Election 2018: La Palma City Council candidates share their priorities and thoughts on local issues
Voters will go to the polls Nov. 6 to pick who will represent them on the City Council.
Ahead of the election, all candidates were invited to share information about themselves and answer questions about their priorities and local concerns for this voter guide. In each city, all were asked the same questions and given the same word count for their answers.
In La Palma, three are vying for two seats on the City Council.
The candidates
Nitesh Prit Patel, 39, CEO American International School of Law (facebook.com/PatelForLaPalma)
Michele Steggell, incumbent, 49, real estate agent Mark 1 Real Estate (Facebook: Steggellforlapalmacitycouncil2018)
Garrett S. Wada, 54, optometrist Wada Optometry (facebook.com/drwada4council2018)
Question 1: What are your top two priorities if elected?
Nitesh Prit Patel: La Palma has had to make some difficult budget cuts in recent years, some of which have adversely impacted services. My No. 1 priority is the maintenance of our exceptional police and fire services. My second priority is to explore thoughtful and reasonable business growth to restore or enhance city services and events without jeopardizing our long-term financial stability.
Michele Steggell: My two top priorities are going to b: 1) Keep a strong financial position and return to solid balanced budget; 2) Make sure we keep our Police Department fully staffed.
Garrett S. Wada: My top priorities if elected, I want to make sure that we look at every possible money-generating businesses we can bring our city without allowing marijuana manufacturing. I will also do my best to maintain our beautiful city. I am excited to see the ongoing modernization and beautification of our town and its streets and infrastructure.
Question 2: How should the city balance paying off debts, such as pension liabilities, and building reserves with meeting residents’ needs? Should it involve finding new revenue or trimming the budget?
Nitesh Prit Patel: Our city has recently increased its sales tax rate and appears to have stabilized its budget in the near term. However, there are always uncertainties and so I am committed to constant vigilance in eliminating unnecessary spending. In addition, I will explore thoughtful and reasonable business growth to help increase revenue.
Michele Steggell: In the past four years we have done both. We have trimmed our budget and that has helped our city greatly. We are always looking for ways to increase revenue in our city. Recently there were two billboards placed along the freeway.
Garrett S. Wada: Some people are very fortunate to have great pensions working for private companies. Many cities have this problem of rising pension and post-employment costs. We need to make sure our city pays adequate benefits, and not excessive benefits. We need to prevent an escalation of this problem in the future. I believe we must perform a comprehensive benefit analysis for all our city jobs.
Question 3: What should the city’s role be in encouraging the development of low-income housing units? Would you support a mandate or an incentive of some kind?
Nitesh Prit Patel: La Palma is virtually built-out with very limited space for new housing. Current incentives serve to increase density that is anathema to the character of our city and against the wishes of our residents. I would prefer a reduction in the onerous construction regulations to incentivize builders to produce housing in areas with available space.
Michele Steggell: Maybe an incentive. In my opinion, you should never give a mandate. La Palma is completely built out, so if someone does build low-income housing in our city we will have to build three- to four-stories high.
Garrett S. Wada: I believe we now have three low-income housing areas in our city. Nova La Palma apartments, Seasons at La Palma and Camden Place, yielding over 367 affordable units. La Palma is a tiny city about 1.8 square miles. There is very minimal land available here for any new construction. I believe the city’s role should be to designate specific areas deemed for low-income housing, however it should be set away from the highest traffic areas of the city.
Question 4: Communities across the state are grappling with rising pension and other post-employment benefit costs. What do you think needs to be done to deal with this problem?
Nitesh Prit Patel: I support that La Palma’s new hires are placed in the least costly retirement tier permitted by CALPERS. I would encourage CALPERS to provide even more flexibility on benefits, including shifting to a defined contribution approach.
Michele Steggell: Change the contracts starting as of now.
Garrett S. Wada: Some people who are fortunate enough to work for successful businesses and given generous pensions. However, city employees are paid with our tax dollars, and we need to be aware of that. We need to make sure that our city employees are adequately paid and not extreme for our small city of La Palma. I believe there should be a comprehensive salary benefit analysis done to make sure our employees funded accordingly
Question 5: On the ballot this November, voters will be asked to decide on whether to repeal the recently enacted increase to the state gas tax. What is your position on the gas tax?
Nitesh Prit Patel: Tax dollars were already supposed to maintain roads and related infrastructure. There seems to be a never ending thirst for additional tax dollars. I support the repeal of the gas tax and encourage the State to better prioritize their spending, just as City’s have had to do.
Michele Steggell: Repeal. In my opinion, I’m tired of our state being so in debt and seeing that the government doesn’t do what they say they will do with our money.
Garrett S. Wada: I am in favor of repealing the gas tax. Our gas prices are already second highest in the nation. Families are struggling right now. We are paying the highest ever medical insurance premiums and housing payments in the country.
Question 6: The high cost of housing in California has spurred increased interest in rent control. On the ballot this November is Proposition 10, which would repeal the Costa-Hawkins Act. What are your thoughts on rent control?
Nitesh Prit Patel: I oppose the repeal of the Costa-Hawkins Act. Rent control disincentivizes the construction of new housing and reduces the ability of landlords to maintain existing housing stock. Thus, it is precisely the opposite effect to what is needed to keep the housing market strong and encourage investors to invest in real estate, which creates a supply and demand.
Michele Steggell: The government should stay out of people’s business. If the rent is too high, rent somewhere else.
Garrett S. Wada: I don’t think it’s appropriate for a government to tell property owners how much they can rent their homes for.
Question 7: Proposition 64 authorizes the legalization of marijuana, while granting local jurisdictions the authority to approve or deny certain marijuana-related businesses. What are your thoughts on marijuana legalization to date and what do you think of your own community’s policies on marijuana?
Nitesh Prit Patel: The residents of our community did not want marijuana dispensaries in La Palma and I will respect and support their decision. My own opinion is that many cities see the dollar signs, but have failed to research the negatives of legalization. Furthermore, a true analysis must be conducted to determine the increase of revenue versus the effects on quality of life for current residents. I am very cautious of legalization but will be interested in other cities’ experiences over time and most importantly will listen to the constituents of La Palma.
Michele Steggell: Recently I voted against having marijuana in La Palma. I think it is a bad idea to legalize it anywhere in our untied states
Garrett S. Wada: As the opioid epidemic has swept across the country, we have to do everything we can to keep it from coming here. We need to take preventative measure one of which I believe is not allowing the manufacturing of marijuana in our city. In the U.S., the use and possession of cannabis are still illegal under federal law. Also, nearly all of the cities in Orange County have not allowed manufacturing in their towns
Question 8: Senate Bill 54 limits the role of state and local law enforcement in enforcing federal immigration laws. The law has drawn legal challenges from some localities which want the flexibility to work with the federal government. What do you think of SB54?
Nitesh Prit Patel: I believe that immigration law is the province of the federal government and SB 54 is in violation of federal law. It appears that illegal immigrants committing crimes have been protected by SB 54 and that it simply creates a risk to law abiding citizens and immigrants.
Michele Steggell: I do not believe in sanctuary cities. The cities who do not want to cooperate with the government should have all their benefits taken away.
Garrett S. Wada: California Senate Bill 54 effectively makes California a “sanctuary state.”I do not support sanctuary cities.