A couple of weeks ago I participated in a community conversation
funded with $75,000 of city money.
A couple of weeks ago I participated in a community conversation funded with $75,000 of city money. As you have heard by now, we were given three alternatives to choose from and the results of our choices would help “guide” our Morgan Hill City Council. Then in a separate exercise, we were asked how we, if we were members of the council, would reduce expenses and/or raise revenue for our city. In the first exercise, my group voted to maintain existing city services, which would mean increasing revenue (taxes?). But in the second exercise, by a 5-3 vote, we chose more cuts to existing services than increases in revenue. How is that for a mixed message?
But the dichotomy of our decisions was far overshadowed by how impressed I was that 25 people came to this meeting. It was clear to me that everyone cared about the city and truly want to help solve its financial dilemma – a dilemma that no city council person has taken any responsibility for. What do we get instead? “We are going to cut your services if you don’t bail the city out.” What do we get instead? In no uncertain terms, our city is telling us, “It is what it is.” Hey city council (“parents”), masquerading as the Redevelopment Agency (“kids”) spend-a-holics, why don’t you get a backbone and take responsibility for the financial red ink?
We need for you to take responsibility before we solve your problems. Excuse me, before we solve our problems. I know, I know, you would be bucking the trend these days of elected officials (watch the Emperor on the nightly news). That is why it would be so refreshing for you to belly up to the bar and say, “We over-extended ourselves and we are in a financial bind.” You would actually raise the bar – the bar of mediocrity that pervades various levels of government.
The other day I was on the California Redevelopment Association Web site. Did you know that there is a publication, all 370 pages, titled 2005 Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California? If you peruse this publication you will notice four significant things.
First, almost the entire document speaks to the development of housing. Not aquatic centers and not recreation centers.
Second, the entire document speaks to the improvement of blighted areas. Not replacing one blighted area (the land next to Community Park) with another blighted area (Community Park itself).
Third, nowhere is it implied, suggested, or declared that one public agency can bankrupt a public municipality. Hear that Morgan Hill? Fourth, nowhere, although it should be in bold letters on the first page, does it say, “Kids, you must use common sense.” If you go on our city’s Web site you will see that the Aquatic Center will be offering swimming lessons this summer, which is great. Next year, the recreation center will be offering swimming lessons, too. So we will have two centers competing against one another for swim students in 2007. It makes no sense to me. Why didn’t the “kids” heed Hedy Chang’s suggestion years ago to have a smaller recreation center built next to the aquatic center? Makes sense to me.
Uh oh, the “parents” want to extend the life of the “kids” toy (read RDA) and give the “kids” more money. The “kids” say that they need the money to revitalize the downtown. Thing is, the vultures (read any developer or organization who knows that there is easy money in “the hill”) have swamped the “kids” with requests, the “parents” are saying spend what you need, and there are no adults around to put on the brakes. The “parents” have no control over the “kids.”
At the community conversation I saw 25 adults willing to help the city get out of financial red ink and who don’t deserve reduced city services or higher taxes for a situation they did not create. As its most inappropriate excuse, the “kids” say that the residents gave them direction years ago in a “visioning process.” This is where the “parents” should have stepped in and said “we would love to provide you with these centers but we will over-extend ourselves.”
