Change the board, change Merced County’s future

Merced County voters have a rare opportunity June 7; they can reshape the Board of Supervisors while shaping the county’s future. Voters will elect – or narrow the field for – three supervisors, possibly creating a new board majority.

Instead of a moribund group focused on the priorities of the past, voters can choose a new, more modern vision. Instead of being locked onto a narrow-gauge path to nowhere, we can embrace a more dynamic, visionary board willing to shake up the status quo and drive the county toward a brighter tomorrow. And it won’t even take three new faces; two could do it.

The key is that the new faces must ally themselves with one of the two sitting supervisors to shake free of the county’s good-ol’-boy past. Make no mistake, it is time we left that past in the dust. When the county sheriff, district attorney and the chief executive of the county’s largest city call out the board for its inability to do its job on several fronts, something is desperately wrong.

The best example is the supervisors’ discretionary fund, a candy jar for doling out political favors. Each supervisor gets $40,000 a year for pet projects and patronage. Voters should listen to those offering something new, something bigger, something better.

Ten candidates are running in three districts, all providing familiar observations and priorities – public safety, infrastructure, job creation. We asked how they see this county in the future.

District 2

Hub Walsh is one of the most experienced, educated and articulate supervisors on the board. But what has that gotten us?

With three people in the race, either Casey Steed or Lee Lor provides a better choice. We prefer Steed’s verve, drive and enthusiasm.

Ask him about his “vision” for Merced County, and hear about a parkway connecting Atwater, Merced and the university; recognize the city as a hub with light rail moving people in and out to research centers radiating from the campus. He sees Castle emerging from “20 years of failure” as an air-traffic control center for delivery drones and ground zero for green industries. The only failure he sees is in those who refuse to look for opportunities.

“I’m not expecting the county to be No. 1,” said Steed, “but I’d like to be No. 27 and maybe not getting the negative attention we’re getting now.”

In talking about water, Steed points to inaction on a state-mandated groundwater management plan, saying the “biggest cone of depression we’ve got is at 2222 M St.”

District 4

With five candidates vying to replace Deidre Kelsey, it is highly unlikely one will get 50 percent – meaning this election is a runoff for Round 2. We’re suggesting two from among the five candidates.

We like Lloyd Pareira’s economic ideas centered on the county’s “two big advantages” – ag and UC Merced. He best understands the challenges of invigorating Castle Commerce Center (which he calls “a little harder jewel to polish”). But his allegiance to the supervisors’ slush fund is problematic. We like Rich Ford’s experience in Gustine, but he too would keep the slush fund.

Jack Mobley insists the slush fund should die, but his inability to see the benefits of high-speed rail to creating a more dynamic business community is troubling. As for Ramon Prado, he’s right on rail and right on the slush fund (which he cleverly calls “pandering money”), but short on workable ideas on how to improve the economy. Counting on Merced becoming a cannabis hub isn’t quite good enough.

That leaves Fidel Cervantes – young and relatively inexperienced, having served four years on the Delhi Unified School District board. But we like his talk of economic incubators, focusing on small business and developing “trusting relationships” to resolve disputes with cities. Creating skills that employers need is doable goal. He promises to be the third vote to kill the slush fund, and that’s good enough for us.

Of the other four, Pariera’s vision for the future resonates best. His ideas for tweaking the slush fund don’t go far enough, but might make it less odious.

District 1

Voters must make a difficult choice between two flawed candidates. We are not impressed with Rodrigo Espinoza’s performance as mayor of Livingston. While we appreciate his support for high-speed rail and killing the slush fund, his riff with the Sheriff’s Office – insisting Livingston police should handle calls outside their jurisdiction – was extremely troubling.

But after three terms in office, we have even greater problems with John Pedrozo. Saying “maintenance of services” is the key to working out a revenue-sharing deal with cities that are pursuing economic development is backward-focused. Worse, his efforts to get an assistant out of trouble with police and trying to stiff-arm a tax deal for a political contributor smelled like good-ol’-boy politics at its worst. Business as usual is bad business.

Voters must pick one, so we suggest Espinoza; we also suggest keeping a close eye on his performance.

This story was originally published May 27, 2016 at 4:00 PM with the headline "Change the board, change Merced County’s future."