Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Facebook
Twitter
Google+1
del.icio.us.
Digg!
Yahoo! Buzz
Diigo
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Yahoo!
MyspaceIn a rare outburst of unanimity, the Santa Barbara City Council affirmed that building a new police station ranked as the city’s most pressing infrastructure need and took tentative steps toward placing a ballot measure before city voters, perhaps as soon as next November, to help finance a project expected to cost roughly $50 million. According to recent seismic analysis, the existing station, built in 1959, could not function in the wake of a powerful earthquake. An ad hoc subcommittee of councilmembers concluded it was possible to seismically retrofit the existing station, but that the attendant loss of space for an already cramped warren of offices made no sense. A simple plan to fix the air conditioning and heating system, for example, ballooned from the initial estimate of $2 million to $25 million when all new building-code requirements were factored in. Likewise, members of the subcommittee — Randy Rowse, Bendy White, and Michael Self — ruled out the construction, or rental, of police substations as financially and logistically infeasible.
The $50-million question, of course, is where the money comes from. The subcommittee has recommended using the $7 million already earmarked for station modernization and snatching $13 million earmarked by the Redevelopment Agency from future years. Armed with that $20 million, City Hall would then approach the voters with a $30-million bond proposal. This presumes that in the meantime, the State Legislature and Governor Jerry Brown do not abolish redevelopment agencies throughout California, as they have threatened to do. It also presumes voters might go along with such a plan. Most, but not all, ballot finance schemes require a two-thirds majority. In the meantime, City Hall is trying to find a new location for the Emergency Service Dispatch Center, which is in the basement of the police station.
Previous Month
Comments
So much of our infrastructure is crumbling. Replacement are high costs due to inflation and regulations that improve construction and safety requirements. We need revenues. The reason why this building hasn't been replaced sooner is because "the people" have taken away the ability for government to budget for public services. The RDA should be working on affordable housing and blight; the blight that it sometimes creates in distant East, West and North neighborhoods.
The RDA should not be the source for this project. The general fund is the obligated source or perhaps a bond. But since we are revenue deficient we need to find new ways to fund this. Perhaps stepped up efforts at vehicle code enforcement as the public safety priority with increased penalties that pay for the service. Another new or untapped revenue source should be the legalization and taxation of marijuana. An old source that could use an increase is the more problematic alcohol tax.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
June 30, 2011 at 7:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The RDA should not be the source. This is as general fund / bond issue as things get. Perhaps this kind of long stretch in (re-)defining what the RDA program can pay for is one reason Brown wants to abolish it.
OldDawg (anonymous profile)
June 30, 2011 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
While a total waste to use the RDA funds for the police station, it seems it would be better than to continue using them for the SB Housing Authority to buy housing for the homeless. The real problem is the RDA funds aren't being spent on anything that in any way improves blight in SB or results in a higher tax base down the road, which is the underlying justification for RDA funds.
WilliamMunny (anonymous profile)
June 30, 2011 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Every year it's the same thing, the Police Department needs more money for providing less and less services that actually benefit the public. Violent Crime has actually been decreasing for years with fewer police officers on duty, so clearly we don't need to be paying over $100,000 a pop for more officers. Why would anyone vote to raise their own taxes in order to build this new Palace for the PD? Police officers make twice the median income of the average Santa Barbaran and they want us to bail them out? Sorry, not this time and not ever!
Chato (anonymous profile)
June 30, 2011 at 2:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am so glad to see the state eliminating RDA.
What a big waste. The city takes about 20% off the top for "administration" and lots more for planning and engineering.
They build one affordable housing complex after another which creates bigger issues as they require more police, fire and school resources and pay no property tax.
The housing authority spends all the rental revenue on administration and maintenance they need general fund money for capital repairs like new roofs.
loneranger (anonymous profile)
July 3, 2011 at 4:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)