Will the Real Conservatives Please Stand Up
by Dale Tyler

Several important issues will be discussed and possibly decided at the Aug. 21 Mission Viejo City Council meeting. One proposal would further increase the burden the city places on the taxpayers in the form of yet another pay and retirement fund increase for city employees (Item 32). On the other hand, there is a proposal to reduce, somewhat modestly, the amounts most residents pay to the city in the form of franchise taxes (Item 42). Another proposal will require city employees and elected officials to work for the city for 20 years before being entitled to lifetime heath care, still an extremely generous benefit (Item 43). Finally, there is a proposal to notify the League of Cities that the City of Mission Viejo supports Proposition 90, which will prevent taking homes and businesses by government, except to build roads and other public facilities (Item 41).

Item 32, the pay and retirement benefit increase, is completely unwarranted, given the current state of the city's finances and the already high salary and benefits paid to city workers. Despite a constant claim by city staff that higher pay is needed to attract and retain employees, this is untrue. According to information published in the Aug. 10 O.C. Register, public employees' salaries alone are more than $5 higher than in equivalent private sector positions. Including benefits, public employees make, on average, $34.72 per hour, compared with $23.76 for private industry. That's almost 42 percent more in pay and benefits if one works for the government. Add in lifetime security, the ability to retire at 55 with full benefits and very generous pay, adjusted for inflation, and you have a very desirable job.

We need to freeze pay and benefits for our city workers until they are in line with equivalent private sector jobs. The city council should ignore the demands of city workers and vote to protect the pocketbooks of taxpayers.

Item 41, proposed by Ledesma, communicates the city's objection to the taking of private property for anything but public purposes. Proposition 90 requires that eminent domain not be used to condemn homes or businesses and then have the property taken be given or sold to another private party. This means your home could not be taken to build a shopping center or apartment complex. The League of Cities, supported as it is by large developer interests, thinks that Prop. 90 is a bad idea. Our city should stand up for private homeowners and send a message to the League of Cities supporting Prop. 90. Any council member who votes against this reasonable protection of private property is showing his or her contempt for Mission Viejo homeowners.

Item 42, also proposed by Ledesma, would eliminate the 5 percent tax on trash disposal fees paid by Mission Viejo residents. While the amount of benefit is small, it is a step in the right direction. Our city government should be more cost-effective and not collect extra taxes on city-contracted services. The proposal also calls for the elimination of the 5 percent tax on cable bills, which could amount to quite a bit more savings for the average resident. Together, eliminating these taxes would return more than $1.45 million (2005 amount) to taxpayers and start the process of reducing the size of city government, which at 135 full-time equivalent employees, has gotten far too fat. How could any council member be against smaller, more fiscally conservative government?

Finally, item 43, also proposed by Ledesma, would simply require city employees and elected council members to work for the city for 20 years instead of 12 to receive retirement medical benefits fully paid by the city. This is a very reasonable step that will help control the excessive costs associated with employee retirement. In addition, this is a fine demonstration of leading by example. Ledesma, assuming he is reelected this year, would be eligible for the 12-year benefit himself. Yet, he choses to do the right thing at his own personal expense, giving up what could be tens of thousands of dollars in future benefit to help the city today. Again, we will see which council members support the taxpayers and which support big-government spending.

The next council meeting will be a good objective lesson in who is a true conservative and who simply talks like a conservative. Stay tuned for an analysis of the council's votes next week.