Most of us are aware of the issue of laying off city employees, furlough days, eliminating the city’s match to employee retirement accounts, and city employees waiving unused vacation pay, in hopes of achieving financial equilibrium; however, financial equilibrium is not the case as it relates to the decisions of Lodi’s city manager and city council pertaining to spending money.

Considering the greenbelt/cluster zoning, Lodi and the farmers were informed, by the County Board of Supervisors, that if they desired a change to the county zoning, it was the sole responsibility of those seeking the change to provide the funding. With heads hung, city officials and the farmers fled the supervisors’ chamber to formulate plan B. What is so interesting about this issue is that it has not gone away. After several city council meetings, the greenbelt issue persists on agendas. Could it be that the city council is going to move forward with this project at the expense of taxpaying citizens and local jobs and benefits?

For the city to move forward, they have to become what is being called the ‘authorized agent’ of the land and be granted ‘site control’ of the area; all this can be done for $500,000 (+/-) and other expenses that have yet to be determined if the project moves forward.(1) As I have mentioned in previous articles, this project is an issue between the farmers and the county, and Lodi should not get involved.

Why I am making such an issue of this is due in part to the reason behind the greenbelt/cluster zoning proposal: “This proposal was seen as a means to boost property owners’ income without forcing farmers to convert all of their land to non-agricultural uses.” (2) What we are now seeing if this issue does not go away is one in which city officials have demeaned the value of city employees and Lodi’s citizens for the sake of county residents. Yes, the city of Lodi has saved monies by layoffs, not filling positions, furlough day, waived unused vacation pay, and not matching city employees’ retirement contributions, yet we still have a shortfall and subsidizing farmer-developers does not coincide with prudent monetary budgeting.


Lastly, one should consider that the wastewater increases could be transferred from the wastewater fund to the general fund to subsidize the farmers. We should consider this type of subsidizing unethical and an insult to ratepayers.

1. City of Lodi Council Communication. Agenda Item K-04. June 3, 2009.
2. Ibid.