WHILE THE STATE ELECTORATE may be in no mood to pass Prop. 1A and thus extend the taxes used to balance this year's budget, Downtown Ventura's property owners just voted to assess themselves a little more to pay for a cleaner, safer business district with better marketing efforts for merchants and other special programs designed to draw visitors to the area.
The Property-Based Business Improvement District (PBID) will add a small percentage to the property tax bills of landowners in the Downtown core. Those in the central areas who will receive the most benefits from the PBID will be assessed more than those in outlying areas.
The plan had the full backing of the Downtown Ventura Organization and the Chamber of Commerce.
While the plan was conceived, executed and drawn up by a citizen's committee, the City Council had final approval on the deal and officially gave it its blessing last night on a 5-1 vote, with only Councilmember Jim Monahan voting against it.
"Despite a year of city-imposed fees, declining investments, and weak consumer confidence, it was very reassuring to see that a majority of property and business owners Downtown have confidence in the work of the DVO," said Executive Director Rob Edwards.
I'VE REALLY BEEN ROOTING for this plan to pass. Our unique Downtown is a thriving entertainment center which sets us apart from the cookie-cutter retail in nearby cities. Most of the businesses are locally owned and operated. The city gave the DVO some seed money from its redevelopment agency to hire a director and jumpstart activities, but those funds are nearly gone.
Since its inception over three years ago, the DVO has become a dynamic, nationally-recognized organization. In the past year it has won multiple advertising awards and was named Non-Profit of the Year by the Chamber of Commerce. The passage of the PBID will keep this momentum going.
The assessments will be collected by the county and turned over to the non-profit PBID board of directors for use. This group, made up of both property owners and Downtown business owners, will decide how to spend the money per the management plan that was approved by the council in March. In five years, the PBID will sunset and it is up to the property owners to determine if it is working and whether or not to renew it.
"Those that have been
paying attention to the incremental, but positive changes Downtown
realize that our work needs to continue to stabilize property values.
And that would not happen without a funded operation with one full-time
director," Edwards said.
"This is a very modest budget in a very small district but we will
certainly deliver even more upgrades to the neighborhood than we have
in our start-up phase these past two years."
Congratulations to the DVO on their hard work in laying the groundwork for this plan and helping to nurture an economic center for our city
Thanks Marie for acknowledging the PBID approval by the City Council. Rob Edwards and the DVO have done a fabulous job in keeping energy and enthusiasm alive in Downtown Ventura and bringing many visitors to appreciate our city's charms. Let's keep our downtown alive by supporting the shops, restaurants and events.
Ventura would be foolish if they let Rob Edwards go - by voting to pass this tax maybe, just maybe, the downtown area can become the shining star it should be.
The business owners have voted to tax themselves for a definite purpose.
BUT
Sacramento wants voters to throw them a ton of money to do with what they want. I suppose that means they will use it on the same wasteful and inane stuff they have been spending money on for years. My Papa would have call that throwing good money after bad. But the legislature says, "Trust us". I don't think so!
Vote NO on 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E
Vote YES on 1F
Vote them out in 2010
What do you consider wasteful spending?
State spending on education and social services has been pretty flat over the years. What we ARE spending more on is prisons. Remember that voter-approved 3-strikes law? Did you vote for it?
And until recently we were spending a lot of money to backfill the cuts to local government revenues caused by the cut in vehicle license fees.
We spend $2 billion a year on budget-related debt. Another $2 billion goes to debt on voter-approved infrastructure bonds.
Then there's the huge cost of fighting these wildfires. The Jesusita fire alone will cost more than $13 million.
Congratulations to the smart busines owner's and the Ventura City Council. I may not live in Ventura, but spend most of my shopping time and dining time in the city. I'm impressed. When people are smart enough to know that they need to pay a bit more to make "it better", I admire them greatly.
Marie just last week this very blog carried a story about ARRRnold and Assembly member Tom Ammiano looking into legalizing marijuana to gain tax revenues from it. Since federal law supercedes state drug laws California CANNOT legalize marijuana. Introducing a bill and Arrrrnold giving it further study is a waste of state resources i.e. a waste of state money. Add to that specific antidote the junkets and resolutions that have absolutely nothing to do with running the state and you have Sacramento wasting a monumental amount of money.
Now my pet peeve the Social Services programs you mentioned. CHARITY is not the responsibility of government. Long before the government began to do a very poor job of charity, communities and churches were doing a excellent job meeting human needs. And they did it without the tremendous overhead and fraud that plaques government effort.
Frankly I would challenge you to show me one program that the government hasn't done in an inept and wasteful manner.
I will not apologize for wanting to reduce my tax burden. Politicians waste money, spend it on ill conceive programs and fund programs I find morally offensive. I work for my money. It should be mine to spend as I please. I realize I have an obligation to provide financial support to the government so it can provide limited and basic services to the citizenry. Any taxation beyond that point is theft or in government speak, an illegal taking.
The onerous taxation we are subject to, both state and federal, is an abomination and should be vigorously resisted by every American.
Back at ya
Vote NO on 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E
Vote YES on 1F
Vote OUT the incumbents in 2010
One legislator introducing a bill which will require federal legislation to work wastes very few resources. A small amount of staff time, maybe.
So you don't think the government should be providing any social services? By far the largest state expense in social services is on Medi-Cal. Can churches provide that? How about foster care services? Mental health services? How much money do you think those Sunday collection plates hold?
If you cut out all of CalWorks you couldn't come up with $42 billion.
No the state should not provide social services. See this pamphlet with a lesson Davy Crockett leared about government providing charity http://www.constitutionparty.com/documents/Crockett_CPweb_.pdf
Until the time of FDRs RAW deal those needs were being meet by communities and churches. You failed to address the EXTRA cost incured from overhead and fraud when the government tries to run these programs. Many/most churches still provide a variety of social services including the ones you mention; i.e. help with medical expenses and adoption/foster care. You seem to be as unfamiliar with the charitable works communities and churches do as you are with the true workings of government.
I used the example of Assembly member Tom Ammiano to illustrate my point and answer your question, "What do you consider wasteful spending?" Yes he is just one but of 100 legislators. Now lets extrapolte the potential waste here; 100 legislators in session say 150 days per year (the average Californian works 250 days/year) and that equals 15,000 nonsense ills per year. Now lets say each legislator submits on one nonsense bill per week that's still 3,000 nonsense bills per year. Maybe we should be happy they only work 150 days per year instead of 250.
My challenge to you still stands unanswered;
I challenge you to show me one program that the government hasn't done in an inept and wasteful manner.
VOTE NO on MAY 19th
Deny the state money to waste on social services
According to the article in the Star, the city ponied up quite a bit of money for this - about $90k, if I recall correctly. You chose not to mention this. Downtown is ready to support itself. The rest of the city is sick of subsidizing downtown. Funny how the city has money for this, but not the Wright Library. Not so funny actually.
As a property owner, the city does pitch in along with the rest.
Our property taxes and sales taxes (what the state leaves us, that is) go to "subsidize" the entire city, not just Downtown. Unless you plan on living in a tent on an uninhabited island, this is the price you pay for civilized society.
The Wright Library is run by the County.
Way to go DVO! That's the way to Move!
I admire how well you protect your interests. We all benefit form your efforts to keep our Downtown vibrant!
Nothing happens...........until there is
MOVEMENT
Albert Einstein
I challenge you to show me one private business that hasn't done things in a wasteful manner at times.
Who cares if private business is wasteful? Wasteful spending of private dollars may hurt investors and shareholders, but wasteful spending of public dollars hurts you and me directly, since it's our money being wasted.
Plenty of that legendary fraud, waste and abuse going on in private sector but without the transparency of the government. We pay more for goods and services because of it. Not to say I haven't seen a Cal Trans worker or two picking his nose on the job. But human beings do all these jobs and ain't a one of us perfect. How much of the company dollar are you wasting on the Internet?