CC_Minutes_2007_0806 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

~t~~onm ~ ree tie c~t~es ~ city, c~t~es, ott~c~~s ®c_.: ~gl~ _~ ~ , co ge of~ iv iti iti I int r t. c f r it r r tivi j ti i i n ~ i r the hallmarks of free society. he est citie I cele r to creativi r Quin the lank f government-enforced regulation and zoning. Point 2 is to respect property rights and deregulate development rules. City officials tend to be dismissive of property rights. They want to control every land-use decision and are constantly imposing costlier and more burdensome regulatory hurdles on developers and even homeowners. Not long ago, Stanton passed (then repealed) a policy mandating city inspectors to check out every home sold (including the interior, at the inspector's discretion}. Anaheim requires developers to pay for a paleontologist to be on hand whenever excavation is done. Brea requires that builders pay for public art, which explains why most complexes in the city have "sculptures" that look like they`ve been airlifted out of a scrap yard. Planning commissions in every city dictate, in amazing detail, how businesses must operate. Orange officials dictate the most subjective details of design changes to houses within the historic district. Cities often "downzone" properties to reduce the number of houses that can be built on land. They sometimes use eminent domain, their power to seize property, not to build public infrastructure but to transfer land to private developers who promise more lucrative, tax-paying projects on the site. Instead of micromanaging, cities should set broad standards and let individuals make their own choices. Cities should be viewed as living organisms that are the result of thousands of people making millions of individual decisions, not as sterile laboratories where the officials control everything that takes place inside them. Point 3 is to reform the education system. City officials don't control their Ioca1 school districts, but most officials I have known have been reluctant to even use the bully pulpit to push for the type of school change that would instantly revive many parts of their cities. For instance, when I first moved to Orange County, I found a great old bungalow in central Anaheim at a wonderful price. After a little research, however, I found that the schools my kids would attend were marginal, at best. It was far less expensive to buy a house that cost 35 percent more in a suburban city than to buy the cheaper house and pay for three private school tuitions. No urban policy will be complete without recognition that poor, bureaucratic school systems are forcing middle-class people into the suburbs. One relatively simple solution: Allow residents to send their kids to any school district of their choosing, with no exceptions. Point 4 is to wrest decisions about public safety away from government unions and their bought- and-paid-for politicians. In mast cities, the police and fire unions control the city council members, and these powerful unions control public safety policy. Police officials always push for more police, no matter the number already employed and no matter whether the crime rate is rising or falling. Some cities need more cops, others don't. But every city says it needs "more." They keep hiring more officers even as they enhance pensions, encouraging more officers to retire at an earlier age, which only exacerbates the so-called shortage. Private alternatives to costly fire departments and paramedic services are nonstarters because of the fear of union strife. It's time to base public safety decisions on objective factors (e.g., response times, crime rates) and on the public's best interest. As police and fire devour more and more of city budgets, other services are edged out. It's time to put the public interest back into public safety policy making. http:/lv~-rww.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/columns/article_1781120.php 7/30/2007