Empire Report: The Political State of the City – Our Local Tea Party?

[Barry]

The Political State of the City – Our Local Tea Party?
The Political State of the City ? Our Local Tea Party? — Empire Report

Posted by Jim Wilkinson at Feb 02, 2010 12:40 AM | Permalink

Filed under: News is The News, Santa Rosa, wilkinson, A1, whorulessantarosa, santa rosa, News Is The News, progressive politics


Is the Press Democrat supporting a partisan agenda misleadingly representing Santa Rosa's environmental, business, and labor records? Is the Press Democrat emboldening efforts to undermine the city's attempts to address its budget crisis? These are important topics for February 3rd's community forum in Santa Rosa's City Council Chambers.

Are local developers and construction
moguls are more interested in November
elections than working constructively
with the Council of the day?

Are local developers and construction moguls are more interested in November elections than working constructively with the Council of the day?

A recent partisan attack on “elected officials” of the city and county calls for a closer look at what this local tea party is all about. Is there real substance to complaints about City Council economic policy, or is it just special interest pleading? And can it be set aside to help the Council deal with the budget crisis?

The latest salvo took the form of an op-ed piece (PD January 24) by the President of the Taxpayers Association, with the explicit endorsement of the Sonoma County Alliance and the North Bay Builders Exchange. The piece continued the rhetorical assault led by developer and construction interests that have tried in particular to paint the SR City Council as somehow unfriendly to business.
I say partisan and political because the hostile commentary and the PD coverage of it never seems to mention the Council majority’s support for local business. You will not find praise for such actions as the Mayor’s personal involvement in garnering $14 million early financing for RR Sq. projects, or the Council’s aggressive promotion of downtown business and support for the new GoLocal movement, or the Council majority’s role in protecting locally-owned businesses threatened by the Lowe’s big-box proposal, or the Mayor’s pro-active outreach to the business community and the Chamber of Commerce.

Ignoring those factors, the critics have hammered away on three main themes: namely what they see as too much environmental protection, a negative business climate and dangers of labor union influence. What are the germs of truth, if any, in these charges?

Let’s take environment first. The PD op-ed piece called on officials to “resist abuse of environmental laws.” Abuse?? The major controversies on this score in 2009 involved the Lowe’s, Fountaingrove Lodge and Dutra projects – at issue were considerations of unmitigatable traffic impacts, defense of heritage oaks and hillside vistas, and concern for use of restored wetlands.

The arguments in those cases hardly constituted “abuse of environmental laws” by rational definitions, but they are anathema to the old-line developer and construction interests. And, all the Santa Rosa development tussles have involved a range of considerations from neighbors’ concerns to local business to affordable housing. Although the PD’s Pete Golis grouses about an “environmental majority,” such an animal doesn’t exist in today’s world of multiple progressive interests.

Moving on with similar Rovian verbiage, the PD op-ed item alleged “growing antipathy toward private business.” Here, one major specific has been complaints about permitting requirements and there may be a germ of truth to it, but the City and the Council have in fact worked hard to be responsive and to “fast track” deserving projects. What’s missing from the picture as presented by developers is history – the City’s permitting procedures and requirements were set up by previous City Councils fully sympathetic to developer interests. It’s pure politicking to try to pin blame on the current Council.

The allegations about “antipathy” and “climate” also often cite the rejection of Lowe’s (despite the clear Council support for local business mentioned above) and Wal-mart (the result of a court case, not Council action) and sometimes the current Council’s questions about using $5 million or so in City funds for a 545-space downtown parking garage, which would be at best underutilized for years. In any case, the garage project, like the one pushed by previous very pro-developer Councils, failed because financing wasn’t to be found for such an iffy proposition – not because of Council action.

As for the third main theme, some of the most caustic language has been directed against labor initiatives. The recent Community Benefits Agreement for Sonoma Mountain Village sparked outrage against notions like local hire quotas and a living wage. Those aspects are broadly acceptable to a range of businesspersons in our city, but they conjure up nightmares for developers and builders seeking the lowest possible costs to maintain high profits.

What does all this add up to? In short, the political agenda going into 2010 has been artfully framed by pro-development interests that wrap themselves in the cloak of “business.”

That is political maneuvering, and it suggests local developers and construction moguls are more interested in November elections than working constructively with the Council of the day.

And that bodes ill for our fair city at a time when all sides need to work together with the interim City Manager to deal with a budget crisis that has very serious short- and long-term implications. Perhaps that is part of the developer-driven strategy since any cure for the on-going structural deficit will necessarily involve higher fees for development, which as the Public Works Director recently testified doesn’t pay its own way by a long shot, leaving taxpayers to make up the difference by funding new infrastructure and service demands.

Can the factions be pulled together? Doubtful, since developers have much more to gain by an election victory in November than by budget compromise in February. Presumably, they are also emboldened by the warm support they receive from a Press Democrat editorial policy mired in the 1990s.

Now that last point is a possible topic for the upcoming symposium “How Can New Media Empower Community for 2010?” - February 3 at 7 pm in the City Council Chambers. Come if you can.

[someguy]

This article completely fails to make a link between the op-ed piece in question and the Tea Party. Read it carefully.....there's nothing other than random assertions that they are related. That seems like a propaganda attack to me. Also, how can one opinion piece published in the Press Democrat be proof that they somehow have a hidden political agenda? Opinion pieces are not supposed to be neutral and don't necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. If anything, the above article is what is biased and misleading.

[Barry]

The point of the article is not that the PD is connected to the Tea Party, but rather it seems to hold views/values that are in alignment with it.

You can see the original Op-Ed piece here:
GUEST OPINION: Building a better local business climate | PressDemocrat.com

Yes, this was run as a Guest Opinion and doesn't necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. Jim Wilkinson, in his article, seems to be believe it that it does reflect the PD's viewpoint, and I suspect that is not without reason.

This article completely fails to make a link between the op-ed piece in question and the Tea Party. Read it carefully.....there's nothing other than random assertions that they are related. That seems like a propaganda attack to me. Also, how can one opinion piece published in the Press Democrat be proof that they somehow have a hidden political agenda? Opinion pieces are not supposed to be neutral and don't necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. If anything, the above article is what is biased and misleading.