More Sizzle... Steak Still Missing...

Stay Sacramento has a spiffy new look to their web site. Looks like it was put together by a second-year design student. Really, that's not a bad thing - the site looks about a kazillion percent better than before. Kudos to them for finally realizing that when you have nothing to sell, you dang well better make it look and smell pretty.

It's interesting how their pages are devoid of any real content. The "Problems with Cities" page has one article about budget problems in Half Moon Bay, and two bits of old news about Bell. Apparently no one at StaySac has realized yet that the city of Bell has a completely different form of government, and that what happened there can't, by law, happen here. Using Bell as an example of how bad things will be here is laughable.

The "Why no City" page trots out the old "higher taxes - duplicate government" song and dance that we've all learned to tune out. And of course, they just sing the chorus, because the verses don't have any words.

Here's my personal favorite:
"The Sales Tax Revenue In Arden Arcade Can Not Support Providing Municipal Services To Residents"

Now, let me run this through one more time. Two separate consulting groups were paid tens of thousands of dollars to conduct an independent study, 2-3 years apart, and both came to the same conclusion: Cityhood is financially viable. Not only possible, but should show a surplus every year (much like Citrus Heights, with a similar population and similar tax base). The more recent study was done using last year's data (for 2008), and this year's data (for 2009) hasn't been released yet. Yes, the recession was in full swing in 2008. But to claim the study is wrong, when there is simply no data available to support yout conjecture, is dangerously misguided.

And one more for a nightcap:

"Two local park districts have funded a cityhood incorporation study by diverting public funds intended for park programs:
 Fulton-El Camino Park and Recreation District — $20,000
 Arden-Manor Park Recreation -- $10,000"

Again, old news. But it occurs to me that I haven't addressed this one head-on yet.

The facts are correct. Both districts did make the contributions listed. "Diverted" is a misleading word, but since we know they don't feel the need to stick with the truth, we'll point out that that word means taking something away from where it shoud have gone, and sending it somewhere else.

The parks districts boards exist to serve their residents by providing the best park and rec services possible. Now imagine you were in their shoes. You've lived here a while. You remember what Rusch Park used to look like prior to incorporation. You wouldn't let your kids hang out there anywhere near sunset. But you also know Rusch Park now. It is a shining example of what a park can be, and it happened because the City of Citrus Heights used community development block grant money to make the improvements. The funds for this were non-existant before incorporation. No other way to look at it.

So now, as a parks district board member, you have the opportunity to make a small investment in your community, that has the potential to return tens of thousands of dollars in revenue that can grow and improve the parks in your district. Money that can fund senior services, kids programs, athletic leagues... the list goes on. I will go out on a limb here, and say that if you don't make that investment, the constituents of your district would be well within their rights to demand you step down from office.

So that's my take on the new site in a nutshell. Go read for yourself. The link is still on the right, but the logic is still on the dead wrong.

***

Speaking of new sites, the council candidates (Pat Cole, Matt Powers and Bob Stevens) have joined together to launch a cooperative site. The link is over there, with the rest. Check it out.