What's Plan B for Public Safety?
I told the Ventura County Star that there was no simple answer, but offered several alternatives:
- Add additional police officers and firefighters over several years as our revenue grows from economic development or increases in property values
- Impose deep cuts on other services (since we already allocate more than half the budget to police and fire, a 10% increase in those departments requires more than a 10% cut in the others.)
- Spend the City's reserves, which are set aside for emergencies and capital investment
In the end, 62% of voters voted for the quarter cent sales tax, short of the two-thirds needed for passage. The problem hasn't gone away and last night we heard from "an impassioned group of parents, school administrators and district officials" (as they were described in this morning's edition of the Star) urging the City Council to find a way to restore the School Resource Officer program and other vital public safety initiatives.
Last year, Police Chief Pat Miller and Fire Chief Mike Lavery warned that with 911 calls on the rise, emergency response times slipping and priorities having to be shifted from prevention efforts, Ventura faced losing its margin of safety. They urged adding additional police officers and firefighters before the problem gets worse. Unfortunately, their concerns have been borne out. Last year, for the second straight year, violent crime in the City of Ventura has increased, mirroring a similar trend in the rest of the County. Violent crimes reported to the FBI were up 12.7% last year and nearly 27% over the past two years. Gang crime has skyrocketed, up 177% over the year before.
As a result, in planning the budget I will submit to Council on May 1st, I'm planning to allocate all available new funding to public safety. Unfortunately, without deep cuts in other city services, that will fall far short of the resources that P6 would have provided. But in our annual resident survey, only 41% supported cutting other services to augment public safety funding, while 54% opposed.
Surprisingly in that same survey, 68% of residents favored trying again to pass a tax measure to fund public safety needs. Several speakers last night offered to actively work to pass such a measure. But if the Council were to heed their call, there is certainly a strong minority of voters who either philosophically oppose any tax increase or who resent having to pay more for what they consider the first priority of local government, public safety.
There are no easy answers. Nearly everyone agrees we need to devote additional resources to keeping our community safe. The debate is over how and when.
What do you think? Would you take a moment to answer a short survey at:
posted by Rick Cole at
8:12 AM
1 Comments:
Rick,
In your post you refer to "a strong minority of voters who either philosophically oppose any tax increase or who resent having to pay more for what they consider the first priority of local government, public safety."
I think you are right, but I would also add that within that strong minority there is also a prevailing sentiment that limits on commercial development in the City are preventing sufficient tax revenue from being generated to pay for public safety. I would even go so far as to say that the philisophical statements about what government ought to do and ought not do are largely about the belief that government ought to be much less active in land use planning and regulation. And this premise seems too often to be based upon the economic interests of those who would prefer to be allowed to build to highest margin pro-forma, without having to include externalities of development in their models.
So, it seems that this fundamental divergence of core believes, from the laissez-faire pioneer I will run my cattle as I like mentality, to the community and environment as a whole mentality, divides us, and that division seems to be right at the numeric balance of 2/3 vs 1/3, if the P6 vote is indicative. But that was representative of those voting on that public safety framed measure. What if the issue was re-framed?
I pin my hope for the next round on broader mobilzation of the community, voter registration, and broadening the message and discussion. If the message can be carried to younger and less involved voters and unregistered potential voters that this issue is very much about the future pattern of physical development, with all the implications for traffic, water quality, and quality of life entailed, then perhaps greater numbers will make the effort to participate and express their desire to see what we enjoy enhanced with quality and well considered growth.
I don't think that the public safety argument is sufficient to mobilize the necessary numbers. The argument in favor of increasing the sales tax could be re-framed and expanded to include the values that have led us to preseve our hillsides and ag-lands. That re-framing could get the extra thousand voters to the polls to make the difference.
If we are not going to allow unbridled commercial development, our sales tax base will be constrained. Perhaps the truth in this community is that over two thirds of us are ok with that, and are willing to pay a bit more when we buy our produce in exchange for living in a healthier place. This is, along with the whole big picture, about trade-offs. What do we value? What are we willing to do, how are willing to change, what will we pay, for cleaner water, cleaner air, less crowded roads, and, oh by the way, for a safer community, better protected and served?
Next time, when the show goes on the road, dog pony and salmon, not just dog and pony.
Who is salmon?
Josh Addison
Post a Comment
<< Home