Port Security
A major funding gap exists between what the federal Department of Homeland Security provides California’s ports and what state, county and municipal governments spend on port security. According to several sources, this gap could be anywhere between $130 million and $1 billion a year.
Two bills recently introduced in Sacramento are supposed to help bridge this critical funding deficit. Both would impose “user taxes” on companies doing business in our ports. These bills are sure to face opposition from the governor, cargo carriers and the Chamber of Commerce.
Notwithstanding major political opposition, the fact remains California’s ports are vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
The California Ports Security Initiative that I am suggesting will ask voters to approve a transfer of state funds from Public Works to the yet-to-be-funded California Office of Homeland Security for a period of up to five years.
This means the dollars available to bridge the existing funding gap for port security will be budget neutral. There must be no user tax imposed on businesses or a temporary increase in the gasoline tax to fund this gap.
Voters will be asked to make a rather simple decision: put off fixing roads for a set period of time so we can beef up port security, or continue fixing the roads until there is an attack (which, of course, will then make our roads virtually impossible to use).
Truckers and rapid transit boosters may not like my idea at first. If they have a better idea of how to fund our port security deficit on a budget neutral basis, then I am all ears.
The goal of making California’s ports safe from terrorist attacks not only is vital to the state, it clearly is in America’s best interest.
Voters can and should argue over ways to achieve this goal. But in the end, I don’t think anyone can say wanting tighter port security is wrongheaded.
Denny Freidenrich
First Strategies LLC
Laguna Beach
State Budget
Hopefully there is no significance to the fact that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s so-called “May Revision Budget Proposal” was announced on Friday the 13th. (I don’t think the governor ever played Jason in any of the “Friday the 13th” movies.)
The news on the revenue front has been good lately. There is about $3 billion more money available than was originally budgeted.
The governor is saving some of this money and spending some on one-time things and some on ongoing things. However, even though this year will be fine, we still have a budget deficit next year of $4 billion.
I would have preferred that we used all or almost all of this “extra” money to pay down debt or reduce future deficits.
In the coming days you can probably expect to hear the special interests treating the governor as if he is Jason from “Friday the 13th,” slashing and burning everything in sight, which is far from the truth.
The governor has offered up a reasonable “middle ground” budget. We should fight to not let spending grow from here.
State Sen. John Campbell
R-Irvine
NFL, Anaheim
The city of Anaheim recently unveiled its vision for the linkage between the Platinum Triangle and the Disney Resort, as well as how an NFL stadium augments those plans.
Councilman Harry Sidhu and others have questioned whether an NFL stadium is needed. When one counts the number of real estate development projects coming on line, one can conclude it is probably not needed.
However, does an NFL stadium still enhance the Platinum Triangle’s value? Absolutely!
The addition of an NFL team provides an energy and identity not found in any Southern California community. Furthermore, there are a number of other tangible and intangible benefits. A single Super Bowl pumps $350 million directly into the local economy.
The evolution of neighboring Santa Ana to Anaheim over the last half century shows the pitfalls of strictly relying upon a market-based decision.
For many years, Santa Ana took a laissez-faire approach toward attracting business. On the other hand, Anaheim government officials have been proactive with a “can do” mentality.
Today Santa Ana has only a fraction of the tax base of its equally sized neighbor. And much of Santa Ana’s business base has been achieved through the use of redevelopment tools in the past two decades that they had been reluctant to employ in prior years.
An NFL stadium is not a question of glitz or glamour, but of opportunities gained vs. opportunities lost.
Archie Brown
Long Beach
