Is the City Wasting $1,000,000?

Last week I reported that my colleagues on the City Council, the so-called “Gang of 3” (Voigts-Hamilton-Robinson) refused to consider “naming rights” as a revenue source that could bring the City more than $1,000,000. That was a strange vote by City Council members whose city is perhaps best known for “Etnies Skate Park” and where about 10% of the residential land mass is named after prominent families (Baker Ranch, Bennet Ranch, Whisler Ridge) who made millions from the City.

This week the Gang voted to spend $1,500,000 on a General Plan update which is neither required nor useful.

RATIONALE

The City’s general plan provides guidelines for how development should occur. The plan is more than 20 years old, but that hasn’t stopped the City from developing over the years, and it hasn’t stopped City Council members from deviating from the General Plan whenever a developer put money into their campaign committee and asked for the deviation.

Why would we spend $1,500,000 for a plan that we don’t seem to need and we can ignore at will?

COSTS

Why would we spend $1,500,000 when other cities have conducted general plan updates at significantly lower costs than the City Manager proposes? Irvine, for example, will spend the same amount for a population that is 3 times larger and an area 4 times larger. Alhambra and Indo, with slightly more people, spent $700,000 each in 2014, which is less than half of what the City Manager proposes. Look at the data -

• · Alhambra - 85,569 people, 7.6 square miles ($700,000) -2014
• · Indio – 85,633 people, 29.2 square miles ($700,000) - 2014
• · Costa Mesa – 113,500 people, 15.7 square miles ($753,240) - 2012
• · Irvine - 258,386 people, 66.5 square miles ($1,500,000) – 2016

On a per person basis, the average cost is $6.73. The City Manager proposes to spend $18.75 for Lake Forest.

On a per square mile basis, the average cost is $30,699. The City Manager proposes to spend $100,000 for Lake Forest.

On a per person basis we will spend nearly 3 times as much as the comparison cities. On a per square mile basis we will spend more than 3 times as much. What kind of spending is that?

FOCUS

Why would we do a “general” plan when the City is almost fully built out? Why don’t we spend our energies on those few high risk areas where we know we need to focus?

Let’s face it, most of the land mass in the City is zoned residential and all of these areas are filled or being filled. Most of our office, industrial, and retail space has high occupancy levels and won’t be modified. But we do have some areas that need attention, either because of their economic challenges, their appearance, or structural problems associated with their location. Here is where we should focus our attention and spend our money.

SUMMARY

The idea of spending $1,500,000 on an academic exercise of re-doing the General Plan makes no sense since the City can function without revising the existing General Plan, as has been demonstrated for the past two decades. Moreover, since the General Plan has been violated at will by City Council members who accept money from developers, spending $1,500,000 to have a new plan they can violate at will makes no sense.

Even if we were so irresponsible as to commission a new plan, the current proposal is more than 3 times what we should be paying. Why don’t my colleagues object? Because the companies who will be paid for this work are some of the companies who contribute money to their campaigns or funnel money to third parties that ultimately reaches their campaigns.

COSTS OF THE GANG OF 3

If you’re keeping track, the idea that a recall election that costs $200,000 is an expense the City can’t bear, keep in the mind the $1,000,000 we lost a few weeks ago when the Gang of 3 voted not to consider “naming rights”, and now add the extra $1,000,000 we will spend on a General Plan that isn’t needed. That’s $2,000,000 we could have in the bank but don‘t because of the collective wisdom of the Gang of 3. Suddenly the $200,000 to get rid of them doesn‘t seem like such a bad investment.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr. Jim Gardner is on the City Council for Lake Forest. You can check him out on LinkedIn and/or Facebook and you can share your thoughts about the City at Lake Forest Town Square on Facebook. His comments are not meant to reflect official City Policy.

Dr. Gardner has office hours every Tuesday from 4 pm to 6 pm at the City Hall. In addition, he holds a Town Hall meeting every quarter. The next meeting will be on August 13 at 2 pm at the Foothill Ranch Public Library.