Issue link: https://www.epageflip.net/i/17218
8A – Daily News – Saturday, October 2, 2010 Opinion Vote yes on Proposition 22 D NEWSAILY RED BLUFF TEHAMACOUNTY T H E V O I C E O F T E H A M A C O U N T Y S I N C E 1 8 8 5 This editorial was originally published in the San Jose Mercury News: Lawmakers in Sacramento Greg Stevens, Publisher gstevens@redbluffdailynews.com Chip Thompson, Editor editor@redbluffdailynews.com Editorial policy The Daily News opinion is expressed in the editorial. The opinions expressed in columns, letters and cartoons are those of the authors and artists. Letter policy The Daily News welcomes let- ters from its readers on timely topics of public interest. All let- ters must be signed and pro- vide the writer’s home street address and home phone num- ber. Anonymous letters, open letters to others, pen names and petition-style letters will not be allowed. Letters should be typed and cannot exceed two double-spaced pages or 500 words. When several letters address the same issue, a cross section of those submit- ted will be considered for publi- cation. Letters will be edited. Letters are published at the discretion of the editor. Mission Statement We believe that a strong com- munity newspaper is essential to a strong community, creating citizens who are better informed and more involved. The Daily News will be the indispensible guide to life and living in Tehama County. We will be the premier provider of local news, information and advertising through our daily newspaper, online edition and other print and Internet vehi- cles. The Daily News will reflect and support the unique identities of Tehama County and its cities; record the history of its com- munities and their people and make a positive difference in the quality of life for the resi- dents and businesses of Tehama County. How to reach us Main office: 527-2151 Classified: 527-2151 Circulation: 527-2151 News tips: 527-2153 Sports: 527-2153 Obituaries: 527-2151 Photo: 527-2153 On the Web www.redbluffdailynews.com Fax Newsroom: 527-9251 Classified: 527-5774 Retail Adv.: 527-5774 Legal Adv.: 527-5774 Business Office: 527-3719 Address 545 Diamond Ave. Red Bluff, CA 96080, or P.O. Box 220 Red Bluff, CA 96080 Your officials STATE ASSEMBLYMAN — Jim Nielsen (R), State Capitol Bldg., Room 4164 P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento 94249; (916) 319-2002; Fax (916) 319- 2102 STATE SENATOR — Sam Aanestad (R), State Capitol Bldg., Room 2054, Sacramen- to, CA 95814. (916) 651-4004; Fax (916) 445-7750 GOVERNOR — Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), State Capitol Bldg., Sacramento, CA 95814; (916) 445-2841; Fax (916) 558-3160; E-mail: gover- nor@governor.ca.gov. U.S. REPRESENTATIVE — Wally Herger (R), 2635 Forest Ave. Ste. 100, Chico, CA 95928; 893-8363. U.S.SENATORS — Dianne Feinstein (D), One Post Street, Suite 2450, San Francisco, CA 94104; (415) 393-0707. Fax (415) 393-0710. Barbara Boxer (D), 1700 Montgomery St., Suite 240, San Francisco, CA 94111; (415) 403-0100. Fax (202) 224- 0454. We interrupt this program to bring you an update Commentary When last I wrote….Oops, we interrupt this column series for the latest news from that cir- cus called the City Council and city administration. When last we left our cast of characters they were pointing fingers, saying what’s the big deal, and still without a budget or a policy on recouping costs for traffic control at special events. Since that time many employees have consented to pay cuts, the financial manager has been fired, and at least six police officers plan to leave Red Bluff for better paying jobs elsewhere. We now rejoin the continuing saga of Red Bluff’s red face. We open our drama at City Hall where Police Chief Paul Nanfito is not sure what to do. The three-day monster truck event, a for profit operation at the fairgrounds, will require $4,600 in overtime services for traffic control. The police offi- cers, who have taken a major salary cut, would most likely look forward to a little extra pay, but the cupboard is bare. Meanwhile back at City Hall the City Manager is complain- ing that the City Council has given him no direction on the matter of fees for traffic control at fairgrounds events. Select City Councilmen are saying the City Manager was told to get the “stakeholders,” aka special interests, together to settle the matter so they could act; the City Manager says he can’t act without direction, perhaps an indication about why he fired the finance manager, who allegedly was directionless about missing money. As we shift our scene to the man on the street, pedestrians and motorists express worry about the safety of being around the fairgrounds during the event. A quick peek into a high rise in the financial district of a major metropolitan city reveals insurance company actuaries arguing that the premiums for the fairgrounds and the monster truck show are too low. Across the street at the law firm of Wee, Chase and Sue, the staff is get- ting ready for their own over- time income, booking rooms in Red Bluff for the event, packing their cameras and tape recorders in anticipation of a profitable weekend. The issue of fees for traffic safety is straightforward. The city and the fairgrounds are not in the business of subsidizing for profit events. The monster truck event is a for profit event. The fairgrounds directors have made un-businesslike decisions to accommodate this show in the past, it is unconscionable that they cannot or will not include the price of traffic con- trol in their agreement to make the facilities available. Nevertheless, the fair- grounds, which has questioned its own business acumen in going solar, has cleverly put the City Council on the spot — a not so subtle diversionary tactic. It has asked the City Council to pick up the tab for what should be the vendor’s expense; at one point they asked that it be a city priority. The City Council, apparently not trying to look like bad guys, hemmed and hawed, and has so far success- fully avoided the issue. That’s all for now folks; stay tuned for the latest in this epic comedy of errors. *** Odds and ends We try to buy things locally from local merchants; it sup- ports our town, and normally we are treated with friendly and personal service. I went to an almost local pharmacy to pick up some generic medicine last week. We try to do business with local pharmacies because my father in law had a stand- alone pharmacy, and we under- stand the difficulty in competing with mail order suppliers and big box stores. We also understand the conve- nience of a neighbor- hood pharmacy. When I was given the bill for over $44, I asked what the differ- ence was between this medicine and the same medicine I could have ordered for $4 on line. I was told they were identical. I asked why the price was so high. “That is the retail price,” I was told. I explained we had been Joe Harrop doing business there for over 35 years and wanted to continue, but prices like that made it out of the question. I was told to wait a minute while the recep- tionist went to consult. A new person came to the counter and said that the discount price for the medicine was $14 for those who had their proprietary dis- count card. She would give me that price, which would repre- sent a $30 saving, almost 70 percent discount. I didn’t want to get into an argument over $10, so I said sure, but I am not sure if the “convenience” of this local pharmacy is worth the has- sle of dealing with deceptive pricing. I will also be sure of the price before I place another order there. *** We spent an enjoyable week- end in Ashland recently. The plays were well done and enter- taining; American Night was challenging, praising America and exposing it at the same time. While walking back to our car to put some of the required shopping in the trunk, I noticed a van pulled over behind all of the diagonally parked cars, the driver frantical- ly looking at his GPS, gripping it like it was trying to run away; his companion opened the passenger door and sat down next to him. He hard- ly seemed to acknowledge her presence as he tapped his thumbs up and down on the small screen in front of him. He reminded me of someone shaking someone’s head in anger. His grasp seemed so tight I wondered if he would harm the mechanism. Suddenly, with the GPS in one hand in front of his nose, he reached down to release the brake and put his van in reverse. Only the loud honking of the car behind him kept him from a serious collision. I saw that incident as a metaphor for our current poli- tics of grump and groan. That driver was so concerned about himself and where he was going that he didn’t take stock of his current situation and his surroundings; all he wanted was firm directions and the certainty that he could follow them suc- cessfully. It took a loud horn to return him to reality. As an electorate we want cer- tainty from our government at all levels, but the only certainty is pol- itics as usual unless we are vigilant. Next week more profusion of confusion. Joe Harrop is a retired educator with more than 30 years of service to the North State. He can be reached at DrJoeHarrop@sbcglobal.net. have for years borrowed or out- right raided billions from cities and redevelopment and transit agen- cies, blowing holes in local spend- ing plans in an attempt to paper over the state's structural deficit. It's dishonest and may even be ille- gal, and it contradicts the will of voters. Proposition 22 on the Nov. 2 ballot would -- once and for all, we hope -- protect local governments and agencies from these money grabs. It would also force a more honest accounting of the state's budget picture. We recommend a yes vote on Proposition 22. Opponents say the measure will blow a hole in the state bud- get. But that's like saying a bank robber should get to keep what he's stolen because he needs the money to pay his bills. Voters have said repeatedly, through vehicles such as Proposi- tion 42 in 2002, that they want cer- tain tax dollars to go to local pur- poses, not the state general fund. Yet politicians persist in ferreting out every possible loophole, taking or borrowing about $5 billion last year alone. This costs taxpayers hundreds of millions in interest payments, since some of the money must be repaid. And it masks the true severity of the state's structural deficit with bud- get gimmicks. Proposition 22 is supported by hundreds of cities, including San Jose, and dozens of fire, police and business organizations, all of whom want to protect local ser- vices. Redevelopment agencies, the state's primary engine for econom- ic growth, have been especially hard hit, despite the fact that their funding is constitutionally protect- ed. This year and next, the state is taking -- stealing, really -- more than $2 billion from them, funds that might have created nearly 200,000 jobs. San Mateo is losing $5 million. In San Jose, it's $75 million. The agencies are suing to get the money back. The redevelopment raids are doubly galling because Sacramento's dysfunction, and its fail- ure to maintain schools and infrastructure, are huge obstacles for cities trying to attract and keep businesses. Eco- nomic development is the surest path to solvency, and yet the state is damaging the best vehicle for it. California has also diverted bil- lions that voters have dedicated to transportation projects; the Valley Transportation Authority alone has lost about $86 million the past three years on top of declines in sales tax revenue. This has forced service cuts and fare increases. And the state has borrowed bil- lions in property tax revenue; Red- wood City, for instance, was forced to lend $2.9 million last year. Editorial What do you think? Let us know Proposition 22's opponents, including teachers' and firefight- ers' unions, are essen- tially arguing that local funding is better used by the state for things like schools and county health services. That's a reasonable argument -- except that voters have already made the call and then overwhelmingly passed several ballot measures to provide stronger protections from money grabs. All those previous measures had loopholes the Legislature has abused. Proposition 22 would close the loopholes and ensure that local governments and agencies can keep the funding voters want them to have.