|
Most
survey respondents believe population growth stems from foreign
immigrants and migration from within the U.S. Research shows
instead that most population growth comes from in-county births,
however. When responses from the survey were compared to views of
the leadership forum attendees, some patterns emerged:
-
A
majority of survey respondents would sacrifice economic development to
slow the pace of growth, whereas leadership forum participants say by a
3:1 margin that they would vote against a slow growth plan that would
sacrifice economic growth
-
Three-fourths
of the leadership forum participants had “made up their minds” on
growth issues. Survey respondents were more likely to have “none” or
“some” concrete views on growth
-
Leadership
forum participants preferred overwhelmingly that local government
officials maintain authority for growth issues. Survey respondents leaned
toward growth being decided by “local voters”
-
Asked
whether local governments had adequate funding to accommodate growth,
survey respondents said yes by a 55-45-percentage margin. At the forum,
however, 81 percent of those polled said there wasn’t enough adequate
funding
-
Forum
participants supported a sales tax hike by a 2:1 margin, but survey
respondents opposed it by nearly the same margin
Videotape
of the Orange County ChoiceWork Dialogues, which was shown at the Leadership
Forum, depicted many citizens who changed their views on their own civic
engagement, and on growth and infrastructure issues after the dialogue
process. The camera also showed people who apparently had little idea about
readily available government resources such as budget documents, meeting
agendas and project cost estimates.
“We
need a command control flow-chart and a budget sheet just like I have at
work,” one ChoiceWork Dialogue participant said, apparently unaware that
such information is readily available at all levels of government.
“Government has to prove to me that there is a return on my investment.”
“The
citizenry and leadership in Orange County are not necessarily on the same
page,” said Nick Bollman of the California Center for Regional Leadership.
“And Orange County citizens don’t want more government, they want better
government.”
Bollman,
the chair of Assembly Speaker Emeritus Robert Hertzberg’s Commission on
Regionalism, recommended a three-prong strategy toward investing for the
future:
-
Fix
the stilted system of state-local government financing in California.
Bollman said the aftershocks of the 1978 Proposition 13 limiting property
taxes and the state government’s move in 1992 to transfer a share of
local government funds into state education spending has caused cities and
counties to seek new developments such as auto malls and “big box”
stores which are anathema to Smart Growth models of walkable communities
and avoiding traffic congestion;
-
Greater
emphasis and dependence on joint-use projects such as a school library
adjoining a county library or scholastic athletic fields which become
parks in non-school hours. Bollman also recommended funding for more
extensive community planning and coalition-building efforts; and
-
Follow
the recommendations of the recent report from the state Commission on
Building for the 21st Century, entitled “Invest for
California: Strategic Planning for California’s Future Prosperity and
Quality of Life.” Bollman said the report was the “most important
state policy document in the past 40 years.”
back
to eSummary 
|
