POSITION: QUALITY OF LIFE
Higher educational opportunities must be enhanced in conjunction with our economic needs and opportunities to create a higher percentage of high salary careers to raise our standard of living to the level we desire in health, sports, recreation, the arts and personal satisfaction areas.
Personal fulfillment must remain available to all economic sectors of the community as we move forward toward these goals.
People looking to Paso Robles as a possible life destination should see a community where they can live, learn, work and play!
POSITION: LOW INCOME HOUSING
Low income housing should not, and realistically cannot, be in the form of three or four bedroom homes with fireplace, family room, two or three baths with a two car garage on a 10,000 square foot lot. It should be a minimum sized, livable family shelter in single family, duplex, four-plex, condominium or apartment formats. Workforce and moderate income housing should be a step up from basic housing supply. Housing costs will have to be met by the marketplace. Where the Federal and State governments have subsidy money available we should seek our share.
I have been liaison to the Paso Robles Housing Authority throughout its efforts to completely redevelop the more than 60-year-old housing on that site. The first phase is completed and occupied.The second phase is under construction. Development is proceeding as intended.
I am also working diligently to replace funding previously available through our Redevelopment Agency by one of the many mechanisms being proposed at the State level. My work on, and as chairman of, the Housing, Community and Economic Development Policy Committee of the League of California Cities is one of my primary mechanisms to achieve this.
A realistic option for public transit available to all people could allow many low income families the opportunity to reduce their spending on transportation and redirect those funds to housing, food and health care. All efforts in this regard require projects to be only an option for individual choice.
Please note that an "option" is NOT a "mandate" or "requirement". There are some in our community that would deny people opportunities because they "suspect" that it is a precursor to a mandate. That type of "mandate" would be unconstitutional.
I have consistently, throughout my public service, opposed any and all efforts to violate individual's Constitutional rights to choice and State or regional mandates that take decision making power away from local government.
POSITION: PLANNING FOR CITY GROWTH
The City must provide a broad variety of opportunities for its residents. Different people have different needs and desires for their lifestyles. Being different doesn’t mean being “bad”. We have an obligation to make this a City that respects different lifestyles and needs without compromising health and safety considerations. The efforts we made toward long range plans regarding the Uptown, Town Center and Salinas River areas, as well as efforts still in process for the Chandler Ranch, Olsen Ranch and Beechwood areas are examples of the long range planning we hope for as a community. Five of those plans, with my involvement, were the first time that numerous public workshop meetings were held to get the total community involved in the pre-planning process. 40 hours, or more, of opportunity over a week long time frame allowed thousands of public contacts and opinions to be processed in determining our future direction
Our future must look to better utilization of available land and natural resources on, and under the influence of, our airport property and other industrial areas. We must expand the opportunities presented by owning our airport. We must provide the opportunities for appropriate amounts and variety of shopping for our population level. Those opportunities should not include government subsidies for new growth and development. An appropriate amount of housing for all people who freely choose to exercise their rights, as Americans, to live here should be planned for in order to avoid infrastructure and resource shortages, increased crime, and a reduced quality of life. All new development must pay its own way! There is one exception. When Federal or State government orders us to subsidize or provide services, in specific instances, we must follow the law. Following the law does not necessarily mean that we like a specific law so we do have the right and responsibility to try to have the law changed so that it better serves our people. I have, am and will continue to do just that.
Government is not your conscience, however we do have the obligation to approve those developments that offer you legal choices without inserting our personal life style or belief systems into the process. However, if a proposal assuredly will inherently harm the health, safety or physical property of another with equal rights we must create a limit which, if violated, will create a penalty if the violator is convicted under our justice system.
Legal businesses and developments should be supported by the government that has determined them to be within the area of legitimate choice for its people. People, especially under our system of government, deserve to have a variety of choices for their personal life styles. However, illegal activity posing as "legitimate" business must opposed and eliminated wherever and whenever it takes root.
That is exactly what I proposed and supported locally and at the State level regarding human bondage and prostitution establishments posing as "massage parlors." We were very careful in constructing these new laws to protect, and not disparage, legitimate massage businesses. I apply the same principles to all developments that have been granted legality in California, including gambling establishments.
I have been elected to be a civic leader not a religious leader. I am not qualified, nor do I believe I have the right, to impose my belief system upon any other responsible adult in matters of conscience and religious belief. However, I also will not condone any activity, religious or not, that damages, endangers or threatens life, health or property.