Relevance.....

[Darian]

Given the current proposals to redesign the Delta and other conservation/land/water issues in the news, I think it's time to ask whether fundamental change in governmental structure is necessary. 8)

Local governments have allowed undisciplined development of land to encourage development which generates revenues thru a combination of builders/users fees, personal/real property taxes. In addition, local business development generates local sales tax revenues for cities/counties. In most cases, development has not been regulated in a responsible way; resulting in homes being built below sea level and behind aging levees on islands in the Delta and in areas which create/have other negative impacts on the environment. :( :( Most of this activity would appear to be self serving on the part of local/state governments. There is a lot of talk about what consititutes essential services but the only real agreement is on public safety and law enforcement. Lets face it, many local governments are ineffective accept for self serving growth. I hope I'm not appearing to support some type of revisit of "Prop 13, passed in 1979, as I think that initiative is responsible for where we find ourselves today, revenuewise.

So,.... What I'm advocating is establishing regional governmental entities based on, say, watershed management areas, geopolitical management areas or some other desireable basis and elimination of city/county governments and quasi-governmental water distributors in California. Maintaining balance/separation of powers would be a necessary part of this reform but whether the structure of this regional entity would consist of an elected board or another group I haven't thought about yet.

Much to think about and discuss in this. Agree or disagree, hope you'll participate. :) :)

[Mike McKenzie]

.however, I'm not really sure a more distant regional government would be responsive enough to local concerns, as shown by what we have now... ineffectual state and federal government. As you stated, the self-serving aspect of additional revenues is part of the problem that leads to irresponsible decisions with respect to local development. The change needed (in my view..) is to make the local decision makers the responsible party for the results of that development.

I think that putting the onus for development on the backs of local government and taxpayers would go a long way to controlling run away developers and inappropriate development. As it is now, the state and federal governments are the "deep pockets" that continue to bail out irresponsible development.

The current line of thinking, that if one buys a home in a flood plain or an area subject to Hurricane driven winds and tidal surges, the government should bail them out is insane at best. Until this line of thinking changes there probably ain't much hope...
MHO...

P.S. with respect to "Prop 13" I have to wonder how many folks would now be among the "homeless" ranks, due to being taxed out of their homes... :eek:
I firmly believe our "revenue" problems rest with legislators that buy votes by catering to special interests with our tax money and are not held accountable for their actions.. especially idiots like our "Governator" that thinks Bond issues are free money and its appropriate to borrow one's way out of debt! I pity our Grand-Kids

Mike

[Darian]

Interesting points.... I believe a regional government might be as responsive as any city or county government is now. Especially if the policy of making the decsision makers responsible and hold them accountable. 8) 8) The officers of this government could be elected or appointed and as such would be local representatives. The only part that's lacking in this is the failure of the public to engage/vote in support of those principals. :( (Just as you and I, and only a few others engage on these subjects here)

There's no denying that the State and Fed's conduct bail-outs for those victimized by developers but it's also true that these persons made choices for themselves that could have been avoided using a bit of common sense. Maybe one bail-out is OK. After that....??? The bail-outs that concern me are those that subsidize developers with tax relief or public funds to build sports arenas for millionaire gambling casino owners.... Competition between local governments to build bigger/better shopping or auto malls at the edges of city boundaries, as in Elk Grove, or subsidizing the Westfield Group, Downtown Mall in order to revitalize the K Street Mall once again. There're certainly others but too numerous to name here. :( :( :( These bail-outs should be reviewed for effectiveness or elimination. But I digress.....

Since responsibility and accountability are themes that are currently codified, at least at most levels of government, and are generally not enforced unless the violation is flagrant that it cannot be ignored, those principals have proven to be ineffective. Further, each time a violation is uncovered officials conduct a self examination and pronounce themselves OK.... :( IMHO, that failure is at least part of the basis of need for fundamental change.

I would like to see the Legislature go back to part-time terms/sessions at reduced compensation and make the governor's office less potent thru defining authorities/powers granted that office narrowly. With the exception of redefining the districts, I would not change the courts structure. 8) 8) Of course, many local services require examination in order to structure them correctly.

Tax policy is responsible for the revenue plight we find ourselves in today with politicians afraid to do anything about it as it could require them to stand up and explain why changes in tax policy are necessary and then attempt to adopt the changes.

"Prop 13" is one example. This proposition was allegedly an attempt to control undisciplined County Tax Assessors who attempted to solve revenue problems by increasing assessments arbitrarily beyond the value of the property and ability the owners to pay. The panic felt by homeowners, at the time, was very real. The drafters/sponsors of Prop 13 were large commercial/rental property owners who would benefit greatly from passage of the initiative. All properties assessments were reduced to specified levels only to be inceased by 2% per annum. Reassessment to current market levels could only occur if/when a property was sold. To make a long story short. The proposition past. Now we have what is an unequitable situation for current buyers and a 2/3 voting requirement for any increase to property, Income and Sales Taxes in this state. It's almost impossible to change anything with that requirement. Further, the uneven revenue flow has created the percieved need for local governments to be creative in raising funds. Maybe the change required for this problem is to allow reassessment of commercial/rental properties to an increased, specified level. 8) 8) That could avoid the sins of County Assessors of the past. 8) 8) Lack of equity in our current tax policy is a very large problem for all of us. :? :?

I dunno, the more I think about this the more complex it becomes.... :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Darian]

In looking for an example to emphasize undisciplined growth and revenue issues mentioned earlier, it was reported in the Sacramento Bee, today, that the Yuba Project is coming up for a vote in Yuba County shortly....

The Yuba Highlands Project involves constructing 5100 homes and a 1 million square foot business park on 3,000 acres of land adjacent to Beale Air Force Base and the Spenceville Wildlife Area. It's estimated that this development will bring 13,000 people into this rural land. In order to accomodate the anticipated increase in traffic, an existing rural/gravel road thru the wildlife area would be upgraded. Traffic impacts would be felt on highways 20 and 65. The only public services would be available from the County. The record indicates many pro's/con's for this project including the fact that yuba County approved the project in their planning process as early as 1993.

The Yuba highlands Project is a classic example of leapfrog development, where a development is completed some distance from the edge of city/county services. In the almost every instance where this type of development is carried out, pressure is compelling to fill the area between the edge of city/town and the new development within a very short period of time.

Of course the motivation for this approval was/is additional revenues and economic development for Yuba County as it is one of the poorest, economically, in California. However, this development would appear to have many negative impacts on the environment surrounding it's boundaries and beyond. Imagine the runoff into the Yuba River from storm drains, etc. Bringing 13,000 new residents into a rural county is the equivalent of dropping a new city into place. IMHO, if this project is approved, Hwy 20 will be come a cooridor for development between Marysville and Grass Valley.

Here is clearly a need for a regional authority to approve/disapprove the project based on rules for sound development/environmental principles.

I dunno, maybe it's time to consider moving, again. 8) 8) 8)