Was council's complaint about county spending timed perfectly for the election?

The council in Thousand Oaks wants the city to stop paying for programs that should be the responsibility of Ventura County.

Taken at face value, those words make perfect sense. The same rationale applies to other levels of government. The state of California, for example, shouldn't have to pay to maintain a secure border with Mexico. That's the job of the federal government.

Regarding the local controversy, part of the problem is that the county is in healthier financial shape. Property tax revenue is up. When times were tough, the county pulled the plug on programs like DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education), so the city stepped forward and picked up the tab.

Now the county's cash flow has improved, so it's perfectly logical to ask Ventura County to start paying for DARE again.

When it comes to government, however, you can kiss logic goodbye. Ventura County prefers, no doubt, that Thousand Oaks continues to pay for DARE, so the county can find new and different ways to spend our tax dollars. (Never mind that DARE is a worthwhile program.)

The timing of the controversy is interesting.

Four of the council members (Andy Fox, Mayor Dennis Gillette, Jacqui Irwin and Tom Glancy) have endorsed Joe Gibson, the opponent of Ventura County Supervisor Linda Parks. The election is Tues., June 6.

We hope Ventura County will again pay for programs that Thousand Oaks has been funding.

And although Gibson is qualified to serve, we wonder if the sudden interest in county spending isn't politically motivated to embarrass Parks just before the election.

Editorials RSS feed