Last Monday I had the privilege of attending an open community meeting sponsored by the Mission Oaks North Neighborhood Association. The meeting format was a debate between Joel Archer, former chair of the incorporation committee, and Mike Duveneck, chair of the Stay Sacramento group. After the meeting ended I was almost bouncing off the walls with excitement. Not because Mr. Archer spoke eloquently and convincingly about the benefits of incorporation (which he did), and not because Dr. Duveneck made absolutely no convincing arguments against incorporation (which was also true). What got my feet to moving and my soul to grooving was the chairs.
The Mission Oaks North group was anticipating a large turnout of 75 or so residents, so they set out a hundred chairs. Fifteen minutes before the meeting the chairs were filled, and people were lined up out the door waiting to sign in. So they started bringing out carts with more chairs stacked on them. Cart after cart came out, until they finally managed to fit about 250 people into the room.
That's 250 people who showed up on a Monday evening for a local political event. 250 people who care enough about the future of their community to take the time to learn the facts to make intelligent decisions. That means the message is getting out! People are learning the truth, and if I can be forgiven the bad paraphrase, the truth of incorporation will set them free.
Of course, there's always a sour grape in the bunch, and this meeting was no exception. This one was especially meaningful to me. While the incorporation committee was proceeding through the LAFCo process, raising funds and rousing supporters, and finding its way through the creation of an environmental impact report and comprehensive fiscal analysis, the LAFCo commissioners decided it would be a good idea to look at every possible option for our area, to see how we could best be served. This included annexation by the City of Sacramento, which as it turned out, would add an extra $40,000 (give or take) to the cost of the report. At that meeting the commissioners also decided that it made sense for the incorporation committee, who never wanted annexation, never asked for annexation, and were all united in vehement opposition to annexation, to pay the extra $40,000 (give or take). Anyone want to take a guess who suggested this? Yeah, I know. Sometimes they are just too easy.
At Monday's meeting Archer reminded the group that although Stay Sacramento claims to be opposed to annexation, they were the ones who insisted that LAFCo require the incorporation proponents to pay for the annexation study. During Duveneck's rebuttal, he said that his group did not ever request that LAFCo require the incorporation committee to pay for this study.
Well, guess what, Dr. D? I was in the room that night. I sat less than 30 feet from you when you personally stood at the podium and demanded that in the interest of serving the community, Arden Arcade cityhood supporters should have to pay all costs associated with a full study of annexation before the issue could go to the ballot. Anyone who wants to invest the time can check old commission agendas to find the date where that decision was made, then check out the video from any county library to see for yourself.
Up to this point, it's been obvious that Stay Sacramento is intellectually bankrupt. But now there is concrete evidence that they, or at least their leaders, are morally bankrupt as well. For as long as they have been saying that cityhood will raise taxes (proven false), lose police protection (proven false), be unable to support itself through its tax base (proven false - notice a trend here?), I've always tried to offer the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they really do believe this, and something just isn't clicking right upstairs. But now the cards are all on the table. We have conclusive proof that Stay Sacramento doesn't feel the need to rely on concepts like the truth to get their way. Their ideas are like a bunch of cockroaches that seem real scary in the dark, but scatter whenever the light shines on them. And while they may seem dangerous, they can't stand up to the fight. If we continue to speak to the truth and keep the light shining, we will send them scurrying off to their little holes.
On a brighter note, I'm really getting tired of dealing with all the negativity Stay Sacramento is tossing around. Next time I'm going to try to get some face time with some of the people who were responsible for making incorporation work in other areas of the county, and share some ideas about how we can realize the vision we have for Arden Arcade. You will want to stick around - I really doubt most of us have allowed ourselves to dream this big!
With this ploy, can't they just admit that they want to "Join Sacramento" (city), rather than "Stay Sacramento" (county)?
ReplyDeleteHm, sounds like the same old scare tactics to me. The city cannot just annex Arden Arcade because it wants to. There's an enormous legal process involved, but the Yes on D crowd has chosen not to explain that.
ReplyDeleteBecky, thanks for taking the time to read the posts and participate in this dialogue. I'm hoping you can explain more about how calling out the leader of an organization for making a public lie, easily confirmable by anyone who cares, is using scare tactics?
ReplyDeleteAs far as explaining the annexation process, it was all laid out very carefully (and again, can be easily confirmed) in my post titled "The Myth of the Status Quo." If you have more informatiuon than what I presented, please feel free to share it here.
Yes, it is an emormous process. But Peter Brundage, the staff executive at LAFCo, is on record as saying it could happen in as little as six months. It's amazing how fast things can move when professional politicians catch the scent of money and power up for grabs.
Ed:
ReplyDeleteThere's a lot of snarkiness and hysteria on both sides of this question, and it really detracts from any discussion of the issues that are important.
Who lied, how bad the neighborhood is, who is planning what and can they get away with it ... these aren't the questions we need to educate ourselves about in order to vote.
And the focus on taxes isn't helpful either, not from either side.
The first question is: do the numbers work? Is this enterprise viable?
The next question is: what is the vision? What do the candidates see as the most important functions of a new government? Beyond just "we got the money now and can make the decisions," what do people think can actually be accomplished, realistically, with local control?
And how are the candidates planning to deal with the larger question: is this a City that is going to grow? It has to grow to succeed. Are the new leaders planning to adopt a smaller is better approach and keep densities as they are?
And about taxes: if this City realizes that growth requires investment, are they going to be just another municipality looking to cut services, or are they going to come to the voters with a proposal to raise funds?
There are things like this that need to be discussed. The time is past for either side to be focused on whether or not the other has some hidden agenda. And the time is past for this to be about personalities.
It's cool that you have this blog ... there is not much other place for community interaction. But your viewpoint is more than just "somewhat biased."
I'm skeptical of the proposal, and I also see the upside.
Paul, thanks for your comments and reasoned questions. Without going into too much detail here in the comments section, I will try to address your thoughts, but will leave answering the individual questions for a full post, hopefully later this week.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I will own my share, plus a bit, of the snarkiness issue. It's my style, and I doubt I could change it if I wanted to. Which I don't. I crafted my essay skills with a Dave Barry column in one hand and a keyboard in the other. So that is just a part of who I am. No intent to offend.
I believe that questions about ethics are important when discussing someone who wants to influence the course of our future. As you mentioned, there aren't a lot of places out there in either the real or cyber world, for these discussions to happen. And they need to take place. So if someone stumbles across the Stay Sacramento website, reads their info, then comes here, I am not doing them any favors if I allow them to believe that the stuff they read there stands unopposed. For that matter, I am not helping them or the community if I don't point out that they are just plain outright lying. I believe it was Dietrich Bonhoeffer who said that silence in the face of a lie is just another lie. Or maybe I just made that up. It's late.
I will answer one of your questions here, mainly because it takes little from me to do so. This past spring a required independent study, costing several thousand dollars (the number forty comes to mind, but I'm really not sure of the exact amount) concluded that Arden Arcade will not only be financially viable, but by continuing the same levels of municipal services, will be able to post a surplus each year, to the tune of about $60 million over the next ten years. You can read the actual study on the Sac LAFCo web site. I'm pretty sure I posted a link to it earlier, but the domain is saclafco.org if you want to just dig for it there.
Again, I really do appreciate your thoughts, and I will try my best to adress all of them sometime soon, snarkiness and all.