I see the role of government as being the “parent” of the family. Government entities are created to develop communities that are strong, viable and self-sufficient. It is NOT the role of government to provide “everything for everyone”. Just as a parent provides a safe, nurturing environment for young children, it is also the parent’s role to mentor and educate a young person on how to be successful in life and take on personal responsibility for their future. Government SHOULD provide a “hand up” for people that have special problems or needs (within reason). Government SHOULD NOT provide a “hand out” that is not tied to some sort of deadline or accomplishment. Government should lead by example: taking their responsibilities to heart, and reflecting regularly on their vision for the future.
We do a lot of studies and assessments about the problems that afflict our county. But I always wind up asking myself “What now? What are we doing to address the issue?” There are a handful of dedicated and caring people that are on multiple committees and organizations and they spread themselves as thin as possible to try to remain effective. If elected, my priorities would include enhancing collaborative efforts and creating new diverse groups of action-oriented people to (a) reduce waste and redundancy, (b) improve geographic and cross-cultural relationships in the county, and (c) help everyone play a part in the growth and success of Merced County.
Filed under: Issues
There is ALWAYS some sort of crisis! Gas Crisis, Energy Crisis, Health Care Worker Crisis… What we need to do is practice “crisis management”, roll up our sleeves, and get to work! With respect to the budget…we need to think of it like a diet: neither work! We manage our weight by creating a balance of caloric intake and exercise. The same can be done with our financial health. Rather than following a rigid, archaic method of annually increasing the amount of money we throw at problems, we should be REWARDING effective leaders that accomplish their goals by INVESTING more money in their projects. And before we cut budgets, we need to understand WHY other departments are not as successful as we expect. Did we set unreasonable goals? Is there a reason outside the scope of responsiblility creating an adverse effect? Do we have the “right people” doing the job? I respectfully disagree with the Governor’s solution of cutting 10% across the board. Yes, it creates more work to identify specific cuts, and you will definitely upset some people, but forcing everyone to “deal” with the shortfall does not make good sense.
Here’s an example that might make more sense: If you had four children and you gave each of them an allowance of $10 a week. One child does all their chores quickly, and efficiently. Two require a little prodding, but complete their chores on time (just before payday). The fourth, no matter how many times you ask, never quite gets there, but they smile sweetly and “promise” to do better in the future. Now your paycheck is short and you need to cut the allowance fund by 10%. Do you cut all four children’s allowance by a buck or use this opportunity to find a new way to “motivate” everyone? Think about it and get back to me!
Filed under: Issues
When we discuss issues that impact the areas around people’s homes, the common acronym used by business is NIMBY, which stands for “Not In My Back Yard”. When new businesses come to town, it’s logical that they bring jobs to the community, and strengthen the tax revenue base, which is good for the local economy. But before we get carried away trying to please organizations, such as WAL-MART Distribution Center, has anyone explored the idea of using EXISTING commercial property for the distribution center, rather than putting it in people’s back yards? In this case NIMBY makes sense! We have two tomato processing facilities sitting open with huge staging areas, we have the building on Highway 59 that HSA is using, and I find it hard to believe that all of the space at Castle Airport has been reallocated and used.
I’m not saying any of these alternatives are the solution to the problem, but have we thoroughly considered them?
Filed under: Issues
“Tagging” is a slang term for the graffitti that people paint or draw on walls, buildings, billboards, and even train cars. There is no simple solution to the problem, as there are several reasons for tagging objects. We obviously need to dig a little deeper, and start searching for the root cause of the problem.
The first step in adressing the issue will be identify the specific reason for the graffitti. Is it:
-
A gang related mark or logo, identifying a territory?
-
A retaliatory mark meant to aggravate an owner or competitor?
-
A frustrated artist or individual looking for attention?
What other possibilities / reasons are there for tagging? The solutions will need to specifically address the “reason” for the tagging to be effective. I have some ideas that we can explore. As an example: Have you been in the restrooms at Mervyn’s in the Merced Mall? Individuals continually write all over the tiles, the walls, even the ceiling. It makes the facility look filthy and makes customers uncomfortable. But what if we had interested non-profit organizations work with the store to put art canvases up on the wall with the understanding that the “art” would be displayed in public (provided it’s not foul or abusive), either inside the mall or at the County Fair, Flea Market, or Farmer’s Market?
That’s just one idea…
