I can't wait for that change!
I see us electing a republican to the state assembly.
A republican to the state senate.
A republican to Congress.
Yup!
You can almost taste the changes coming!

Locally, the saddest thing is when people, looking for a little common sense, and rightfully angry at the profligate overspending by the current city council, actualy start thinking about the developers' candidates who are hiding in conservative clothing.
I am waiting for the day when ANYone can explain to me how urban sprawl is a conservative value!!

Steve your enthusiasm and dedication are fantastic. You will surely inspire others to get involved. Thank you for the sacrifices you make and thank you for the energy and attitude you bring to the task.

There are those who believe if wee don't turn the tide we will be totally bankrupt as a nation. there are others who say we wioll be lucky if we recover even minimally in ten years and still others that predict permanent high unemployment rates. As an optomist I have trouble with those predictions. I love this country and the accomplishments of the past give me hope that together, given the chance, we can work to perform a miraculous restoration and once again begin to experience the productiveness and abundance that will lift us out of this disasterous mess.

You go guy!

Republicans have been handed victory on a silver platter, they only need to come up with a plan and follow through.

Here's a plan:

You focus on races that are winnable and pour in the money and volunteers to crush the opposition, forget challenging rats like Pelosi in gerrymandered, unwinnable districts. This is all about numbers. Once we have the numbers people like her are neutralized.

You keep the message simple. Example: Lower taxes, less government more freedom.

You have a contract with the voters to keep those promises.

You use volunteers like we've never done before. We saturate districts with people going door to door. People are ready to volunteer, the Tea Party has a huge force ready to work for fiscal restraint and freedom.

You do mass phone surveys to plant the seeds where voters need to be thinking.

You organize desparate groups that appeal to single interest voters, yet they have overlapping interests and use that leverage of common interests to gain their support.

Ideas from confrontational politics....

Jack,

Those pockets are empty, but the conservative candidates have all called for more growth. I believe all supported the largest sphere of growth (map A) for the general plan, yet none of them have explained where the money will come from for the expanded services.

So, I repeat Quentin's question, how is urban sprawl a conservative value.

Steve, I actually agree with you that democrats are running our country into the ground. However, that is a half truth. The other half of the truth is that republicans are doing the same thing, in their own way. We the people are getting screwed by both parties. I've asked this question before and I'll ask it again....Why should we be so eager to hand power back to the party that for six years under Bush, almost tripled the national debt? Bush lowered taxes and then borrowed trillions to finance the wars, wars he started under suspicious circumstances to say the least . On top of that, the republican congress spent like no congress had ever spent before. Congress gave Bush and Cheney a free ticket to do whatever they pleased, and in return, Bush never vetoed one of their spending bills. I could be wrong, but that's the way it appeared to me at the time. So what have the republicans done in recent times that we want to go back to? Personally, I think it's time for a third party, a party that encompasses liberal social values and conservative fiscal values. Sadly, the two parties in power will never let that happen.

Joe Shaw: "Why should we be so eager to hand power back to the party that for six years under Bush, almost tripled the national debt?"

Do some thorough research. The debt tied to GDP was within normal ranges under Bush spending was kept under control during an inherited recession, 9/11, and the wars that followed. Republicans wanted to change the social Security plan that they know will explode our debt within the next few years but Democrats wanted nothing to do with fixing it...they defeated the legislation. Democrats also blocked all attempts to fix Fannie and Freddie. Democrats, since they took back congress two years ago, have not done anything to address either of the two unsustainable SS and Medicare programs but instead have created a complex uber-healthcare program that will either cut services drastically or make services and insurance much more expensive ...or BOTH. Big government programs like Medicare and SS were all introduced by Democrats. Democrats wrote the changes that caused lenders to loan to people that could not pay.

Republicans ask a lot of individuals but we are also interested in government being a support rather than a burden to individuals. Republicans expect that of those that achieve much, much is expected...we do not, however, think it is governments business to enforce that sentiment or become the controller of who wins and who loses.

Vote Republican because they believe in freedom, individual achievement and smaller, less intrusive government...THEN HELP US IN HOLDING THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE!

PS. The idea that Republicans "believe in" urban sprawl is a progressive domonization of the belief that people must be able to work in order to live.

We have seen what results from truly extreme notions such as severely controlling growth (NO JOBS), expanding government at a record pace (astronomic debt), making sure everyone has a house even if they can't pay (housing meltdown, ruined lives & ruined RE industry)...all democrat ideas.

There are reasonable ways to make sure we have good paying jobs in Chico while maintaining plenty of green space. Smart planning will accomplish both goals. Good paying jobs will result in adequate tax revenue to pay for the services...as long as government workers aren't greedy (salaries/benies twice that of the average citizens) and wasteful with those tax dollars.

I wasn't happy with many of the Bush policies...but then, when is anyone happy with everything a president does? The people need to get educated about who spends the money...and that is congress. We need to put more focus on those representatives that have the power to send big spending and government expansion bills to the president for signing and nip the spending and waste in the bud at it's roots.

We also need to start taking personal responsibility for our own care instead of expecting government (mommy/daddy) to do it for us.

The economy sucks everywhere. Please show me a city in California doing any better.

You correctly point out that the candidates are not in the pockets of developers, but you also have to admit they supported the largest growth area.

You claim correctly that the city cannot afford to service the city we have, how can a conservative candidate then argue for an even bigger city?

Not sure why Quinten took off on urban sprawl, but I would like to add my thoughts to that. As I have blogged about this before....I would rather see urban sprawl than city infill if we are either not willing or cannot afford to make roads wider to accommodate the extra traffic, along with widening the freeway and adding more on and off ramps. Otherwise we become like rats in a maze and when you get too many rats in one place, they start eating each other. Chico is getting harder to get around in all the time and that is because we have decided to fill in all of the empty spaces rather than spread out. Do we have a plan to fix 1st. Ave? I have seen cars lined up to Esplanade waiting on the light at Mangrove. I would rather sacrifice a few orchards or wet lands than live in a miniature version of San Francisco. I moved to Chico because it felt very relaxed. City infill is destroying that becuase it creates more stress. I disagree with Quinten, along with most of my liberal friends on this issue, otherwise I think Quinten would make a fine city councilman. Quinten, would love for you to write a blog to address the issues I just bought up. Tell me if and why I am missing the point.

I agree about the need for curbs, gutters and sidewalks to support infill projects like the one on 11th Ave but it appears that at least three candidates for council would rather build bridges to industrial parks rather than support mothers pushing their strollers in the older neighborhoods.

What is conservative about that?

Mark you are a caution! "...at least three candidates for council would rather build bridges to industrial parks rather than support mothers pushing their strollers in the older neighborhoods."

What evidence do you have that those three candidates would not want to create sidewalks and curbs so that mothers can push strollers? Really!

Here's the rational thought behind building the bridges to the industrial park first:

1. Do what we must to attract good businesses to Chico. (we already have a lot going for us)

2. Collect the extra revenue generated by the businesses and the employees of those businesses.

3. Rejoice in the abundance that allows not only a few sidewalks but fills a number of other needs.

What is conservative about that is that it makes sense.

As they say, it isn't rocket science.

Tina,

I like when we talk local because your rhetoric has to come to earth.

We only have so much money, so budget decisions must be prioritized. What is more important, bridges or sidewalks?

The business park you describe is already filling up. Businesses are employing people, and taxes are flowing (trickling) in. Why does it need a third entrance?

Citizens are upset about infill. More houses in areas without the infrastructure means cars and strollers must share the same space.

It seems that a true conservative (my dad) would worry about fixing what we already have, rather than trying to expand. A true conservative with put women and children at the front of the line, you know, moms, apple pie, stuff like that.

I have been following the statements of the three conservative candidates and none of them have spoken out for infill infrastructure, and, if my memory serves me, the only one who could vote, voted against the two neighborhood plans.

Conservative seems to have changed meaning from my parents teachings

Mark, I'm not able to vote in city elections, although I pay taxes, so I'm not always up on the minute details of city planning. The comparison was sidewalks vs a bridge. My point was simply that attracting business to Chico would ensure that the funds for Chico;s needs would flow if Chico had a business friendly city council. That is a conservative perspective.

You have focused on infil, I imagine because you think it's a better use of land and would create safer/better neighborhoods. Who would be against that? Only a moron. I imagine there are isues involving property owners rights to use and sell their property and a failing RE market at the moment. Some of that might change with a better economy.

What intrigues me is your propensity to think in terms of control. The city can't force property owners to build on or sell their property unless they default on the property and fail to pay taxes & fees. Maybe you know something I don't?

Conservatives would put women, especially mothers and children first but that doesn't always mean letting them have their way. There are times when larger concerns must be met before smaller ones can be. Your father would buy milk and bread before he would by candy if the budget was tight.

The business park also has an ingress and egress problem that will only get worse. In fact it got worse after the decision was made to put in the natural waste "recylcling" landfill near the airport. The road was also a disaster...even the pot holes had pot holes.

Jack,

I grew up in a republican household. My mom’s best friend was chair of the Republican Central Committee.

My mom always preached self-reliance. We needed to work with what we had, and when she and my dad split, we did not have much. Though we qualified, she never went on welfare. We made do.

My mom was for small government, and for small business, and small people in general. She distrusted big, but she was also 5-3. My dad left a big accounting firm to start his own business, and he still goes to work everyday. He is 72.

My dad proudly displays his signed picture from George Bush Sr. He does not have a kind word for the son and he told me the party had changed from what he remembered.

We have areas in town without curb, gutter and sidewalks. From my upbringing, it seems the conservative thing to do is to fix what we have before we spend taxes on any new growth areas.

Growth was an issue in the last election and the infill candidates won. So, more people than just Jon Luvaas support infill in Chico. The real question is why conservatives don’t, given that infill uses existing resources and does not further stretch city services like police and fire.

Tina,

I am sorry. I should have been more specific.

I am speaking of a proposal to build a bridge across Commanche Creek/Edgar Slough/M&T irrigation canal to the Hagen Lane Business Park.

The infill project is the one proposed on 11th Ave. The development is ideal, but the existing traffic is a nightmare and most of the street lacks curb, gutter, and sidewalks.

The capital improvement list in the general plan includes the bridge, 18 new streets and a freeway interchange to accommodate new growth, but no internal improvements.

"Conservatives would put women, especially mothers and children first but that doesn't always mean letting them have their way."

I am talking about mothers pushing strollers in the road because there are no sidewalks. I let you tell them "larger concerns must be met before smaller ones" like the safety of their child.

"Those pockets are empty, but the conservative candidates have all called for more growth."

This is very odd. Butte County made the national news a few weeks back for having a 30 percent unemployment rate in the construction trades. Theoretically, all the carpenters are on the dole or moving away.

And who's going to live in all this housing? Seniors who require alarming rates of public subsidy? Working people? Where they gonna work?

I don't think your "conservatives" have thought this through.

"I agree about the need for curbs, gutters and sidewalks to support infill projects like the one on 11th Ave ...."

Oh, I'm getting so nostalgic. Tell me, has the city actually incorporated all that territory between The Esplanade and Mangrove? It's only been thirty years since it became evident that it should do so.

To Mark, Quentin, Joe Shaw and anyone else truly interested in comparing the records of Obama and Bush (Republican vs Democrat) Commentary has an excellent article; find it here:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/in--i-bush-v--obama-i--bush-wins-in-a-rout-15497

An excerpt:

In the wake of a recession that began roughly seven weeks after President Bush took office, America experienced six years of uninterrupted economic growth and a record 52 straight months of job creation that produced more than 8 million new jobs. During the Bush presidency, the unemployment rate averaged 5.3 percent. We saw labor-productivity gains that averaged 2.5 percent annually — a rate that exceeds the averages of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Real after-tax income per capita increased by more than 11 percent. And from 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a gain of nearly $2.1 trillion.

As for Obama’s claim that Bush “turned a budget surplus into a deficit”: by January 2001, when Bush was inaugurated, the budget surpluses were already evaporating as the economy was skidding toward recession (it officially began in March 2001). Combined with the devastating economic effects of 9/11, when we lost around 1 million jobs over 90 days, the surplus went into deficit.

Rather than whine incessantly about the situation, President Bush proposed policies that triggered the kind of sustained growth that saw the deficit fall to 1 percent of GDP ($162 billion) by 2007. Indeed, before the financial crisis of 2008 – which I’ll return to in a moment — Bush’s budget deficits were 0.6 percentage points below the historical average. (My former White House colleague Keith Hennessey eviscerates Obama’s assertion that we faced a “decade of spiraling deficits” here).

Now let’s consider Mr. Obama’s record: an unemployment rate of 9.5 percent, with 131,000 jobs lost in July, during our so-called Recovery Summer (Vice President Biden promised us up to 500,000 new jobs a month back in April). The overall unemployment rate, incorporating people who want jobs but did not look during July, is now 16.5 percent.

According to J.D. Foster, Obama’s “job deficit” — the difference between current employment and the jobs Obama promised to create by the end of 2010 – stands at a staggering 7.6 million workers. The 2010 deficit is $1.471 trillion, or 10 percent of GDP, while the debt is $9.2 trillion, or 62.7 percent of GDP. (From January 20, 2001, to January 20, 2009, the debt held by the public grew $3 trillion under Bush, from $3.3 trillion to $6.3 trillion; in 20 months, Mr. Obama will add as much debt as Mr. Bush ran up in eight years.) And let’s not forget that the Obama administration passed an $862 billion stimulus package and assured us that unemployment would not exceed 8 percent; instead, unemployment topped 10 percent – a figure higher than what the Obama administration said would occur if the stimulus package wasn’t passed.

Sales of new homes collapsed earlier this year, sinking 33 percent to the lowest level on record (new home sales rose in June from May’s historical low, but the overall pace was still the second slowest on record, the Commerce Department reported.

Not surprisingly, the Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index now stands at 50.4. As a reference point, a reading above 90 indicates that the economy is on solid footing, while above 100 signals strong growth. We also learned on Tuesday that the Federal Reserve, downgrading its assessment of the economy, announced that the pace of recovery is “more modest” than it had anticipated. “The Fed noted that high unemployment, modest income growth, lower housing wealth and tight credit were holding back household spending,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

Consider this as well: according to the Obama administration’s own projections, in the first term we’ll see an average unemployment rate of 9.0 percent, real GDP growth of 1.1 percent, federal spending as a percentage of GDP at 24 percent, budget deficits as a percentage of GDP at 7.8 percent, and the deficits as a percentage of GDP at 6.2 percent (see here).

Lest you think this is just a conservative screed please note that the information used comes from sources like the CBO and the Commerce Department and consider too the following from the article:

Now, unlike Obama, whose intellectual dishonesty can be striking at times, some of us are willing to concede that things need to be placed within a proper context. Obama took the oath of office in the wake of a financial collapse that made every economic indicator much worse; it’s only fair to take that into account. But even here, in characterizing what happened, Obama has to present a cartoon image, distorted and disfigured, pretending that it was wholly and completely the fault of President Bush and Republicans.

In fact, it was a complex set of factors that both Republicans and Democrats were complicit in. In addition, it’s worth noting that Democrats were in control of Congress beginning in January 2007 -- and Congress is where legislation, including appropriations and tax legislation, is passed.

"I have seen cars lined up to Esplanade waiting on the light at Mangrove."

Joe, you know what we say to that. If all those car dwellers who actually live between The Espanade and Mangrove (and 20th and East) were on their feet, or their bike, or (heaven forfend!) on the bus, this would probably take care of the problem.

Mark...thanks for the clarification.

"I am talking about mothers pushing strollers in the road because there are no sidewalks. I let you tell them "larger concerns must be met before smaller ones" like the safety of their child."

I'm a mother. I know about safety concerns. Pushing a stroller through dirt or crossing the street at the corner thereby taking an alternate route are two methods I can think of to ensure the safety of my child...women have been doing it for ever. It is not up to government to take care of evey individuals personal problems. That is not to say that I don't support the idea of having sidewalks and gutters. This entire discussion has gotten a little bizarro since it depends on what if and an inference about conservatives that just is not true. Also, there is nothing that I know of stopping residents of the area in forming a neighborhood coalition to A) petition and pressure the city, B) form a neighborhood organization with dues to improve the neighborhood. That way they could contract the work, with city approval, themselves. People used to work that way all the time when they thought of themselves as creative and powerful.

Tina, I never did well debating with republicans when they start throwing around numbers. I prefer getting into "social and moral" issues because then were not talking about statistics, we're talking about feelings and ideas. You do know as well as I do that statistics can be read many different ways. For instance, a statistic may show economic growth but it doesn't show how we had that economic growth. I know that all of the presidents since Reagan have driven up our national debt. If Bush had financed the two wars on tax dollars rather than borrowed dollars, would we have had as much economic growth under him that we did? Is it fair to give him credit for doing that when future generations are going to be saddled with that debt? Is Obama doing any better? So far, no. And you have not seen very many blogs from me defending Obama. I have become a-sexual, politically speaking, in recent years because I do not trust any of them anymore. However, when it comes to social issues, I do align myself with liberals and progressives. I cannot defend Obama's stimulate package. I heard on the radio the other day that only 3.5% of the stimulate money California has received has gone to highway and infrastructure. Where is the rest? I think Obama meant well, but didn't he understand what happens when you give billions of dollars to beaurocrats to spend?

Joe Shaw: "I prefer getting into "social and moral" issues because then were not talking about statistics, we're talking about feelings and ideas."

We're good for the foreseeable future then Joe because I'm more comfortable in the same arena.

"You do know as well as I do that statistics can be read many different ways."

Yes I do, which is why I liked the article above. The comparison made was an apples to apples comparison.

" If Bush had financed the two wars on tax dollars rather than borrowed dollars, would we have had as much economic growth under him that we did?"

I'm not an economist so I can't say for certain. My immediate response is that economic growth is about one side of the ledger and expenditures for anything on the other. Is defense of the nation less worthy of expenditure than the many social programs we have been financing for years by expanding the debt? Does the fact that Bush and the Republicans kept the level of debt within average ranges and the fact that they were bringing the debt down before the recession began make any difference to you at all? How about the fact that most of the unsustainable social programs were Democrat ideas and Democrat written? The one program written by Republicans and signed by Bush, the Rx Drug entitlement, is the only program that was under budget because of the way it was structured using free market principles. Does any of that hold sway with you?

"Is it fair to give him credit for doing that when future generations are going to be saddled with that debt? Is Obama doing any better?"

It isn't fair that future generations will be sadled with debt. Republicans have been playing this tune for at least 30 years. Every attempt made by them to reconfigure the programs that are putting us in debt have been blocked by Democrats...they want no part of real reform because big government (socialism/Marxism) is the grounding for their Party. Most Amnericans are like you and I, and since they don't really relate to statistical information, attempts to explain why their reform would be good is very difficult. Republicans have to try to educate, sell their ideas and buck the demonizing that inevitably follows ideas of reform. One example was when we tried to reform Social Security the Dems made ads stating we were going to "take SS away" from old people. It was a lie but the attack ads worked and the tide of approval turned against the idea.

Obama has exploded the debt in just two years (I will try to repost a chart when I finish here).

"...because I do not trust any of them anymore.

Good! We should always be ssuspicious of their intentions,keep track of their deeds, and hold their feet to the fire. We should fire them (within reason) failures. I say within reason because getting legislation passed is not easy; getting rid of bad legislation is even more difficult!

"...when it comes to social issues, I do align myself with liberals and progressives."

These are, in many cases, personal interests. My position is that government should be neutral on these issues. Unfortunately the left sees everrything in terms of government and activism so it has become nearly impossible to simply respect the choices and privacy of my fellow citizens.

"I think Obama meant well, but didn't he understand what happens when you give billions of dollars to beaurocrats to spend?

There are several schools of thought on this. Some think he just lacks experience. Others point out that he is a died in the wool progressive and was sincere when he said he wanted to transform America and spread the wealth around. In other words he is doing exactly what he intended to do. Others claim he is a narcisist and is trying to please everyone to demonstrate his greatness or whatever. I find elements of all of these in Obama but I also think there a hint of someone who honestly wants to do well (I just profoundly disagree with his big government ideas).

Thanks for joining the conversation, Joe. It's always valuable to hear different opinions and thoughts. That's why we're here!

Everyone,

I want to thank you for having so much great conversation on this thread, and apologize for not being better about responding. I am on army reserve duty this weekend and, as Jack can testify, sometimes the training leaves me a little wiped out.

Joe, I appreciate your style of debate and find myself in the same style often. I understand what you said about the republicans, especially pre 2006, when they spent money like a bunch of drunk teenagers. If Republicans get another chance, and blow it again, they will quickly see their party go the way the democrats will be going this November. Of course, the problem with a two-party system is that if neither party can get their act together, we're all in trouble. Suffice for now to say that I believe the majority of the prominent big-spending republicans of 2005 either lost their seats or lost in other elections. The election of Tom McClintock over a former big spender was one such change for the better.

As for infill and sprawl, I believe it's perfectly conservative to place money where it is an infrastructure investment before spending it on beautification. It is always better to place money where it will bring a return first, thereby ensuring that future money will be available for the moms with strollers. I'm surprised Mark's father didn't see it this way.

Thanks everyone for being involved and commenting.

Steve,

I appreciate republicans concerns of investment over beautification but sidewalks for mothers with strollers is a public safety issue.

I am sorry republicans/conservatives have this view that money/economics trumps everything.

Jack,

I should not have added the word money to the discussion. It has clouded the discussion. My bad.

The question was over conservative priorities; bridge to a business park or sidewalks in the neighborhoods.

I keep hearing that business is more important to you public safety.

Joe likes philosophical discussions. I like specific issues. In the the current general plan discussion, conservatives candidates support infrastructure for growth over infrastructure for safety.

And, I love conservatives, some of them very much.

Mark: "I am sorry republicans/conservatives have this view that money/economics trumps everything."

When it comes to running a family, a business, a community, a state or a country how do you not focus on money first?

How do you accomplish anything without money?

How do you maximize your ability to both make and sustain income?

It's important to secure a strong foundation and structure prior to putting in the plumbing and wiring and before building the flowerboxes for the windows when you build a house. That is the principle behind our thinking.

What Chico really needs is a strong sustainable wealth building foundation. Without that there is little chance for strong continuing revenue flows to the city. Service industries are necessary and good but if they are to thrive they need wealth builders who bring new (extra) money into the local economy. If we can do that, and it won't be easy with the overall economy in bad shape, there will be enough for bridges and sidewalks.

There isn't anything wrong with focusing on specific issues but if you lose sight of the larger picture you end up exactly where we are today...in a lot of hurt and you still don't get the sidewalks.

Mark you're a good guy, your folks can be proud.

Here's a question for you Mark.

How does your conservative dad feel about the money Chico spent prettying up the downtown area when we needed curbs and sidewalks for the mommies with their strollers? What do you think about that?

As I said I don't keep up with local politics as much since I can't vote. Are there other liberal projects that might seem frivolous when compared to sidewalks for mommies with strollers? Anybody?

My dad would hate the new plaza, not for the look, but for the cost. (He is from So Cal and likes concrete and fountains)

He is split on art funding, especially since he and my step mom travel now, and they often admire the public art. He could also tell you exactly how much he has contributed to the local economy while doing so.

He also likes the "treatments" to the freeways because they make his town look better. So I think he would okay with the Manzanita bridge.

No Plow. No Flags. Hands, maybe.

My dad likes parks, but not fences.

My dad would support the bridge if we had the money, but not before sidewalks for his daughters and grand kids.

Mark your dad sounds like a reasonable guy. We all realize that sometimes choices are made because funds are designated to be spent only in specific ways.

One thing that occurs to me is that liberal progressives never talk about how to raise revenue except by taxing mechanism. In fact they avoid the dynamics of genrating money entirely except to say that higher/moretaxes and fees must be levied. We never hear them talk about how the people are supposed to make do with less and we never hear them talk about what it takes to generate wealth, make payrolls and put people to work. Why os that...anyone?