Good enough for good government?

#118, May 28, 2003

 

Government. Like forgotten leftovers in the back of the fridge, it’s often not noticed it until it goes bad.

 

A handful of folks want you to think it’s bad when it’s not. They want to starve it with their millionaire tax cuts, and leave the governing to the generals (General Motors, General Electric, General Dynamics, etc.). But I wrote about this last time. Finish reading Greg Palast’s “Best Democracy Money Can Buy”, and then read “Pigs at the Trough” by Arianna Huffington.

 

I got my first taste of high and mighty governance when I appeared before the Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors in 1975, representing the Isla Vista Food Coop. I sought a zoning variance to extend our food storage shed a few feet into the ten-foot setback zone, a wasteland of bad asphalt and dumpsters. The Supes looked down from their tall, oak paneled dais, laughed and sneered, and voted 5-0. De-NIED! (Immediately following, they gave final approval of a General Plan variance for Exxon to build a massive oil terminal facility on remote ag land.)

 

After the Santa Barbara experience, a colleague suggested that Boards and Councils should sit in a pit and look up at the citizens, to give officials the proper perspective on the people they were elected to serve. A good thing about some of our local government commissions and committees (like Parks and Bike) is that you’re sitting behind an open table, and the public stands above you when they speak. It’s harder to be arrogant when your constituents can see your knees.

 

What else defines good government? I was called to think of an example at last week’s meeting of Petaluma’s Recreation, Music, and Parks Commission. The volunteer leaders of the non-profit Petaluma Council for the Arts were asking us how we/they could get more “Arts and Culture” into our community. What could be done in the new General Plan, they wondered? Should there be a formal Petaluma Arts Commission under the Parks Commission?

 

I suggested the City’s Pedestrian/Bicycle Advisory Committee (PBAC) as a good model. Through mostly volunteer effort, the Committee created a comprehensive Bicycle Plan that, thanks to the persistence of Patricia Tuttle Brown and others, was adopted by the City Council in 2000. With the plan in place, the PBAC volunteers began reviewing development proposals for Plan consistency, recommending project “conditions” that would support walking and cycling. Because developers, and to some extent City planners were not familiar with the Plan, the PBAC recommendations led to improvement in project design, with long term community benefits at insignificant cost to the City.

 

The other role of the PBAC, which could be followed by the Arts Council, is augmenting City staff efforts to obtain outside funding for special projects. The PBAC volunteers developed a successful request for $170,000 of State funding for creekside trail improvements (don’t fret, pothole people; the State restricts these funds to automobile alternatives).

 

Ideally, once the Bike Plan is incorporated into the City’s new General Plan, the City planning staff will grow to understand the Plan elements well enough to take over the PBAC’s project review role. Better yet, as we are beginning to see, developers will learn that addressing Bike Plan requirements in their initial proposals will lead to better projects and faster approval. Government will shrink when the private sector consistently supports the public’s interest in economic justice and ecological sustainability.

 

A few columns back, I said the City Council should retain the Campaign Finance Reform’s $200 cap on contributions. I’ve changed my mind. It should be lowered, to $100, or even $50. Credible candidates shouldn’t have a problem collecting enough money, in $20-$50 chunks, to get their message out. Why make it so easy for the land development industry to buy Council influence? Big donations make possible the huge street signs and the expensive consultants with their deceptive mailers, but do they really protect freedom of “speech”, or make better government? And can’t we afford to spend a few quarters per capita on public financing? Attend the City Council meeting next Monday, June 2nd, at 7PM. Defend the CFR. Be good for good government.