thanks to Prop. 13. And garnering a 2/3rds vote on anything is a formidable challenge. I believe Rick Cole when he says that city staff has been cut, budgets pared to the bone and the choices are to raise taxes, dip into the emergency reserve or go without. The problem is that a solid minority of the public, and not just the vocal ones, are clearly not convinced that "going without" is a bad idea. The anger over this fee and the failure of P-6 shows that the case has not been made that improving response times and adding cops and firefighters to our streets is all that necessary. Until a vast majority of voters, more than 2/3rds believe this to be an urgent necessity, they are not going to want to pay. It's not the amount of money that's the issue but the desire for the improvement that is missing.
FOR EXAMPLE, on a sunny 80 degree Sunday in February in Ventura, like today, you can make the case for going to Kohls to buy their discounted winter coats all you want. Yes, they're on sale. Yes it's the middle of winter. Yes they are a fantastic deal and a basic necessity, but the bottom line is that until the clouds come back and people start to shiver and until their old coats are clearly inadequate, those new winter coats are a good idea in theory only, and most people are going to just head to the beach.
So where does that leave the city, the council and our public safety officials? Aren't they supposed to be the ones looking ahead (to extend the coat analogy just a tiny bit further) to the coming storm and warn people that the sunny February days will not last forever and that when they do begin to shiver they will be very happy to have a new affordable coat? Yes, of course. They are being responsible to us, the citizens, by looking at the data and saying "this is not acceptable." If violent crime and gang activity are up, if response times meet the acceptable target only half the time, this may be a serious problem. And they can't just throw up their hands and say, fine, we'll just purposefully respond slower to allow folks to 'feel' a sense of urgency. That would be unethical and even criminal.
They need to take the data to the people, translate it in a more meaningful way, and convince them. They need to find ordinary people who ARE feeling a sense of urgency over the increasing crime and slower emergency response times and share their stories. (Actually, this is what the media, including the Star, should be doing without any prompting by the city... if there is a serious problem, dig up the folks being affected and tell their stories.) Three places to start:
1) What does it mean to have the fire trucks or paramedics show up 8 minutes after a call versus 5? Are houses burning down? Are people dying?
2) Where is graffiti growing and what does that mean, aside from a visual nuisance?
3) How exactly would a few more cops on the force decrease violent crime, or is it just that they would be able to respond to the scene faster or in more numbers after the crime has occurred?
Looking at data convinces some people, listening to the recommendations of experts and elected officials (when they are maintaining their composure and not yelling) convinces others, but most citizens need either direct experience or a compelling translation - i.e. real stories from real people -- to open the old wallet.
There's been a failure to communicate, and the public lacks the imagination to fill in the gaps. Theoretically and practically, I want the cops at my house in less than 5 minutes after I call 911, but it's tempting to think I'll just never need them. Most of the voters in Ventura live in places that make this fantasy possible. And ironically that is thanks to the past and present efforts of city staff, public safety officials, city councils, voters and the media... all of whom should find a way to see if the problem is really real, communicate it more accurately to the public and stop accusing the public (or each other) of being ignorant, arrogant or petulant.
Congratulations! It is a very well written commentary that I happen to agree with - good job!
A true story- A short time ago I was in my backyard on the East End digging in my garden when I heard a god awful, spine chilling sound. It was the sound of my next door neighbor discovering her 2 year old son floating face down in their pool. She was so distraught at this site (as we all would be) she became paralyzed. Luckily her sister was there and dialed 911. Fortunately (understatement) there was a patrol car nearby and arrived in less than 3 minutes. He was resuscitated and all is well. This very well could have been a disaster had the police not in such close proximity. To me this response is priceless.
Since it was again mentioned that Proposition 13 is causing so much of our community's woes I feel it necessary to reiterate that we made our bed....why are we not willing to lie in it? According to the Star there are many people appealing their property assessments due to the downfall in equity. I didn't see any of them trying to raise their taxes when their equity was skyrocketing. Why do they feel that they are deserving now? We have to start being less selfish and start living life as a village. We are not on islands. We are all in this together.
"the city did not take seriously the community's verdict on Measure P-6 and just sought a way to get around it. With only 62% of voters affirming the tax proposal that would have funded more police and fire personnel, it failed"
I would say the city is listening to the majority of voters. It was only 5 percent short of passing and 62-38 is a pretty decent mandate to do something. Despite the very vocal minority, the 911 fee is a politically sound move in my judgement.
I heartily agree. The critics also seem to forget that polling was conducted before this was proposed and the majority of citizens were in favor of adding this fee -- and that was before it was reduced.
Are you referring to the push poll that was conducted on this fee? That thing was so biased, it wasn't funny.
Really, Bongo? So you work for the city or work for the polling company and saw the questions?
No, Skiperoony, I actually saw the survey and determined in my own mind (as hard as this might be for you to imagine) that the questions were biased and the responses predetermined. Speaking of working for the city, what's your stake in all this, Skipster? You seem to be overly protective of the city's official position on most issues. Hmmm...
Guess we'll just have to take your word for it, Lamo. I support the 911 fee because I want a greater police presence downtown. We'll get it now...hopefully. Who's your dog in the fight? What's up with all the fierce rhetoric and the stupid nom de plume?
I asked the question first, Skip-for-the-City.
And I answered it, Mongo-for-Himself. No, not a city worker, just a citizen campaigning for Beat 5 to be restored downtown.
Your turn.
Here are the actual questions and answers from the survey itself. Draw your own conclusions.
There were two questions.
The first one was:
To help improve public safety in the City of Ventura, including
• Hiring six additional police officers
• Hiring three additional firefighter paramedics
• Ensuring faster response times to emergencies
• And improving 911 services
Would you support or oppose a fee of $1.75 per month on business, cellular, and residential phone lines in the City?
Definitely Support 41%
Probably Support 25%
Probably Oppose 9%
Definitely Oppose 21%
Not sure 4%
The second one was asked only of those who said they were opposed or not sure. (This was 34% of all respondents, so the total below will only add up to 34%.)
If you knew that
• Because of falling home prices, there is no other way to add police and firefighters without cutting other cities services
• And the additional police officers and firefighters will help reduce gang activity in Ventura and improve the City’s ability to respond quickly to a major emergency or natural disaster
Would you support or oppose a fee of $1.l75 per month on business, cellular, and residential phone lines in the City?
Definitely Support 1%
Probably Support 5%
Probably Oppose 6%
Definitely Oppose 22%
Not sure 1%
The entire survey, which asked a wide range of questions on a wide variety of topics, is available at http://www.ci.ventura.ca.us/depts/civic_engagement/
OK, Skip-the-Bull****, I have been known to be a city hall critic now and again, if for no other reason than to bring some sanity back to the insane policy-making that goes on in the Ivory Tower. The 911 tax, in my opinion, was just one of many examples of this. No dog in the fight, my friend, just an interest in making our government officials accountable to the public they serve.
My conclusion is it's a push poll, Fulton. The 911 tax does nothing to improve public safety response times and does nothing to improve 911 services, as Councilman Andrews correctly pointed out in his very eloquent speech at the Council meeting last week on this farce. These were loaded questions posed to the public, which, by definition, constitutes a push poll.
Oh, Mongo. I really don't think that was a push poll. The second set of questions were only asked if they were opposed or unsure. Without any prompting at all you had:
Definitely Support 41%
Probably Support 25%
Then they provided more information so people would understand the nature of the fee and why it was needed.
Why wouldn't adding nine more officers help response times?
How can adding 3 more firefighters improve response time? There are only a certain number of fire stations in the city that hold a certain number of firefighters per shift. With police officers, there is no empirical evidence available that shows adding cops will necessarily improve response times. You can certainly make this argument in theory, but in practice it would really depend on how and where they are deployed.
It will be interesting to see some real data on how response times have actually improved with the addition of the firefighters and cops. My guess is that the police and fire unions will come up with some excuse for not meeting the stated goals and push for more positions to be added to the budget to meet them, as they always do. Then they'll support the candidates for City Council that support adding yet more police officers and firefighters, as they always do.
They DO have that data, Mongo. And the additional public safety personnel they added last spring did make a difference. The three firefighters were part of a roving crew.
Why are you so dead set against adding public safety personnel? I am just not understanding you here. There is nothing that city government does that is more important.
Is it just that you don't want taxes or fees raised to pay for them? In this economy we're going to have to do all of the above: raise taxes and fees, jumpstart retail projects AND make our government budgets as lean as we can through cost cutting.
It's fair, it's important and it's necessary.
Marie, I am in no way dead set against public safety personnel. You are now stooping to the tactics used by the police & fire unions and some of the Council members to discredit the valid points that Neal Andrews has made about the 911 tax. I would say my philosophy lines up perfectly with his in regards to the importance of public safety in our community. It is, without a doubt, the most important thing government does. Saying that I don't support public safety because I don't agree with this tax is a total red herring, and you know it.
The thing I object to most of all is the way in which this new tax was imposed. It was sneaky, underhanded, and unfair, and the public has responded, as they should have, to decry the methods used to get it passed. We should not charge a tax, or a fee, or whatever you want to call it, for 911 service. This is just plain wrong! Many people I have spoken to in the community agree on this point and intend to make their voices heard on this issue in the next election.
I disagree heartily that we need to raise taxes to fund public safety. No we don't! We need to prioritize services better, cut out the waste (and, yes, there is plenty of waste), and foster a better environment for economic development. Not charge underhanded fees and taxes to cover the losses the City Council and the City Manager brought on this city by foolhardy decisions regarding development and new business opportunities.
I know I'm sounding like a broken record here, but somehow my previously stated positions seem to go in one ear and out the other.
Mongo, it's your general tone. You have such an attitude when it comes to talking about our police and fire. You talk about them making excuses and disagree with their contention that adding more personnel will help their response times, even though they have the data to back it up.
I have nothing but respect for our police officers and firefighters. If they say they need something, I believe them. These people risk their lives for us. They deserve respect and I'm just not hearing that from you. It's not my "tactic." It's my heart talking here.
Reasonable people can disagree on the issue of fees and taxes. I don't mind paying what will be $89 a year for my family on the 911 fee.
Marie, I guess I'm just a bit less Pollyanish than you are. It's not that I don't trust our police officers and firefighters, I am just always a bit suspicious towards bureaucrats, and I'm not talking about the ones who wear the badge and are out there in the field fighting the good fight, day in and day out, to protect our citizens. I think I possess a healthy cynicism and I believe it's something that we all need to reflect on when we're talking about government services and programs. There is something called "empire building" that I'm sure you're very familiar with. We have to be cautious about this and being hoodwinked by the chief bureaucrats.
I have never questioned your respect for our police officers and firefighters in all of this debate. I think we both agree on the need to protect our community the best possible way we can. All I'm asking from you is the same respect for my position that I have given you.
You almost had me going there until you threw out that empire-building remark. Mongo, there are a few things we agree on -- we need to jumpstart retail here and VCORD is out to lunch -- but I don't think we'll ever agree on this one.
If you posted with more respect, I'd give you a lot more credit. You're a smart guy with a really bad attitude.
Touche, Marie. I just hope you're not confusing my frank and outspoken opinions and advocacy for the interests of the taxpayers with my "attitude." Just because we disagree on many issues doesn't (or shouldn't) make us arch enemies.
I do respect your views and always will. You've obviously made a lot of positive contributions to the community.