Marty: Wrong priorities, timing for station

Whether or not using $5 million of new RDA bonds to rebuild Fire
Station No. 1 at this time is the best way to spend those funds
demands a public debate. It’s a question of priorities. Hollister
City Councilman Doug Emerson’s arguments in support of the project
at the expense of sustainable economic development are just plain
wrong.
Whether or not using $5 million of new RDA bonds to rebuild Fire Station No. 1 at this time is the best way to spend those funds demands a public debate. It’s a question of priorities. Hollister City Councilman Doug Emerson’s arguments in support of the project at the expense of sustainable economic development are just plain wrong. I like Councilman Emerson, but I do not like his “just get in line – they will get around to us” philosophy for prosperity; it has not worked. Other places keep cutting into the line in front of us. Is rebuilding the firehouse really the best use of the money? I say it’s not.   

Councilman Emerson has too often been the key spokesman for the council’s disastrous passive economic policies. These errors have ranged from putting the city into the T-shirt business, a quarter of a million dollar blunder, to a series of retroactive, current and future raises negotiated while the cupboard was bare. He is now advocating more of the same failed policies.

First, let’s dismiss the ridiculous. I never heard it suggested by anyone that the city voluntarily send RDA money back to the state. There are many potential legal uses for $5 million of RDA funds that could provide a better immediate and long-term benefit than rebuilding the firehouse. Being on RDA’s approved project list does not automatically make it the best use of funds. If there are not good economic projects on the list, it’s high time we started asking why.

Below is the premiere of Richman’s Web show, The News and You.

I have long argued that RDA loans and projects that provide little or no economic return must have lower priorities. The council has an obligation to get the best bang for the buck and stop using RDA funds as political plums. It should be noted that in many cases those “loans” are automatically “forgiven” after several years; in other words they become grants, whether things improve or not.

The argument that we can get things built very cheaply at this time is refuted by the council’s own 6 July 2009 agenda where the staff recommended they reject all the bids for construction of a replacement for the airport’s Building 25 because they were too expensive. No rock bottom costs there.

Councilman Emerson’s says, “no developer is going to undertake such a venture in these times.” Has the city offered a major commercial interest $5 million in impact fee offset to get a project started now or to have Hollister go the front of the line?  If so, they are keeping it a secret. In that case, we would not only get the construction stimulus, as we would from a new Firehouse, but we would also get the on-going tax revenue and the added permanent jobs. The last two items are sustainable and repeating; that’s a triple every inning, not just a single in the first.

Every day many millions of dollars in economic potential goes right by Hollister in the wallets of those using Highway 156 and they leave very little, if any of it, here.  That is because they do not know what we have, we do not offer what they want, or it’s too difficult to access our offerings, perhaps all three. Why not use that $5 million to fix that problem?

Having just sat through the budget hearings, the Council members know better than anyone that we can’t pay the salaries and benefits they negotiated and things will be getting worse. The RDA can’t pay that directly either, but properly used it can put in place the economic development that can pay those bills.  What good is a new firehouse if we have to layoff all the firefighters? That’s where these policies are going – horns blasting, sirens wailing and pedal to the metal.  

 Marty Richman is a Hollister resident. His column runs Tuesdays.