Here are some ways to trim the...

Here are some ways to trim the fat in Costa Mesa

Budget time is approaching for the city of Costa Mesa, and

spending seems to exceed revenue. Several letters on the Forum pages

have suggested ways to address this shortfall. Here are a few more

suggestions from a 20-year resident of the city.

When I was the president of a 1,000-person international aerospace

company, faced with an extremely large cut in defense spending, what

had to be done was never a question. We had to live within our means.

That meant cutting spending to match revenue.

The priorities where also very clear. First, inefficient programs

and those with questionable contribution to the welfare of the

company were cut. Then new programs, new hires, new capital, new

costs, etc. all were addressed for possible elimination. I believe

the city of Costa Mesa must do the same.

Over the past few years, the city had added several expensive

programs. They did not change my life in the city in any observable

way. I got along very well for 15 years, or so without these

programs. It seems to me the city can do the same for the next few

years. Three programs come to mind. I’m sure there are others.

First, why do we need a police helicopter? It takes a huge amount

of money to own and operate a helicopter. Owning the helicopter is a

small expense compared to operating it. One must pay for maintenance,

overhaul, insurance, pilots, parking, etc. month after month, year

after year. This can add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars the

city cannot afford. Our city was very well taken care of by one of

the best police departments in Orange County well before the

helicopter. We don’t need it. Get rid of it.

Second, I think we will all survive without code enforcement

officers. Recently, I have seen these officers driving up and down

the street, looking for code violations, I guess. Do we really need

to pay the salary, trucks and other large expenses for these

officers? I think the department of building and safety did an

excellent job before we had these enforcement patrols and will

continue to do an excellent job without them. If we have to cut, and

we do, lets cut these patrols.

Third, the idea of a small city having park rangers is at best

amusing. They drive around in big, costly, gas-guzzling SUVs doing

who knows what. What is better, getting rid of these expensive SUVs

or cutting some other program like park maintenance and improvements?

Finally, I think we can cut cost without cutting jobs. Think about

the huge overhead cost we will save by cutting these three programs.

Trucks, helicopters, SUVs and all their operating cost can be

eliminated. Don’t fire the people. They are doing a wonderful job on

their current assignments, so let’s do our best to give them new

assignments. Just let attrition get us down to the right level of

jobs without these programs.

Cutting cost is tough. When each of us are faced with a budget

crunch we are forced to reduce spending to match income. There is

just no other alternative. The city of Costa Mesa is facing reduced

revenue. Reducing cost is the only alternative. And the best

candidates for reduction are some of the newer programs we got along

very well without for many years.

LARRY PARKER

Costa Mesa

Public funds for private sources not praiseworthy

Now let me see if I understand you: March 16, Page 1 article

headlined “Legislative battle goes well for Vanguard.”

As I read it, borrow-and-spend Rep. Dana Rohrabacher is being

praised for taking $1.3 million from our federal treasury and giving

it to a private, parochial college. Sorry, but I don’t seem to

understand the reason for the praise.

MARTIN A. BROWER

Corona del Mar