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.

I RECEIVED AN EMAIL from Councilmember Neal Andrews, who
cast the lone dissenting vote on the proposed 911 fee. I asked him if
I could post it here and he agreed.

It's long, but very well thought out. Neal has real integrity and although he often finds himself the odd man out on council votes, he always sticks to his principles. Neal is also a supporter of many good causes around town and I bump into him at nearly every function I attend. He's a good man. From Neal:

Dear Friends,

A number of people have asked me for an explanation of my vote against the recently adopted 911 "fee."

Here it is.

1. This proposed "fee" is simply a device to raise funds for the City. It has nothing whatever to do with 911 except that 911 provides a convenient peg to hang a new tax on, one that is generally so highly regarded and considered so essential that I believe the Council and city staff presumed it would be relatively immune from criticism and controversy.

2. The charging of a fee to pay the operating costs of a core public safety service like 911 is inappropriate in my opinion.

3. The specific provisions and mechanisms of this proposal, particularly as related to the "opt-out" provision, are antithetical to an efficient emergency response system. Even though the staff in response to public criticism has now (as predicted) reduced the "opt-out" fee and provided for the first call to be exempt from the charge in any case, the "opt-out" provision still creates a perverse incentive to work around the 911 system that compromises its design and intent.

4. The "fee" as designed will generate far less revenue than projected, if many people choose to "opt-out," as I believe they will. It will have huge administrative implications and probably huge administrative expense. Complications and expense usually go together. Moreover, until amended at my request, the proposal directed the staff to spend the money immediately that is presumably going to be collected. That is, the staff was recommending that the Council not only proceed with the tax, but to actually spend the money before they knew for sure that sufficient funds were going to be collected.

5. If litigated, the fee is almost certainly going to ultimately, I believe, be ruled a tax, requiring a vote of the electorate. The risk of litigation is high. The cost of defending this ordinance will be huge. Moreover, the reduced "opt-out" fee now may create an additional vulnerability as it is arbitrary and severs the required link between the fee and actual 911 costs. Instead it substitutes a standard of one year's fees as the benchmark. There is no relationship whatever between one year's fees and an equitable share of cost. There may also be litigation risk and liability attendant to the "opt-out" provision, should it be argued that an avoidable harm was done to some party as a result of delays or errors in summoning emergency assistance because of it.

Those are the essential reasons for my vote.

A LATE NIGHT UPDATE: The council tonight made only one change to the staff recommendation for the 911 fee structure, adding a provision that hiring decisions will not be made until there is evidence the revenue generated will be enough to cover the costs of the six new officers and three firefighters proposed.

Several council members, along with the city manager, expressed concerns that the lowered opt-out fee of $17.88 per call, along with the ability to waive it on a first-time use, would not provide enough capital to allow the hiring to continue as planned.

The opt-out period will end May 6 and hiring decisions will be made at that time. The plan is to split the cost of three School Resource Officers with the School District and hire three additional police officers for high-needs areas, such as Downtown. The three additional firefighters will also be assigned according to priority areas.

Because of the matching component from the School District, we will be able to get more officers out there. Formerly a state grant helped pay for this program, which was lost in 2004. The schools are strapped right now and this means a significant commitment from them in trying budget times.

I commend everyone from both agencies for working together to restore this program, even though the source of funding from the city's side has been so controversial. My reservation with it has always been the high cost of the opt out. They've made that more palatable, even offering to waive it the first time. Good Samaritan callers will not be charged at all.

It remains to be seen now whether or not the fee will actually raise the required money. For those who don't opt out, the fee was set at a monthly $1.49 per-line, with $4.47 per month assigned to businesses and agencies with multiple or "trunk lines."

THE EVENING WAS FAIRLY TAME tonight compared to past sessions on this issue. Council member Neal Andrews once again voiced his opposition, with comments that obviously ruffled a few feathers among the public safety chiefs.

City Manager Rick Cole apparently hasn't learned his lesson from the last time he took a swipe at my favorite newspaper, this time pointing to "snarky" posts from the Star's venerable columnist Pa Ventura. (Take it easy on him, Pa.)

There were no public speakers at the meeting in opposition to the 911 fee; one asked for clarification on a few points, another was in support.

The council also approved just over $1 million in budget cuts for this fiscal year which include shelving the library plan and axing the Sister Cities program, relatively painless this time around. However, another $4 million in cuts are on the horizon for the next budget cycle which will likely be difficult.

Please post a comment below

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.

MY NEW FRIEND Murray Robertson out in Pierpont Beach is a persistent guy. I like his style. In order to get the city to come out and clean up what he and residents believe are dangerous conditions at the end of the beach lanes in Pierpont he has been sending photos to city staff and council members. I have posted some of his before and after photos above.

Murray emailed me on Wednesday to tell me that at long last city workers had come to clear the clogged drains and remove sand from the stairs before an upcoming storm.

But, alas, his elation only lasted 24 hours. "I am sure that it took the dune less than a day to collapse back onto the stairs," he told me.

The giant dunes which are plaguing residents are the subject of a battle between residents and three bureaucracies: the city, the state and the Coastal Commission. (see "Sand plan" entry below) Residents will get a chance to air their grievances at a March 4 meeting to go over a new Sand Management Plan. The City Council will study the issue on March 10.

You wouldn't think moving a few sand dunes would have turned into such a terrific battle, but that's exactly what it has become with fingers pointing in all directions and lawyers filing briefs.

But my money's on Murray to get this mess straightened out. Next time I fight City Hall, I hope he's on my side.

Please post a comment below.

IT'S TIME FOR A SHAMELESS PLUG for an organization near and dear to my heart: The Ventura Education Partnership. Our biggest fundraiser of the year is coming up on Saturday night: the Festival of Talent, which showcases our most talented youth.

In the past year, VEP has given more than $100,000 to Ventura Unified School District classrooms through a teacher granting program. Our Healthy Schools Collaborative has distributed nearly $30,000 to health and wellness programs and our Arts Collaborative is working with the City of Ventura on an Arts Master Plan for the district.

We've done great work and have forged wonderful partnerships within the business community and the city. Our volunteers and donors are among the brightest, most motivated people I have ever known. We are united by a common bond: to do what is best for our community's children. It is an honor to be among this group of citizens.

AND YET, IN OUR HEARTS, we realize that despite our valiant efforts, we will never be able to do by ourselves what we really want: raise California's per-pupil spending out of the dark basement in which it has dwelled for many years. We're 46th in the nation right now and trailing the national average by nearly $2,000 per student. This is all despite the fact that California has a relatively high capacity to fund its schools, as measured by per capita personal income.

Just imagine, in 1969-70 we were actually $400 above the national average in per-pupil spending. How very far we have fallen.

Our governor will be asking us to make even more cuts in the coming months. Could we fall even lower than 46th? At a recent VEP meeting, VUSD Superintendent Trudy Arriaga detailed what those cuts would mean for Ventura's kids: just under $1 million this year and likely $4 million the next.

"It will be devastating to our classrooms yet again," she said. "Do the children of California deserve to be 46th in the nation?"

And so we in the Ventura Education Partnership and in school foundations and PTAs across the state plug away at fundraisers to help fill in a few gaps. We sell cookie dough and wrapping paper. We stage talent shows and jog-a-thons and car washes. We work hard and are rewarded for our efforts by bright, smiling little faces. It's worth every bit of our time.

Yet we know it is just a band-aid...

Come watch a great show Saturday. The Festival of Talent starts at 7 p.m. in the Ventura High School Auditorium. Tickets are $10 and available for pre-sale at all Ventura school sites. They will be $15 at the door. Come early and sample hors d'oeuvres and bid on silent auction prizes. Click here for more information about the Ventura Education Partnership.

Please leave a comment below

ROSEMARY ICARDO PAID A PREMIUM PRICE in 1992 for her Pierpont beach house with sweeping views. These days, because of a 32-foot, 1,000-ton wall of sand in front of the house, she said, "I have to stand on a chair on the second floor of my house to see the ocean."

Normally you wouldn't find too many people unwilling to claim beachfront property, but Pierpont homeowners and the City of Ventura are busy playing hot potato with a 40-foot wide strip of sand that runs about a mile all the way down the beach in front of homes. The problem with this strip of beach is the buildup of sand dunes -- big ones -- that block views, cover access stairwells and break sand walls. Residents claim it is a hazard and the city owns it and should pay to clear it.

Children, said Icardo, slide down her sand dune and could hurt themselves if they hit adjacent concrete. "The encroachment of sand causing hazardous conditions imposed on public access and private property is the issue, not the view," she said.

City engineer Rick Raives concedes that the city maintained the strip at one time as a street easement between the beach -- which the state owns -- and the houses. Sand was cleared along this path until the Coastal Commission put an end to it in 1999. But the path has been covered over and it has been allowed to return to its natural state. The city, which no longer can maintain the area, argues that the responsibility now falls on the homeowners.

The city does, however, maintain the lanes and the stairwells leading to the beach and clears sand from drains, Raives said.

Enter the Coastal Commission and the state, which crafted a Sand Management Plan to allow residents to move the sand and at the same time restore the beach to a natural environment with plantings and dunes which will abate the buildup.

BUT THAT DOESN'T SIT TOO WELL with homeowners, either. "They have stated that if any sand is moved, it must be moved at the full expense of the homeowners AND we have to pay for future plants to be grown and nurtured. Do you know of anywhere else where the city bills the residents next to a park for maintenance?" Icardo asked. She also worries the plan will create too many areas off limits to beachgoers.

It would also not restore views. Raives explained that the new Coastal Commission plan is a "proven technology" designed to stop sand buildup on houses, lanes and stairwells and restore an environmentally sensitive area. "We are never going to be able to flatten that 40-foot area again." And even if they did, Raives said, the sand would just come back.

Moreover, he said, the new Sand Management Plan would in no way cut off public access to the beach, only discourage folks from trampling through the areas where new plantings would be established.

Icardo calls the Sand Management Plan "enormously flawed" and noted the area was not previously designated an environmentally sensitive zone when the houses were first built.

The city, state and Coastal Commission will conduct a workshop for Pierpont residents on March 4 to hear their concerns. If the biologists involved with the plan feel changes should be made, Raives said, they could be. But everyone involved thinks the plan will be approved as is sometime in April. If that happens, Pierpont residents will likely file an injunction to stop it, Icardo said.

But the question remains -- who pays to stabilize the beach? Faced with more than $1 million in budget cuts this fiscal year and $4 million the next, it's a safe bet the city doesn't want to foot the bill. Neither does the state. The courts will likely be the ultimate arbiters. "Somebody has to compromise here," Icardo said.

And there you have it, the only stretch of beach in Southern California that nobody wants.

What do you think? Post a comment below.

WHAT A DIFFERENCE seven days makes.

Tonight's State of the City address by Mayor Christy Weir was a breath of fresh air after a trying week of public debate over the 911 fee. It was a reminder of why we all love Ventura and are so very passionate about our town.

Weir, our second female mayor in 141 years, led the evening off with charming suggestions on how to improve the city sent in by 5th graders at Mound Elementary. I can't resist listing a few:

"We don't need a Wal-Mart," "We need a Wal-Mart," "All city cars should be hybrids," and my favorite, "Stop shopping in Oxnard, P.S. I'm happy that you're a girl mayor."

Our new mayor even had her own "Hillary" moment, choking up a bit at the beginning as she gazed at a photo, projected on a nearby screen, of her 93-year-old father and her two young granddaughters. "Bad start," she apologized. "No, good start," a nearby colleague said.

But the balance of the evening was reserved for an overview of the city's goals and progress made over the last year. I was particularly interested in the new projects being built in the city and coming soon. Among them: a beautiful new Embassy Suites near the beach, a four-story office building Downtown, and three large retailers for the long-vacant north end of the mall.

While Weir didn't gloss over the stark realities of budget cuts and a looming recession, she didn't go into a lot of detail, either. She was at her strongest when conveying the sense of hope we all feel for our city and it was heartening to hear it.

Back to the 5th grade wisdom: "There's a lot to be done in Ventura, but it's still a nice city," one child wrote.

My sentiments exactly.

I could've predicted it. Last Monday night when I heard Ventura City Manager Rick Cole in essence blame the messenger for the message (and thus some of the confusion) regarding the 911 fee, I knew the Star was not going to take it lying down. This morning, Editor Joe Howry launched a blistering volley at both Cole and the City Council.

Cole, who obviously knew it was coming, posted an apologetic "mea culpa" response on his own blog on Thursday. He blamed himself for an inability to anticipate how the fee and its controversial waiver option would be perceived by our citizens.

Are other cities like this? Well, yes. We in Ventura are hardly alone in this raging 911 fee debate. It's going on throughout the state. To add a little perspective, I'm linking to an article published Feb. 9 in the San Jose Mercury News. San Jose is also struggling with the idea of extending its existing $1.75-per-line 911 fee. Without it, that city is looking at a significant shortfall. The County of Santa Cruz's 911 fee was challenged in court but upheld by the 6th District Court of Appeal. Union City's fee was challenged and is now on appeal. And there is another pending challenge in Stockton.

If the economy worsens and sales and property taxes dry up, we will likely see even more of this sort of debate around the state. However, I think most everyone in Ventura can agree that we need to add more police and fire staff, in addition to a new fire station. But how to pay for them has been the sticking point. It is my hope that we can ALL get past the "fightin' words," work together to find a way to adequately fund public safety, roll up our sleeves and get it done!

DEMOCRACY IS ALWAYS a good thing in my book and I'm a firm believer in grassroots activism. But I must admit I've been casting a wary eye on the efforts of Ventura Citizens Organization for Responsible Development (VCORD).

This group recently presented the city with a stack of petitions for a ballot measure aimed at keeping building heights in approximately 93 percent of the city at 26 feet or under. The exempt 7 percent is comprised of identified business areas and properties owned by the school district and county. VCORD claims their petitions, which the County Elections Division still needs to count, represent the will of the folks who signed them.

The measure would put a two-year moratorium on building anything over 26 feet until a view resources board, appointed by VCORD, could write a view protection ordinance. Where building heights would eventually end up is still unknown, but 26 feet appears to be the standard.

Launching a petition drive is an incredible amount of work and I salute VCORD for their tireless efforts to be a voice for the quality of their Midtown neighborhood of quaint one-story bungalows. They don't want to live next door to any large buildings which they believe will block their views of the hills.

BUT WHEN YOU CIRCUMVENT through the initiative process the studied work of the paid professionals and elected representatives of our city who have chosen a less stringent course to follow, there is always the possibility of unintended consequences.

Even initiatives which most agree were wise can have unintended costs. Let me cite an example: When SOAR was passed in 1998, preventing growth in our agricultural areas without a vote of the people, St. Joseph's, a small Catholic nursing home in Ojai, was forced to spend nearly $100,000 for an election just to cut down six acres of their own orange trees to add more beds to their facility.

What are the unintended consequences of VCORD's proposed initiative? Already it has been determined to violate portions of both the city's charter and general plan. But this could be remedied later by council action if it passes.

THE LONG-TERM PICTURE is murkier. Could it affect property values? Fewer options available to a property make it less attractive to buyers. Will the city be able to able to meet its mandated quotas for affordable housing? If they can't add additional stories to a project, construction costs may not pencil out for developers and they could walk away. What about the rights of property owners to add reasonable height to existing structures or design elements such as peaked roofs which could go higher than 26 feet? Will any developer find it economically feasible to revitalize a blighted area? Is a vacant used car lot or deserted gas station better for our city than a 28-foot mixed-use building?

These are questions to ponder.

You can view the full text of the initiative here.

My noble experiment to provide a forum for healthy discussion for my fellow Venturans has hit a bit of a snag, it seems. A couple of bloggers seem to enjoy taking overly nasty potshots at each other and at outsiders. That's a built-in problem with allowing anonymous comments.

So, I will make you a deal: Every month I will hold a contest. The most thoughtful, well-written post will be put in a spotlighted entry all by itself for all to see. Note: I don't have to agree with you for it to be picked. I'm looking for quality of writing and well-reasoned points.

Blog on.

WHO CARES IF the Hollywood writers don't come back from their strike? If you're looking for good television, look no further than Ventura City Council meetings. Better yet, come in person and sit in front.

In the one the oddest and most emotional meetings I have ever attended, the council reaffirmed its decision to enact the Emergency Communication System Response Service Fee ordinance. However, the details will not be finalized until a public hearing on Feb. 25. At that time, the fee structure will be analyzed and could possibly come back in a new form, particularly the controversial waiver option. (See entries below for more details.)

The council listened to six impassioned speakers in favor of the 911 measure and four against. Council members have also fielded emails, phone calls and a stinging rebuke of the idea from the Star's editorial writers, all in the past week.

However, in the end, the council voted again 6-1 for the measure, with only Neal Andrews casting a dissenting vote. A remark from police officer Jerry Foreman summed up the evening best: "Sometimes doing the right thing is not always the most popular thing."

Carl Morehouse, who has been on a slow boil for some time over the often rancorous public comment at council meetings, finally found his voice tonight. "I'm about to cast the strangest vote I've ever cast in this body," he said, telling the audience he was voting no, even though "it's the wrong thing to do."

ALTHOUGH HE STRONGLY favored the measure for its ability to ultimately add additional police and fire to a strapped public safety staff, he felt obligated to bow to negative public sentiment, even though he said much of it came from those who had not taken the time to thoroughly study the issue.

He later changed his mind after hearing fellow Councilmember Jim Monahan explain his own reasoning for voting yes. "The state has given the city an unfunded mandate with the 911 call center and we have to deal with it," Monahan said.

"It's one of the toughest votes I've had to make in 31 years," he added.

Mayor Christy Weir was also in favor of the ordinance, but conceded that the measure needs to be carefully explained to the public. "It is sort of hard to get your hands around," she said.

I agree with that sentiment. Although I am heartily in support of adding additional public safety staff, I urge City Hall to do a very thorough ongoing public information campaign on the measure so there is absolutely no confusion surrounding it. Our citizens need to understand that they will not be charged a $50 fee for calling 911 unless they go out of their way to sign up for the optional waiver. And even then it will not apply in many circumstances.

ADDING TO THE COLOR OF THE EVENING was a obscenity-laced rant from perpetual City Hall nuisance Carroll Dean Williams. He's made a career of being obnoxious, but he outdid himself with his R-rated diatribe tonight in front of a room of visiting children. I'd ignore this altogether if not for the actions of Glen Greco, who made a special trip down to City Hall tonight to protest after watching Williams on television at home. Good for you, Mr. Greco.

Also in on the action tonight were Camille Harris and Donna Carver of Ventura Citizens Organization for Responsible Development. They announced plans for a lawsuit against the city because of the county's delay in counting the group's view protection measure petitions. I'll be talking about VCORD in a future entry. Look for it soon.

The final reading of the Emergency Communication System Response Service Fee ordinance will come up tonight during the Ventura City Council consent agenda items. While the Council could vote on all consent agenda items without comment, it is my guess that this item will be pulled for further discussion.

If this ordinance is adopted tonight, the actual amount of the fee will not be set until a later meeting on Feb. 25.

I will report back tonight after the meeting with details. Stay tuned.

For more discussion, please see the entries below.

THE CITY COUNCIL will hear a report from staff Monday night on the second fiscal year 2007-2008 quarterly updates of the Citywide Performance Measures Program.

I don't think many citizens take the time to look at our city government's measurements on the progress it is making, so I've presented a few of the key findings here, in an abbreviated format. The city sets targets for itself and then conducts assessments to see if those goals are being met. Obviously there wasn't room to include all the categories and explanations here.

Of particular note is the fact that we are significantly off in our emergency response times, which reflects the fact that we are unable to afford hiring enough police and fire personnel or building another fire station at this time.

It's important to note that in our housing entitlement figures (building places for people to live), this is just a 6-month picture. Two big East End developments may come along at the end of the year. In the city's mandated 1 percent-a-year growth figure, approximately 400 housing units a year are allowed.

Our economic targets came very close to being met. We have 11 percent of the county's population and more than 19 percent of the county's retail sales. I was pleased to hear at a recent council meeting that the Southern California Association of Governments has recently projected very substantial job growth for the city going toward 2030.

For more detail, go here to look at the full report.

Here's a link to the city's 2006-07 report card.

How do you think your city measures up? Please comment below.