THERE IS A PHRASE KNOWN to politicos as "the third rail," a topic so politically taboo that it is "instant death" to any politician who broaches it. The term comes from the third rail in a train system which has an exposed electrical conductor that carries high voltage power. If you touch that area, you're quickly electrocuted.
There are certain topics in political circles that we just don't mention. Reforming California's Prop. 13 is one. Looking to solve California's 2003 fiscal crisis, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger enlisted the aid of businessman Warren Buffet. His advice? The California cap on property taxes imposed by Prop. 13 "makes no sense" and should be dismantled, Buffet said.
Our governor patted his billionaire friend on the head and quickly sent him packing.
In the difficult budget times the state and our cities are facing, there are no easy choices. Raising fees and taxes is met with vociferous protests, as city leaders recently learned when they voted for the new 911 fee. But every budget cut and resulting loss of service will set off an equal howl from another corner. That's coming up. City staff has drawn up a list of cuts for this budget year and more will be coming for the next.
Particularly unpopular, the 911 fee has become a rallying cry for critics of the City Council members who voted for it. Responding to public opinion, city staff has proposed a large reduction in the former $50-per-call charge for those who opt out of the $1.49-per-line monthly plan. Now set at $17.88, it will be waived the first time a 911 call is made. The council will vote on this proposal Monday night.
WHEN MAKING DECISIONS for the greater public good, it is tempting to do what is politically popular. But politics should never enter into any decision. I commend our council members who voted for the fee as well as our lone council member who voted against it. None of them took the easy way out. Those who voted for it believed it was the right thing to do in order to add personnel to keep our city safe. They knew they would take heat for it. Our dissenting council member, Neal Andrews, has undoubtedly taken flak himself from public safety boosters. But it was a matter of principle for him and he stuck to his guns.
Our council members voted their consciences. And that's all I can ask for.
For a look at the revised 911 fee structure, click here.
Wow.
I just read the revised proposal and the city certainly likes using guestimates.
Their rosy picture assumes they will bring in $2 to $2.5 million annually.
But I've got a question (that isn't addressed).....
Why would anyone need to NOT opt-out? at $17.88 for the SECOND call (*just like a drug dealer... the first one's free) or the option to pay the monthly tax, there is no reason not to fill out the paperwork to opt out on every single one of your phone lines. I've got 5 lines currently (soon to be six). That gives me 5 free 911 calls.
I specially like this quote:
"In order to identify the range of possible impacts, an assumption regarding the percentage of subscribers choosing the per use option must be made. For ease of comparison, a 1% factor will be offered. Thus for every 1% of the subscribers that choose to pay on a per use basis, and never make a 911 call, the impact to revenue is expected to be $20,000 to $25,000 per year."
Those "1%" impacts can add up pretty quickly.
What is troubling is that the City has no clue as to how many of us right thinking individuals will opt-out. The City is blind to the fact that it makes no fiscal sense (unless your kitty gets stuck in the tree a lot) to pay a monthly tax.
The best part is recommendation B - D: SPEND THE MONEY!
It doesn't matter that the City has no real way of knowing how much money they're going to have to spend. Let's just spend it. Wouldn't it make more sense to have language written that allocates money to payroll/positions based on the $$$ coming in?
I spoke with Neal Andrews last night (Saturday) at the VEP's Festival of Talent. I thanked him for his stand against this TAX. He mentioned that with the new per cost fee not based on actual costs it makes it even less defensible in court. Let's hope he is right.
What the City needs to do is find money in other places to fund basic safety issues. Or.... take it to the voters again.
The opt out has been a problem since day one. I, too, wonder how many people will sign up for it, leaving the city high and dry with its new funding source.
This fee was a horrible idea from the git go. The daft City Council has not realized this yet. Apparently, it will take another election to wake them all up. As usual, Marie caters to their ideas in the way this thing is spun on her blog. Such great journalism. She must have worked for the New York Times in a prior life...
Blog writers are not required to be neutral and objective. We write opinion pieces. My point here was that we will have many difficult decisions to make in the months ahead. But I don't want my Council members making decisions for political reasons with an eye on the next election and clearly none of them have.
In times of prosperity, it's pretty easy to be popular.
I know this will go against most people's grain, but I agree with Mr. Buffet. What would be wrong with the dismantling of Prop 13? I honestly feel it has been the demise of our once prosperous Ventura. We need to stop being selfish and consider the betterment of our community. Ok, spoken like a true transplant, and I am, I cannot help comparing the economic environments from whence I came and my new found home.
In my past life, property taxes funded schools. The schools were not wanting for much and we were not dependent on sales tax for everything. Especially in our declining economy sales tax is not a worthy source of income. People are not paying capital gains due to their investments swirling down the toilet. Where is all the revenue going from the exceptional housing market we had experienced not too long ago? Think of all the funding that could be generated for our schools and safety if even a small percentage were utilized from the height of the housing market. Granted property taxes would be slightly higher but would it not be worth the price? Any family with children in school or concerned for their or anyone's safety should agree that it is a small price to pay. Just think of all the arguments that would be moot. Sorry Mongo, I know you thoroughly enjoy this banter, but please let pragmatism have its rightful place in all of this minutia.
What's wrong with the Council making decisions for political reasons? Isn't this sort of the nature of our democratic system? If a significant amount of the public (their consituents) are expressing outrage at this ridiculous new tax, then what's political about them pulling the plug on it and admitting it was a bad idea? True, it leaves them with plenty of egg on their face, but it is also responsive to the will of the people, not to the police and fire unions, which is another political angle, I suppose.
I Am for Kids, it is all well and good for you to say that we should dismantle Proposition 13 and go back to the concept of burdening property owners for all the costs of government services. But, if you go back to 1978 and the political atmosphere that gave rise to Proposition 13, you'll find that it was a time of true revolt against unlimited taxation vis-a-vis property taxes, where people were actually being forced to consider letting their homes go into default because of the overburdensome property tax bills they were facing at the time.
Some people may be able to afford higher property taxes, and, perhaps, you're one of them, but there is a large segment of the population out there, especially those on fixed incomes, who would be severely disadvantaged financially by this. Let's face it, people were mad as hell and not going to take it anymore in 1978 when Proposition 13 was approved overwhelmingly by the voters in an era of over-taxation and wasteful spending by the State. Do you really think people are going to have the appetite and renewed trust in government to go back to this approach today?.
Marie is absolutely right. Proposition 13 is a sacred cow and, for very good reason, will continue to be.
Prop. 13 will go away about the same time pigs learn to fly. There is no question in my mind that all our citizen's initiatives have put us in a spending dilemma. At the state level, I support independent legislative analyst Elizabeth Hill's proposal to both cut spending and eliminate certain tax breaks, including that ridiculous tax loophole for multi-millionaire yacht owners.
On the city level, I also support a balanced approach. We need to raise fees and cut the budget. It is fair and equitable and necessary. But it won't be popular.
Our representative system of democracy requires that we place a certain level of trust in our elected officials.
Yes, but clearly, in this instance, the City Council has lost the trust of the public on this issue.
Mongo,
Who are your favorite county or city leaders. Give us a list of at least 5 people if you can.
Sure, Brian, all you have to do is ask:
1. County Supervisor Peter Foy
2. District Attorney Greg Totten
3. Port Hueneme Mayor Toni Young
4. Thousand Oaks City Councilman Dennis Gillette
5. Simi Valley Mayor Paul Miller
And why does it not surprise me that my blog grump Mongo does not like anyone on his own City Council? Not even the Republicans, Mongo?
BTW, I'm opting out. You'd be foolish not to, at $17.88 per call. I've only made one 911 call over the last 10 years, as have probably most people. The $1.49 per phone is onerous on most people like me, with 3 land lines and 4 cell phones in my household.
I'm opting in, even on my fax line. It will cost me $89 a year for all my phones and I don't care. It's well worth it to me to restore our School Resource Officer program. I'd gladly pay four times that to get this valuable program back for our schools.
Marie, I have to point out that the "third rail" Prop 13 is also a cash cow for a few citizens that put out scare tactic slate mailers. Jim Lacy makes a ton of money with his "Save Proposition 13" newsletters/voter guides/etc.
Marie, if choosing among all Ventura County city and county leaders, which is the way Brian posed the question, I'd have to rate these as my "top 5".
Among the Ventura City Council, I have to say that I admire and respect Neal Andrews quite a bit, particularly for his principled position on the 911 tax. I used to hold Jim Monahan in high regard, but my opinion of him has waned considerably in recent years. First of all, his siding with the VCORD group on their flawed and self-serving building heights initiative turned me off. Secondly, his vote on the 911 tax last night irked me as well. He also seems disinterested and inattentive (borderline senile behavior) at the Council meetings, which may be partly attributable to the natural aging process. He has definitely grown complacent in recent years and, I believe, needs to step down and give someone else with more vigor and a fresh perspective a chance.
I'm very fond of Neal, too. I don't know Jim very well but I would say you are being awfully harsh. What he brings to the council is immense: a long history of knowledge and experience. They really rely on him to put things in historical perspective. We can learn a lot from what past councils have done. I also think he is very good at staying in touch with his constituents.
He received more votes than anyone else in his last council run.
I don't think I'm being harsh, just honest. Longevity in politics is not always a good thing. Granted, his institutional knowledge and history on the Council may have some value, but the other side of the coin is that it may also result in "old school thinking" or false romaticizing about how things were in the "good old days." I've heard these sentiments expressed by Monahan many times and they do little to advance the City into the future. He seems to be too stuck in the past sometimes.
Politicians get reelected overwhelmingly sometimes for the wrong reasons. Name recognition and familiarity count for a lot in local politics. Absent any major scandal or wrongdoing, some elected officials get elected again and again - just because. The longer in office, the more reinforced this syndrome. While returning phone calls and showing up at community events are important, they shouldn't, by themselves, be reasons for getting reelected.
Call me cynical (you'd have every reason to after that diatribe), but this is what I think.
Hey - I agree here. Gallegly needs to be put out to pasture, too, while we're at it.
Jim M. is not going to risk making the police or fire union mad. Afterall, he was behind Jerry Martin's campaign last City Council race. Jerry was a union man and he made no bones about it. He also got 11% of the vote and probably cost Doug Halter the election.
Neal A. isn't afraid of making the unions mad - which is good because he made the comments regarding the politization of public safety. It was a very dangerous comment but he can take the hit I'm sure. Public Safety is held up as a sacred cow in the county and is overused in my opinion to advance political agendas.
Neal A. wants the citizens to be protected and now it looks like their public safety may be compromised.
I wish cooler heads had prevailed last night but it is a political hot potato. The easy vote was a yes vote.
There is no point tilting at windmills. It was pretty clear from the last election that the people of Ventura liked the three incumbents (who all voted yes). It will be interesting to see what happens in the next election. In the meantime, stay engaged and be sure to vote intelligently. This issue is just one of many decided on by the City Council.
Katie,
I don't really think there was an "easy" vote here, depending on your point of view.
I hope Doug runs again next time. Last I heard, he hadn't ruled it out, despite his quote in the Star.
It would be nice if Doug ran again - if he can afford it. Costs money to run an election, even more when your are not an incumbent like Doug.
I don't know what he thought of the fee, would like to know. Maybe he could craft a response to your blog Marie. The paper sure let everyone know what it thought in today's editorial.
Katie, do you really think that Jerry Martin took votes from Doug Halter in the last election? They were worlds apart politically. It was more likely that Lou Cunningham and Mike Gibson took votes from Halter.
I don't think Halter will run again anytime soon. He sort of put a lot of eggs in the basket last time. I don't think Cunningham is interested either, for the same reason. Gibson's a pretty good bet next time though.
Gibson can take comfort that Rencher's not running. Didn't Rencher finish ahead of him?
Yes, I think you're right. Of course, Rencher has been involved in local politics in Ventura for many years now. How do you know he's not running?
He's told everyone he's done. He doesn't come to council meetings any more either.
Yeah, but I've heard him say that before.