Naive or Realistic
Let’s start with a definition
and how it might apply to Costa Mesa’s – and California’s -- government.
According to Wikipedia,
naivety (or naïveté) “is . . . having or showing a lack of experience,
understanding or sophistication . . .
where one neglects (being realistic) in favor of moral idealism.”
405 Fiasco
Remember
when Caltrans insisted on a double carpool lane for Interstate 405? They said
it would be good for the City in the long run. Once the investment was paid
off, they said, tolls would cease and all of the harms it caused in Costa Mesa
would be healed.
We should
notice though, that Caltrans’ plans are not plans in the business sense. Their
executives do not set milestones and reach the plan’s goals. They just plan,
settle in, and increase the tolls from time to time.
What’s
the evidence? This article by Doug Irving
in a recent Orange County Register article covers it well. He writes about a study that
suggests “Toll roads may never pay off debt.” Toll Roads forever article
Never?
Our grandchildren will be paying tolls on these same roads? Didn't they tell us
the roads would be paid off and the tolls would stop?
The
answers are all “yes.”
Former
Mayor Eric Bever led the battle that forced Caltrans to select a different plan
for Costa Mesa’s stretch of the “OC Crush.” His sophistication saved a lot of
problems for the City.
You
want another example?
More pension benefits without any cost to us
Now
we see that the unfunded portions of our liabilities are growing, into the
billions. And Costa Mesa is on a course to add 50% to her millions in unfunded liabilities.
But didn't they assure us . . . ?
Yes,
they did. Please re-read the definition above.
We expect capable politicians, not dreamers
We should be able to expect the politicians we
elect to be realistic, and maybe even sophisticated. We should expect them to
apply a critical eye to plans, estimates, and promises when they address their
responsibilities as government officers.
They should not be naïve. They should not believe
in free money from Washington D.C., or pensions funded by 7.5% investment
growth.
How do we know
How are we, as citizens of Costa Mesa, to hold
our leaders to realistic
decisions? How can we evaluate the proposals, such as
that by organized labor to institute PLAs (Project Labor Agreements) with
school districts? How are we to understand, and tell our City Council what we
want, when we look at demands for funds from various charities?
A start is to look realistically at the choices.
For example, a student pilot learns that she can have airspeed or altitude, but
not both. She has to choose, knowing that as one increases the other decreases.
There is a similar scale for individuals. We
can choose (or have the state choose for us) the free food and medical benefits
we get in prison but we’ll enjoy little freedom. Or, we can pay for our own benefits
and enjoy a lot more freedom as a business owner.
What realistic information should educational
systems use to decide about PLAs? What are realistic options?
Questions to ask
First, are the unions that are seeking PLAs trying
to support their communities, as they claim?
Northern California faced a “sympathy strike”
by the trash haulers’ union this week. The local trash haulers had no beef with
their company or their community. They were striking in support of an
out-of-state group of trash haulers.
That is, California communities suffered
because a union in another state was more important to the local union than
their own communities. It might be naïve, then, to think that unions, in
general, will show any loyalty to their—and our-- communities.
And PLAs increase the price paid for needed
work, decreasing what can be done with the limited dollars available. This may
hurt the district’s bond ratings, which increases the cost of borrowing to
build school infrastructure. So, the unions may not have our interests in mind
when they demand PLAs, and the PLAs raise our costs. Our choices are clearer
when we are realistic instead of idealistic – or naïve.
Charities want a hand
Giving our funds to charities provides money to
groups that may be run by executives with six-figure paychecks. Their income
depends upon their recruiting more and more “helpless and homeless,” not on
resolving the recipients’ issues. So, if a given charity would be laughed out
of a church-council meeting for soliciting donations, why would the City give
them money? Recall the definition of naïve.
Perhaps building infrastructure that supports
productive measures, such as shelters and belongings storage, would be better.
Providing help to an agency that demonstrates significant help for Costa Mesans
might be worthwhile.
But, a realistic approach suggests that if no local
group is funding an agency for significant amounts, Costa Mesa City probably shouldn't either.
A quick glance at the staff report for the
Block Grant Study Session this week shows about 83 homeless and 41 disabled
have been helped so far this fiscal year. The cost for contacting nearly 1780
needy people has been about $140K plus City Staff time. Notice the number actually
helped in each category in the City’s report. (That information is near the end.) Block grant staff report
Step over to the rational side
The difference between naïve and realistic is a
chasm. Unfortunately, too often in the past our politicians have fallen, for whatever
reason, on the naïve side.
Let’s insist that our government officers do what’s
best for Costa Mesa, not what sounds sweet and nice. Let’s insist they consider
the trade-offs and the likely consequences, instead of swallowing “projections”
and promises as if they were business plans.
It's not the same
Projections and promises from CalPers,
Caltrans, and similar agencies are not business plans. 
Beware of unfunded liabilities and unsubstantiated promises. They'll come back to bite you!
No comments:
Post a Comment