I appreciate and understand the efforts of those who support Measure M on the Santa Barbara County ballot, but it is a misguided effort. I recently had an experience with a rundown county road on my way to our small ranch in the Cuyama Valley. All the surrounding roads leading to the property were in a sound condition of repair, but not this particular stretch of county roadway as the potholes were beyond belief. It needed a new layer of asphalt, not just pothole repair. Reaching home in Santa Maria, I fired off a letter to the 1st District supervisor with copies to all the other supervisors asking for help and pointing out that it had not been re-asphalted in more than 20 years. Quickly—within a day or so—I received a call from the North County road supervisor, and it was fixed in a flash with a sparkling new layer of asphalt. I appreciated the road chiefs’ efforts, as well as the supervisors. We all need to understand priorities; as this is a road with low usage, I am sure it was low on the list.
In our most recent election for 4th District supervisor, I debated between not voting at all or voting for Peter Adam, a candidate without a political record or experience. I decided to vote for Peter and hoped he could learn on the job, but unfortunately his recent activities and leadership in support of Measure M show a lack of good judgment. I now have second thoughts about my vote of support.
His activities make me remember back to 1978 and 2005 when taxpayers were forced to pay for studies and special elections and vote on two separate efforts to split the county. Both these efforts went down to a resounding defeat by voters who voted as high as 4-1 against these foolish ideas. The ideas were foolish because two studies were completed prior to the election that showed the new proposed county would start off bankrupt and either would have to substantially reduce funding for public safety or substantially increase taxes. The study found that 79 percent of county income came from South County, but 63 percent was spent in North County. This disparity between where funds were generated and spent led the State Commission to determine that the proposed new Mission County “would not be economically viable.” Despite the facts, proponents of the split in 2005 continued, knowing that the two studies concluded “this old dog would not hunt.” Their antics and dislike of those who disagreed reminded me of children in my childhood who could not learn to get along with others and left the marble game in disgust, saying, “I am going to take my marbles and go home.” Most children are required to clean up after a game, and it was too bad that the split proponents on both occasions didn’t have to pick up the tab for the million-dollar study and elections, rather than the rest of county taxpayers.
Today, we expect our county supervisors to exercise good judgment on a day-to-day basis and not to tie their own hands behind their backs with a bad proposition such as Measure M. Changing conditions, often beyond human control, make it prudent to be prepared for all possible contingencies and emergencies ranging from floods to fires, earthquakes, drought—and the possibilities go on and on. It requires each and every supervisor to exercise their best judgment and to be free to shift funds into needed categories each fiscal year—some years have more going into maintenance and other years into emergency uses, but good judgment is the name of the game. Measure M would take away their ability to exercise this discretion.
Again, as with the efforts to split the county in years past, we need to take a close look at what the proposal will do to county finances. Just as with a county split, Measure M would require either a substantial increase in taxes or a substantial reduction in public safety funding. This is true because the total budget each year is about $800 million, and about $600 million of this is nondiscretionary. It is nondiscretionary because its use is mandated by federal and state laws. Thus, only about $200 million each year is discretionary, with 60 percent used for public safety. It is extremely important that these limited discretionary funds be used as needed each year with a careful balance between county needs and unfolding events. We all must remember that many county activities are already on the edge with prior cuts including public safety, jails, truancy programs, libraries, parks, probation, beaches, animal welfare, and so on. But the net effect of Measure M requirements would eliminate important county programs and result in fewer firefighters and sheriff’s deputies or a substantial increase in taxes. Today, just as in the past, we need none of these outcomes as they are not in our best interest! I am sure Supervisor Adam had the best of intentions, but I question his judgment and lack of experience in supporting Measure M. This measure does not warrant our support!
Ken McCalip is a North County native who holds bachelor and doctorate degrees in history, cultural geography, and law from various California universities. He can be reached at kennethmccalip@yahoo.com. Send comments to the executive editor at rmiller@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in May 29 – Jun 5, 2014.