California Senate Republican leader Bob Huff of Diamond Bar announces support for a package of bills similar to Governor Brown's pension reform plan. (Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press / February 22, 2012)

The State Republican leadership made headlines this week by endorsing the pension reform package of . . . wait for it . . . Governor Jerry Brown. (See the Los Angeles Times story, “In curveball, GOP leaders back Gov. Jerry Brown’s pension overhaul.”)

This astonishing bit of bipartisanship can be interpreted cynically, of course.  Normally, the GOP doesn’t bother to give the time of day to anything proposed by our Democratic Governor (and they would argue the same is true going the other way.)   So are the Republican legislators simply calling the Governor’s bluff — putting the blame squarely on him if he can’t talk the members of his own party into supporting his pension reform plan?

Perhaps.  But I hope better of both the Republicans and the Governor.  I think they realize that junking a public employee retirement system that has worked well for 70 years is neither prudent nor politically feasible, but without meaningful reform, the voters will be tempted to throw the baby out with the bathwater sometime in the future.

There is a limited window of time to hammer out pension reform legislation, created by the withdrawal of the threat of an initiative by the conservative watchdog group called “California Pension Reform.”  That advocacy group had actually filed two petitions, one which would have replaced traditional public pensions with 401K-style “defined contribution” retirement accounts and another proposing a hybrid of the two, more closely mirroring Governor Brown’s plan.  They argued that the “title and summary” prepared by Attorney General Kamala Harris was so slanted it would make it difficult for them to raise money and pass either one (As with all initiatives, their fate primarily rests with whether big money is committed by major backers — either special interest groups or wealthy individuals.)  Even though “California Pension Reform” pulled back this time, public perceptions (and the opportunity to exploit them) guarantee the issue will be back (and will also be appearing on local ballots in San Diego and San Jose.)

Most Democrats in the Legislature apparently hope the issue will just go away and are dragging their feet in embracing their Governor’s plan.  That’s short-sighted.  The need for pension reform is not just a political issue.  It’s an economic one.  Unless fixes are made, the cost of replacing investment losses from the Great Recession will erode the ability of State and local government to provide vital services in the years ahead.  The Doomsday scenarios painted by the most strident voices on the right are almost certainly overblown.  Bankruptcy is a remote threat — but painful budget cuts are not.

For the Democrats to move a bill through the Legislature this year, they will almost certainly need some tacit support from labor unions.  The unions representing public employees are understandably defensive about the blame being heaped on their members for an economic crisis they had no responsibility for creating.  Yet, neither did the private sector workers who saw their 401K balances crash.  It’s fair game to debate how to allocate the pain, but no one is exempt from some share.  And the big jumps in California’s state and local pension benefits that followed the passage of SB 400 (passed in 1999 by Democrats and Republicans in the Assembly 70-to-7 and the Senate 39-to-0) were ill-advised and unsustainable.

That’s the thing about “reform.”  Those who benefit from the status quo are usually skeptical about change.  But probably the biggest beneficiaries of pension reform would not be the taxpayers.  It would be the public servants in our state.  We could begin to restore trust in our ethics and professionalism, so badly damaged by a few abusers and abuses.  We could take heart in increased financial stability for the agencies where we work.  Finally, we could help sustain the vital services we’ve dedicated our careers to provide.

It’s called “leading by example.”  As I’ve written before, the City Managers in California drafted a similar set of recommendations that have been endorsed by the League of California Cities.

It’s time for Democrats to join Republicans in passing Governor Brown’s reform package.  It’s not perfect and they are entitled to propose reasonable changes.  But if they fail to move a credible, bipartisan bill through the Legislature this year, they have no one to blame but themselves.

The last time the Legislature failed to anticipate an issue like this was back in 1978.  The Legislature dithered about property tax reform, leaving it to Howard Jarvis to shake California government to its foundations.  The Governor then was also named Jerry Brown.  He’s clearly learned the lesson.  It’s time for the Legislators to profit from his example.

There are now dozens of “massage” outlets in Ventura and it is an open secret that sexual services are on offer at a number of them.

So, many residents wonder why “someone” (read the City) isn’t doing “something” about it.

Good question.

There is a reason why prostitution is famously called “the oldest profession.”  Different societies and different eras have dealt with this issue in wildly varying ways.  In our era, there is less prudery about sex and more concern about sexism — the systematic victimization of young women by the sex trade.  And in a town like ours, there is strong concern about the impact on neighborhood and community quality of life from having shady operators of “massage” brothels more or less openly operating.

The City Council acted swiftly to the sudden proliferation of questionable businesses beginning three years ago.  The Ventura County Star’s excellent story back in July 2009 goes into detail on the steps taken by a unanimous Council to recast existing regulations to curb prostitution without impinging on legitimate massage therapy or constitutional protections.

So why hasn’t that “solved” the problem?

First, government alone is seldom the answer, particularly for a challenge as intractable as this one.  Obviously there is a steady stream of customers to support the surge of “massage” outlets.  And obviously in this economic climate there are plenty of landlords willing to sign leases with businesses that actually detract from the attractiveness of the surrounding commercial and residential areas.  If veiled prostitution is overlooked as “just business” by large segments of our community, then there are limits to how much headway can be made by local government enforcement.

That said, since 2010 the City Attorney’s office has actively prosecuted cases against 15 violators of the massage ordinance. Of those 15, 12 have plead either guilty or no contest.  They have typically received sentences imposing a $500 fine and informal probation, which imposes a six month ban on working in any capacity in a massage establishment in Ventura. One case was dismissed on a technicality and one defendant has an outstanding warrant for her arrest due to her non-appearance at her arraignment.  One case is currently in the courts.

These 15 offenders were caught in the course of site inspections of massage establishments for which the City had received complaints.

The second challenge to curtailing the sex trade is the draw on public resources.  Actual arrests for solicitation are rare in California because of the huge commitment required to constitutionally establish a case and win convictions, combined with the recognition that the offenders are seldom the ones making the real money.  A revolving jail door for prostitutes has seldom accomplished little beyond nuisance value.  Our Police Department is stretched for officers so “sting” operations for this kind of crime is simply not a priority.  Our code enforcement staff is equally strained, so they operate largely in response to complaints.  Finally our City Attorney’s office, which must conduct the prosecutions of local ordinance violations, is also short-handed.

Unfortunately, while the City’s regulations should go a long way toward discouraging massage emporiums selling sex, they won’t really work without vigorous enforcement and strong public opinion discouraging customers from patronizing them, landlords renting to them and courts letting them off the hook.

In the end, this is not a problem that is likely to be “solved” — and certainly not by a single community.  But if there is sufficient sentiment here in Ventura, it is a problem that can be minimized.  Achieving even that modest goal would have significant pay-offs to neighborhood quality of life, public health — and reducing the exploitation of women in our town.

Everyone recognizes the successful rebirth of Ventura’s historic Downtown over the last two decades.  Yet it is gradually dawning on people that a similar renaissance is taking place on our community’s Westside.

The Westside ArtWalk showcased the area's vibrant culture

It began more than a decade ago as local neighbors banded together to start the Westside Community Council, which has spawned others in Midtown, the Harbor, Pierpont, the Eastside and the College area.  At the time, the area known as “the Avenue” (after Ventura Avenue which runs the length of the neighborhood) was stereotyped as a seedy and unsafe place to stay away from.

That image is long out of date.  Schools, the city, police and community groups like the Boys and Girls Club worked together to offer young people alternatives to gangs.  Today the Westpark Community Center hums each weekday with sports, arts and tutoring activities for kids and free after school enrichment programs operate at all the Westside’s two elementary schools.  De Anza Middle School has become an attractive magnet campus.  The ugly power lines on Ventura have been placed underground and new housing projects have opened their doors.  The Bell Arts Factory is the hub of an artistic flowering and small businesses are doing well in a tough economy.

Success always comes with a price.  Expectations have been raised and so a new surge of activism is asking sharp questions like: How come there aren’t more parks?  Why can’t we have more frequent transit service?  What can be done to ensure safety to the pedestrians and bicyclists that share the busy streets with business and commuter traffic?

The intersection where Katie Reed and her dog were struck and killed

The last question took on sad resonance when Katie Reed and her dog Jasmine were killed crossing Ventura Avenue at Shoshone Street.  Arlene Martinez wrote a terrific story in the Star about her life – and the tragic accident that cut it short just four days before Christmas last year.

On the energized Westside, though, the loss has become a call to action.  Not just to improve pedestrian safety at a single intersection — but to memorialize Reed’s life in a way that shares her story in a way that permanently enriches the entire neighborhood.

Leading that charge is neighbor Lori Steinhauer.  In a recent message to Westside residents, she shares “a vision for a public art and public awareness campaign valuing pedestrian safety. This vision includes a variety of local partners – residents, homeless individuals, school kids, artists, business people, the faith community, public officials, etc. The vision includes the story of Katie Reed and Jasmine that can inspire all of us to be active and determined at any age and stage of life. We are working with Denise Sindelar, Ventura Community Partnerships Manager, toward that goal. Katie’s story is of a 65-year-old nurse and mom who was recently widowed, had survived breast cancer, had recently lost 80 pounds and was recovering from hip surgery, walking on her walker 7 miles a morning at 5:30 a.m. with her companion, Jasmine, along the bike path and Westside streets. Incidentally, earlier this month a new rescue dog has joined Katie’s family – and the new dog’s name is Hope! What a wonderful legacy – an art project that is a testimony to Katie and Jasmine’s lives, and to a community that makes the statement of valuing such exercise and tenacity – through providing safe streets, walkways, paths, parks, and neighborhoods.”  A group has formed to bring that vision into being.

Mayor Mike Tracy and his wife Linda greet well wishers after his State of the City speech

Last night, Mayor Mike Tracy ended his State of the City Address with a unique invitation for attendees.  He first asked the City Council and City staff to stand and be recognized, followed by business owners and Chamber of Commerce members, then members of non-profits, volunteers, and employees from other organizations working in Ventura and finally community members and supporters of Ventura.  As the audience remained standing, he told them: “We live in extraordinary times, and I want you to thank you for all that you do for Ventura. We are a single unified team, and this city council is looking forward to achieving good things for Ventura by working together with all of you. Give yourselves a round of applause!”

They did and the tribute resounds beyond that room to all those working to make Ventura a safer, cleaner, more prosperous, more humane and more beautiful community.  From the Westside t0 the Eastside, it’s hard not to love Ventura.

More than half a century ago, the State of California granted cities broad authority to “eliminate blight” by diverting property tax revenues in designated redevelopment areas. The system grew to a six billion dollar a year system – or “racket” as critics branded it. Since Governor Jerry Brown proposed eliminating all redevelopment agencies statewide last January, cities vigorously rallied to its defense. But ironically, in the end, it was a lawsuit filed by cities and their redevelopment agencies that resulted in a December 29 California Supreme Court decision that spelled the abrupt end of cities’ most powerful economic development tool.

Was redevelopment successfully deployed to revitalize older neighborhoods and downtowns and generate substantial tax revenues for struggling cities to fund vital services as well as provide much-needed affordable housing? Yes, although critics charged that much of this would have happened without local governments incurring billions in debt to underwrite those achievements. Was redevelopment also shamefully abused to demolish people’s homes, subsidize dubious private developments and enrich wealthy suburban enclaves? Yes, although supporters argued those abuses were few and far between and mostly long ago.

Working Artist Ventura project contains living and working studios for 82 artists as well as transitional housing for formerly homeless individuals and families

Ventura has long taken a cautious approach to redevelopment. Unlike some cities that financed expensive and often controversial development deals, the most significant tangible projects of Ventura’s small downtown redevelopment area in recent decades were the Century 10 movie theater, the Downtown parking structure and the WAV affordable housing community.

Great hope was put in the potential of a future redevelopment area to be created to reduce blight on Ventura’s Westside, but those plans have been on hold since the Governor’s announcement and are now moot. An effort ten years ago to leverage the revitalization of the Pacific View Mall into a Midtown redevelopment effort was killed at the ballot box.

Century 10 movie theater and the nearby parking structure were key catalysts in the revitalization of Downtown Ventura

Yet while Ventura’s commitment to redevelopment was measured and modest, it was a key catalyst for the remarkable success of two decades of civic effort to bring life back to our historic Downtown.

Over the past four weeks, city staff has had to scramble to react to the sudden demise of redevelopment – and navigate through a bewildering mind field of political posturing and legal maneuvering going on across California. With billions at stake for California’s 425 redevelopment agencies, “expert” advice has been changing daily. The City of Ventura has millions at stake in real estate assets and loan repayments. So our Community Development department and City Attorney’s office (along with Finance and Technology and the City Manager’s Departments) have been closely monitoring the unfolding situation to provide the City Council with our best advice on actions to take as the clock ticked down.

Crisis management is nobody’s favorite way of doing business. A single month to wind up the work of government agencies that have been operating for over fifty years may be reckless public policy, but last minute efforts to forestall the inevitable were stonewalled in Sacramento. So yesterday we started a new era for economic development in California, one without redevelopment.

As we fitfully recover from the hardest economic downturn since the Great Depression, the big question is what tools will cities have available to use to generate jobs, continue to provide needed tax revenue from business growth and spur investment in declining neighborhoods? Former Mayor Bill Fulton tackled that question in a recent LA Times opinion article. His advice is to focus what comes next on priorities where the private sector falters: “the rehabilitation of so-called brownfields — properties whose development is complicated by industrial or other contamination — and building affordable housing, transit-oriented development and inner-city retail in areas where there are few stores.”

Even that limited agenda is off the table for now.  First comes the complicated business of untangling the assets of the agencies that closed down February 1.  That task falls to 425 “Oversight Boards” that must be appointed by May, with representatives of counties, cities, schools and special districts.  Look for much of the energy that should be going into restoring prosperity diverted to a contentious scramble to control where redevelopment money goes.

It’s little wonder that Brazil recently passed California as the eighth largest economy in the world.  We may fall a few more places before our state gets our act together.

Wednesday afternoon an eight-inch cast-iron water main under Main Street burst, unleashing water at a rate of 6,000 gallons a minute.  It was about the worst possible place you could imagine for a broken water line — along a stretch of our second busiest street, directly in front of Fire Station Five (our largest station — the only one with two crews on duty at all times.)  Plus it was next to a busy freeway offramp just as afternoon traffic was building up.  On top of that, the water main shares space with nearby pipes for sewer, gas and storm drains.

The main break forced the temporary closure of Station Five

Crews were on scene in minutes, the firetrucks were relocated next door and Ventura Police moved quickly to shut down Main and safely reroute traffic.  The Highway Patrol and Caltrans swung into action to seal off the freeway offramp.

Then as the street became a river, water crews set about uncovering and “dewatering” the broken main.  That involves “opening up” the street to insert valves to stop the flow, which is tricky business when water is gushing through. A local pipeline contractor was called in to assist, given the rapid need for simultaneously commencing repairs while draining the water rapidly spreading above and below ground.

Here’s where teamwork pays off.  At the scene are city water, sewer and public works crews each with different pipe systems to safeguard along with firefighters concerned about their station, police officers and cadets rerouting harried commuters, local businesses wondering what’s going on and when the water will be turned back on, a private contractor called in for the emergency, an observer from the Gas Co. to help in steering clear of their underground lines — plus a City Manager without much to do except admire the smooth coordination and professional work ethic of everyone involved.

"Dewatering" and replacing the broken water main

You can’t take that teamwork for granted.  It comes from the values and experience that public servants develop working together to get the job done.  When the focus is mutual respect and pitching in together, even a potential disaster can be brought under control.

Crews worked a second night to repair a sewer main damaged by the water main break

Not that everything went smoothly.  Around 8 PM when crews had been working for nearly six hours, an unknown gunman fired off six rounds at a youth who bizarrely fled through the worksite riding a skateboard.  That sent everyone else diving into the damp holes in the street.  And twice, crews encountered unmarked and uncharted gas lines, accidentally nicking one and starting a small fire the first time and delaying work for several hours the second.

Overall, though, the process of stopping the leak, repairing the main, restoring water service to nearby businesses, repairing a sewer main damaged by the sagging, soggy earth underneath it and putting everything back together again so Fire Station Five could be re-occupied and traffic could flow smoothly again — these critical functions went remarkably well because the people involved worked around the clock as a team.

Of course, all this expensive and time consuming effort begs the question: what went wrong in the first place?  And the answer is simple.  The pipe that burst was installed in 1964.  With hundreds of miles of water and sewer lines underneath Ventura’s streets, we face significant financial and logistical challenges to replacing the ones that are beyond their useful lifecycle.  A big Downtown project in 2006-07 replaced some pipes more than a century old.  More recently, the repaving of our rutted hillside concrete streets was preceded by a messy, year-long water and sewer replacement project.  In the race against time, time is winning.

That is forcing some more hard choices.  Right now, a committee of citizen volunteers is winding up a long series of meetings to analyze proposed changes in our water and sewer rates.  They face two hard questions: how much should rates be raised to pay for big capital projects like pipeline replacement and how should the pain be apportioned most fairly amongst ratepayers.  We have different rates for different kinds of customers: business, residents, farmers, oil fields, city parks etc as well as a surcharge for water delivered to customers beyond our city’s borders.  We also have water rates that escalate depending on how much you use to foster conservation.  We haven’t thoroughly examined these rate structures in two decades.  So the committee has its work cut out for it before making final recommendations to the City Council.

One things clear, however.  Like the old oil change commercial: you can pay us now or you can pay us later.  The main break on Main reminds us that in the long run, we’ll save money by keeping on top of the vital infrastructure that delivers our water and disposes of our wastewater.  Teamwork is admirable, but it can’t keep old pipes from giving out.

Last August, I wrote about how shadowy plaintiffs were suing to halt the changeover of the vacant Meryvn’s store to a WinnCo supermarket.  A group called “Venturans for Responsible Growth” supposedly filed the lawsuit, although no

Proposed facade improvements for WinnCo store

actual Venturans ever appeared at the public hearings on a minor facade upgrade before the Design Review Committee.  Instead their lawyers testified on their behalf — and their lawyers pursued an appeal before the City Council and their lawyers filed suit in SuperiorCourt alleging violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA.)

The CEQA violations in the lawsuit were essentially bogus since there really is no impact to the environment to replace one medium sized retailer with another medium sized retailer.  Fortunately a judge has preliminarily come to that exact conclusion — last week Judge Glen Reiser denied a request for a Temporary Restraining Order to prohibit WinnCo from proceeding with interior modifications of the building.  He also refused to schedule a hearing for a preliminary injunction.

While this allows WinnCo to proceed with their revised schedule of opening the store early next year, they do so at their own risk.  Conceivably, at the trial later this year, the judge could rule against them on the merits of the case.  While a ludicrous stretch of the law, CEQA has been repeatedly been bent to the interests of high-powered special interests with the resources to pursue litigation. And there is nothing to prevent “Venturans for Responsible Growth” filing appeals all the way up to the California Supreme Court — over changing the signage and adding a modest tower element to the facade of the building.

This tactical victory against CEQA abuse only underscores the need for more fundamental reform.  There are lots of factors working against business success in coastal California — and CEQA is not the most important.  But unlike relative housing prices or the costs of actually protecting our fragile environment, fixing CEQA abuse is the one that offers the greatest cost-benefit advantages.  Our high standard of living and quality of life are worth protecting.  But frivolous or specious lawsuits protect no one — and actually undermine our standard of living and quality of life.

If you are as old as me, there was a “good old days” when it came to transportation in Los Angeles.  Wide open freeways, a space age international airport and trains from Union Station across the region and the nation.  We forget (or take for granted) the far-sighted investments that made that possible.  In the decades since, we’ve neglected transportation investments that serve our existing communities, often in favor of facilitating suburban sprawl.  Today, just to keep Southern California moving will cost more than half a trillion dollars over the next 25 years.

SCAG Director Hasan Ikhrata

“We have to look at transportation in a real way,” Hasan Ikhrata told a panel of Ventura County elected leaders this morning at Camarillo City Hall.  Ikhrata, who is the director of the Southern California Association of Governments, is unveiling his organization’s new “Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.”  He started today in the smallest of the five counties that make up the SCAG metropolis where 18 million people live in nearly 200 cities that stretch from our coast to the Mexican border near the Salton Sea.

Ikhrata pulled no punches in a blunt, persuasive and passionate appeal to invest in our future.  “Growth has slowed down, but we are still one of the fastest growing regions in the country,” he told our County leaders.  SCAG projects population growth of an additional four million over the next 25 years, including 150,000 more residents of Ventura County.

“With four million more people, how many new freeways will we be adding?  Zero,” he pointed out.  “I’m not talking about the cost of building new things, most of the money we need will go to maintain what we already have.”

He cited the chronic shortfall in maintaining our region’s 60,000 lane miles of highways.  Statewide, California is spending six billion less a year than is needed for repairs.  He noted 125 highway bridges in Ventura County alone are structurally deficient or obsolete.  “These are real things — we’re not in the business of scaring people.”

“Let’s not be short-sighted,” Ikhrata warned.  “It takes leaders with vision.”  Irkrahta was blunt that while “taxes are not a popular topic, somebody has to put that on the table.”  Existing gas taxes will decline as fuel economy improves since they are pegged to the number of gallons sold, not the price of gas.  Ventura County is the only one in the SCAG region that doesn’t have a local sales tax for transportation projects, transit and local road maintenance.  He stressed the need to spend money efficiently, to look past boundaries on the map to recognize our interconnections. But even improved efficiency still doesn’t approach the scale of the challenge.  “The revenues have to come from somewhere.

He acknowledged the partisan divide when it comes to taxes.  “But there is no such thing as a Democratic bridge or a Republican bridge, there are just bridges that everyone uses regardless of party,” he joked.  He was joined at the podium by Simi Valley Councilmember Glenn Becerra, who will be SCAG’s next president.  Although serving in a non-partisan role, it is no secret that Becerra is a Republican often mentioned as a future candidate for higher office.  He addressed the tax issue directly saying, “Before we ask for an additional penny, we need to ensure that government is spending all of our tax funds, wisely, efficiently and responsibly.”  Yet Becerra also tacitly agreed with Ikhrata that new or at least restructured taxes will be needed to avoid a transportation crisis.

Ikhrata also addressed the need to better target how and where we spend transportation dollars.  “Let’s link transportation and land use,” he urged.  If implemented the new regional plan will put twice as many households within reach of affordable transit alternatives to driving.  “I’m not a betting man, but I would bet you that gas prices are going to continue to go up,” he asserted.  That means pursuing better ways to get around.

Irkhrata didn’t promise any easy answers.  But to a Councilmember who doubted whether there’d be voter support to pay for transportation needs, he responded, “We don’t give people credit.”  He was clear that if officials clearly make the case, detail specifically how the money will be spent and follow-through and keep their word, voters will increase or extend transportation taxes, as they have recently done in Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and Orange Counties, despite the hard economic times.

The draft Regional Transportation Plan is available on SCAG’s website, along with additional information on the process for debating and adopting it.  The next local opportunity to learn about and comment on the draft takes place at 12:00 noon on Thursday, January 19th in the Camarillo Library.

With Ikhrata at the helm, the region has a sensible and sustainable “blueprint” for improving our standard of living and protecting our quality of life.  It will be up now to elected leaders not only to debate that plan, but once ratified, get serious about making it happen.

California Supreme Court deals blow to redevelopment

What’s next? It’s the question dominating discussions about cities as 2011 comes to a close.  This week’s Supreme Court ruling on a lawsuit brought by cities and their redevelopment agencies backfired.  Instead of clawing back the $1.7 billion the State extorted from cities to keep redevelopment alive, it now appears that Redevelopment in California is headed for extinction.

“Appears” is, of course, the key word.  Getting rid of redevelopment now seems a real probability — but that only magnifies the incredible challenge of doing it in a fair and orderly way.

The political hurdles are obvious — cities are virtually united in their outrage at this latest blow from the State — and bewildered that their number one economic development tool would be dismantled when it has never been more needed.  On the other hand, having taken their case to the Supreme Court and lost, cities have put themselves in a poor bargaining position with the Governor and his legislative allies.  With so many other interests unhappy with the budget choices, cities will get little sympathy — and redevelopment abuses, while largely curtailed in recent years, still make redevelopment vulnerable to the budget vultures.

So this unresolved clash will be the background of trying to dismantle the very complicated financial structure of redevelopment agencies by yet-to-be named “Oversight Boards” where cities will be the minority voices.  Expect city by city, county by county wars over the vague and legally-suspect dissolution of agreements and contracts between cities and their redevelopment agencies.  Billions are at stake statewide — and the potential for wildly different outcomes up and down the state virtually guarantees further litigation.  It could be the biggest fiscal scramble since the days immediately following the passage of Proposition 13, when cities, counties and special district representatives camped out in Sacramento while emergency legislation was thrown together to redivide the shrunken property tax pie.

And that’s just the money side.  The even bigger question is: how do cities finance economic development at a time of high unemployment, stretched budgets and strong public demand to “do something” to put people back to work and balance budgets without raising taxes?  The Governor and Legislature have devoted exactly zero thought to this challenge, beyond some murky early talk about making it easier for cities to go to their voters to go into debt for infrastructure investment (and good luck with that idea.)

So, as usual, our polarized and short-term politics in California have created a mess that will have to untangled quickly with little chance of it being done well.  The best hope would be for the Governor to call together some sort of summit or working group of thoughtful State and local leaders to hammer out an actual plan for either an orderly end to redevelopment and a reasonable economic development toolbox to succeed it.  Given everything else going on in the State, such a notion stands small chance.  But in terms of what’s in the long-run best interests of California, its people, businesses, cities and future prosperity, it surely beats further court battles and chaos.

A year ago, 60 Minutes aired a controversial 11 minute feature on the “Day of Reckoning” coming for state — and especially local — governments.  It featured two grim Cassandras: New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Wall Street analyst Meredith Whitney.  Host Steve Kroft reported that during the recession, states had collectively “nearly a half a trillion more” than they collected in revenue and faced a “trillion dollar hole in their pension funds.”

New Jersy Governor Chris Christie

Christie was one of several Republican Governors elected in 2010 on a platform to do things that, as he described them on Sixty Minutes, “people previously said were politically impossible. “  Now, he argued there was no longer any alternative.  Analyst Whitney was even more apocalyptic.  “There is not a doubt in my mind that you will see a spate of municipal bond defaults,” she told Kroft.  Pressed on what a “spate” meant, she claimed “you could see hundreds of billions of dollars of defaults” on local government debt.  She then put a time frame on her concerns: “twelve months.”

Financial analyst Meredith Whitney

Whitney was wrong.  According to the Wall Street Journal, the amount of defaulted debts was $2.1 billion.  While that certainly sounds like a big number, it is actually less than the $2.8 billion in defaults the year before — in a $3.7 trillion market.  A far cry from “hundreds of billions of defaults.”

So was 60 Minutes wrong about a Day of Reckoning?

Not really.  As I wrote last December, “the crisis is real.”  States and cities forestalled bankruptcies because they made hard choices.

New York’s two parties came together under a new Democratic Governor and made cuts and raised taxes.  A new Democratic Governor in California couldn’t enlist GOP support, so he enacted cuts and bought time to take his tax package directly to voters.  Republican Governors across the country pushed through cuts — and occasionally new or extended taxes.  A couple overreached — with a referendum overturning anti-union legislation in Ohio and a recall looming for the Governor of Wisconsin.  But despite the varied politics, state (and local) politicians by and large faced up to the Day of Reckoning and took decisive action to balance the books.

Few of the solutions undertaken by states and cities are sustainable if the economy continues to sputter.  Yet where U.S. and European national leaders have largely failed to come to grips with the crisis, there is some solace in the efforts of state and local leaders across America.

We are pretty much in the same boat in Ventura.  It was ironic that because we moved more quickly and decisively to make cuts early in the economic crisis, we initially were labelled as being in worse shape than many other cities in Southern California.  That has faded as the crisis has affected every local government in varying degrees.  The City Council’s unanimous actions to “live within our means” kept us out of trouble.

But it’s not over.  Local government revenue lags economic recovery — and the recovery is an anemic one.  A particularly disturbing trend has been property tax revenue.  The forecasts we get from the County Assessor for our share (16%) of property taxes have reflected the drop in property values during the recession.  But in relying on these conservative projections, what we didn’t anticipate was how many property owners wouldn’t pay at all.  Last year’s collections for Ventura fell nearly a million dollars behind budget estimates.

This means another tough budget year ahead.  While sales tax has been exceeding projections, almost every other revenue source has been lagging.  We face a continuing imbalance between ongoing revenues and ongoing expenses.  Unless a roaring recovery is around the bend, it’s irresponsible to rely on one-time fixes.

Further cutting services to the public or further cutting pay and benefits in Ventura will not only be unpopular — many will argue that after $15 million in cuts, we’ve reached a point of diminishing returns.  Raising taxes is equally problematic — residents and businesses face their own hard choices.  Candidates in the election focused on economic development to put us on the road to enduring prosperity — and they’re right.  But we all know that sparking a local boom times in the face of the sluggish national and state economy is not in the cards.  It will take a long and patient commitment to strengthen Ventura’s economic base.

Perhaps the most important lesson learned from the Year of Reckoning now passed is that simplistic, partisan stances are not the answer.  We need decisive action, not divisive action.  When people from different points of view and different interests come together (as the Ventura City Council has unanimously done on the past three budgets), there is a basis for consensus and common cause.  When you face a real crisis, you have to get real.  The only way to accomplish the “politically impossible” is for everyone to re-evaluate the possibility of working with people with whom they disagree.  That’s the answer that remains elusive in Washington, but has been the basis for our success so far in Ventura.

Just a couple of days left to snag an Apple IPod, Nintendo Wii Game Console or one of those cool remote controlled Syma helicopters.

I admit to being dubious of frantic Christmas buying.  Although I vividly remember the thrill of the red Schwinn three-speed bike under the tree when I was a kid, I agree with those who think that Christmas is over-commercialized.

So I can save you a trip to the mall if you were thinking of finding something to put under our Christmas tree this year.  All I want for Christmas is a functional State of California.

Yes, I know.  It’s a lot for Santa to carry in his sleigh.  And I can’t really say we’ve been all that good this year.  But in the spirit of the holiday season, this is my Christmas plea:

Dear St. Nick, I know you get a lot of unrealistic requests at this time of year.  But on behalf of the 9,295,040 kids under 18 that the Census counted in California last year, I hope you and your elves can help us.

We have political problems, but we have always had political problems and we always will.  What’s really missing this holiday season is a shared belief in the California Dream. 

For generations, people have been coming here with the faith that if they worked hard and invested in their futures, they could make a better life for themselves and their kids.  “Investing in the future” was a real commitment.  We built a great system of free public education, we fostered entrepreneurship, we welcomed newcomers and we sought to protect our natural heritage.  It wasn’t all rosy — there were titanic battles over these issues.   But the spirit of working together always triumphed.  

We can do it again.  What we need, though, is the shared understanding and commitment that we are in this together.  Tough times have always evoked harsh polarization.  There are dark chapters in California history when hatred was unleashed, whether against “the Chinese” or “the Mexicans” or “the Oakies” or some other vulnerable target.  Yet we always came to our senses and found a way forward, together.

There are no easy answers to our State’s structural and fiscal challenges.  Yet we know that California emerged from a decade and a half of the Depression and World War II poised for its greatest triumphs.  Through hard work and common cause, we became the envy of the nation, overtaking the Empire State in population.  We  set the pace with our music, our technology, our movies, our lifestyles, our universities, our highways and, yes, even our government.

Grumpy baby boomers like me are tempted to look back on those days in nostalgic wonder.  Better that we look back in gratitude and humility.  Our parents were far more willing to make sacrifices — including my then single mom who put that Schwinn under our tree.

Santa, right now, many of us are feeling kind of blue and sorry for ourselves.  We blame our frustrations on “them” (pick your poison — “illegal immigrants,” “the greedy 1%,” “intransigent Republicans,” “spendthrift Democrats,” or “the illiterate young.”) 

So, Santa, if you could leave us just a little package of compassion, maybe we’d grow up and treat each other — Democrat and Republican, rich and poor, young and old — like fellow owners of the California Dream.  Maybe we’d focus on working our way out of the mess we are in and spend less time looking for someone else to blame for the mess we are in.

Thanks for listening, Santa.  Hope you enjoy the milk and cookies.