A RECENT POLL conducted by True North, Inc. confirmed what I already knew: Ventura voters are content here and are willing to invest in their city.
Despite a round of new temporary taxes from the state, nearly 60 percent of those surveyed said they would likely vote for a temporary 1/2-cent hike in the city sales tax to support public safety, libraries, local infrastructure, economic-generating activities and building financial reserves.
This figure has held steady through surveys conducted in May of 2007 and December of 2008. True North talked to 400 likely voters between May 27-31 of this year. (The survey had a 4.86 point margin of error.) The sample was "a perfect representation of your voting electorate," True North President Timothy McLarney explained.
What else did they find? Seventy-five percent are somewhat or very satisfied with the job the City of Ventura is doing to provide services. Sixty-one percent feel things are going in the right direction in our city, compared with 22 percent who weren't sure and 21 percent who thought they were going in the wrong direction.
The state didn't fair as well in the poll, however, with only 11 percent responding that California in general was going in the right direction.
And just who is the typical Ventura voter? She's more likely to be female, over age 50, own her own home and have lived in the city at least 15 years. She isn't too worried about finances and is a Democrat. She doesn't own a business here.
The 1/2 cent sales tax increase would sunset in four years and would be used to support the essential services recommended by the committee, which the poll respondents also responded favorably to.
Ventura CFO Jay Panzica explained that the increased sales tax rate would cost approximately 22 cents per day for each resident and would generate nearly $10 million a year. Ventura's sales tax is now at the state minimum. Currently, for each dollar residents and visitors pay in, the city only receives 9.82 cents back, Panzica said. The lure of the new measure is that 100 percent of the increase would stay right here in Ventura.
After cutting its budget $11 million this year and $6 million in 2008, the city stands to lose another $2.8 million in the current city revenue grab proposed by the governor.
"If we choose not to put this on the ballot ... then we will be surrendering our destiny to the vagaries of Sacramento for the next few years," Councilmember Bill Fulton said.
Update: All the questions for the survey and the sampling method used can be found here:
This poll sounds suspect. ;) Just kidding... Have a good one Marie.
Marie says:
"A RECENT POLL conducted by True North, Inc. confirmed what I already knew"
Really?
How about this:
"A RECENT POLL conducted by True North, Inc. returned results that the city wanted."
How about this:
"A RECENT POLL conducted by True North, Inc. proved that it all depends on how you ask the question."
How about this:
Show us the questions.
Show us the data.
Then let us decide if True North, Inc. earned their (probably outrageous) fee, or did the residents of the City of Ventura get scr3w3d again.
400 likely voters from a city of over 100,000 people. How did True North, Inc. decide that these 400 people were 'likely voters'? You quoted a "4 point margin of error" when the story in the Star quoted a 4.86% error rate. That's 3.44 more people. I'm a likely voter. According to your 'typical voter' profile, you described my wife. Except she's AGAINST this tax increase as well.
I can't WAIT for this inititive to hit the ballot. Like one (or more) of the commentors on the Star's story, it will be my PLEASURE to vote NO on this and vote for NO incumbents in the City Council race.
It's time to live within our means.
It's time to cut the fat from the top.
It's time for CHANGE!
So $17 million in cuts is not good enough for you? 5% percent reductions in salaries to employees? 10% to management. Look buddy don't vote for it if you don't want it. Polling makes no difference in voting outcomes. You may have no choice but incumbents and council gadflies. If you like crazies, vote for gadflies. Up your alley no doubt.
Questions for initial response
Q1 Generally speaking, do you think things in (state, county, city) are going in the right or wrong direction?
Right Direction Wrong Direction Not sure Refused
A The State of California 11% 79% 9% 1%
B Ventura County 56% 21% 22% 1%
C The City of Ventura 61% 25% 12% 1%
Q2 Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Ventura is doing to provide city services? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very
(satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)?
Very satisfied 25%
Somewhat satisfied 50%
Somewhat dissatisfied 12%
Very dissatisfied 8%
Not sure 5%
Q4 Later this year, voters in the City may be asked to vote on a local ballot measure. Let me read you a summary of the measure:
In order to prevent further cuts and preserve funding for essential City services,
including:
◊ Providing police, crime protection and gang prevention services
◊ Providing fire protection, paramedic and emergency response services
◊ Maintaining and repairing local streets, public facilities and infrastructure
◊ Providing library services
◊ Providing programs to support and improve the local economy
◊ And ensuring adequate financial reserves
Shall the City enact a one-half cent sales tax for a period not to exceed four years, with annual reports on how the money is spent and all money staying local?
If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer,
then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)?
Definitely yes 39%
Probably yes 20%
Probably no 5%
Definitely no 33%
Not sure 3%
Refused 0%
Q5 Is there a particular reason why you do not support the ballot measure I just described?
Q6 The measure we’ve been discussing could fund a variety of projects and services in the City.
If the measure passes, would you favor or oppose using some of the money to: _____,
or do you not have an opinion? Get answer, if favor or oppose, then ask: Would that be
strongly (favor/oppose) or somewhat (favor/oppose)?
Strongly Favor Somewhat Favor Somewhat Oppose Strongly Oppose
No Opinion Refused
A Provide police services, including crime prevention, investigations, and quick emergency responses 48% 31% 6% 9% 5% 1%
B Target gang activity and drug-related crimes 48% 25% 10% 9% 8% 0%
C Provide fire services, including emergency response, fire prevention, and paramedic services 55% 22% 8% 9% 5% 0%
D Improve response times to medical emergencies, such as heart attacks and car accidents 47% 25% 7% 10% 9% 1%
E Improve the City’s ability to respond quickly to a major emergency or natural disaster 49% 29% 6% 9% 7% 0%
F Repair potholes and repave local streets and roads 47% 32% 8% 7% 5% 1%
G Maintain public facilities and infrastructure 40% 34% 11% 4% 9% 1%
H Keep Wright Library open 55% 22% 9% 7% 7% 0%
I Provide programs to support and improve the local economy
38% 27% 13% 11% 10% 1%
J Attract new businesses and jobs to the City 43% 26% 11% 12% 7% 1%
K Ensure that the City has adequate financial reserves
39% 29% 8% 12% 10% 2%
---
It was really straightforward.
If you want an explanation of True North's methodology of how they arrived at their sample, go to the city's website and watch the council meeting. The explanation was very lengthy. I don't have time to transcribe from the broadcast and type up the whole thing here.
Boo hoo, I'm a republican and we lost the presidential election, so anything that doesn't smell like Ronald Reagan and sound like Rush Limbaugh is just plain wrong. Waaaaaaaaaa
The problem with the poll is that it makes it sound as if the city was going to listen to the people and use the money where the people want to spend it.
As it is a GENERAL tax plan, there is NO rule/law that ties the money to a specific spending plan. The City council could take the new tax money and spend it where ever they so choose.
You will also notice that for each of the "projects and services" spelled out to poll respondents the majority answered that they "Strongly Favor" spending the money there.
My biggest complaint about this whole matter is that the city already had their 'blue ribbon' committee tell them what they want to hear. The city council did NOT need to spend another dime of OUR money on a worthless poll.
Put it on the ballot already and let us vote!
Time for CHANGE!
From the article today, it sounds like the entire city council will support the tax choice going on the ballot.
John Doe, I really think you should watch City Council meetings. They are strongly committed to the list of items identified by the committee and are drafting up a spending plan using those items and those items only. There will be full accountability.
I think the cost of the polling was well worth it. It gives the city a scientifically conducted method to determine whether there is enough interest to go forward in putting it on the ballot.
I'm not going to complain about 22 cents a day. We have urgent public safety issues which need to be addressed. Cutting police and fire services is not a good idea right now, but we've forced to do that to "live within our means" as you advocate for.
No new taxes period!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Live within your means as I do.
Stop wasting my money!!!
Stop taking MY MONEY and giving it to lazy, irresponsible people!!!
Stop punishing me for others stupidity!!!!
Yes, let's give it to General Motors, banks and corporations instead.
The heck with public services we all use. We should all suffer!
Further, Marie, perhaps you have bought into the chicken little, fraudulent, POV. Very sad, and possibly a contributing factor as to why we're in the mess we currently are.
I buy as many things on line as I possibly can, and pay NO sales tax.
I will avoid as much thieving by govt thugs as I am able.
I believe we're in the mess we're in because our economy is in the tank. No other reason.
Yes but you pay online shipping charges instead. Much more.
I was surveyed. I am a regular voter. I am over 50 years old, have steady employment, and do not own a business in Ventura. I was in favor of the tax increase. I think the City of Ventura is doing a good job.
High dollar items are much cheaper purchased on-line.
I compare all costs, most have FREEE shipping, and time after time, get things substantially LESS, due to NO sales tax.
I have purchased a sink, disposal, faucet and other high end plumbing fixtures.
I priced them at Lowes, Home Depot before I buy.
Free shipping? Not anyplace I've seen except Amazon if you spend buckets of money with them.
this is a recent order, notice 0.00 shipping and NO tax
shop these items locally and you will find higher prices and TAX.
I saved over $80.00 in sales tax alone....
ItemQuantityDescriptionPrice Per UnitOptionsExtended Price
ELK ELG250R-WH 1 Elkay ELG250R Gourmet e-Granite Drop In Double Bowl Kitchen Sink 285.00 ELK Finish: WH White - Usually ships same business day. 285.00
ELK LK99 1 Elkay LK99 Basket Strainer Stainless Steel 65.00 65.00
INS EVCC 1 InSinkErator Evolution Cover Control 3/4HP Garbage Disposer w/ Magnetic CoverStart Activation 239.99 239.99
GRO 28857 : GRO 28857 : GRO 28857 : GRO 28857-SD0 1 Grohe 28 857 Soap/Lotion Dispenser 105.00 GRO Finish: SD0 Grohe RealSteel - Usually ships the same business day. 105.00
GRO 33758-DC0 1 Grohe 33 758 Ladylux Cafe Pull-Out Spray Kitchen Faucet 473.40 GRO Finish: DC0 SuperSteel - Usually ships the same business day. 473.40
Stimulus Coupon STIMULUS -5.00% -58.42
FedEx Home Delivery® Saver 1 FedEx Home Delivery® Saver 0.00 0.00
Total$1,109.97
• Thank you for your order! Your card will be charged immediately for your order
Per the 40 page report presented by True North Inc:
"Although the City Council would have the discretion to decide how to spend the general sales tax revenues, the survey results indicate that voters are generally supportive of the Citizen’s Blue Ribbon Budget Committee’s recommendation to focus on public safety services including police, fire protection, and emergency response, library services including keeping Wright Library open, and maintaining city infrastructure including repairing potholes and repaving local streets and roads. It is worth noting, however, that voters were somewhat less supportive of funding economic development programs or using the money to bolster the City’s financial reserves."
There's the rub. The City Council will have control over this money and will be able to do WHATEVER they choose to do with it. There is NO way to have the council NOT have full control.
"Question 4: Later this year, voters in the City may be asked to vote on a local ballot measure. Let me read you a summary of the measure. In order to prevent further cuts and preserve funding for essential City services, including providing police, crime protection and gang prevention services; providing fire protection, paramedic and emergency response services; maintaining and repairing local streets, public facilities and infrastructure; providing library services; providing programs to support and improve the local economy; and ensuring adequate financial reserves shall the City enact a one-half cent sales tax for a period not to exceed four years, with annual reports on how the money is spent and all money staying local? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure?"
Here's the trouble with the way this question was asked: There is no GUARANTEE that the city council will do ANY of the above mentioned items. They can pontificate all they want on Monday nights, but when all is said and done they can spend this money ANY way they want.
The responses were actually split evenly if you ask me.
Definitely Yes: 39.4%
Definitely No: 33.1%
Margin of Error: +/- 4.86%
Definitely Yes: 39.4% - (4.86%/2) = 36.97%
Definitely No: 33.1% + (4.86%/2) = 35.53%
Seems to me that the same number of people are definitely for and definitely against this issue. A simple free marketing plan (letters to the editor, blog posts, email to friends) could be all that the NO folks need to have this thing fail miserably.
"REASONS FOR OPPOSING MEASURE: Respondents who initially opposed the general sales tax measure were subsequently asked if there was a particular reason for their position. Question 6 was asked in an open-ended manner, thereby allowing respondents to mention any reason that came to mind without being prompted by or restricted to a particular list of options."
Leading the way in the results are:
"Already paying too much in taxes:" 30.7% and
"Poor budgeting / Overspending:" 30.6%
OVer half of the respondents have said that the government is broken and needs to be fixed.
I can't wait to be able to vote on this. The city council is in for a rude awakening when it gets voted DOWN!!!!
Live within your means.
Time for CHANGE!!!
John Doe lies with statistics, leaving out the little matter of
Probably yes 20%
Probably no 5%
which sorta puts it over the top shall we say.
It's calling twisting facts folks which the wingnuts do so well.
They are drawing up a spending contract for the money John Doe. I posted that earlier. Did you not see it?
Caroline says:
"They are drawing up a spending contract for the money John Doe. I posted that earlier. Did you not see it?"
Really? Is this contract going to be voted on by the people? If not, it won't be worth the paper it is printed on.
The city council has the authority to spend general fund money ANYWHERE THEY WANT on ANYTHING THEY WANT!
Lazy irresponsible people says:
"John Doe lies with statistics, leaving out the little matter of
Probably yes 20%
Probably no 5%"
I left them out on purpose since those responses are not firm. They were given by people who haven't made up their mind, and god knows how much money the city will spend (again, OUR TAX DOLLARS) 'promoting' this issue trying to sway these voters. Money will be spent on the other side as well I imagine.
I can't wait to vote NO.
I can't wait to vote for NO incumbents.
Time for CHANGE!
The only poll that counts is the one done in the voting booth. What this poll does not do is track the change in voter perception between now and November, and I've seen lots of early polls that turn out dead wrong on election day. Before all the local liberals get giddy counting all the new tax money that will be rolling in, pay attention to some of the other details in the True North document. Their own poll results show that 38% of likely voters were opposed to the new tax, with 31% expressing the view that the city is spending too much and that they are already over-taxed.
Also note that in the initial ballot test 36% of voters indicated that they would vote no, with 33% definitely voting no and 3% probably voting no. What is important to note here is that almost 92% of the no votes were a strong no, which indicates that their opinion is unlikely to change. By contrast, of the 59% yes votes 20% indicated that they were probably yes versus 39% definitely yes. That means that only 2/3 of the yes votes were a strong yes, indicating that the yes column is, overall, not as certain. That means that there is a far greater opportunity for a loss of yes votes as opposed to a loss of no votes.
If you separate out the definitely yes votes against the definitely no votes the margin is just 39% versus 33%. I also believe that voter turnout will have an impact on this election. If the turnout is relatively low (as I predict it will be), then conservative voters will be more heavily represented. Keep in mind that republican voters are opposed to this tax measure 58%/42%, which means that voter turnout is key. This report does not address the issue voter mix based on turnout, which I believe is a fundamental flaw in this analysis.
But I guess we'll just wait and see what happens in November. Keep in mind however that the fiscal situation of Ventura will continue to deteriorate, even if the tax is passed. The local sales tax initiative is like trying to bail out the Titanic with water buckets. The city needs to start making tough decisions to address the fundamental problems with their budget. I'm afraid that this tax initiative will give them false hope and only cause them to delay making the structural reforms that are necessary.
The poll sampled likely voters, which accounted for more Republican turnout.
It does not account for likely turnout. It was a random sample that simply asked if a voter was likely to vote. To properly adjust for a low turnout election you have to make adjustments for the likely mix based on political affiliation. Depending on the estimated turnout the ratio of democratic, republican, and independent voters are adjusted. A good statistical analysis will also incorporate variances based on turnout, which is something I have seen in many of the better political polls. This poll neglected to do this, which brings into question the accuracy of the conclusions.
Nope. They explained it really well at the Council meeting. They picked only those who consistently voted and assembled a perfect representational universe of them.
JD, You left them out on purpose to twist your facts. Living in your own private reality must be very lonely. Pity.
Lazy irresponsible people says:
"JD, You left them out on purpose to twist your facts."
I am definitely going to buy a car.
I may buy a car.
If you are an auto dealer, which person do you want walking into your dealership? The first person who will make your job easier as all they have to do is sign a check? Or the second person who you will have to persuade into not walking off the lot?
The reason I only quoted the "definitely"'s is because the city and/or opposition doesn't have to spend a dime helping them make up their mind. And, like I pointed out, it's pretty evenly split.
You may think that I live in my private reality, but at least my logic is sound....
Leaving out the people who first responded yes or no and then were asked if that answer was firm is disingenuous. It was 20% yes to 5% no there. Any tally needs to account for this. I agree with the other blogger.
Marie, you are, once again, being blinded by your determination to search for evidence to support a pre-defined conclusion. Your City Council continues to make poor fiscal decisions, and is using the tired old tactic of hiding behind a "blue-ribbon" committee as cover to justify yet another shameless attempt at increasing taxes on an already over-taxed public. In the middle of a severe economic downturn no less! Voters had just overwhelmingly rejected a tax initiative at the ballot box, yet your elected leaders commission a polls that concludes (surprise, surprise!) that people really do want to increase taxes after all.
OK then, you go ahead with your little tax hike initiative. But win or lose it still won't solve the fiscal problems faced by your city because they are structural in nature. Worse, it gives your city leaders another excuse to delay making tough decisions, which will only compound the problem. Even if the local tax increases passes, the exploding cost of public employee pay and benefits will swallow up all that additional tax money and more.
It seems to me she's just reporting on the results of a poll and you are drawing your own conclusion based on your own prejudices.
Believe what you want to believe, but time will prove who is right and who is wrong. Your local tax initiative will not solve the structural problems with your city budget. Things are about to get much, much worse, even if the economy recovers. You can't fix the problem until you acknowledge the real issue. This isn't a revenue problem, it's a spending problem.
What poor fiscal decision can you name? Employee unions and management are taking pay cuts and pension deferrals, the budget is balanced and surrounding cities are just now wrestling with these issues. Santa Barbara to the north has the same size deficit. Oxnard and Port Hueneme passed tax measures last fall. This is a revenue issue caused by a poor economy.