Please see my comments on the thread below to the well-deserved critique by Joe Howry in today's Star. I think the criticism was meant for Morehouse and the rest of the Council, as much as it was for Cole, but they all deserved a lambasting for their horrendous handling of this issue.

I agree we need to do something about police & fire staffing but this is clearly not the way to go about it. It's not just Joe Howry who finds it appalling, but the public as well, as evidenced by the continuing barrage of letters to the editor against it. My own discussions with community members reflect this dissatisfaction as well. This has turned into the issue from hell for the Council and Fulton and Summers are the ones who will pay the consequences in the next election, since Morehouse is not running again (obviously, by his cavalier attitude).

The Council should go back to the voters to pass a sales tax AND a 911-tax ASAP.

When Police/Fire tax failed narrowly a couple of years ago, they should have gone immediately back to the voters. Calling taxes
fees undermines the City's promise of transparency.

In today's Star, Mr. Fulton argues that we all want to have more police and fire, but we differ in how to pay for them. Well, we came pretty close to agreement with the sales tax vote.

The fee cut off the need to continue that discussion. We still need to increase taxes. That required to develop more trust, not less.

The 911 fee as a short-term solution has shortcircuited the need to improve city revenues.

Correction: The 911 fee as a short-term solution shortcircuited the need to develop LONG-TERM SOLUTIONS to improve city revenues.

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.

Good analogies, Melissa. I agree with many of your points, particularly the one on the lack of urgency. This speaks to the Council's desire to dump this thing on us like a load of cement. We can do this over a period of time - 25% this year, 25% next year, and so on...and still stay on top of the problem.

They need to look at the revenue side of the equation more closely, besides imposing new taxes on the citizenry. And make no mistake, this is a new tax. They need to look at economic development and how this can factor in as part of the solution. Some of the candidates in the last City Council election articulated this very well, but the 3 incumbents were still reelected - go figure. Well, we're alll paying the price now, aren't we?

Economic development is a long-neglected area by the Council because everyone is so paranoid about growth. Not all growth is bad.

Wow, you've made some wonderful points, Melissa.

I hope we never get to the point where the holes in our safety staffing are so painfully obvious that the public feels a huge sense of urgency. I believe they would like to add staffing now, before anything gets out of hand. The recent additions to the Gang Task Force and the new School Resource Officer at Buena (we'll get two more, hopefully) have made a big difference, the school folks tell me.

Melissa:

I agree with the points you made re: communication. Having specific stories to support the data would help the public to understand the urgency. Your questions lead me to wonder also the harm of not meeting the 90% within 5 minute threshold. I am assuming that our paramedics prioritize the level of emergency and danger to health.
I don't want them to have to do that too thinly, but a blanket
statistic doesn't really get us to answering your questions in ways
that might to a better job of convincing the public of the urgency.

I don't believe this, but I am wondering if many say to themselves,"Yeah, maybe we haven't added new police and fire officers in 30 years. What is to say that the police and fire weren't overly bloated 30 years ago. We may have a police now that more accurately reflect our true needs."

Or, as we read and hear about often: "Yeah, I want our City to do the basics we can't do for ourselves: police, fire, public works, and zoning, to name the very basics. Everything else is just fluff and special interests."

Perhaps, it is time to do without in some areas. Would our city tolerate lay-offs in other departments? How would that affect our economic development?

What do we need to do to improve communication and restore trust?

Another unloading in the editorial pages on the 911 tax! 4 letters against (including an ex-Ventura Deputy Police Chief) and only 1 in favor.

Hopefully, the City Council is paying attention to these letters to the editor, usually a pretty good indicator of public opinion.

Sorry, but the letter from Rick Scott taking the naysayers to task really trumped the others.

Actually, the one from the former Deputy Police Chief really hit home for me. As a former top law enforcement official for the City, his comments spoke volumes about the division and mistrust this proposal has caused in the community.

Hmmmm. So the majority of the City Council appears to be standing fast to create a 911 fee to help pay for an expansion of the police force and fire department, and they're getting hammered by the paper for not listening to the masses.

If the City Council had folded after the first couple of letters, I am sure the Star would have decried how our politicians these days lack political courage to do the right thing because all they ever do is look at the polls.

I'd prefer to wait it out and see what happens when they actually set the amount of the fee. Right now it's all just speculation.

There's a stubborn and very vocal 30% here who will not acquiesce to paying more for anything. I personally would like to see us do what Oxnard is doing, a 1/2 cent sales tax increase to pay for many things, not just public safety. This would only require a 50% passage and not 2/3.

What's speculative about it? They've already said what the fee is going to be ($1.49/per phone/per month). The only thing they're considering tinkering with is the $50 opt-out fee feature.

If they were to significantly reduce the $1.49 fee, what's the point of having it at all? It will reduce the revenue derived accordingly. They've simply backed themselves into a corner on this thing and it will truly be interesting to see how they get themselves out of this one.

I disagree about the vocal 30%. That may have been true with P6, but this is something else entirely and there appears much more opposition to it than 30% judging by the number of people willing to write letters to the editor opposing it. The thing people seemed so steamed about is the underhanded way it was handled.

BTW, a 1/2 cent sales tax increase would require a 2/3 vote - just like it did ith P6.

NOTHING is set in stone on that fee yet.

No underhanded behavior. Fees are a normal way for cities to conduct business. This city is below average in collection of fees.

The 2/3 vote is only for tax measures which dedicate funds. A general revenue tax such as Oxnard's would only require 50%.

Boy, this is someone certainly with a stake in the issue (either someone who works for Police or Fire, someone in City Admin, or perhaps, even a Council member). All this inside info.

And, excuse me, it is underhanded behavior when a tax is disguised as a fee. Whether this City employee likes it or not.

I agree with you on the 50% vote, but on everything else, you are wrong!!!

All this info came from watching TV.

And from reading the Star.

Yeah, that's exactly how I got my information and I'm also part of the revolt against the 911 tax! Let's throw the bums out at the next election and get some Council members in there that actually care about this City!

Caring about the city also means making sure there is somebody there when you call 911 and can get to your loved one before they bleed to death or asphyxiate in a fire. Caring about your city means making tough decisions which may be politically unpopular but necessary to protect the populace. I'm seeing a little running theme in one particular voice here and it always seems to be about elections. Are we hearing from a disgruntled failed council candidate perhaps? Hmmm.

Another Venturan, wow, you seem a little overly concerned about preserving the status quo. Could we be hearing from a current Council member, or spouse thereof? These speculations travel in both directions, you know.

You're hearing from someone who wants Beat 5 restored downtown because without it it is killing business. Ask any business owner down there. This fee will cost me less a month than I pay for one cup of coffee. It's well worth it to get a better presence downtown for the merchants, citizens and tourists. You're hearing from somebody who doesn't care about a few pennies in his pocket and wants safer streets and quicker response in medical emergencies.

These people arguing about the money for the fees just make me ill. The money will free up other money to be used to get our school resource officers back too. A boy just died today out in Oxnard from being shot in a middle school. We have no resource officers at the middle schools in Ventura now, like we used to. We will get two more for the high schools and one will share his time in the middle schools. Get a grip people! Is your $1.49 so important?

It's very important to me because this City Council loves to gouge us to death with fees at every given opportunity. This is yet just one more opportunity for them to hit us in the pocketbook and I'm getting really tired of it!

Please try and respect the opinions of those of us who feel taken advantaged of by this continued litany of fees and taxes. If you can afford the fee, bully for you. Not everyone is in the same boat as you, unfortunately.

Ventura is below average in collection of fees as compared to other cities in the county.

Low-income folks eligible for Lifeline service will not be charged.

What about people on a fixed income that don't qualify for Lifeline service because they make too much money? These are some of the people who are getting gouged by this new tax. And its this one on top of others already in place, or those being contemplated by Carl Morehouse and his band of shysters!!!

The fact remains that this is a tax and not a fee. It has been manipulated by the City Attorney to appear like a fee, due to the opt-out provision he threw into the ordinance at the last minute.

I'm not an attorney, but it will be interesting to see if they do away with $50 opt-out option (which I would recommend everyone take, if it is kept) if this will still pass legal muster as a fee. I do an attorney in town who has volunteered to represent the opposition, on a pro bono basis, to challenge the tax in court.

I think a more prudent way to go would be to start an initiative drive to strike down the ordinance once it is adopted in final form. I have begun consulting with another attorney about this option to see what the prospects and costs would be to get this on the ballot. He offered to the legal footwork free of charge.

Just what this town needs ... another initiative drive, all to keep the city from hiring more police officers and firefighters. Good job!

So from doing my reading here we have one group who wants to kill Walmart and tax revenue, we have another who wants to kill with height restrictions most business development and tax revenue and now we have a guy who wants to kill any extra fees the city might charge to raise revenue.

Quick! Let's figure out a way to grow money on those street trees Mayor Weir likes so much because there is no possible way you're going to be able to balance the city budget and provide for the citizens in an economic downturn with nothing new coming in.

Ventura for Business, I'm very happy to hear that an initiative drive may be forming to get rid of this 911 tax. Count me in, please. I wil he glad to help in any way I can. My brother is an attorney and I'm sure he'd be happy to help draft the initiative language.

Let's get this tea party started!

"I do an attorney in town who has volunteered to represent the opposition, on a pro bono basis, to challenge the tax in court."

great typo there!

Skiparoony, if that's all you're going to go after me for (a little typo), you've got absolutely no balls at all!

Rick Scott's op piece was excellent. Pointing out the fees we pay for garbage collections and for other basically "essential" services underscores the kinds of solutions city governments have had create to pay for and provide needed services to citizens.

The forever-cut-taxes-regardless-the-consequences crowd has so vilified "public service" and deified the "private sector," we can not have a reasonable discussion about the responsibility of citizens to fund (invest in) its own local government. How do we provide excellent public services and work we desire for ourselvesif we don't fund that? Do the never-more-tax crowd think we outsource our democracy for a cheaper price? Doesn't it make sense that the quality of our democracy and civil society is affected by how much we tax ourselves to invest in that? Isn't it easier to have effective oversight of city expenditures than it is to watchdog the county, state, or federal budgets? I am a bit tired having so many of our programs dependent on state and federal grants. We originally lost our school resource officers because the funding from state grants stopped. Can't we Venturans do better for ourselves?

You know, I was just sitting in my living room reading the paper when all of a sudden I heard a fire engine screaming by outside. I couldn't help but think: Come May 1st, that will cost me $50. Folks, if you're thinking about having a heart attack, do it before May 1st!

Nobody will be charged the $50 unless they specifically go out of their way to waive the monthly fee, and none of this is set in stone yet. Wait until the February 25 Council meeting.

I ask that those who want to help our city have a reliable source of local revenue for our police and fire services to choose the monthly fees. It's not only about our individual needs or only a narrow willingness to pay when we need a service (the $50 per call fee); it's about providing sound public services to our city.

Let's choose the $1.49 monthly fee. It's the price of a large pack of sugarless gum, a large bottle of water, less than 1/2 gallon of gas (8 - 15 miles?), less than a cup of coffee, one way trip on a local bus, a little more than a Sunday Ventura County Star, etc.

What else is as much as or less than $1.49 per month? How many can you name?

From a fellow Catholic and former altar boy, Rick - Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa...