CONCORD, CA (May 29, 2025) — While the current survey (www.surveymonkey.com/r/K8DC3VT) goes on, there are some interesting trends that could use your participation to push the responses to the 200+ mark and get your opinion on these points:

2. When you think of low-income families of four, what number comes to mind? Some 35% think it is between $60,000 and $80,000, 21% think it is between $40,000 and $50,000, and 20% think it is less than $40,000. Do you suddenly feel that you are poor or, like me, did you know it all along?

3. Our community has a good relationship with the police. More than 56% agree and only 7% disagree. What more can we say on this? Hooray for CPD.

7. All residential zoning should be modified to allow for small retail stores with 10 parking spaces to be built. Only 23% agree and 42% disagree, with half of those strongly disagreeing. This was a surprise because I thought that for climate and convenience, the ability to walk to a deli or small market would be welcome. Are we too suburbanized for our own good or is this a California cultural issue that built the bedroom communities for decades?

8. The city General Fund should be used to keep the library open weekdays until 8 p.m. With 44% agreeing and only 21% disagreeing, maybe the council should look at this and see if they can convince the county library to go forward with this.

[broadstreet zone=”160420″]

10. A penalty fee on landlords that have empty retail spaces is a good idea. With 32% agreeing and 43% opposed, half of which are strongly opposed, this is a contentious issue that bears a lot more input. On the one hand, how do we portray the city as business friendly when we punish people for not being able to tap into the market rate attraction of small businesses that may not be there because of the Amazonian takeover of the retail world? The other side is that if they are punished, they will work harder to get retail stores back. What do you think?

12. If you have to choose only one, which do you think the community sees as the highest priority that is achievable to increase the General Fund’s usable revenues?

31%: Increase businesses and retail sales with incentives.
25%: Increase fees on crimes.
12%: Cut expenses in the police department.
5%: Cut expenses in Public Works.
5%: Increase fees for services.
4%: Invest in the market.
17%: Other places.

This is an interesting snapshot and makes me wonder about the management of expectations. After all, the question included “achievable.” There is great faith that expanding businesses and retail sales with incentives will not only pay back the incentives but that all are achievable. This has been a philosophy for decades. Is it achievable to the extent that we need $13 million in the next five years?

Regarding fees on crimes: The city only really has control over things like traffic, parking and code enforcement, if you call those crimes. Some time ago, I proposed that we put fees on violent crimes, domestic violence and the like to recover the police costs. I was shot down from many quarters, including legal.

Looking at the 17% “other” respondents, there was some trolling about going after judges and the homeless, but a majority said they had no idea. I should have made that one of the categories.

Please folks, write in about this as we need more people thinking about “achievable” answers to our revenue/expense problems.

Send comments and questions to EdiBirsan@gmail.com.