Santa Cruz Observer

Occupational education and the economy

Second in a series

By TOM HONIG

Last week the Chamber of Commerce presented data about the local retail economy. The night before,  the County Office of Education presented its first Regional Occupational Program Advisory Night -- an opportunity for business people to get involved in local career education.

The two events have a connection.

One of the problems that retailers have in Santa Cruz is that an astonishing 85 percent of retail purchasing by Santa Cruz residents goes outside the county. There are a lot of reasons for that, but one big explanation is that so many people -- 30,000 or more -- travel outside the county to go to work. They shop where they work. At the same time, local employers fret that they have jobs available for qualified workers -- but they can't find them here in town.

That's where the County Office of Education's ROP program fits in. Yes, it's vocational education, but with a big difference from the old days. Mark Hodges, director of the program, explained it this way: "We've come a long way from the vocational ed of the past. Our program gives kids a reason to learn and stay in school."

In other words, ROP actually blends vocational ed with college prep. Hodges explained it this way: "If I was going to learn to fly a plane and could choose to be taught by someone with a degree in civil aeronautics who hasn't flown a plane or some who has flown -- I'd choose the one who had actually flown a plane."

That's who teaches in ROP -- those with work experience who go through a special credentialed program. The list of available programs is impressive -- from agribusiness to web design, from athletic training to construction.

These applied programs don't subtract from scholastic programs. They add to it. For example, imagine a student trying to memorize biology concepts. Take that same student and put her in a sports medicine class and she'll be motivated to learn about injuries at the cellular level.

This, in a nutshell, is how education can help the Santa Cruz economy. It won't happen overnight. But the ROP program serves more than 4,000 students a year in some 40 different courses. Also, the program coordinates its programs with Cabrillo College, also an important institution in the preparation for jobs.

That's not to say there aren't challenges. Rock Pfotenhauer, a dean at Cabrillo College, shared with the audience a shocking statistic: that only about 10 percent of incoming freshman are college ready. The question is whether there's a solution.

These are challenging times for education, both here and across the country. Is occupational learning the solution? It's worth a shot.

On retail, leakage, business and education

First in a series

By TOM HONIG

At a Chamber of Commerce meeting this week, an old statistic came rising out of the data pile -- still as shocking as the day it was reported several months ago: some 85 percent of potential retail dollars are being spent outside of Santa Cruz.

There are a hundred reasons for that kind of "leakage," as it's called by those in business. You can point to social problems or customer-unfriendly parking or even a lack of national retailers. But the biggest -- and maybe the most difficult to solve -- is that so many Santa Cruz residents driver elsewhere for their jobs. In other words, if you're working in Silicon Valley and you need a shirt or some shoes, you're going to buy them over there. You're not going to drive all the way back to Santa Cruz and then go shopping. Besides, the stores here will probably be closed.

Boy is that a problem with a long-term solution. Obviously, the Santa Cruz economy would have to totally change into one that offered higher wages here so that people don't leave town to shop.

At the same time, there's an additional problem -- the big companies that are here have to look elsewhere for qualified employees. In private conversations with local officials right after the chamber meeting, I learned that some of the biggest local employers -- like Plantronics -- are having trouble finding qualified employees.

And yet, earlier this week, at a community meeting of the Regional Occupational Program of the County Office of Education, officials brought up Santa Cruz County's 12 percent unemployment rate.

Obviously, there's a gap here somewhere. All signs point to education. 

What's being done locally? More than you might think.

NEXT: New ideas in education.

OK -- maybe 'caring' is a necessity

By TOM HONIG

The previous post featured a mini-rant about the role that "I Care" plays in politics. I had argued that it doesn't matter whether a politician believes in God or whether she "cares" about this group and that group. Give me competence and good decisions.

Now comes the opposite point of view in today's Wall Street Journal, "Romney's businessman pitch won't work," by Robert R. Reilly.

He says: "If you cannot articulate the cause for which you are fighting in moral terms, you will lose." (Doing so apparently worked this week for Rick Santorum.)

Maybe that's the problem with our form of government. Convince the voters that you "care" -- and you'll win elections -- no matter if you're qualified or not.

Is 'caring' an important political attribute?

By TOM HONIG

I've noticed some comments in various letters to the editor or on Facebook about how this candidate or another "doesn't care about" poor people ... or women ... or the elderly ... or some other group.

Sometimes you hear similar complaints from the right: liberals "don't care about" American exceptionalism or even that they're somehow not religious enough. (Take note: no one who's a non-believer could stand a chance in a national election.)

When did "caring" become such a political attribute? Does it really matter if someone "cares?" Does it matter if their religious beliefs match mine? I want people in office who are good at what they do. I want them to care about being competent. 

Here's the deal. Politics is largely about helping the highest number of people at a reasonable price tag. Of course, doing that isn't easy. But applying government services in an effective and efficient manner is what matters for any elected official.

Sadly, a lot of politicans don't measure up. What they do, instead, is convince certain favored groups that they "care." But every political decision -- like it or not -- has winners and losers. Barack Obama "cared" about unionized auto workers -- and the health of the Midwest economy -- so he fashioned a bailout of GM and Chrysler. But he didn't "care" so much about all those middle-class bondholders of GM and GMAC, and they lost all their money.

Maybe he was right. But "caring" ought not enter into it.

Locally, the biggest issue of the last year was the Coastal Commission vote to deny the redevelopment of the La Bahia Hotel. Led by local county supervisor Mark Stone, the commission "cared" about the impact on the environment. But does that mean that Stone and the commissioners "didn't care" about people who need jobs? Did Obama "not care" about jobs when he opposed the Keystone oil pipeline? Does Gov. Jerry Brown "care" more about prison guards than he does about teachers?

These are all tough issues, and reasonable people can disagree whether the decisions were good ones. But "caring" is hardly the touchstone. It's about effectiveness and good policy.

"Caring" is great in our personal lives. In politics, "caring" sometimes means taking care of one favored group while shutting down another. Give me an official who's competent and makes good decisions. Leave the caring to my friends and family.

Our local Trilateral Commission

By TOM HONIG

It was nice to get a mention in the weekly Gary Patton-Paul Elerick echo machine, sometimes known as "Bratton Online."

Never one to keep misinformation to himself, Bruce Bratton offers this critique:  "Who else can deliver those Chamber, LOBA, Business Council messages so clearly?"

I'd comment on that but I have to hurry off to a secret meeting with our local Trilateral Commission.

A dIfferent sort of letter-writing campaign

By TOM HONIG

Picture this: Sitting around a table with a group of techies, and I bring up the obscure information that February has been declared "The Month of Letters Challenge," when writers are being asked to post a letter a day.

 "You mean, as in putting a stamp on an envelope?" asks one techie.

A couple of them nod their heads. So I press on.

"Actual letter-writing is an artform. One of my favorite genres of literature is "The Selected Letters of ...." Steinbeck wrote letters. Faulkner wrote letters. Emily Dickensen. Charles Dickens. Even Georgia O'Keefe and comedian Fred Allen.

"I don't think you'll be reading 'The selected e-mails of' anyone in the future."

"Well, we don't use Morse Code anymore, either," said another techie.

Then the conversation switched. But I got to thinking about my old "Britannica Guide to English Usage," which dictated style and etiquette in crafting a letter. Or an essay by Lewis Carroll about how it's best to address and stamp an envelope before writing a letter or the unsent missive will lie unsent on the writing table for days at a time.

So far, I haven't joined in the letter-writing campaign. But I might. E-mails and Facebook posts and tweets are not a substitute for an old-fashioned letter. Neither, really, is a telephone call.

A letter says: "I've sat down and thought about you and I'm taking the time to craft a few thoughts for your eyes only."

I haven't written a letter in years. I don't even have a mailing address for most of my friends. 

There's more than nostalgia here. An artform has been sent out on the trash pile of antiquity. It's a nice thought to have a "Write a Letter" campaign -- even if the only way to get the word out about it is on blogs.

On not writing

By TOM HONIG

A singer I met several years ago told me that she had grown tired of her voice and even her interpretation of music that she sang. She decided to take a couple years off and just listen to the sounds of others.

Only the shampoo bottle in my shower caddy knows the truth about my own singing voice, but I understand the emotion completely. It's an explanation of why this site went silent over the past 45 days or so. With so many people inveighing on so many subjects -- from Twitter, Facebook, blogs, op-eds, newspaper columns, talk radio, on and on -- adding even a few words on this modest site seemed, I don't know, redundant.

Still, the impact of the written word, both the writing of it and the reading of it, does seem to be a worthwhile endeavor. So after a break, I've decided to start back up again. That's in way of explanation to those who actually asked what has happened to the Santa Cruz Observer.

The hiatus was particularly worthwhile in that I read the words of others more than I had -- the words of trustworthy  journalists like Robert Samuelson, Fareed Zakaria and Tom Friedman -- as well as book writers like Graham Greene and a more obscure writer by the name of Frederick Reiken. It's worth noting that there is wisdom in the world, far from the reaches of cable news shows, talk radio and especially the talking points of the politicians, who are good at one thing and one thing only -- saying things to prospective voters that they apparently want to hear.

So that's why you've heard nothing from this end lately. It was all about listening more and talking less.

Old Santa Cruz and New Santa Cruz

By TOM HONIG

Pundits from Shel Silverstein to Thomas Carlyle have inveighed about the passage of time.

Silverstein: "They're tearing down buildings that I watched them build..."

Carlyle: "The illimitable, silent, never-resting thing called Time, rolling, rushing on, swift, silent, like an all-embracing ocean-tide, on which we and all the universe swim like exhalations, like apparitions which are, and then are not.... "

Me: "Old Santa Cruz and new Santa Cruz, all on one day last Saturday."

Old Santa Cruz turned out Saturday afternoon at the Congregational Church on High Street for a memorial service to pay tribute to Wally Trabing, the Sentinel columnist who cranked out a column every day from the early '60s to the mid-'90s. He died recently at the age of 90 (and here's a nice tribute by the Sentinel's Wallace Baine.)

Wally's life, as it was described by friends and family, was lived at a slower pace than it would have today. His son, Kent, remarked on how his dad started the day by listening to the sounds of morning as dawn broke outside his Santa Cruz home. The gray heads in attendance nodded, as if acknowledging something barely remembered.

As I said, it was old Santa Cruz. People like artist Dave McGuire, former county supervisor Robley Levy, Bruce Bratton, activist Lois Muhly (whose own husband, Bert, was honored at his funeral just two weeks earlier) and of course, a ton of old Sentinel alums: John Lindsay, Len Klempnauer, Denise Siebenthal, Chris Watson, Maria Gaura and Bruce McPherson. Then there were the survivors: Don Miller, Bill Lovejoy and Wallace Baine.

Ah, but then there's the new. Just a couple hours later, the Museum of Art and History opened its doors to the annual Nexties Awards -- a lively, hard-partying salute to the local folks under 40 who are making a big difference in town. (For more, here's the Good Times lead-up to the evening).

Four young Santa Cruzans were honored for helping to make things better in Santa Cruz, but the event is also an opportunity for folks to eat, drink, dance and socialize. It's the best party in town -- high energy, filled with the promise of things to come.  City Council members were there in profusion. So were staffers, young lawyers, techies and non-profit operators. It's totally new Santa Cruz: new people, new dreams, new goals and an intoxicating sense of excitement. It was a sold-out crowd.

That night, I dreamed about someone speaking at the Nexties. This unidentified grouch said something along the lines of: "This is how it is. You're like you are now, and then you get old and then you die." With that I woke up.

Not particularly profound, but it was that kind of day in Santa Cruz. 

Desal and UCSC growth -- a student environmentalist's perspective

EDITOR'S NOTE: Recent posts have focused on growth at UCSC and the attitudes of some longtime residents. The following piece is written by a current student at the university -- a self-described environmentalist who has a unique and worthwhile take on an important issue -- water, UCSC growth and how local politics should function.

By ROBERT SINGLETON

I am first and foremost an environmentalist. Before I came to Santa Cruz to attend UCSC, I had worked for a progressive, slow growth, non-profit in my own hometown of Santa Rosa. During that time I fought against development of all types. I helped to pass Urban Growth Boundaries, enact slow growth measures, fought against ridge top development and even helped elect a slow growth majority to the city council. All of this I firmly believed in, and still do for the most part.

However, I have always attempted to be practical when dealing with local politics, and I would say that I am one of the few. I have definitely had long conversations with people I see eye to eye with 97% of the time, only to fight about something minor like prospective green building standards, or the phrasing in a campaign leaflet. To me these encounters are all part of the process, a process that albeit painstaking, is absolutely necessary for the proper adoption of policy.

In Santa Cruz this decision making process is very similar, there are those who stick to their ideological guns give hell or high water and then there are those like myself, who continually question, sometimes to the dismay of my peers, the stances of everyone involved. This has been my continual stance throughout the local debate concerning desalination. I have met the leaders of both camps, heard their perspectives and questioned their beliefs and assumptions, with rigor. In fact, I have felt more like an outsider looking in than I should given my previous work, but I can’t help but play devil’s advocate.

Given this experience, I have come to the following conclusions, some of them localized and unique to Santa Cruz, others transcendent and to some extent universal.

1. The Soquel Creek water district is in dire straights and must act quickly to develop a supplemental supply because conservation alone will not be enough to curb their current usage.
   1. Private well owners cannot be expected to reduce their consumption without some extreme coordination, and currently many refuse to even put meters on their wells, let alone take steps for major reductions.
2. The city of Santa Cruz is better off, but is operating on the same supply that it had during the 76-77 drought, despite its population having doubled. This has left the city particularly vulnerable to future droughts, even without considering the mandatory reductions needed to preserve fish habitat.
3. UCSC is going to expand, no matter how much local resistance it faces. It has a state mandate, an underlying agreement with the city for resources and the strong support of many a passionate and pragmatic individuals. Get over it.
4. People must be willing to overcome their hard-line stances on growth and be willing to compromise. It is a sad day when local progressives become the obstructionist conservatives they so typically despise.
5. If people on both sides are really serious about having a genuine political discussion than both must be willing to acknowledge one another’s opinion and more importantly, a common set of agreed upon facts. If factual disagreements remain, than a proper explanation must be given, with both sides championing a common explanation for the disagreement.

Academic freedom and UCSC growth

SECOND IN A SERIES

By TOM HONIG

There are a lot of harsh words for UC Santa Cruz and its plan to expand city services to a portion of campus. What gets under the skin of some critics is that the university doesn't legally need the permission of local agencies to expand -- the university is a state agency with an equal legal standing to local agencies like the Santa Cruz City Council or the  Local Agency Formation Commission.

UC went before LAFCO this week and received approval of its growth plan -- even though technically it didn't need to do so.

That standing gets under the skin of some critics. But there are a couple of reasons why, and the explanation is worth keeping in mind.

1. UC's legal standing has to do with academic freedom. For example, imagine a fictional local jurisdiction that takes offense to, say, the teaching of evolution. That local agency could withhold zoning approval until the university changed its curriculum. That's the principle behind establishing UC as a state agency with a legal standing equal to any other.

2. Any campus of UC serves a public much wider than just a local town or city. True, UCSC exists in Santa Cruz, but it serves a statewide clientele. And what's good for local neighbors isn't necessarily the same as what's good for prospective students from Silicon Valley, the Bay Area and even Southern California.

This week, the university went before LAFCO to win approval of its plan to build housing and provide services for up to 2,000 new students. Opponents testified that there's not enough water to adequately allow for the expansion.

Legally, UC didn't even have to go before LAFCO, but officials did as part of an earlier agreement with the city. In fact, UCSC Chancellor George Blumenthal reminded people of that fact prior to the meeting. In a letter to LAFCO, Blumenthal said: that if the agency slapped unacceptable conditions on the plan "the university will seriously consider withdrawing its application or judicially challenging the approval."

That comment got under the skin of opponents. One letter-writer to the Sentinel remarked: "The chancellor's saber rattling about new lawsuits is unfortunate and a sad reminder of UCSC's historical arrogant attitude that no one, citizens or other government entites, has any business trying to interfere."

Strong words, but the evidence is otherwise. The university doesn't legally have to cooperate at all. And Blumenthal's willingness to negotiate with the city and with LAFCO shows that at least he's sensitive to the local community.

That's' not to say that UCSC officials are always right. But it's worth remembering that they have a wider public than just Santa Cruz and they also have constitutional rights that require protecting. 

NEXT: The growth argument.