Lucille Kring’s 1% Solution for Civic Unrest

Former Councilwoman Lucille Kring is to be commended for opposing the admission tax idea being embraced by several of her competitors (see my post on how John Leos and Brian Chuchua lent their support to the idea at the Anna Drive candidate forum; Jordan Brandman and Steve Chavez Lodge oppose the proposed tax). But her substitute motion for carving out 1% of annual transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenues for city-run social programs deserves some examination.

The City of Anaheim’s budgeted TOT revenue for this fiscal year is $96 million. 1% of that is $960,000. Since TOT revenue will, generally speaking, increase each year, you’d have a permanently escalating, dedicated revenue stream to fund social programs in the city.

Would such programs be effective? Who knows? And effective at what? Preventing a repeat of the summer riots? Make Anna Drive a nicer place to live? I can’t tell you, and neither can anyone else because the plan only extends as far as setting aside 1% of TOT revenues for social programs.

Furthermore, shouldn’t we be getting away from the idea of reserving certain percentages of government budgets for this program or that policy? I’m hard-pressed to think of an example where it works well – Proposition 98 being a prime example. In fact, what this approach does is compresses elected officials’ room to maneuver when setting budget and policy priorities — which is what we elect them to do.

Perhaps the former councilwoman, having rejected the admission tax idea, felt it necessary to throw some kind of bone at the Anna Drive candidate forum as evidence of compassion. I don’t know – that’s speculation on my part. I think she meant well, but this smacks more of spitballing than considered policymaking.


  1. Really Matt? So perhaps you would like to explain to Disney that setting aside 20% of TOT to help them repay those bonds is a bad idea? Or the % of new TID that has been imposed to help pay for ARTIC/ARC? (You might pop down the hall and check with Curt on those first since he does pull paycheck from that) In fact, that was proposed by the Chamber’s Todd Ament, ask him the next time you stop to pick up your paycheck. The idea was that we know Anaheim benefits from additional TOT revenue flowing into the General Fund, but if a set percentage was set aside specifically for neighborhood improvements then there would be tangible projects to point to as proof of that benefit. Note that is a percent of what is collected, not an additional percentage.

    There was not a proposal for “social programs” as you put it, that would be handing out toothbrushes, etc. and nobody in Anaheim would ever be wasteful enough to spend precious tax money on that.

    Ya know, if you are going to attack the candidates who are beating the snot out of your boy in polling, at least get the information right.

    • Matthew Cunningham

      Wow, you’ve sure developed a thin skin, Cynthia – especially since you vowed to stop commenting here because no one expressed agreement with your points of view.

      I’ve noticed something you have in common with Art Pedroza, Vern Nelson, Gustavo Arellano, any FFFF blogger and other blogosphere ankle-biters: the almost immediate and reflexive resort to the personal attack (not to mention very active conspiratorial imaginations). It’s a very Alinsky-ite approach.

      If you find it impossible to express yourself here without being a complete jerk, I suggest Orange Juice Blog or FFFF or similar site where your smashmouth approach to discourse is esteemed.

      But to your point, such as it was. You hinted at the flaw in your argument. A set percentage that goods to paying off infrastructure improvements – and which cease at a fixed point in the future. You know exactly what you’re paying for, how much and for how long. Social programs are open ended, and immediately create their own little special interest that will demand their continuance, and organize and work for politicians who promise to continue or expand them.

      You really can’t see the difference?

  2. I do not expect people to agree with me, in fact it makes for a boring conversation when we are all the same. But I do expect to engage in civil discourse regarding the issues and not resort to the personal attacks that take place in your comments section. I believe i post comments that are relevant to the discussion at hand, that plug in additional facts, usually background and history that creates context for the discussion, so that readers understand how we got to this point, or what other mitigating circumstances might be in play. Your readers (and the home blogger here) then drop the original premise that the post was written under and resort to maligning my character. It is tiresome, and that is why I left, I felt I was not wanted, and in that case i added nothing to the discussion. I returned only because one of your readers was taunting me for NOT commenting, as though I was hiding or afraid of the superior intellect here.

    Apparently this is a (paid? you still have not disclosed?) cheerleading section for Jordan Brandman, any candidates threatening his lead in the polls will be subject to disparaging headlines in the hope perhaps that the posts are caught up in Google searches for the candidates, thus potentially affecting their standing with the public.

    Matt, you are the one posting items that blame candidates for stands proposed by others, in many cases proposed by those you are standing in support of, but when I point that out you claim I have a thin skin. Stick to the issues, what you are riding Lucille Kring for was originally a suggestion from the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce as proposed (publicly) by Todd Ament, which is likely where Lucille Kring heard it first, given her many,many years as a volunteer with the Chamber.

    • Matthew Cunningham

      “Matt, you are the one posting items that blame candidates for stands proposed by others…”

      No, I am posting about a position that John Leos adopted.

      If someone asks a candidate, “Hey, do you support imposing a $1 ticket tax on Disneyland to pay for youth programs and neighborhood development?”

      If the candidate say, “Yes, I do” – then that candidate is in support of that position.

      That’s what John Leos did. No one made him do it.

  3. Cynthia Ward – you have been one of the most vocal opponents of OCEA and public employee unions anywhere for years on Red County and elsewhere and now you are a cheerleader for Leos and Kring because Tait backs them. You truly lack any character or principles. You are such a hypocrite – Sell your tiresome arguments somewhere else. How about your juvenile blog that is anti-Brandman all day long…where you are now engaged in framing honest people for ridiculous claims in a pathetic attempt to get mail out before the DA dismisses the argument as baseless. You are truly disgusting as is everyone associated with that attack – including the Mayor.

  4. Matthew Cunningham

    Cynthia, I hate to break it to you, but that isn’t “all you do.” From the beginning, you come right out of the gates with your paranoid accusations that me and everyone else are puppets of Curt Pringle and intent on bleeding City Hall dry. It’s laughable and insulting at the same time.

    And then you are shocked at the negative feedback from commenters who don’t labor under those delusions.

  5. Wow, OK I do not have time to run my own blog, I am not writing for Jason if that is the accusation. He lifted one of my posts and crossposted, Yes, I do have serious issues about Curt Pringle, and joining me in the land of paranoia is the Orange County Register and the OC GOP Central Committee. Someday, that problem will work itself out, sooner or later it will all come out in the wash, just as when i was the first to scream about high speed rail being a total boondoggle and I was vilified for it, and gee, the State is now fighting against it with a majority poll wanting to reverse or defund it. I am not always off base. Not much I can do to persuade anyone here, and frankly I am sorry I engaged again, taunted by one of your commenters, but I am done. I need to not even read this stuff anymore, you do not have to agree with me but I am not hanging around to have my character maligned. I know, what character. Outta here.

  6. Cynthia Ward says she is “outta here”…. we could only wish. She is going to keep working for the unions by pushing for Leos and Kring. She likes to bully people on the blogs, and then acts offended when she gets called out. She is a freak’n joke.

  7. [Comment deleted for deliberate ignorance and misrepresentation]

  8. God help me I keep wanting to walk away, but like a bad train wreck you can’t help but watch.

    Forgive me…I am still a little fuzzy on the intent of this website. Is it persuasive? Is it intended to grab the attention of the average Anaheim voter, lured here by an email blast by SOAR in the most unprofessional move I have ever seen their otherwise professional and polished director pull, and when the average Anaheim voter gets here, the rumor, innuendo and poorly presented half truths are supposed to convince them to vote against whomever you happen to be targeting that week, based upon who appears to be a threat to Jordan Brandman from the latest poll results? And should that average Anaheim voter scroll down to comments and happen to see a counter-argument, they will immediately dismiss any information presented, based upon anonymous responses attacking the character of someone they have never heard of, is not a candidate for office, and they have no emotional stake in?

    Does that about cover it?

  9. Hey, I agree with you. Anaheim needed or wanted a lot of immirgant hispanic labor. To reduce the problem Anaheim needs more police not social programs and to go back to geniflying plans the real estate market is picking up appeal to housing for non-hispanic immirgants. Some hispanic immirgants and there children will move out to other OC cities or the Inland empire to commute to work. Santa Ana’s downtown now has a lot more non-hispanic business and is appealing to a different crowd and less gang activity in the past.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *