Economy is for Winners (Budget Part 3)

After public safety, economic development is the backbone and engine for growth in any city. Sacramento continues to sit in the shadow of such Bay Area greats as San Francisco and the entire Silicon Valley. One might suppose that the Council is interested in economic improvements city-wide with all of the investment in sports infrastructure, but that couldn't be farther from the truth.

Sacramento still relies heavily on government employees for its economic health. And jobs that aren't related to government are heavily biased toward low-wage and part-time work. Indeed, even jobs created by sporting entertainment will be among those two categories. Does the budget support economic development for full-time highly skilled employment?

If the Council's investment in economic development planning is any indication, no. The City will completely divest itself from economic planning, and instead give a mere $188,000 to Greater Sacramento - an organization of citizens and businesses who want to see the City's economy improve. We could probably all agree that any organization of leaders that aren't our City Council can do a better job of planning for Sacramento’s future - but then why are Council Members getting $790,000 more next year? Shouldn't this money be going to those that are actually doing the work to pull Sacramento out of the debt that the Council got into?

And even if you think that businesses should fund their own economic development, what about the city's 'rainy day fund'? Shouldn't Sacramento leaders be planning for the next economic downturn so we don't have to cut our police and fire by another 25%, or raise taxes on already struggling families? No, not in this budget. The proposed budget notes "recommendations for funding the [Economic Uncertainty Reserve] will be considered as funding is identified."

Basically, Council has no self-control when it comes to spending our money. Even though they have themselves identified a goal of 10% reserve, and they are still $1.5 million short of that goal, there are no plans to save for our future.

One might also hope that the City intends to directly help small businesses establish a presence in Sacramento, large businesses hire skilled workers (which we have many of that commute to the Bay or foothills), or new economic opportunities that want to establish a presence here. Instead of simple and important measures such as tax relief, permitting streamlining, and start-up incentives that are being used by neighboring communities, the Sacramento Council will spend its time and resources contemplating a better business climate.

The budget prioritizes finding "access to" foreign investments (but no assistance), pursuit of grant dollars for infrastructure (none of which have been secured), and enhancements to the city's website (yay, can we have emoji please?). Oh, and they save the best for last. The Council wants to "engage with the Greater Sacramento Area Economic Council" and "strengthen relationships with regional partners" - because this is a new concept and they haven't been doing their job over the last year.

How does that $25,000 raise for each City Council Member sound now?

City of Sacramento Budget

Budget Part 1: City Council Gives Themselves 6% Raise

Budget Part 2: Public Safety - Not A Priority

Public Safety - Not a Priority (Budget Part 2)

In the last post, we revealed that the huge taxes and fees the City is taking from you are going to fatten the budgets of your City Council Member. So, we should start examining what it is you'll be getting for the $5.6 million they are voting to pay themselves. The first responsibility of government is to protect the people - Public Safety is paramount.

But a review of the City's proposed budget shows that improvements to public safety are hardly a concern for the Council.

The proposed budget notes a desire to increase police staffing levels to two officers per 1,000 residents, but that such an increase would "require substantial new ongoing resources" which are not provided for in this budget. The Council is proposing to move away from a community policing model to a "geographic policing model". To hell with communities - they cost too much to provide adequate police resources anyway!

Oh, but the lack of officers is okay. The City will just purchase another ten cameras to install around Sacramento to record all of our movements and keep them in police files. It won't matter much the crimes that are happening in our neighborhoods, because police will be able to watch their televisions and find criminals after-the-fact. Your house may be trashed, your car smashed, or your neighbor murdered - but at least they can (maybe) figure out who did it!

The City Council is giving themselves each a 6% raise, so we should assume that the Police Department will also have at least as much , right? No, of course not. The proposed budget shows only one-half of one percent (0.5%) increase for the Police.

And the best is yet to come - other than body cameras and other recording devices, the City Council is putting police funding into hiring new staff at the Police Department. This should come as good news for those of us watching invasive property and non-violent crimes devour our communities. But none of these proposed staff will actually be helping to deter or combat crime.

Out of newly created positions, about 2.5 will go to running background checks on city employees. And the other 22.5 positions will be part-time jobs for police recruiters to go out and talk to kids about becoming police officers. Never mind the fact that even if they want to become officers there's no new money in the budget to hire them.

That's right. The Council's answer to crime in Sacramento is to hire part-time recruiters and buy cameras. But they really deserve that 6% raise, right?

City of Sacramento Budget

Budget Part 1: City Council Gives Themselves 6% Raise

Budget Part 3: Economy is for Winners

City Council Gives Themselves 6% Raise (Budget Part 1)

Last week Sacramento's proposed 2015-16 budget was released for public comment. The contents of that budget tell an interesting story about the priorities of the City Council - A story that doesn't support the rhetoric coming from our elected officials.

The proposed budget "reflects adopted Council priorities" and amounts to almost $1 billion - that's almost $2,000 for every man, woman and child in Sacramento. Think for a moment ... what could you do for your family, and what kind of amazing vacation could you take, if you had $2,000 extra for each person in your family?  But I digress.

So what exactly is the City proposing to do with all of that money taken from you in taxes and fees? Well, to start with, each Council Member will increase their own budget by 6%, or about $25,000 over last year's approved amount. That's right, you're paying more in Measure U taxes so that they can fatten their own budgets. Between the Mayor and City Council, there is a proposed increase of over $790,000 from the last approved budget.

When was the last time you got a 6% raise at work? And what exactly are the City Council doing to deserve such a pay increase? That is what the rest of this series intends to answer.

City of Sacramento Budget

Budget Part 2: Public Safety - Not A Priority

Budget Part 3: Economy is for Winners

Other Cities Lead While Sacramento Just Pretends

Sacramento Leaders Don't Understand Simple Math

Sacramento is the capitol of the most productive state in the United States. Within the last 10 years, California was the 6th largest economy in the world, surpassing developed countries of global significance such as Italy and Russia. One would think that the capitol city of that powerhouse should be strong and vibrant, a beacon of hope and prosperity.

However, Sacramento's leadership over that time has done an abysmal job of investing in city infrastructure, building safe communities, and promoting an inviting environment for job creation. What's worse, city leaders continue to ignore the voice of the people and pursue a losing strategy. Not only should Sacramento voters get more engaged in City planning, the City Council and Mayor should consider it their duty to reach out to the public ... not ignore them.

Other effective City Council Members are doing just that - asking residents what they need. In the City of Long Beach, Rex Richardson has taken a portion of the city budget, dedicated it to infrastructure investment, and held community meetings to set priorities for these expenditures. There are countless other strategies that can help local governments encourage citizen participation. The Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) researches, compiles, and provides for free packages of strategies and materials for use by local governments.

MRSC notes, "formal city hall and courthouse settings can be intimidating, and hearings can sometimes be dominated by those who are more comfortable with public speaking. Such hearings may not be the best way to encourage comment from a wide cross-section of community residents and may not fit into citizens' busy schedules. The format of hearings often leaves little, if any, room for reasonable discussion, give or take, or response to prior testimony. Instead, it is important to conduct a thoughtful public process in advance of the public hearing."

Would You Feel Intimidated?

 Oddly, Mayor Kevin Johnson is the current President of the United States Conference of Mayors (USCM) - an organization that itself gathers and provides best practices for local governments. So, one would wonder why he and his city don't follow many of them...

A myriad of other sources of information are also available to City Leaders, if they could just get past their own egotistical self indulgence. For instance, a survey of more than 13,000 small business owners was conducted, asking what policies make a city business friendly. Sacramento was ranked #82 on the list of lowest rated cities in the country. A thoughtful City Leader should consider its business environment, particularly when Sacramento faces higher unemployment than cities both to the East and West - higher than the state average, even. One vital finding of the survey was that the effects of poor licensing regimes (at all levels of government) were twice as important as taxation, and that easily understood tax regimes were at least as important as low taxes.

If City Leaders listened more to what residents need, and small business owners want, maybe the 2035 General Plan Update would have been more on point.  There's still time to change direction.

Racism in Sacramento's Police Department

According to Mayor Kevin Johnson, Sacramento's Police Department is racist enough that a Ferguson-style uprising could occur right here in our own city. He explained how driving a nice Porche in Oak Park got him pulled over and ticketed because he was black. He also claimed that only 2% of Sacramento's police force is African American (an untruth in itself). So the question is, was this civic-minded and thoughtful consideration of law enforcement in Sacramento, or just scare-tactic political misdirection in support of his own career ambitions?

If you're interested in an overview of crime in Sacramento, I highly recommend a read through the Police Department's Annual Report. I will presume that the report lags about a year behind, and the 2013 report will be released shortly - changes year-to-year are generally minor. Here's some data from 2012 that would seem to be relevant...

• SacPD is 72.9% White, 11.2% Hispanic, 8.8% Asian, and 5.4% African American.
• Sacramento is 45% White, 26.9% Hispanic, 18.3% Asian, and 14.6% African American.
• In 2012, the Sacramento Police Department had 28.4% fewer authorized positions than five years ago (less than three-fourths).
• In 2012, 39 of these authorized positions remained unfilled for a lack of qualified candidates or appropriations by the Mayor and City Council - lack of funds contributed to 19 of these 39 unfilled positions.
• In 2012, more than 43% of SacPD personnel had more than 10 years of experience in law enforcement.

These data show that Mayor Johnson's claims that only 2% of the police force is black are false. However, everyone would also agree that there is not proportionate representation when compared to the incredible diversity throughout Sacramento. It is important to note here that our neighbors whose history lies in the Middle East, North Africa, and related areas are grouped in the category of "White".

Does this affirmatively answer the question of whether SacPD is racist? In order to confirm Mayor Johnson's remarks, we would have to first believe that the Police Department would turn away qualified candidates simply because of their race - - - 20 positions remained unfilled and funded. Then we would have to look at the makeup of their applicant pool - data which is not available to the public.

Perhaps the problem is not with hiring practices of SacPD. The annual report does say, "Ethnic and gender demographics that are balanced and representative of the community have been and continue to be a priority of the Sacramento Police Department. As hiring resumes, a variety of efforts will be reinstituted to further our goal of hiring a diverse workforce. These changes can only occur, though, when an organization is able to add to its workforce through new hiring." (emphasis added)

If the problem is not with hiring policies and practices, maybe Mayor Johnson's experiences are meant to say that the officers themselves, as a whole, are racist. Oak Park, in the time the Mayor is remembering, was listed as one of the top three highest crime neighborhoods in Sacramento. If you drive through this part of the city today, you'll be in an entirely different world, because of the huge investment Sacramento has put into revitalizing this once-upscale suburb.

So, the situation as Mayor Johnson describes it, is that he parked his nice Porche illegally in front of the rundown Woodruff Hotel and sat there, in his car, waiting for an epiphany in one of the highest crime areas of the city. Tell me that isn't suspicious activity. I would be willing to wager that anyone reading this article would feel uncomfortable if a stranger parked his/her luxury car in front of their house and sat in it for a while looking at their home. I would also be willing to wager that the race of the individual in the car would make no difference for the majority of Sacramentans.

How does Oak Park look today, and would this still happen? Well, Sacramento has invested a huge amount of resources into renovating Oak Park. New construction has been happening throughout the area, and city leaders even want to "re-brand" it with a new name. Crime rates have dropped to less than 13 violent crimes per year, and less than 150 property crimes per year - lower than many other parts of the city. The Woodruff Hotel and Guild Theater Mayor Johnson referenced received more than $1 million in renovations, providing entertainment, retail and residential space. I'm still pretty sure that if someone parked illegally in front of the Woodruff and sat there contemplating his/her future that it would attract the suspicion of bystanders and police.

Woodruff Hotel and Guild Theatre After Reconstruction

Does racial profiling happen? Yes. Do crime rates correlate directly to economic status? Yes. Do officers spend more time enforcing among low income communities (which tend also to be majority minority)? Yes. Is the arrest rate for African Americans and other minorities in Sacramento higher than whites? Yes.

Is Sacramento a seething hotbed of racism and police abuse that could lead to Ferguson-style outrage? If you haven't felt it, the answer is probably "No".

Was this a convenient political stunt that was released while the U.S. Conference of Mayors was in town to hear their elected leader (the author of these statements) speak? Without a doubt. Mr. Johnson was elected as Mayor in 2008 - he's had six years to address race issues in his own police department if they are a problem. Why hasn't he done anything before now?

NOTE: I've had my own "run-ins" with some of Sacramento's a**hole police officers. Every department has them, and they're all full of their own impudent self-worth. This lack of community service and understanding of appropriate behavior, however, is a separate issue.

Low Income and Jobless Forgotten as City Leaders go Pinky-Up

Last weekend, Sacramento City leaders shut down the Tower Bridge to host Sacramento elite at a dinner to celebrate their self-designated "Farm to Fork Capitol" of America. This gala dinner, which cost between $175 and $625 per person (depending on how close to the King you wanted to sit), capped off two weeks of self-indulgent faux service to the Sacramento community. Sacramento's leading couple, Kevin Johnson and Angelique Ashby were in attendance.

The inappropriateness of this event was noted in the Sacramento Bee and Sacramento News & Review, among other places. Each recognized that with a median household income of $55,000, farm to fork groceries are a stretch on the budget, and this event was just over-the-top.

What this celebration highlighted most of all is the low wages and poverty that pervades significant portions of Sacramento. In the City of Sacramento, more than one-fourth of residents live below the poverty level, compared to one-fifth statewide. Local farmers markets throughout our communities have been a welcome staple of Sacramento since long before City leaders decided to politically capitalize on the backs of local growers. However, fresh fruits and vegetables, grass-fed beef, and ranch-made cheese and butter are normally too pricey for struggling families to eat more than a couple times each month.

Promoters of "organic" produce and locally grown products tend to brush aside this simple economic fact, saying, "sure it's a little more expensive, but it's better for you". For families who know exactly how much money is in their bank account - to the penny - because they need every penny to eat and survive, eating "better" just isn't part of the equation. The struggle is to survive, and City leaders aren't helping ease that struggle.

If City leaders are going to go through the time, expense, and public inconvenience of holding a two-week festival and shutting down a major thoroughfare in Sacramento, shouldn't that event focus on creating jobs and economic opportunities for the 40,000+ Sacramentans unemployed and looking for jobs, or the 58,000 Sacramentans out of work and collecting social security disability? City leaders regularly extol the virtues of Farm to Fork, a new Entertainment Sports Complex, and recently a new MLS Soccer Stadium, but when was the last time you heard them talk about the rest of us.

The rest of us are those that are taking care of our families and making ends meet. The rest of us are the 125,000 that are struggling with a wage less than $24,000/yr for a family of four (25.6%). The rest of us are the 40,000 that are out of work, but desperately looking for a job (8.4%). The rest of us are the thousands of college graduates that must spend two hours of their day (that could be spent with family) commuting to the bay area, because there are no opportunities for them in Sacramento.

The rest of us aren't paying for the privilege of sitting next to the man who wants all of the power (http://yesonmeasurel.org/), and the rest of us aren't developers making billions on large City-promoted projects. The rest of us are voters and taxpayers, though.

The Future of Sacramento Development - General Plan Update 2035

Another key component to Sacramento's future success is planning for development.  This is the second article discussing the 2035 General Plan Update released in August 2014.

According to city leaders, the city intends to "encourage compact, higher-density development..." (LU 1.1.1).  Throughout the city, they intend to build up - not out.  The premise behind such a proposal is that not enough Sacramentans live in multi-unit apartment buildings.  Among the stated purposes for this requirement to increase density are:  supporting transit, reducing vehicle trips, promoting pedestrian/bicycle friendly neighborhoods, and increasing housing diversity.

Sacramento's Big City Skyline

Now I, personally, want to see Sacramento make the transition into "big city" status.  There is currently estimated to be more than 475,000 residents in the City of Sacramento.  There are only a handful of cities in California bigger than Sacramento, as reported by the California Department of Finance.  This places Sacramento as the 7th largest city in California, following:  Los Angeles (3,904k), San Diego (1,345k), San Jose (1,000k), San Francisco (836k), and Fresno (515k).

A whole different "cowtown" world

But, in order to break into big city status alongside northern California giants like San Francisco and San Jose, there must be fundamental change - change that has long been met with less-than-enthusiastic response from residents who like to think of Sacramento as a "cow town" (see Here, Here and Here).  There's something to be celebrated about having a reputation for nice people, slower pace, and urban farms and livestock.


When you get down to it, here's the crux of the argument for greater infill development and higher housing densities.  The percentage of buildings with five or more units in Sacramento is about 22.5% - Now, compare this with Los Angeles (45.5%), San Diego (35.5%), San Jose (25%), and San Francisco (45.5%).  It simply can't be said that the City's skyline rivals that of San Francisco, San Jose or Los Angeles.

City leaders have a schizophrenic vision of shedding Sacramento's cow town reputation in favor of tightly-packed residents, robust transit and non-motorized transportation options, while still promoting agriculture (lately with the "Farm to Fork" fad) and open space (LU 2.3.1).  It makes one wonder whether they're trying to appease the voters (who like the "small town" feel), while still pushing a big city agenda.