The city council in Victorville, California recently voted to loan $200,000 from their Reveleopment Agency (like LCDC) to a local auto dealer. As justification, one councilman said the auto dealer couldn’t qualify for a regular loan from any bank, so the city stepped in. Public tax dollars put into a risky loan for a private business—-where will this craziness end? Line up, who’s next?
February 1, 2009
Victorville Precedent?
28 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Here’s a link to a little more on the story from Marketplace.
Here’s the Wall Street Journal version.
Comment by Bill — February 1, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
Thanks, Bill. I hope we don’t see any version of this happening here.
Comment by mary — February 1, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
It spreads.
Comment by Dan — February 1, 2009 @ 10:38 pm
According to the WSJ article, one city councilman said, “Victorville Motors has been a longstanding contributor to the community, which weighed heavily in his vote for the loan.”
The auto dealer was a “stakeholder”! That’s why they got the loan. What about the next business that needs help? Well, maybe they’ll ask how much political support($) was given the mayor and council? Are you a stakeholder?
Comment by mary — February 2, 2009 @ 8:10 am
Sounds like a version of the Kroc. If the city decides it should happen they make it happen regardless of laws or ethics. The Ed corridor won’t qualify for any loan but I bet they get one if they want one.
“I’m in with the in crowd.
I go where the in crowd goes.
When you’re in with the in crowd it’s easy to get financed.”
Comment by Wallypog — February 2, 2009 @ 8:39 am
Wallypog, the Kroc center was in my mind too, when I read about the Victorville fiasco.
Will our city council vote to use LCDC money to prop up the Kroc Center if the center has trouble meeting their overhead costs in today’s tough economy?
Remember the Kroc Center is 100% privately owned; it is not a public building.
Comment by mary — February 2, 2009 @ 8:52 am
How about CDA spending $110,000.00 on an ad campaign while simultaneously cutting much needed services.
Comment by Faringdon — February 2, 2009 @ 9:18 am
Faringdon,
I’m unclear about the amount of money and also about who is putting it up.
Lucy Dukes’ article in the Press on January 12th said the amount is $10,000.
Tom Hasslinger’s article in today’s Press said the amount is $110,000.
Neither article precisely identified where the money is coming from. Likewise, the Stand UP! for Coeur d’Alene website is even more vague. If it is entirely private money from the Chamber of Commerce and the Visitor’s Bureau, that’s one thing. But if it includes any public money “donated” by the City’s taxpayers, that’s quite another.
Comment by Bill — February 2, 2009 @ 9:39 am
Am I the only one that noticed under “things to do” at Stand UP! envolves not one career level job? OH YES, making this a better place to live.
Comment by concerned citizen — February 2, 2009 @ 9:47 am
To be fair I do not think it is uncommon for municipalities to fund tourism campaigns when tourism is a major part of the business base. Branson, Mo. and Kissamee, Fla come to mind immediately but we see California tourist ads, etc.. routinely.
Comment by Wallypog — February 2, 2009 @ 9:50 am
When this STAND UP CdA! was announced a couple weeks ago (see the Jan. 12th link in Bill’s comment), Dan took the campaign’s featured newspaper photo of our unsmiling mayor and put a cartoon smile on it to make his point that she should look excited to represent CdA and help make our beautiful city look fun and interesting.
Dan was severely criticized as bashing the mayor, which of course, he was not.
Now again this Stand Up CdA! campaign is using the unsmiling Mayor Bloem at the photo representative of all things CdA. What a mistake.
If Sandi doesn’t like to smile in photos, don’t use her. Get someone else that can imbue energy, enthusiasm and excitement about our fair city. Enthusiasm sells.
Comment by mary — February 2, 2009 @ 10:05 am
why is it not surprising that withing two comments y’all were able to leap to a connection to cda. wow.
Comment by reagan — February 2, 2009 @ 10:10 am
“If Sandi doesn’t like to smile in photos, don’t use her. Get someone else that can imbue energy, enthusiasm and excitement about our fair city. Enthusiasm sells.”
like you?
Comment by reagan — February 2, 2009 @ 10:13 am
No, and not you either. Maybe Pat McGoughy, former Chamber president who is Mr. Enthusiasm and is quite photogenic. Or even Wendy Gabriel, city administrator, she has a nice smile. Or one of the Chamber members who comes across well in photos. Let’s be realistic.
Comment by mary — February 2, 2009 @ 10:20 am
“and not you either.”
why, because i’m dead? 😉
Comment by reagan — February 2, 2009 @ 11:01 am
Now, now children… We all know that ad campaigns employ stand-ins that not only look simply mahvelous but also warmingly embrace the wonders of the community being promoted. We need scantily clad babes and burly muscle men or maybe some native Indians divining up a rain storm against scenic blue skies and the lake. Who wouldn’t want to come a pay mega bucks to be part of that?
Comment by Wallypog — February 2, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
Private money is one thing…public another. Possibly the C of C is putting up the money, I don’t know. But it is my experience in CDA, that when a peice of info is “vague”, questions should be asked. In this economic climate, I cannot help but wonder just how much money from visitors, engendered by this campaign, will trickle down to the public coffers.
Reagan, clearly you neither like nor agree with anything said here. I respect that as your right. But I cannot help but be puzzled as to why you work yourself into an ulcer on such an ongoing basis.
Comment by Faringdon — February 2, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
It seems to me that if other car dealerships, the recipient’s competitors, also applied for loans but were rejected, would they not raise a question about their right to equal protection (14th amendment)? If the City gives unfair preferential treatment to one business over another, is there not also an antitrust issue?
Comment by Bill — February 2, 2009 @ 4:51 pm
victorville is a punk, 200K? cda gave millions to a church for a private health club.
Comment by TheWiz — February 2, 2009 @ 4:55 pm
But I cannot help but be puzzled as to why you work yourself into an ulcer on such an ongoing basis.
balance.
Comment by reagan — February 2, 2009 @ 10:02 pm
“But I cannot help but be puzzled as to why you work yourself into an ulcer on such an ongoing basis.
balance.”
Comment by reagan — February 2, 2009 @ 10:02 pm
I had heard the question asked before regarding the crock center, How does the city give money to a
Comment by concerned citizen — February 3, 2009 @ 8:03 am
Sorry, pressed the wrong key. lol
Once again, How does the city give money to a HEALTH CLUB and not to ALL health clubs in the city? If I owned a health club in the area, I would be PRETTY mad. Is this NOT direct competition let alone direct competition from the city?
Comment by concerned citizen — February 3, 2009 @ 8:07 am
“Dan took the campaign’s featured newspaper photo of our unsmiling mayor and put a cartoon smile on it”.”Dan was severely criticized as bashing the mayor, which of course, he was not”. Comment by mary — February 2, 2009 @ 10:05 am
He wasn’t?He was at least poking fun at the mayor’s unsmiling face.Do we have to elect mayors,based on the physicality of their presentations?Like if they have a great smile and are photogenic?Look at the past mayors of CDA,not a very photogenic
bunch.
Granted,Wendy Gabriel would have been a better choice for the picture.How about some babe who might work for the Chamber of Commerce?And don’t forget she needs to have a real dark tan.;-)
Comment by kageman — February 5, 2009 @ 12:05 pm
They did not.
They gave money to a public charity, a church with a 501c3 letter from the IRS. The city health clubs are nasty private for profit enterprises, bad people. Tax paying money grubbers. The Kroc is a church, a place of God, subsidized as a good thing by tax deductions for the wealthy and the special.
Comment by Pariah — February 5, 2009 @ 8:12 pm
“We are creating response materials and mechanisms to help our recruiters sell and then “turn over” leads to the right people. ”
This is from the Stand Up for Coeur d’Alene site. But I’ve heard from local hoteliers that the only “right people” who are getting the leads from the chamber is the Coeur d’Alene Resort.
Comment by Suzanne R. — February 8, 2009 @ 10:30 am
Suzanne,
I’m not familiar enough with the mechanics of the ad campaign, so can you give me some idea of what is supposed to happen? For example, do the C of C and CVB get general inquiries about hotel/motel/B&B and then send out a response that includes literature from all participating businesses? Or are the C of C and CVB somehow playing favorites?
It was interesting looking at the Stand UP! for Coeur d’Alene website. Whoever did it needs to hire an editor to catch typos/errors. “At the Coeur d’Alene Chamber or [sic] Commerce and the Coeur d’Alene Visitor Bureau (CVB)…”
Follow the link to the Coeur d’Alene Activities and Attractions page, and the first sentence begins, “Coeur d’Alene has such a wide rage [sic] of world-class activities…” Apparently tight editing isn’t one of those world-class activities that will put the city on the map.
Finally, can you shed any light on exactly who paid or will pay out $110,000 for this ad campaign? The Press article was typically vague but implied that it was the city government.
Comment by Bill — February 8, 2009 @ 11:43 am
Wow. Sending leads to the right people. The good people. The stakeholders. Play the game, kiss the right asses, and the world will be yours in Coeur d’Alene!
I outta submit a visitor’s request and see if they highly recommend a certain hotel owned by a deep-pocket, well-connected insider who sits on several city boards and commissions.
The game these people play is disgusting and inexcusable.
Comment by Dan — February 8, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
money money money the song for the inside connections crowd.
wanna bet they are lined up for that old fashioned porculus bill being debated in the democrat controlled congress as we speak? not one gop type in the house voted for porculus even the democrat for north idaho voted no but bet on the local dems lining up for porculus bailouts for the city, the schools and all sorts of community organizing.
Comment by TheWiz — February 8, 2009 @ 12:51 pm