Indexes
November 21st, 2009
November 20th, 2009
November 19th, 2009
November 18th, 2009
November 17th, 2009
November 16th, 2009
November 14th, 2009
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- The country's mess is our fault (165)
- Obama is not a moderate (130)
- Sarah Palin's book hits the shelves: Locals react (70)
- Lodi City Council plans to cap number of taco trucks at 22 (48)
- The haves should help the have-nots (30)
- Public health care is a Christian option (29)
- Tokay in, traveling to unbeaten No. 3 Grant for football playoffs (25)
- Government-run health care is a bad idea (17)
- Young woman fatally shot at Acampo home (17)
- Sierra Adventure store to close after four years in Downtown Lodi (16)
ADVERTISEMENT
Why Lodi city commissioners should be required to live in — yes — Lodi
Monday, September 22, 2008 6:19 AM PDT
If you look at the city of Lodi's Web page, www.lodi.gov, you will see that Lodi has, by my count, 14 boards and commissions with more than 100 volunteers serving on them.
This list does not including appointments to San Joaquin County or regional boards. Lodi's boards and commissions range from the Lodi Sister City Committee to the influential Planning Commission to the Greater Lodi Area Youth Commission to the Lodi Budget/Finance Committee, where I am currently serving my second term.
Undoubtedly, some of you will immediately say that the members of these committees are just members of the good ol' boys club. (I can assure you that if I ever were a member of that club, they kicked me out several columns ago.) I believe, however, that most of the people who serve on these committees are dedicated to the role that they serve, however limited, because the pay at $0 really isn't very good and I cannot identify any direct benefits of serving. But, if you want to say they are all members of the good ol' boys club, fine, but this column is not about that. This column is about the minimum qualification to serve on most of these committees, one that I think should change.
You see, the minimum qualification to serve on all but the Planning Commission and the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee is that the applicant is a registered voter in San Joaquin County. Yes, not Lodi — but San Joaquin County. (The other two require that you are a registered voter of Lodi when you apply. I guess you can move to Stockton after you are appointed. The registration requirement also does not apply to the students on the Youth Commission.)
So, to serve on any of the other committees you don't even need to live in Lodi. You can live in Tracy or Stockton or Escalon or Farmington, and I think that should change. It needs to change because there are times when Lodi's interests do not match those of the people in the county.
For instance, the Recreation Commission is, at an upcoming meeting, set to examine the difference in fees between Lodi residents and non-residents. Currently, if you are a non-resident, your fee for a program is higher by $10 or $15 than a Lodi resident, and Lodi residents have priority in registration. That sounds reasonable since Lodi property tax dollars support Lodi's parks and recreation system.
With that background, I have been told that there is discussion to have one fee for all of the Lodi Unified School District, an area much larger than Lodi and one that includes parts of Stockton. Why would that even be discussed as an option? Shouldn't Lodi residents pay less than someone that even lives in Woodbridge?
Well, the answers may be in the fact that a majority of the members of the Recreation Commission do not live in Lodi but are residents of the county. Yes, you read that right — a majority live outside of Lodi. Doesn't that majority have an interest to keep fees for county residents lower? Absolutely; that is where they live. Will they do it that way? I hope not, but they can. Is this what the Lodi city council wants? I hope not.
My point is that our city council has formed these committees to examine issues and to make recommendations to them for Lodi, and our city council should be acting in the best interests of Lodi residents. How can that happen if the committees are not made up of Lodi residents? Our city council needs to change the requirements for all of the boards and commissions so that to serve, you must not only be a registered voter of Lodi at the time of your application, but you remain a registered voter of Lodi throughout your term.
John Johnson, CFA is a Lodi-based business appraiser. You can reach Mr. Johnson at john@johnejohnson.com or at (209) 369-1451.
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
edumacation wrote on Sep 24, 2008 3:24 PM:
Observer wrote on Sep 23, 2008 11:29 AM:
sam wrote on Sep 23, 2008 8:36 AM:
I take that to mean that you believe someone renting a house in town is more concerned about the interests of Lodi than someone who owns a business or property in Lodi, but lives outside the city limit.
You never said they had to be legal residents.
Do you really believe a Lodi taxpayer is not concerned about the city? I do not live in Lodi, but I do pay Lodi property taxes. "
T & C wrote on Sep 23, 2008 8:22 AM:
Neo wrote on Sep 22, 2008 7:44 PM:
Neo wrote on Sep 22, 2008 7:42 PM:
Whoa Nellie! wrote on Sep 22, 2008 5:02 PM:
Your example of the Recreation Commission is off the mark. As we all know (i think), kids from all over (Victor, Clements, Woodbridge, etc) can participate in the City of Lodi Parks & Rec Dept programs: soccer, baseball, swimming, etc etc.
Why is it so bad to have an adult from that same boundry area sit on the Commission? None, right? As has been pointed out, take any volunteers you can get.
Who cares that Commissioner "A" lives in Clements. Or Comm. "B" lives on Ray Road. Or Comm "C" lives in Park West. I don't. They are on a commission. They don't have any real power or major authority. Their decisions need approval from City Staff or Council.
This is such a small issue I cant believe you wasted your column on this subject. "
sam wrote on Sep 22, 2008 4:44 PM:
People who invest in buying property within Lodi and actually pay Lodi property taxes are worthy of having a say in what happens in Lodi.
So T&C, you are saying an illegal renting an apartment in town would have more interest in what happens to Lodi than someone who actually owns land within the city limits? (but lives outside the city limits.) "
sam wrote on Sep 22, 2008 4:35 PM:
Next time any of you CC members try to sell the idea of a greenbelt, remember that the land is outside the city limits and therefore you have no say in what we do with our land.
Also remember that it is illegal for you to falsely portray our land as a greenbelt in your General Plan.
There is no greenbelt. For you to falsely label my land as such is libelous and worthy of a law suit. "
sam wrote on Sep 22, 2008 4:34 PM:
How about the Lodi business owners who live outside the city limits? Are they considered outsiders too?
I own property in Lodi. Why should I have no say, while people who merely rent in town get a voice.
I pay Lodi taxes but do not live in Lodi. "
sam wrote on Sep 22, 2008 4:33 PM:
I will gracefully now bow out. Have at it city dwellers. "
Neo wrote on Sep 22, 2008 11:36 AM:
reality wrote on Sep 22, 2008 10:40 AM:
reality wrote on Sep 22, 2008 10:33 AM:
reality wrote on Sep 22, 2008 10:30 AM:
Timothy wrote on Sep 22, 2008 9:49 AM:
T & C wrote on Sep 22, 2008 8:48 AM:
Timothy wrote on Sep 22, 2008 8:44 AM:
Comments on this story are now closed.