The Free Lance editorial of July 27 criticized local, state and
national politicians, including Congressman Sam Farr, for the
inadequate Recovery Act funding received by San Benito County
compared with other areas.
The Free Lance editorial of July 27 criticized local, state and national politicians, including Congressman Sam Farr, for the inadequate Recovery Act funding received by San Benito County compared with other areas. This shortfall, at least $10 million based only on population and perhaps twice that based on local economic conditions, exists despite the AP Economic Stress Index that had San Benito as the seventh most stressed county in California and the tenth most stressed in the entire nation.
The Free Lance published Farr’s complete response on Aug. 3. I did not write the original editorial; however, I am a member of the Free Lance Editorial Board and I support the theme. The following analysis represents my personal views on the issues.
There were only a few points of agreement between the Free Lance editorial and Farr’s response, but they are important. First, Farr recognized in his own words that “San Benito is low county on the totem pole.” That was the main point of the stories on Recovery Act funding.
He also agreed that local governments should do more; he laid most of the blame on them when it came to grant funding. In his words “the county and city governments don’t apply for their share of grants” and “San Benito must be more forceful in applying for competitive grants and following through on their use.” He went on to say he had “successfully championed large federal grants for San-Benito based applicants only to have those funds returned to the federal government for lack of follow-through.” Those failures clearly belong in the lap of local government.
Unfortunately, my view and Congressman Farr’s diverge sharply after that. In fact, Farr never addresses the bulk of the Recovery Act shortfall directly. He takes credit for the county’s few successes, some not related to the act, but claims to have little responsibility or influence when it comes to the failures. Yet, he is our primary representative with the federal government. I do not think he can have it both ways.
Farr points out that the county received an extra 0.6 percent in education funds and an extra 0.8 percent in transportation funds based on population. But that’s sleight of hand. A total of 1.4 percent extra in two areas cannot possibly make up for the overall 43-percent per-capita shortage compared with other counties.
On the same theme Farr wrote, “federal and state formulas have always been based directly on need and economic indicators.” However, that does not agree with the facts. There is a lot more to a county than schools and transportation, which are both traditional government enclaves. Other, more prosperous counties did much better. If the criteria were, “need and economic indicators” – then how could rich San Mateo County, unemployment rate 8.8 percent, receive $433 per capita in Recovery Act funding while San Benito received only $218? How could Santa Cruz receive $405 and Monterey $323?
One of the major problems is that Farr has already decided our economic future; he believes we should be a park-focused county. “First and foremost,” he writes, “Pinnacles National Monument, one of San Benito County’s best potential for economic development. In addition to nearly $10 million Pinnacles awarded by the Recovery Act, I’ve championed the elevation of Pinnacles from National Monument to National Park”.
I support that goal, but the Pinnacles cannot be “first and foremost” for San Benito County unless Congressman Farr has no idea of the economic realities in this area. Those park’s benefits are limited and some are many years down the road. The vast majority of the Pinnacles recovery funding is going into the new Visitor Contact Center accessible by road only through Soledad and Monterey County. That improvement will not steer tourism to San Benito County’s commercial areas.
The Recovery Act was supposed to help right now. We do not have the ocean to spur the tourist industry or the fashionable popularity of Napa. We are a working county. I doubt the Pinnacles improvements, as welcome as they might be, will even make up for the negative economic impact of the federal government’s Clear Creek Recreation Area closure in the near term.
Perhaps the most puzzling part of Farr’s response was his list of primary reasons for the county’s lack of funding. “That’s due to several factors,” he wrote. “There’s relatively little federal land in the county (meaning PILT funds, or Payment in Lieu of Taxes, are lower), there are fewer Social Security recipients, there are smaller school populations and limited freeway and mass transit infrastructure.”
San Benito County has a high unemployment, foreclosure and bankruptcy rates, huge local budget deficits, unfunded state and federal mandates, families that are doubled- and tripled-up in single homes and a large illegal immigrant population now also having employment problems. Those fundamental economic, geographic and demographic issues have nothing to do with county’s amount of federal land or mass transit.
The “one-size-fits-all” policy for mass transit does not work in rural areas. The congressman obviously does not know that the empty buses and the government-funded, door-to-door “taxi service” that loses 80 or 90 cents on the dollar has become a local joke. If the amounts of federal land and freeways determine what a county receives, it’s a senseless way to decide who gets recovery funds. As for school populations, I’m sure Hollister is fully stocked on a children-per-home basis.
San Benito County has become a bedroom community for the public employees of neighboring counties where they cannot afford to live. It also houses the blue-collar workers for Silicon Valley, the state’s economic engine, and many low-paid agriculture workers; they have all suffered economic setbacks. Meanwhile the cost of government remains outrageous and often driven by federal requirements.
Until a recent emergency reduction, transportation impact fees were $23,000 for a new home. Total impact fees for a modest home could easily reach $70,000. Our public service and capital costs are driven by the wealthier coastal counties and, somehow, they did much better in the Recovery Act funding – it makes no sense.
Finally, Farr says, “What I’ve learned in my years of public service is that cooperation achieves more than competition.” I’m certainly all for cooperation provided San Benito County gets a level playing field. However, I don’t believe that we should cooperate to the point of accepting less than our fair share, and an important part of Farr’s job is to see that we get it.
Marty Richman is a Hollister resident.
