California taking on sprawl

Ventura County residents sometimes take for granted the unusual geography and regional policies that protect us from the worst excesses of suburban sprawl. In fact, you often hear gripes in our communities about why we can't live in nirvana where the cost of living and traffic aren't like they were ten, twenty or even fifty years ago.

But as a State, we have paid a huge price not so much for how much we've grown in recent decades as how we've grown. We've paved over farmland, sensitive habitat and valuable open space. We've created huge obligations to build and maintain infrastructure to serve a chaotic and auto-dependent landscape. We've watched the erosion of a sense of place and its replacement by a numbing sameness. And the traffic, pollution and economic cost of this kind of development has far outpaced the actual rise in population.

Amazingly, it has taken a global, not a local, threat, to spark action in Sacramento. Recognizing that we cannot meet the aggressive goals for reducing greenhouse gases required by the State's landmark "Climate Solutions Act," legislation is headed for the Governor's desk to finally address the State's abysmal record on controlling sprawl.

Called AB 375, it has generated national attention, including this story in today's New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/us/29sprawl.html?ei=5070&emc=eta1

The bill itself is the product of major reworking to gain acceptance by a wide and diverse coalition of environmentalists, builders and local government. The heart of it directs long overdue coordination between the State's existing transportation and housing planning requirements and the new mandates being developed to fight global warming. This will happen, not at the State level, but at the regional level. That's where it belongs, but most regions in California are ill-prepared to take on this new responsibility.

How effective the new legislation will be really depends on local communities beginning to think (and act) regionally. Will the new legislation foster that goal?

Ventura County has the opportunity to be an important test case. In the months ahead, we'll see how much attention (and traction) this opportunity receives.

A positive indication, however, was last year's unanimous resolution of the "Regional Housing Needs Allocation" process in our County. Faced with a non-negotiable share of the total regional need to make room for more housing for low and moderate income families, the ten cities and the county could have battled each other over what share each community would shoulder. That's what happened in the other five counties of our region. But Ventura County unanimously agreed on a formula that no one liked, but everyone could live with.

Building on that success, we can now aim higher. We can rethink our parochial approaches to regional transportation and the damaging competition over sales tax dollars. We can work together to protect the environment, while bringing new investment back to older communities with a "one for all, all for one" approach. While that may seem idealistic, it's our best chance to safeguard the quality of life and prosperity that we too often take for granted.

Public pensions

. . . are much in the news.

Former Kinko's CEO Dan Frederickson (whose new office building is moving forward on California Street) recently circulated a story from the conservative magazine Newsmax headlined: "Three Trillion Dollar Pension Crisis Threatens Cities, States." Meanwhile, the City Council narrowly approved a new contract for Ventura's firefighters that included a controversial provision to upgrade their pension plan a year from now. And a union representing rank-and-file city workers is also pushing for enhanced pension benefits.

Is there a public pension crisis? Is Ventura crazy to even consider increased pension obligations?

Yes and no.

Yes, there is a public pension crisis. Just like there is a Medicare and Social Security crisis. Just like there is a national debt and infrastructure crisis.

Oh, yeah. Yawn.

As a nation, we've committed ourselves to long-term debts that are not sustainable. We can't afford the cost of entitlements over the lifetime of retiring baby boomers. Any serious observer would acknowledge this. But are either of the candidates for president? No. Why? Because it is a huge and insoluble challenge that can be safely put off until someone else's term in office.

So, is Ventura crazy for even considering enhanced retirement benefits for firefighters? Will we soon be following Vallejo to bankruptcy court?

Well, no. Certainly the critics are right that we have a big problem as a nation. And certainly we here in Ventura need to be cautious about the long-term implications of what we do today. But in fact, Ventura has been very cautious and is only belatedly surrendering to the realities of the marketplace.

Two points. First, Ventura does not have any lifetime medical benefits for retirees. Both Oxnard and Thousand Oaks do. That problem is a much more pressing one. Ventura has always held the line.

Second, when Ventura upgrades its pension plan for firefighters next year, we will be the last one of our size (or larger) in the entire state to abandon the old 2% at 50 formula. Nor are we going to the most common standard -- the one offered by all our surrounding, competing agencies. Our firefighters settled for a middle ground plan -- and no general salary increase, despite being 10% below the average pay in comparable agencies.

Of course, much of the online reaction to this news in the Ventura County Star focused on whether firefighters deserve enhanced compensation. One camp took the "they put their life on the line" stance. The other took the "they have a cushy job that mostly involves sitting around the firestation when they are not jogging at the beach" tack.

Both are pretty shallow and beside the point.

The reality is that Ventura residents expect first-class emergency response to medical emergencies, industrial accidents, toxic spills, natural disasters, and, yes, fires. Yet compared to the County (which serves Camarillo, Thousand Oaks and Simi Valley) we have long eaked out delivering that service with lower staffing levels; lesser equipment, stations and training facilities; and much lower pay and benefits (at one point, County fire captains were making $1000 a month more than our people, plus a significantly better pension.) Of course, as a result, our emergency protection costs less than it would cost for the County to provide it -- between $4-5 million according to a study done to look for cost savings. Instead, of course, it turned out that it would cost more.

So it is really a business decision. Today, we struggle to find and keep the top-flight talent that we can trust to open a breathing passage in your child's throat or handle an accidental release of an odorless poison or travel 400 miles to spend three weeks fighting wildfires under our mutual aid obligations. Contrary to outdated stereotypes, these college-educated, experienced professionals are not sleeping overnight to line up to qualify for these jobs. In fact, last year we went several months before we could find six recruits to put through the intense fire academy. Only five graduated, only four remain with us. Our standards are tough.

Reasonable people can second-guess labor contracts -- the split vote on the Council is an indication that balancing budgets and keeping the right talent are tough challenges. But no, we are not going bankrupt, nor has the City lost its mind. We have huge pension challenges as a nation -- but here in Ventura, we are working hard to keep the community safe. That comes at a cost -- both financial and in political terms. But safety is not something that any community can sell short.

What’s America’s Favorite Radio Station?

No, it’s not KHAY or the Boomer. It’s WII-FM. Never heard of it? It stands for “What’s in it for me?”

That’s not to say that Americans in general – and you and I in particular – are motivated solely by self-interest. But our hyper-competitive and individualistic society naturally reinforces our human tendencies toward envy and resentment. It’s hard to escape the temptation to compare ourselves with others and wonder why we work so hard and others get so much.

That thought crossed my mind when I read about the new City Manager in Salinas, a friend who I’ve known since he was an intern in Pasadena. Most recently, he was an Assistant City Manager in West Covina. Salinas is a struggling town that three years ago narrowly averted closing its libraries for lack of funding. His starting salary? It’s $205,000 or 18% higher than what I’m paid after more than four years leading a similar sized-city. In Palo Alto, the new manager will be getting $240,000 starting salary, a transportation allowance of $600 per month and the city will contribute another $23,000 a year toward a supplemental retirement plan. There is also a generous housing assistance plan of up to $2 million dollars.

It may be tough for City Councils to recruit top managers in this tough political climate, but these kinds of compensation packages not only evoke jealousy from other city managers, they understandably stoke hostility from citizens. And that generalized anger extends to virtually anyone in public employment, as reflected in the comments on the Ventura Star’s website regarding the Firefighter contract approved last week by the Council on a 4-3 vote. “They already have fat pensions,” insists a reader who calls himself ‘Growlerboy.’ “How much is enough? When does it end? The only way to get the city's attention is to vote down all future taxes. No more money until they can prove it will be spent wisely!” ‘Sassygal’ weighs in with her opinion that Ventura firefighters have it “made in the shade” and growls: “We should pay them more for their services? HARDLY!!!”

In this polarized environment, our City Council must weigh and balance the conflicting demands of a public clamoring for high quality services and a workforce expecting competitive compensation to provide those services. Each side is focused on the obvious question: “what’s in it for me?”

That's hardly surprising. Citizens pay Federal, State and various local taxes seemingly at every turn at a time when families and businesses are struggling to make ends meet. If you work for a bank, a car dealer, an airline, a real estate firm or a builder, losing your job is probably more likely than getting a raise. Not much sympathy for public servants, especially if higher taxes or fees are involved!

Ironically, those same public servants mirror that frustration. They pay those same taxes and face the same higher gas, food and medical costs. They recall tough times where they skipped cost of living adjustments for years at a time with the hope that they would catch up later. They wonder why their families should remain loyal to Ventura if Ventura won't pay them benefits comparable to at least the average of other communities.

I don’t have a pat answer to those who ask the question: “What’s in it for me?” To the citizens, I’ve tried to make the case that you can’t run a first-class city with second-class compensation. To city staff, I’ve tried to make the case that pride, respect, excellence, public service, innovation, sustainable finances and a positive work environment are just as important factors as pay and benefits. I’ve tried to set a personal example – my pay remains below my predecessor’s, well below the market average and is no longer even the highest paid in our city government (I’m now third.) Yet I recognize that my willingness last year to participate in the Austin city manager selection process reinforced the natural suspicion that I am just another mercenary who was willing to jump for a more lucrative offer if it had been extended. Few seemed to believe that I would be intrigued by the challenge of helping one of America’s fastest growing big cities to achieve their goal of becoming “the most livable and sustainable city in the nation.” Or that I would conclude on my own that running an organization with 12,000 city employees was not the job for me, even if it did mean lots more money and prestige.

So I don’t know how much anyone – citizens or city staff – buys my argument that we actually all have it pretty good here. Comparative studies show we run a remarkably economical city government – but you wouldn’t know that from the constant carping of those who rail against “the gang in the Ivory Tower.” Market data shows that while we remain behind the curve on competitive compensation, we have made significant progress – and we are continuing to make modest progress in catching up to the average.

Clearly the City Council doesn’t get sufficient credit for their steady and responsible efforts to find the right balance. Nor will it get easier for us as the economy continues to deteriorate. But the problem with the question of “What’s in it for me?” is that we all depend on each other. When we lose sight of that, envy and resentment can blind citizens and staff alike to the blessings we share and the mutual obligations we owe each other.

In much tougher times, Ben Franklin told his fellow pioneers in self-government, “we must all hang together – or most assuredly, we all hang separately.” Subordinating one’s immediate interests for the long-term greater good isn’t the mark of either a saint or a sap. It’s enlightened self-interest. Those little stickers that sprouted after 9/11 have begun to fade and peel. But the sentiment still holds: “United we stand.” Divided we fall.