Don’t need state, D.C. to tell us how to spend

Allan Mansoor

At the Oct. 20 Costa Mesa City Council meeting, an item came before

the council regarding grant funding in the amount of $24,782 for

seat-belt enforcement. The grant money was federal funds that were

given to the California Office of Traffic Safety to be given to

cities specifically for seat-belt enforcement. I voted to not accept

the funds.

My reasoning was not that I don’t believe seat-belts save lives,

but more along the lines of the federal and state government taking

too much of our money and giving it back with strings attached.

I was tempted to vote to accept the money and say, “Thanks, but

you should never have taken the money in the first place.” But I

wanted to make a point. My point is how does Sacramento or Washington

know what our needs are? How do they know if we need seat-belt

enforcement, driving under the influence enforcement, infrastructure

repair, funding for schools, or funds for immediate apprehension of a

dangerous criminal?

That same evening, we unanimously approved grants in the amount of

$13,994 for sobriety checkpoints and $1,992 for roving patrols for

impaired drivers. This is far less than the amount for seat-belt

enforcement.

Unfortunately, a good part of our budgets come to us in the form

of grants with strings attached, so oftentimes there is little room

to re-direct funds where they are needed most. I guess government

knows best.

Later, during the evening’s council meeting, the council

unanimously passed a resolution in support of “a statewide ballot

initiative to allow voters to decide whether local tax funds may be

taken, shifted, diverted or otherwise used to fund state government

operations and responsibilities.”

According to the staff report, over the past 12 years, the state

has annually seized more than $800 million in city property tax

funds statewide, costing cities collectively more than $6.9 billion

in lost revenue. Costa Mesa has lost more than $55 million over the

last 10 years based on shifts, diversions and the taking of revenues

by the state.

The staff report illustrates that the $55 million would be enough

to fund the following components of the city’s seven-year capital

improvement plan: the entire street maintenance program ($51

million); more than half of the citywide traffic improvements ($29

million); all of the city’s parkway and median improvements ($4

million); and all planned park improvements and community programs,

including construction of a 50-meter pool and lighted soccer and

youth baseball fields ($4 million).

Yes, we write grants requesting money. We write grants for pretty

much anything we can to fund our city government. This takes staff

time and money. It takes the state and federal government time and

money to process the grants and give the money back to us. So this

raises a good question: Why did we give it to them in the first

place? Better yet, why did they take it? Or even better, why do we

continue to allow them to take it?

Perhaps our new governor will find a way to help cities keep more

money locally and thus allow more decisions to be made locally. I

mean, do we really need an office of traffic safety at the state

level to give convince the federal government to give us money that

should never have left individuals and cities in the first place?

The way I see it, we already have a local office of traffic

safety. It’s called your local police department. With the budget the

way it is in Sacramento, it just shows how out of touch they are with

the needs of the cities and with reality.

* EDITOR’S NOTE: Allan Mansoor is a Costa Mesa city councilman.