November 2, 2010
As the preceding article evidences, “early voting” is making political prognostication quite difficult these days. It is having a detrimental effect on the author of this Voter Guide as well.
While you all vote 25 days out, I’m sending direct mail to influence those of you who live in jurisdictions where I’m running elections. It leaves little time for research, contemplation, or transcription of the Voter Guide. Besides, most of the nasty hit pieces I, uh, those political consultants send out generally don’t drop until just before Election Day. However, keeping up with voter trends, I suspect there will be vicious hit pieces mailed to mail-in voters and early negative TV as well. Then, when will I have the time to do this?
Basically, it’s turned elections into a two-part process. We have separate targeting, separate messaging, separate communications strategies, and separate get-out-the-vote efforts for absentee voters. About half way through the mail-in ballot campaign, we need to crank up the Election Day voter contact, persuasion, etc. etc., etc. At some point soon, I may need to choose between the Voter Guide and running campaigns. If I could just find an advertiser …
In fact, for the first time in almost 25 years, I came down with a killer cold before Election Day, not after. It usually happens on the Thursday after the election Tuesday and lasts until half way between vacation and Thanksgiving.
Nevertheless, you now have the 10-year anniversary edition of the Voter Guide with a few days for contemplation. And, I started this damn thing in October!
So, for the handful who have yet to vote, following find my biased guide that will break through the misleading straight talk, provide controversy where there was none, get personal (whether it’s negative depends on your point of view) and tell you more than you ever wanted to know about the issues and the people on the November 2010 ballot.
PROPOSITION
19
LEGALIZES MARIJUANA UNDER CALIFORNIA BUT NOT FEDERAL LAW. PERMITS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO REGULATE AND TAX COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION, AND SALE OF MARIJUANA. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
· Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use.
· Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production, distribution, and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older.
· Prohibits people from posse
· ssing marijuana on school grounds, using in public, or smoking it while minors are present.
· Maintains prohibitions against driving while impaired.
· Limits employers’ ability to address marijuana use to situations where job performance is actually impaired.
Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
The fiscal effects of this measure could vary substantially depending on: (1) the extent to which the federal government continues to enforce federal marijuana laws and (2) whether the state and local governments choose to authorize, regulate, and tax various marijuana-related activities.
· Savings of potentially several tens of millions of dollars annually to the state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders.
· Increase in state and local government tax and fee revenues, potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
BACKGROUND
Federal Law – Federal laws classify marijuana as an illegal substance and provide criminal penalties for various activities relating to its use. These laws are enforced by federal agencies that may act independently or in cooperation with state and local law enforcement agencies.
CROTTY’S OBSERVATIONS
I have always advocated for the legalization and regulation of “recreational” drugs, as well as prostitution, from and economic point of view. As with drugs like alcohol and tobacco, other drugs should be allowed on the open market with strict regulations and enforcement.
In addition, such products would then be subject to taxation – growth and distribution taxes, sales taxes, use taxes, etc. Our society can monitor drug use in the same manner we currently monitor alcohol use. There can even be a “Mothers Against Doped Driving” and they wouldn’t even have to change the acronym.
In several years, or perhaps now, all of us whose formative years included exposure to recreational drugs need to lose the stigma of “Refer Madness.” Unfortunately, Baby Boomers are living a double standard – they did it, but they don’t want their kids to do it.
If I hear one more politician say that s/he “experimented” with drugs, I’m going to shoot him or her. It makes it sound as though they were in a controlled environment with people in lab coats monitoring them. Come on! You did drugs and you liked them. Get over it. In fact, I would trust someone about my age more if s/he admitted to taking drugs. If s/he hadn’t done drugs, s/he was one of those kids in high school and/or college who were losers or worse. I don’t want them representing me.
The major problem with Prop 19 is that as with Prop 215, until the Feds recognize it, people like Laura Duffy will continue to crack (no pun intended) down on California users to score political points.
Vote “yes,” but it’s going to lose.
PROPOSITION
20
REDISTRICTING OF CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
· Removes elected representatives from the process of establishing congressional districts and transfers that authority to the recently–authorized 14–member redistricting commission.
· Redistricting commission is comprised of five Democrats, five Republicans, and four voters registered with neither party.
· Any newly proposed district lines would require approval of nine commissioners, including three Democrats, three Republicans, and three from neither party.
Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
· No significant net change in state redistricting costs.
· This measure takes the responsibility to determine boundaries for California's congressional districts away from the State Legislature. Instead, the commission recently established by voters to draw district boundaries of state offices would determine the boundaries of congressional districts.
BACKGROUND
Every ten years following the federal census state legislators redraw district boundaries for the State Assembly, State Senate, State Board of Equalization (BOE), and California's congressional districts for the U.S. House of Representatives. To comply with federal law, redistricting must establish districts that are roughly equal in population. In the past, district boundaries for all of the offices listed above were determined in bills that became law after approval by the Legislature and signed by the Governor. On some occasions, when the Legislature and the Governor were unable to agree on redistricting plans, the California Supreme Court performed the redistricting.
In November 2008, voters passed Proposition 11, which created the Citizens Redistricting Commission to establish new district boundaries for the State Assembly, State Senate, and BOE beginning after the 2010 census.
Established once every ten years, the Commission will consist of 14 registered voters—5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 4 others—who apply for the position and chosen according to specified rules. The Commission is required, to the extent possible, to adopt district boundaries that:
· Maintain the geographic integrity of any city, county, neighborhood, and "community of interest" in a single district. (The Commission is responsible for defining "communities of interest" for its redistricting activities.)
· Develop geographically compact districts.
· Place two Assembly districts together within one Senate district and place ten Senate districts together within one BOE district.
Currently, redistricting lies in the hands of state legislators. Proposition 11, however, did make some changes to the requirements that the Legislature must meet in drawing congressional districts, but the requirements are easily avoided because Prop 11 didn’t prohibit the Legislature from favoring or discriminating against political parties, incumbents, or political candidates when drawing congressional districts.
PROPOSAL
This measure amends the Constitution to change the redistricting process for California's districts in the U.S. House of Representatives. Specifically, the measure removes the authority for Congressional redistricting from the Legislature and instead gives this authority to the Citizens Redistricting Commission. The Commission would draw congressional districts essentially as it draws other district lines under Proposition 11. The Commission, for example, could not draw Congressional districts in order to favor incumbents, political candidates, or political parties.
The Commission also is to consider the geographic integrity of cities, counties, neighborhoods, and communities of interest. As under Proposition 11, compliance with federal law would be required.
In addition to this measure, another measure on the ballot—Proposition 27—is concerned with redistricting issues. If both measures are approved, the one receiving the greater number of "yes" votes would be the only one to go into effect.
CROTTY’S OBSERVATIONS
Prop 11 was a well-intentioned but toothless good start in the attempt to take redistricting out of the hands of politicians whose only interests are creating non-competitive “safe” state districts and, to a lesser but not insignificant extent, congressional districts. This measure would put the drawing of congressional boundaries in the hands of the Prop 11 commission, as it is presumed that the Prop 11 commission will be used to draw state seats because it was approved by voters in 2008.
My interests in redistricting are entirely mercenary. The more competitive seats, the more elections I get to run. That’s why I supported open primaries in the June election.
Although it’s all going to end up in court and take years to figure out, Prop 20 is another small step in the right, I mean, correct direction.
Vote “Yes,” and hope you live long enough to see it implemented.
PROPOSTION
21
ESTABLISHES $18 ANNUAL VEHICLE LICENSE SURCHARGE TO HELP FUND STATE PARKS AND WILDLIFE PROGRAMS. GRANTS SURCHARGED VEHICLES FREE ADMISSION TO ALL STATE PARKS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
BACKGROUND
· The California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), operates and maintains 246 of California’s 278 state parks, while the other 32 are operated and maintained by local entities. Other state departments and various state conservancies own and maintain other lands for wildlife conservation purposes. The State Wildlife Conservation Board acquires property and provides grants for property acquisition to state and local entities for wildlife conservation purposes. The Ocean Protection Council is a state agency responsible for coordinating state activities to protect ocean resources.
· Over the last five years, state funding for the operation of state parks has been around $300 million annually. Of this amount, about $150 million has come from the General Fund, with the balance coming largely from park user fees and state gasoline tax revenues. The development of new state parks and capital improvements to existing parks are funded largely from bond funds that have been approved in the past by voters. There is a significant backlog of maintenance projects in state parks, which have no dedicated annual funding source. The DPR also administers grant programs for local parks, funded largely through bond funds.
· Wildlife conservation programs in various other state departments are funded through a combination of the General Fund, regulatory fees, and bond funds. State funding for wildlife conservation program operations is around $100 million per year. Bond funds are the primary funding source for land acquisitions and other capital projects for wildlife conservation purposes.
The state collects a number of charges annually when a person registers a vehicle. The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) collects these revenues on behalf of the state.
PROPOSAL
This measure places an $18 annual surcharge on all vehicles registered on or after January 1, 2011, except for commercial vehicles, trailers, and trailer coaches. The surcharge would be collected when annual vehicle registration fees are paid. These surcharge revenues would be deposited into the newly created State Parks and Wildlife Conservation Trust Fund. The measure expressly prohibits these funds from being used for purposes other than state parks and wildlife conservation. Typically, most state parks charge a vehicle day–use fee that covers entry into the park and parking. Currently, this single fee is in the range of $5 to $15 per day depending on the park and the time of year. Under this measure, all California vehicles subject to the surcharge would have free vehicle admission, parking, and day–use at all units of the state parks system, including state parks currently operated by local entities, as well as to other specified state lands and wildlife areas. State parks would still be able to charge fees for camping, tours, and other activities.
CROTTY’S OBSERVATIONS
Remember Prop 98? The “Classroom Instructional Improvement and Accountability Act” that was approved on the November 8, 1988 ballot, which required a minimum percentage of the state budget to be spent on K-14 education, guaranteed an annual increase in education in the state budget. As a result, a minimum of 40% of California’s general fund spending must be spent on education and the actual percentage of the general fund spent on education is over 50%.
Has it resulted in a regular stream of income to keep schools, students, teachers, and other education costs met? No. Will Prop 21 solve the problem of deferred maintenance, underfunded programs and increased administrative costs? No.
California’s budget is out of whack, with a built-in structural deficit. Until the budget process is overhauled, no amount of money that is intended to be allocated for one purpose will be safe. In addition, new voter approved spending mandates make balancing the budget even more difficult.
It’s a nice idea. However, the time for nice ideas is past. It’s time to tackle the Herculean task of scrapping the way California mismanages its archaic budget process. See Prop 25 as a good place to start.
You can vote for Prop 21 and it will pass because it’s about parks. But, it’s really about the budget and Prop 21 is another roadblock to getting the budget process under control.
PROPOSITION
22
PROHIBITS THE STATE FROM BORROWING OR TAKING FUNDS USED FOR TRANSPORTATION, REDEVELOPMENT, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROJECTS AND SERVICES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Prohibits the State, even during a period of severe fiscal hardship, from delaying the distribution of tax revenues for transportation, redevelopment, or local government projects and services.
Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
Due to restrictions on state authority over fuel and property taxes, the state would have to take alternative actions—probably in the range of $1 billion to several billion dollars annually. This would result in both:
· Reductions in General Fund program spending and/or increases in state revenues of those amounts.
· Comparable increases in funding for state and local transportation programs and local redevelopment.
BACKGROUND
Under the State Constitution, state and local government funding and responsibilities are interrelated. Both levels of government share revenues raised by some taxes—such as sales taxes and fuel taxes. Both levels also share the costs for some programs—such as many health and social services programs. While the state does not receive property tax revenues, it has authority over the distribution of these revenues among local agencies and schools.
Over the years, the state has made decisions that have affected local government revenues and costs in various ways. Some of these decisions have benefited the state fiscally, and others have benefited local governments. For example, in the early 1990s, the state permanently shifted a share of city, county, and special district property tax revenues to schools. These shifts had the effect of reducing local agency resources and reducing state costs for education. Conversely, in the late 1990s, the state changed laws regarding trial court program funding. This change had the effect of shifting local agency costs to the state.
In recent years, the state's voters have amended the Constitution to limit the state's authority over local finances. Under Proposition 1A of 2004, the state no longer has the authority to permanently shift city, county, and special district property tax revenues to schools, or take certain other actions that affect local governments. In addition, Proposition 1A of 2006 restricts the state's ability to borrow state gasoline sales tax revenues. These provisions in the Constitution, however, do not eliminate state authority to temporarily borrow or redirect some city, county, and special district funds. Further, these propositions do not eliminate the state's authority to redirect local redevelopment agency revenues.
PROPOSAL
This measure reduces or eliminates the state's authority to:
· Use state fuel tax revenues to pay debt service on state transportation bonds.
· Borrow or change the distribution of state fuel tax revenues.
· Redirect redevelopment agency property taxes to any other local government.
· Temporarily shift property taxes from cities, counties, and special districts to schools.
As a result, this measure affects resources in the state's General Fund and transportation funds. The General Fund is the state's main funding source for schools, universities, prisons, health, and social services programs. Transportation funds are placed in separate accounts and used to pay for state and local transportations programs.
Voids Recent Laws – Any law enacted between October 20, 2009, and November 2, 2010, that is in conflict with this proposition would be repealed.
Several factors make it difficult to determine the practical effect of this provision: First, parts of this measure would be subject to future interpretation by the courts. Second, in the spring of 2010, the state made significant changes to its fuel tax laws, and the full effect of this measure on these changes is not certain.
Finally, the state budget was just adopted and many of the funding changes to address its major budget difficulties. As a result, it is not possible to determine the full range of state laws that could be affected or repealed by this measure.
Under this measure, if a court ruled that the state violated a provision of Proposition 22, the State Controller would reimburse the affected local governments or accounts within 30 days. Funds for these reimbursements, including interest, would be taken from the state General Fund and would not require legislative approval.
CROTTY’S OBSERVATIONS
Stop state raids on local funding. Sounds good. Too good. Why?
Roughly 70% of the state’s general fund flows to local government and public schools. Less money is available for those programs when state revenue falls — and revenue has plummeted over the past three years. In addition, state “raids” on funds that would otherwise go to local governments have become more frequent and have left counties and cities underwater when it comes to fully funding programs and services for which the state is supposed to pay.
The state can borrow, but it must repay with interest. Proposition 22 goes would prohibit the state from borrowing local money or reallocating redevelopment property tax revenue, eliminate state authority to temporarily shift property tax revenue, or dedicate license plate fee revenue to help local governments pay for state mandates, and it would restrict the state’s ability to tap fuel taxes to pay debt service on transportation bonds.
The major problem with Prop 22 is that while local redevelopment agencies and transportation authorities would benefit, but they would benefit at the expense of schools, prisons, health care, and other essential state services. Depending on how it’s interpreted in court (of course it will be litigated), it could undo some past decisions on how to repay transportation bonds.
Despite the state siphoning local government coffers, Proposition 22 treats a symptom of the state’s financial crisis that brings with it an entirely new set of problems. The state needs budget reform, including a less volatile revenue stream, which includes repealing or modifying Proposition 13.
Giving more money to redevelopment agencies and transportation authorities at the expense of other critical state-funded local programs (like the 350 fire service districts that would be financially eviscerated if Proposition 22 passes, which is why the California Professional Firefighters are leading the opposition) is not the answer we need.
Unfortunately, we will never have what we need because neither residents nor elected officials in this state have the fortitude to do what is right even though it might not be 100% in their on personal interest.
Vote “Yes,” but be ready to keep having this same discussion ….
PROPOSITION
23
SUSPENDS IMPLEMENTATION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAW (AB 32) REQUIRING MAJOR SOURCES OF EMISSIONS TO REPORT AND REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THAT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING, UNTIL UNEMPLOYMENT DROPS TO 5.5 PERCENT OR LESS FOR FULL YEAR. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Disclosure time – I’m doing some work for the “No on 23” campaign. That doesn’t mean I’m biased, I’m just very well-informed!
· Suspends State law that requires greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020, until California's unemployment drops to 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters.
· Suspends comprehensive greenhouse–gas–reduction program that includes increased renewable energy and cleaner fuel requirements, and mandatory emissions reporting and fee requirements for major emissions sources such as power plants and oil refineries.
BACKGROUND
As a populous state with a large industrial economy, California is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) in the United States and one of the largest emitters of GHGs in the world.
Assembly Bill 32: In 2006, the state enacted the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, commonly referred to as Assembly Bill 32 or “AB 32.” This legislation established the target of reducing the state's emissions of GHGs by 2020 to the level that emissions were at in 1990. It is estimated that achieving this target would result in about a 30 percent reduction in GHGs in 2020 from where their level would otherwise be in the absence of AB 32. In addition to AB 32, a number of other state laws have been enacted by the Legislature that would reduce GHG emissions. As required by AB 32, the ARB in December 2008 released its plan on how AB 32's GHG emission reduction target for 2020 would be met. The plan—referred to as the AB 32 Scoping Plan—encompasses a number of different types of measures to reduce GHG emissions.
The plan includes a mix of traditional regulatory measures and market–based measures. Traditional regulations, such as energy efficiency standards for buildings, would require individuals and businesses to take specific actions to reduce emissions. Market–based measures provide those subject to them greater flexibility in how to achieve GHG emission reductions. The major market–based measure included in the Scoping Plan is a “cap–and–trade” program. Under such a program, the ARB would set a limit, or cap, on GHG emissions; issue a limited number of emission allowances to emitters related to the amount of GHGs they emit; and allow emitters covered by the program to buy, sell, or trade those emission allowances.
A number of studies have considered the economic impacts of the Scoping Plan implementation in 2020—the year when AB 32's GHG emission reduction target is to be met. Those studies that have looked at the economic impacts from a relatively broad perspective have, for the most part, found that there will be some modest reduction in California's gross state product. These findings reflect how such things as more expensive energy, new investment requirements, and costs of regulatory compliance combine to increase the costs of producing materials, goods, and services that consumers and businesses buy.
PROPOSAL
This proposition suspends the implementation of AB 32 until the unemployment rate in California is 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters. During the suspension period, state agencies are prohibited from proposing or adopting new regulations, or enforcing previously adopted regulations, that would implement AB 32. (Once AB 32 went back into effect, this measure could not suspend it again.)
CROTTY’S OBSERVATIONS
AB 32 Will Be Suspended, Likely Forever. Under this proposition, AB 32 would be suspended immediately. It would remain suspended until the state's unemployment rate was 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters (a one-year period).
Since 1970, the state has had only three periods (each about ten quarters long) when the unemployment rate was at or below 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters or more. The unemployment rate in California for the first two quarters of 2010 was above 12 percent. Economic forecasts for the next five years have the state's unemployment rate remaining above 8 percent. Given these factors, it appears likely that AB 32 would remain suspended indefinitely.
If AB 32 is essentially repealed, it would kill the ARB regulation that is intended to require privately and publicly owned utilities and others who sell electricity to obtain at least 33 percent of their supply from “renewable” sources, such as solar or wind power, by 2020. (The current requirement that 20 percent of the electricity obtained by privately owned utilities come from renewable sources by 2010 would not be suspended by this proposition.)
The suspension of AB 32 will have negative impacts on the California economy. For example, the suspension of some Scoping Plan measures will delay investments in clean technologies that have resulting in cost savings to businesses and consumers. Investment in research and development as well as job creation in the energy efficiency and clean energy sectors that support or profit from the goals of AB 32 would be lost, as it would no longer be financially feasible for private companies to compete in California.
In short, Proposition 23 would destroy half a million “green” jobs in California (many in construction and high-tech manufacturing) by 2020 while costing the state $80 billion in gross domestic product. And, that doesn’t include the $20 billion in GDP growth and 100,000 new clean energy jobs California can create in the next 10 years if its environmental and clean energy policies are upheld (and Prop 23 defeated).
Polling shows that when you learn that Prop 23 is financed largely by Texas oil companies, you are more likely to vote no. In fact, it’s supposed to be the only thing we say, that’s how good it works.
So vote “No.”
PROPOSITION
24
REPEALS RECENT LEGISLATION THAT WOULD ALLOW BUSINESSES TO LOWER THEIR TAX LIABILITY. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
· Repeals recent legislation that would allow businesses to shift operating losses to prior tax years and that would extend the period permitted to shift operating losses to future tax years.
· Repeals recent legislation that would allow corporations to share tax credits with affiliated corporations.
· Repeals recent legislation that would allow multistate businesses to use a sales–based income calculation, rather than a combination property–, payroll–, and sales–based income calculation.
Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
Increased state revenues of about $1.3 billion each year by 2012–13 from higher taxes paid by some businesses. Smaller increases in 2010–11 and 2011–12.
BACKGROUND
This proposition would change three provisions of California’s laws for taxing businesses. As indicated below, these provisions have been changed recently as part of state budget agreements between the Legislature and the Governor. Under current law, all of these recent changes will be in effect by the 2011 tax year.
· Businesses’ Use of Financial Losses – Under federal and state tax laws, in a year when a business has more deductible expenses than income, the business has a net operating loss (NOL). A business with an NOL in one year generally can use it to reduce its taxes when it makes a profit in some later years. This is known as a “carry forward” of losses. Federal tax law also allows businesses to “carry back” losses. In other words, federal law allows a business to use an NOL from one year to reduce its taxes in an earlier year. These mechanisms—both carry forwards and carry backs—have been put in place to recognize that business income and/or expenses can vary significantly from year to year.
A law approved by the Legislature and the Governor in 2008 allows carry backs for state business taxes for the first time, starting in 2011. Specifically, this new law will allow a business to use an NOL from 2011 or later to reduce its state taxes for the two years before the NOL was generated. For example, a business that had profits and paid taxes in 2009 but has a loss in 2011 may deduct its 2011 NOL against its 2009 taxable income. The business would file an amended tax return for 2009 and receive a tax refund. In addition, the 2008 law extends the carry forward time allowed from 10 years to 20 years.
· Determination of Income of Multistate Businesses’ Taxed by California – Businesses often operate in many states. To determine how much of the income of a multistate business is taxed by the state, California law now uses a formula that involves three factors:
· Property – The value of the business’ properties in California compared to the value of its properties throughout the nation.
· Payroll – The value of the business’ compensation to its employees in California compared to the value of its compensation to its employees throughout the nation.
· Sales – the value of the business’ sales in California compared to the value of its sales throughout the United States. For most businesses, this factor counts more heavily than the others.
A law approved by the Legislature and the Governor in 2009 will give multistate businesses a new way to determine how much of their income that California taxes. Starting in 2011 under this new law, most multistate businesses will be able to choose each year between two formulas to set the level of income California can tax.
Businesses’ two options will be: (1) the three–factor formula currently in use (described above), or (2) a new formula based only on the portion of their overall national sales that are in California (known as the “single sales” factor). A business typically will select the formula that minimizes its California taxes. A business would be allowed to switch back and forth between the two formulas.
Sharing Tax Credits – California tax law allows tax credits that can reduce a business’ taxes. If, for example, a business is able to use tax credits worth $1 million, this reduces the business’ state taxes by $1 million. These tax credits are given to businesses doing certain things that the state wants to encourage. For example, a business that spends money in California to develop a new technology product may earn a “research and development” tax credit. If a business has credits that exceed the amount of taxes it owes in a given year, it will have unused credits. (Typically, these unused credits can be carried forward to be used in future years.)
Many business organizations consist of a group of business entities – This is called a “unitary group” if it meets certain conditions, such as operating jointly or operating under the same management. For example, one business in a group may develop a product, and another business in the group may sell that product. Tax credits are given to individual business entities—not unitary groups.
A law approved by the Legislature and the Governor in 2008 allows a business with available tax credits to transfer unused tax credits to another business in the same group. Shared credits can be used to reduce taxes in 2010 and later years. There are certain limitations to this credit sharing in the law. Some of these credits have been transferred already.
CROTTY’S OBSERVATIONS
This proposition repeals the business tax law changes passed in 2008 and 2009 described above. As such, this measure would return tax policies in these areas to the way they were before the recent law changes.
Increased State Revenues – This proposition would increase state General Fund revenues by increasing the taxes paid by businesses. When fully implemented by 2012–13, revenues would increase by an estimated $1.3 billion each year. There would be smaller increases in 2010–11 and 2011–12. More than one–half of these estimated increased taxes would be paid by multistate businesses as a result of the elimination of the single sales factor option.
Effects on Education Funding and the State’s General Fund – Proposition 98 (passed by the voters in 1988) determines the minimum amount of state and local funding for K–12 schools and community colleges each year.
Under the formulas of Proposition 98, a significant part of Proposition 24’s revenue increases would be allocated to schools and community colleges. The remaining revenues would be available to the Legislature and the Governor for any purpose.
Which is why the initiative is principally supported by the California Teachers Association, which claims the revenue drain on the state budget will mean less money for schools, health care and public safety while benefiting multistate corporations.
Opponents call the initiative a "jobs tax" and say it will discourage employers from expanding their businesses, writing in their ballot argument that "Prop. 24 doesn't guarantee $1 for our classrooms and reduces long-term revenues for schools and vital services. It would hurt small businesses, tax job creation, send jobs out of California, costing us 144,000 jobs."
I’m confused, so I’ll recommend doing what all confused voters do. They vote “No.” If you figure this out … don’t bother me, I’ll be on vacation. Call my accountant.
PROPOSITION
25
CHANGES LEGISLATIVE VOTE REQUIREMENT TO PASS BUDGET AND BUDGET–RELATED LEGISLATION FROM TWO–THIRDS TO A SIMPLE MAJORITY. RETAINS TWO–THIRDS VOTE REQUIREMENT FOR TAXES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
· Changes the legislative vote requirement necessary to pass the state budget and spending bills related to the budget from two–thirds to a simple majority.
· Provides that if the Legislature fails to pass a budget bill by June 15, all members of the Legislature will permanently forfeit any reimbursement for salary and expenses for every day until the day the Legislature passes a budget bill.
In some years, the contents of the state budget and related legislation could be changed due to the lower legislative vote requirements in this measure. The extent of these changes would depend on a number of factors, including the state’s financial circumstances, the composition of the Legislature, and its future actions.
In any year the Legislature has not sent a budget to the Governor on time, there would be a reduction in state legislator compensation costs of about $50,000 for each late day.
BACKGROUND
The State Constitution gives the Legislature the power to appropriate (that is, allow the spending of) state funds. The annual state budget is the Legislature’s primary method of authorizing state expenses for a fiscal year (which runs from July 1 to June 30). The Constitution requires that the Governor propose a budget by January 10 for the next fiscal year.
· Each of the two houses of the Legislature (the State Assembly and the State Senate) then is required to pass the annual budget bill by June 15 and send it to the Governor.
· The Governor may either sign the budget approved by the Legislature or veto (reject) all or a part of it.
· By a two–thirds vote in each house of the Legislature, a veto by the Governor may be overridden.
· While the Constitution has a date by which the Legislature must pass a budget, it does not have a specific date by which a final budget must be put into law.
Two–Thirds Vote Requirement for Passage of State Budget – The Constitution requires a two–thirds vote of each house of the Legislature for the passage of “urgency” measures that take effect immediately, bills that increase state tax revenues, and General Fund appropriations (except appropriations for public schools). Because the state budget includes General Fund appropriations and needs to take effect immediately, it requires a two–thirds vote for passage. Certain budget actions, such as a decision to change the services that a state department is mandated to provide, require changing state law. These changes often are included in “trailer bills” that accompany passage of the budget each year. In general, bills passed by the Legislature take effect on January 1 of the next year. In order for trailer bills to take effect immediately, however, they must be passed by a two–thirds vote of each house of the Legislature.
Late Budgets – Since 1980, the Legislature has met its June 15 constitutional deadline for sending a budget to the Governor five times. During that same period, a final budget—passed by the Legislature and approved by the Governor—was in place before the July 1 start of the fiscal year on ten occasions, including three times since 2000. When a fiscal year begins without a state budget in place, some state expenses are not paid as scheduled. For example, state elected officials (such as the Governor and Members of the Legislature) have not received salaries after July 1 until a final budget is in place. Salary payments withheld from these officials have been paid in full when the final budget goes into effect.
CROTTY'S OBSERVATIONS
Lowers Legislative Vote Requirements for the Budget Bill and Related Legislation – This measure amends the Constitution to lower the vote requirement necessary for each house of the Legislature to pass a budget bill and send it to the Governor. Specifically, the vote requirement would be lowered from two–thirds to a majority of each house of the Legislature. The lower vote requirement also would apply to trailer bills that appropriate funds and are identified by the Legislature “as related to the budget in the budget bill.”
Both the budget bill and these trailer bills would take effect immediately after being signed by the Governor (or on a later date specified in the bill). A two-thirds vote of the Legislature would still be required to override any veto by the Governor.
This measure’s constitutional provisions do not specifically address the legislative vote requirement for increasing state tax revenues, but the measure states that its intent is not to change the existing two-thirds vote requirement regarding state taxes.
Loss of Pay and Reimbursements by Legislators – In any year when the Legislature has not sent a budget bill to the Governor by June 15, this measure would prohibit Members of the Legislature from collecting any salary or reimbursements for travel or living expenses. This prohibition would be in effect from June 15 until the day that a budget is presented to the Governor. These salaries and expenses could not be paid to legislators at a later date.
FISCAL EFFECTS
State Budget Will Be Easier to Approve – This measure could make it easier for the Legislature to send a state budget bill to the Governor. That is because it would lower the voting requirement for the budget from two–thirds to a majority of each house of the Legislature. Given the current composition of each house, this would allow members of the Legislature’s majority political party to approve a budget bill without the support of any members of the minority party. Currently, some members of the minority party must support a budget to reach the two-thirds vote requirement.
In some years, the lower vote requirement could affect the content of the budget and bills identified by the Legislature as related to the budget. Spending priorities in a given budget could be different. The extent of these changes would depend on a number of factors—including the state’s financial circumstances, the composition of the Legislature, and its future actions. Accordingly, the exact changes that would occur in future state budgets cannot be estimated.
The Maldonado Payback Section – In years when the Legislature does not send a budget bill to the Governor by the June 15 deadline, Members of the Legislature would lose portions of their annual salaries and reimbursements for living and travel expenses.
In such cases, the measure would reduce state costs by around $50,000 per day until a budget bill is sent to the Governor.
Another Sneaky Move?
Opponents argue that fine print in the measure would allow the state legislature to approve tax hikes without a supermajority vote. Is there? It could go either way. If Prop 25 passes, I guess the Republicans will sue to find out.
California, Rhode Island and Arkansas are the only states that continue to mandate a two-thirds vote to pass a budget. California required only a majority vote until the Great Depression, when a change was made to the two-thirds supermajority.
The current requirement gives the minority party far too much clout at budget time, by giving one-third of the legislature the ability to block a budget (the 2011 budget took 100 days to be agreed upon).
Vote “Yes.”
Really, how much worse could things be?
PROPOSITION
26
REQUIRES THAT CERTAIN STATE AND LOCAL FEES BE APPROVED BY TWO–THIRDS VOTE. FEES INCLUDE THOSE THAT ADDRESS ADVERSE IMPACTS ON SOCIETY OR THE ENVIRONMENT CAUSED BY THE FEE–PAYER’S BUSINESS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Requires that certain state fees be approved by two–thirds vote of Legislature and certain local fees be approved by two–thirds of voters.
· Increases legislative vote requirement to two–thirds for certain tax measures, including those that do not result in a net increase in revenue, currently subject to majority vote.
Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
Decreased state and local government revenues and spending due to the higher approval requirements for new revenues. The amount of the decrease would depend on future decisions by governing bodies and voters, but over time could total up to billions of dollars annually.
Additional state fiscal effects from repealing recent fee and tax laws: (1) increased transportation program spending and increased General Fund costs of $1 billion annually, and (2) unknown potential decrease in state revenues.
BACKGROUND
There are three broad categories of fees and charges:
1) User fees—such as state park entrance fees and garbage fees, where the user pays for the cost of a specific service or program.
2) Regulatory fees—such as fees on restaurants to pay for health inspections and fees on the purchase of beverage containers to support recycling programs. Regulatory fees pay for programs that place requirements on the activities of businesses or people to achieve particular public goals or help offset the public or environmental impact of certain activities.
3) Property charges (Developers Fees)—such as charges imposed on property developers to improve roads leading to new subdivisions and assessments that pay for improvements and services that benefit the property owner.
In 1996, California voters overwhelmingly approved Prop 218, which required a two thirds vote at both the state and local levels for the approval of certain taxes.
State and Local Taxes, Fees, and Charges
At the state level, the following are required:
· Taxes: Two–thirds of each house of the Legislature for measures increasing state revenues.
· Fees: Majority of each house of the Legislature.
· Property Charges: Majority of each house of the Legislature.
At the local level, the following are required:
· Taxes: Two–thirds of local voters if the local government specifies how the funds will be used or a majority of local voters if the local government does not specify how the funds will be used.
· Fees: Generally, a majority of the governing body.
· Property Charges: Generally, a majority of the governing body. Some also require approval by a majority of property owners or two–thirds of local voters.
State law has different approval requirements regarding taxes, fees, and property charges. State or local governments usually can create or increase a fee or charge with a majority vote of the governing body. In contrast, increasing tax revenues usually requires approval by two–thirds of each house of the state Legislature (for state proposals) or a vote of the people (for local proposals).
Disagreements Regarding Regulatory Fees
Over the years, there has been disagreement regarding the difference between regulatory fees and taxes, particularly when the money is raised to pay for a program of broad public benefit.
In 1991, for example, the state began imposing a regulatory fee on businesses that made products containing lead. The state uses this money to screen children at risk for lead poisoning, follow up on their treatment, and identify sources of lead contamination responsible for the poisoning.
In court, the Sinclair Paint Company argued that this regulatory fee was a tax because: (1) the program provides a broad public benefit, not a benefit to the regulated business, and (2) the companies that pay the fee have no duties regarding the lead poisoning program other than payment of the fee. In 1997, the California Supreme Court ruled that this charge on businesses was a regulatory fee, not a tax. The court said government may impose regulatory fees on companies that make contaminating products in order to help correct adverse health effects related to those products.
Consequently, regulatory fees of this type can be created or increased by (1) a majority vote of each house of the Legislature or (2) a majority vote of a local governing body.
PROPOSAL
So, the Howard Jarvis folks are back with this measure that expands the definition of a tax and a tax increase so that more proposals would require approval by two–thirds of the Legislature or by local voters.
Expands the Scope of What Is a State or Local Tax
Classifies as taxes some fees and charges that government currently may impose with a majority vote. As a result, more state revenue proposals would require approval by two–thirds of each house of the Legislature and more local revenue proposals would require local voter approval.
Raises the Approval Requirement for Some State Revenue Proposals
Requires a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature to approve laws that increase taxes on any taxpayer, even if the law's overall fiscal effect does not increase state revenues.
Repeals Recently Passed, Conflicting State Laws
Repeals recent state laws that conflict with this measure, unless they are approved again by two–thirds of each house of the Legislature. Repeal becomes effective in November 2011.
That’s not all folks!
Expands the Definition of a “Tax”
This measure broadens the definition of a state or local tax to include many payments currently considered to be fees or charges. As a result, the measure would have the effect of increasing the number of revenue proposals subject to the higher approval requirements. Generally, the types of fees and charges that would become taxes under the measure are ones that government imposes to address health, environmental, or other societal or economic concerns. Certain other fees and charges also could be considered to be taxes under the measure. For example, some business assessments could be considered to be taxes because government uses the assessment revenues to improve shopping districts (such as providing parking, street lighting, increased security, and marketing), rather than providing a direct and distinct service to the business owner.
Some Fees and Charges Are Not Affected
The change in the definition of taxes would not affect most user fees, property development charges, and property assessments. This is because these fees and charges generally comply with Proposition 26's requirements already, or are exempt from its provisions. In addition, most other fees or charges in existence at the time of the November 2, 2010 election will not be affected unless:
· The state or local government later increases or extends the fees or charges. (In this case, the state or local government would have to comply with the approval requirements of Proposition 26.)
· The fees or charges were created or increased by a state law—passed between January 1, 2010 and November 2, 2010—that conflicts with Proposition 26.
Approval Requirement for State Tax Measures
The State Constitution currently specifies that laws enacted “for the purpose of increasing revenues” must be approved by two–thirds of each house of the Legislature.
CROTTY’S OBSERVATIONS
Under current practice, a law that increases the amount of taxes charged to some taxpayers but offers an equal (or larger) reduction in taxes for other taxpayers has been viewed as not increasing revenues (aka “revenue neutral”). As such, it can be approved by a majority vote of the Legislature.
Prop 26 Requires “Revenue Neutral” Taxes to Not Tax Anyone
The measure specifies that state laws that result in any taxpayer paying a higher tax must be approved by two-thirds of each house of the Legislature.
State Laws in Conflict With Proposition 26
Repeal Requirement – Any state law adopted between January 1, 2010 and November 2, 2010 that conflicts with Proposition 26 will be repealed one year after the proposition is approved. This repeal would not take place, however, if two-thirds of each house of the Legislature passed the law again.
Recent Fuel Tax Law Changes—In the spring of 2010, the state increased fuel taxes paid by gasoline suppliers, but decreased other fuel taxes paid by gasoline retailers.
Overall, these changes do not raise more state tax revenues, but they give the state greater spending flexibility over their use. Using this flexibility, the state shifted about $1 billion of annual transportation bond costs from the state's General Fund to its fuel tax funds. This action decreases the amount of money available for transportation programs, but helps the state balance its General Fund budget. Because the Legislature approved this tax change with a majority vote in each house, this law would be repealed in November 2011—unless the Legislature approved the tax again with a two–thirds vote in each house.
HERE IS MY MAJOR BEEF WITH 26:
By expanding the scope of what is considered a tax, the measure would make it more difficult for state and local governments to pass new laws that raise revenues. This change would affect many environmental, health, and other regulatory fees, as well as some business assessments and other levies. New laws to create—or extend—these types of fees and charges would be subject to the higher approval requirements for taxes.
There are very few things upon which 2/3rds of California voters will ever agree. Therefore, the increased voting requirements will result in many proposals not being approved and government revenues will be even lower at a time when we need every cent we can get.
Given the range of fees and charges that would be subject to the higher approval threshold for taxes, the fiscal effect of this change will be huge. Over time, it could reduce government revenues and spending statewide by billions of dollars annually compared with what otherwise would have occurred.
Although this measure would likely result in even more work for me, it’s a very bad idea – vote “No,” but be prepared to vote on taxes next year.
PROPOSITION
27
ELIMINATES STATE COMMISSION ON REDISTRICTING. CONSOLIDATES AUTHORITY FOR REDISTRICTING WITH ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
This measure returns the responsibility to determine district boundaries of state offices back to the Legislature. Under this measure, the commission recently established by voters to determine these district boundaries would be eliminated.
BACKGROUND
The State Constitution requires that the state adjust the boundary lines of districts once every ten years following the federal census for the State Assembly, State Senate, State Board of Equalization (BOE), and California’s congressional districts for the U.S. House of Representatives. To comply with federal law, redistricting must establish districts that are roughly equal in population. In the past, district boundaries for all of the offices listed above were determined in bills that became law after they were approved by the Legislature and signed by the Governor. On some occasions, when the Legislature and the Governor were unable to agree on redistricting plans, the California Supreme Court performed the redistricting.
In November 2008, voters passed Proposition 11, which created the Citizens Redistricting Commission to establish new district boundaries for the State Assembly, State Senate, and BOE beginning after the 2010 census. To be established once every ten years, the commission will consist of 14 registered voters—5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 4 others—who apply for the position and are chosen according to specified rules.
Current Congressional Redistricting Process
· Currently, California is entitled to 53 of the 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Proposition 11 did not change the redistricting process for these 53 congressional seats. Therefore, redistricting plans for congressional seats are included in bills that are approved by the Legislature.
· Proposition 11, however, did make some changes to the requirements that the Legislature must meet in drawing congressional districts. The Legislature—like the commission—now must attempt to draw geographically compact districts and maintain geographic integrity of localities, neighborhoods, and communities of interest, as defined by the Legislature.
· Further, Proposition 11 did not prohibit the Legislature from favoring or discriminating against political parties, incumbents, or political candidates when drawing congressional districts.
PROPOSAL
This measure would amend the Constitution and other state laws to change the way that district boundaries are determined for the State Assembly, State Senate, BOE, and California’s seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Redistricting Returns to Legislature
· This measure returns authority to draw district boundaries for the State Assembly, State Senate, and BOE to the Legislature.
· In addition, the responsibility to determine congressional districts would remain with the Legislature.
· The Citizens Redistricting Commission that was created by Proposition 11 would be eliminated.
CROTTY’S OBSERVATIONS
What About Proposition 20?
If both of these measures are approved by voters, the proposition receiving the greater number of “yes” votes would be the only one to go into effect.
Gee. Reform or more of the same?
Vote for doing things differently than the way that got us into this mess. Besides, I need the work.
Vote “No.”
U.S. Senate
Barbara Boxer (Democrat)
Carly Fiorina (Republican)
Carly’s campaign team is taking a big risk. Most Republicans successful in statewide California elections first stress conservatism to win the Republican primary, then tack back to the center/left, soften the rhetoric and begin emphasizing moderate issues to appeal to independents. Going against that tried and true strategy as well as against conventional wisdom, Carly’s campaign went far to the right in the primary – and stayed there. I can see the lure of that approach to someone like Fiorina, who is known from her HP days for going with an unconventional approach and sticking with it – even when failure was apparent (see the HP takeover of Compaq). However, I don’t see California voters buying it.
What has been effective everywhere in the U.S. is Republicans seeking to reach independent and moderate voters by tapping into their frustration with spending and dysfunction in Washington and Sacramento. Fiorina has done that, even accepting Sarah Palin’s endorsement. But, she is out of alignment with the majority of California voters on three important issues: the environment, immigration, and abortion.
Fiorina has stuck with her opposition to Prop 23, which will roll back the state's climate change law, calling it “a "job-killer." She has backed the anti-immigrant Arizona law and has framed illegal immigration as a national security issue, predicting that, "the drug war that is going on in Mexico will come to this country. It is already in some ways here."
However, the issue that to me is puzzling is her opposition to abortion rights. Carly has even said she would support overturn Roe vs. Wade if the opportunity arose. This is in a state where 70% of voters favor abortion rights. In fact, Barbara Boxer has used abortion rights successfully as a wedge issue in the past.
The Fiorina team is banking on women – especially younger women – seeing legal abortion as no longer being under imminent threat. They actually take it further by saying that voters are so concerned about bread-and-butter issues that they're not paying much attention to social issues like abortion.
Perhaps that’s why Fiorina is down against Boxer by at least 8% and dropping.
The problem for Carly is that even with a heavy turnout among the base, you still need significant numbers of decline-to-state and centrist voters in order to win a statewide election in California.
Boxer, who is being painted by Fiorina as too liberal, part of the entrenched Washington establishment, and practically single-handedly responsible for the current economic morass, has taken the opportunity whenever she can to remind voters about the big three issues. She (or, perhaps Fiorina) has been successful at coalescing what is often a fragmented base of environmentalists, woman, and Latino voters. She’s also scored heavily on TV by pointing out Carly’s problems at HP. Fiorina received a hefty $21 million severance when she was ousted by HP, and has put about $5.5 million of her own money into her campaign while raising and spending another $10 million.
Boxer, however, hasn’t needed to put much of her own money into her campaign (about $1,500) because she has raised almost $19 million. While Carly has spent most of her money and is looking for more in these final weeks, Boxer has about $10 million in the bank for TV and GOTV.
CROTTY’S OBSERVATIONS
I personally like Barbara, but she is a handful. I’m not impressed at all by Fiorina. You just can’t run a company like HP into the ground and then tell voters you know how to get things done in D.C.
Who are these people who say she’s in trouble?
Vote for Boxer if you want to be on the side of the winner. I am (we Democrats need to savor our victories where we can get them this year).
Governor
Jerry Brown (Democrat)
Meg Whitman (Republican)
I have to admit that I am amazed. It looks as though Jerry Brown will be Governor of California again. Not that he hasn’t done things that make it seem like he wants to lose, but Meg Whitman is Brown’s greatest enabler.
Meg has flailed for the past two weeks because of her massive contradictions on illegal immigration and her flip flop on Proposition 23 (among others). How much more than the $140 million she has already spent will she pour into her campaign coffers before realizing that she’s losing? One thing is clear – her high-priced consultants and lobbyists looked at the numbers and the op research and decided on a strategy of throwing everything they have at Brown and hoping something sticks.
Let’s review.
First Jerry stomped on Whitman in the October 12 debate over her nanny problem. Then, Meg couldn’t remember what side of Proposition 23 she was on. And, even though Jerry gave her an opening on the stupid “whore” thing, she didn’t play the part of an offended female very well. Perhaps that’s because the voice on the tape that the Whitman campaign shopped around for about four weeks was a woman.
Then there are the two new TV ads. The first was fluff, saying that she knew that there was a difference between running the government and running a business, but that her business background would help her nonetheless. All this after 8 to 10 months of saying that she would run government like a business.
The other ad attempted to hit Brown for being a liberal tax-and-spender. Oh, now that’s news. Just for the record, it’s actually not true (I’ll explain in a minute). Why do Republicans think that the whole tax-and-spend thing still works? It’s as though those old, tired issues are important to the old, tired guys within the campaign and they can’t understand why others aren’t outraged.
So, that “tax and spend” ad focuses on Prop 13. Wrong move, Mike Murphy.
You see, Brown did campaign against Prop 13. However, when it won in a landslide, he implemented it, using the state rainy day fund (back when there was such a thing) to save local government services, which earned him the endorsement and vote of Prop 13 author Howard Jarvis. There is even TV footage of Jarvis thanking him, which would have been useful to rebut Whitman’s ad had it gained traction.
Then, my friends at SEIU's Cambiando California went up with a $5 million TV ad buy that lambasts Whitman in the Spanish language media for her hard line positions (thank you Pete Wilson) on immigration.
Brown, who has spent barely $11 million, is in the middle of spending the more than $22.5 million he had four weeks out on these final three weeks.
CROTTY’S OBSERVATIONS
Amazing. Governor Jerry Brown, the sequel. We do, indeed, live in interesting times.
I’m voting for Lazarus.
Lieutenant Governor
Gavin Newsome (Democrat)
Abel Maldonado (Republican)
So, there’s Gavin’s hook-up with Ruby Rippey-Tourk, his former appointments secretary and wife of good friend (now, not so much) and mayoral campaign manager Alex Tourk. It seems Ruby was in rehab for substance abuse and telling her husband about the affair was one of her 12 steps or something. However, it was on open secret around City Hall for about a year, and the affair lasted less than half that period. When he publicly admitted the 2006 affair, he also said that he was battling alcohol abuse.
After having gone out drinking, he did drink a lot, but I’m not certain it fell under the “abuse” level (but that may just speak to my level of alcohol consumption).
In 2008, Newsom married Jennifer Siebel, a 34-year-old actress he had met on a blind date. On April 21, 2009, Gavin announced his campaign for Governor. On October 30, 2009, he dropped out of the Governor’s race, saying that with a young family and responsibilities at City Hall, and broader responsibilities to the residents of the city and county of San Francisco, and California Democrats, he couldn’t go forward.
About four months later, in March 2010, Newsome, obviously having done a great deal to attend to the responsibilities for which he claimed forced him to quit the Governor’s race, decided it was his responsibility to run for Lt. Governor because if Jerry Brown won, Gavin needed to be there and prepared to take over when Jerry croaked.
Maldonado
Outside of California’s Central Coast, few people knew who Abel was. Many still don’t.
In 2005, Maldonado declared his candidacy for the office of California State Controller after Controller Steve Westly decided to run for Governor. Maldonado was defeated in the 2006 Republican primary by Tony Strickland. Following his loss, Maldonado publicly criticized Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for not supporting his campaign more forcefully, saying in the Los Angeles Times that Schwarzenegger didn't care about Latinos.
Maldonado issued a public apology for the comment. He also maintained that he was no longer running for any further political offices. As of December 10, 2006, he was heard talking about a run for Governor in 2010.
In February 2009, Maldonado joined the Democrats in supporting the budget package at the urging of Republican Governor Schwarzenegger. The budget was approved with his one vote. This time, Arnold came through. In November 2009, on an episode of The Jay Leno Show, Schwarzenegger announced that he was nominating Maldonado as Lieutenant Governor. Democrats in the Assembly opposed his nomination. In February, Maldonado was confirmed as Lieutenant Governor by the state senate.
However, Able needed 41 votes in the 80 seat Assembly for confirmation and he received 37 votes in favor, with 34 votes against. Based upon the vote in the Senate, Schwarzenegger considered having Maldonado sworn into office, which may have set up a legal battle with Democrats. Instead, Schwarzenegger resubmitted Maldonado’s nomination and he received confirmation from the Assembly on April 22, 2010 by a 53-21 vote and from the Senate on April 26, 2010 by a 25-7 vote. He ran for the Republican nomination for the office and in June 2010, defeated State Senator Sam Aanestad and four others with 43.4% of the vote.
CROTTY’S OBSERVATIONS
There are two young up-and-comers vying for a meaningless seat in hopes of becoming Governor some day. Neither have the patience to wait. Both have money and access to more. Both can be slime-balls on occasion.
This decision is actually more difficult than I thought it would be.
However, due to the Willie Brown connection (having worked for him when he was the “Ayatollah of the Assembly,” I consider that a good thing) and the one or two things he accomplished as Mayor, I have to go with Gavin Newsome.
In times like these, there is no good reason to put a Republican – even a moderate one – a heartbeat from the Governor’s office.
Secretary of State
Debra Bowen (Democrat)
Damon Dunn (Republican)
I won’t go on as I did with the Lt. Governor’s election selection. Debra was a very good 53rd District Assembly representative for LA County’s South Bay, where I do a lot of work. She was a very good 28th District State Senator, where she followed the late, great Ralph Dills.
When she ran for the Democratic nomination for Secretary of State against State Senator Deborah Ortiz in 2006, Bowen was not given much of a chance. She ended up winning the primary with 61% of the vote.
The general election was a squeaker, but Debra defeated incumbent Bruce McPherson by a nail-biting 3% to become Secretary of State.
Since then, she has been one of the most active State Constitutional officers since Jesse Unruh served as State Treasurer.
Damon Dunn has a future in the Republican Party.
He has a great story – growing up poor, becoming an NFL player and then a millionaire businessman, and now Republican nominee for California Secretary of state.
Fox News loves him (now that they no longer have J.C. Watts and no longer like Michael Steele). There was even a report that his “impressive group of supporters'' included former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown.
When Willie was asked about it, he said, "Hell no … are you crazy?'' He went on to say, "I do training of folks with my Institute, and I have absolutely talked to him. But I would never be for Damon Dunn against Debra Bowen, who is one of my chief operatives. One of the things I recommended to Damon Dunn is that he not run against Debra Bowen.''
Dunn’s response: "Willie is a friend -- but I don't anticipate an endorsement. I've been able to call him up and ask about the process and he's one of the best political minds in California. We've got different policy perspectives, but I certainly respect him as a mentor.''
CROTTY’S OBSERVATIONS
Damon, do two things. Listen to Willie Brown. Then, change Parties. Willie will endorse you for whatever office you seek as a Democrat.
Vote for Debora. Look for her as a Gubernatorial candidate in four or eight years. She’ll be great there too.
I’ve already had inquires … however, there may be something even better … but I digress.
Controller
John Chiang (Democrat)
David Evans (Republican)
John Chiang is another friend (I met him through one of my favorite people – current Los Angeles South County Labor Federation Chair Ray Cordova) who has done a great deal in an office that hadn’t been utilized to it’s full potential until John stepped in.
CROTTY’S OBSERVATIONS
I do a great deal of work in San Luis Obispo. I have an office there. One of my closest friends in SLO County lives in Arroyo Grande, where David Evans lives. Neither I nor anyone I know in SLO County has any idea who this guy is.
On the League of Women Voters “smartvoter.com,” I found the following information from Dave Evans that described the “Reasons to Vote for David Evans:”
1. I believe the State Controller is elected by the people to be their financial advocate as it relates to state government.
2. I believe the Controller should use his/her office to rigorously pursue governmental abuse and waste of sacred taxpayer dollars.
3. I believe in balanced budgets and incurring debt only for long-term physical infrastructure.
4. I believe the Controller should speak to the people annually about his/her opinion regarding the viability of any budget passed by California's irresponsible legislature.
5. I believe in more liberty, not more government. (I’m not certain exactly what he means, but I’ll assume it’s a Libertarian-type thing)
6. I believe the Controller should be qualified to be the Controller. In other words, just like the Attorney General must be an attorney, the Controller should be a Certified Public Accountant. (He needs to look up the definitions of “accountant” and “controller.”)
7. I believe the Controller must further the interest of the people and not the interest of his/her political party.
8. I believe, by nature of the position, the Controller must be the most frugal elected official.
9. I believe government gets enough money from the people. It is now time for it to be responsible to live on that amount, just like the rest of us.
10. I believe in California and her people. We are a great state. I feel blessed to be one of its citizens!
Thanks, David. You just described what John Chiang does as Controller.
Vote for John Chiang.
Treasurer
Bill Lockyer (Democrat)
Mimi Walters (Republican)
Although Mimi Walters has been indorsed by the Tea Party, there are some in the Tea Party that don't believe she is extreme enough. See the following post from a true patriot.
“Mimi Walters is a RINO
Recently I noticed that we (Central Valley Tea Party) have endorsed Mimi Walters for State treasurer over Bill Lockyear. This is the basis of my assertion....
1) She has voted in favor of anti-second amendment legislation often enough for me to question her loyalty to the Constitution.
2) She voted in favor of SB 670. This was signed into law in Aug. 2009 by Arnold Schwartzen-traitor that shut down the small scale mining industry in California. This law is illegal in so many ways, but let’s continue with Mrs. Walters.
3) On two different occasions I, and about 16 other small scale miners (that have admitted to it), sent Mrs. Walters an ethics complaint regarding the unethical actions of the Gov. and legislature of the state of Ca. in passing and signing into law SB 670. Mrs. Walters is the Chair of the Legislative ethics Committee. To my knowledge none of us that submitted complaints ever received any kind of response, of any kind! After calling & talking to an aide regarding the complaint I still have not received any response!
I am of the opinion now that Mrs. Walters does NOT consider the rule of law, the Constitution of either the U.S. or California when conducting the people's business in Sacramento. I do not think we should consider endorsing her for State Treasurer. I am kind of new to the Central Valley Tea Party & apologize if I've stepped on any toes but this has been my experience with Mrs. Walters.
What is the process by which a candidate gets endorsed by the CVTP?
I have no love for Mr. Lockyear but Mrs. Walters is no conservative, nor does her voting record reflect what I thought were the Tea Party's values.
Exhaustive case law and documentation proving the illegality of SB 670 available upon request. Mrs. Walters' voting record is public record...
Tom”
CROTTY’S OBSERVATIONS
I love it when they start feeding on themselves …
I, too, have no love for Mr. Lockyer. However, I simply cannot abide Tea Partiers or their endorsed candidates, of which Mimi is one.
Vote for … Walt Brown, former Democratic State Senator from Lake Oswego, Oregon from 1975 to 1987, the Progressive Party nominee for State Treasurer.
Attorney General
Steve Cooley (Republican)
Kamala Harris (Democrat)
CROTTY’S OBSERVATIONS
Steve Cooley has consistently outpolled Kamala Harris by up to 8 points since the June primary pitted them against each other for Attorney General.
Cooley has raised more money than Harris.
Other than among Republicans, Harris’ greatest opposition is from San Francisco cops.
I don’t see how Harris can win.
Harris for Congress in 2012?
Insurance Commissioner
Dave Jones (Democrat)
Mike Villines (Republican)
Despite self-imposed bans, insurance donations slip into campaigns
With the next California insurance commissioner expected to play a significant role in the way national health care reform is implemented in the state, the insurance industry is watching the race between Democrat Dave Jones and Republican Mike Villines closely.
According to filings with the Secretary of State, a political action committee with hundreds of thousands of dollars in insurance contributions spent $280,334 this week in a campaign effort opposing Jones, D-Sacramento.
Jones supports the national health care plan and has said he would work to comply with its requirements at the state level. The committee, JobsPAC, is managed by the California Chamber of Commerce. Last week, it obtained $90,000 from Progressive Corp. and $225,000 from Mercury Insurance Group chairman George Joseph, records show.
… records show that Villines, who has criticized the national health care plan and says a “vibrant, competitive private market is essential” for the insurance industry, accepted $2,500 from the Cooperative of American Physicians PAC earlier this year. The group is licensed through the California Department of Insurance, records show. According to its website, it sells medical professional liability insurance as its “core product.”
Beyond insurance money, campaign finance records show Villines benefiting from private business, especially oil companies and developers, while labor groups and the legal industry are giving generously to his Democratic opponent.
Big oil – Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Valero, ExxonMobil and others – has poured more than $32,000 into the campaign for Villines. Breweries, wineries and their distributors have also given $16,000 ($43,750, if you count donations transferred from the Senate fund).
Pharmaceutical companies like AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Allergan have donated about $12,500. (Combined with prior donations from the Senate account, that's roughly $38,000.) Executives with the Fresno-based developer McCaffrey Group are among the biggest spenders, totaling more than $75,000 in contributions, records show.
Then, last week, the L.A. Times reported:
October 16, 2010
Assemblyman defends helping RV dealer in dispute with DMV
By Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times
Mike Villines, the GOP candidate for insurance commissioner, asked the [DMV] agency director to look into a dispute with the businessman after staffers refused to approve a temporary permit. After a meeting of the director, Villines and the dealer's attorney, the permit was approved.
When a Fresno RV dealer wanted a new sales permit recently, the state initially said no, citing "past business practices." The man's firm had bounced $15,000 in fee checks to California's government, failed to follow a host of business regulations and misled consumers in an advertising campaign, officials said. The dealer also had lost a couple of lawsuits accusing his firm of selling defective motor homes, and he has been convicted of bribing a lender.
Although field staffers at the Department of Motor Vehicles refused to approve a temporary permit, the businessman was allowed by their superiors to resume selling motor homes after Assemblyman Mike Villines (R-Clovis) intervened.
The Fresno-area lawmaker, the GOP nominee for state insurance commissioner in the Nov. 2 election, had used his clout to help Dan Gamel keep the doors at his Internet-based dealership open.
A month after DMV Director George Valverde met with Villines and Gamel's attorney at the Assemblyman's urging, Gamel was notified that he would get a three-year probationary license, DMV records show.
The same day, Valverde replaced the DMV's chief counsel, who had strenuously objected to a request by Villines' office to allow Gamel to go over the heads of the enforcement staff.
Villines defended his intercession. He said Gamel was "getting the runaround," and he offered to set up a meeting. "I would for any of my constituents," he said. The Assemblyman said he had been unaware of the extent of the previous problems at Gamel's company. He said the information he received from Gamel about the dispute argued for a probationary license. "The result, I thought, was a fair one,'' Villines said.
CROTTY’S OBSERVATIONS
Yeah. I really feel comfortable with this Villines dude fighting the insurance companies for me.
Villines is trailing Jones significantly in fundraising but outspent the Democratic candidate during the most recent reporting period, between July 1, 2010 and Sept. 30, 2010. Villines raised $213,275 compared with Jones’ $1.1 million, records show, and spent more than $300,000 compare with Jones’ roughly $200,000. Jones ended the month with more cash in the bank – the Democratic candidate has roughly $1 million on hand compared to Villines, who ended up with about $150,000.
Forget about Party or who is better on the issues you care about. It’s the election of California’s Insurance Commissioner and the Insurance industry wants to see Vilines elected.
Remember Chuck Quackenbush? You don’t? How can you not remember a guy with a name like “Quackenbush?” Go here to read about him and what he did as Insurance Commissioner. Vote for Jones because it’s the right thing to do.
Board of Equalization, District 3
Mary Christian Heising (Democrat)
Michelle Steel (Republican)
Mary’s qualifications as listed by Mary:
• California State Board of Equalization 2006 & 2010
• Won the Democratic Party primary for Board of Equalization in 1994, 2006 and 2010
• Chairwoman, San Diego Housing Board
• Member, California Retardation Board,
• Member, Mesa College Advisory Board
• Member, La Jolla Democratic Club
• Delegate California Democratic Convention 2008
• B.A. in Political Science/Journalism, San Diego State University
“Mary is a ten-term elected member of the San Diego County Democratic Party Central Committee and has been active in the state and national Democratic Party. She is active in community affairs and has been the Honorary Mayor of Pacific Beach and the President of Church Women United of La Jolla. She was a founder of the San Diego County National Women's Political Caucus (NWPC) and of the San Diego Navy League Women's Council.”
I get an e-newsletter from Michelle Steel. She seems stable. For this seat at this time, that’s good enough for me.
Congress
District 49
Darrell Issa (Republican)
Howard Katz (Democrat)
Even changing the laws about redistricting will not rid us of uber-conservative millionaire Issa. I have no idea who Howard Katz is, but it really doesn’t matter.
The 49th Congressional District’s voter registration is 45.02% Republican, 29.92% Democrat, and 23.67% (Republican-leaning) “independent” (Decline to State and other non-aligned voters).
Issa has the seat until he retires, dies, or does something money can’t hide.
If you live in Issa’s district, you must have received this voter guide erroneously.
District 50
Brian Bilbray (Republican)
Francine Busby (Democrat)
There were post-Watergate elections when Republicans couldn’t get elected. There was Reagan in 1980 who captured “Reagan Democrats.” In 1992, Bill Clinton led the Democrats to victory. Two years later, in 1994, it was Newt Gingrich (who seems to have lost his mind these days) and the Contract with America (I worked on a Democratic race in a Democratic district, spent $2 million and still lost because my candidate was a Democrat). Then, there was 2006 and, even better, 2008. Now, it’s the Republican’s turn again.
The next time the tide turns, if someone other than Francine Busby runs, the Democrats may… may just have a chance. Unfortunately, it’s looking as though Brian might find the rarified air of a “safe seat” like Issa – unless Prop 20 is approved and the case is affirmed by the Supreme Court …
I’m already yearning for the good ol’ days.
District 52
Duncan D. Hunter (Republican)
Ray Lutz (Democrat)
I don’t know if anyone was paying attention, but Ray Lutz went on a hunger strike because Duncan D. wouldn’t debate him. Lutz lost some weight, but gave up.
I could have told him to give up long before the hunger strike … like before he pulled papers to run in the first place.
District 51
Bob Filner (Democrat)
Nick Popaditch (Republican)
What will happen to Bob when after four years in the majority, most of which was spent as Chairman of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, he returns as a member of the minority (again)? No more, “Yes, Mr. Chairman.” Back to, “hey, you!” Or, if you’re a United Airlines employee, “Ouch!”
Oh, I almost forgot – you know he’s going to win easily, right?
District 53
Susan Davis (Democrat)
Michael Crimmins (Republican)
Democrats make up 44.34% of the 53rd District. Republicans comprise 25.27%. Independents … who are actually independent in this district, account for 28.2%.
So, if about 97% or more of the Independents join in voting for the Republican and, assuming 97% or more Republicans voted Republican, Susan could lose. State Senate
District 36
Assemblyman Joel Anderson (Republican) I have just one question. After all of the documented illegal contribution transfers, why is this guy not in jail?
Oh, that’s right. It’s East County and Bonnie Dumanis is DA.
District 38
State Senator Mark Wyland (Republican)
Gila Jones (Democrat) They ought to penalize incumbents who put up bad websites. I mean, can’t you just appear to care that there’s an election? District 40
Brian Hendry (Republican) Oh, now this would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. Remember all of the money Paco received from the Insurance industry to defeat Mary Salas when it counted in June?
Look up “gall” … no, make that “arrogance” in the dictionary and you should see a picture of Vargas.
Speaking of which, look for Juan to run for Mayor of San Diego in 2012.
District 74
Crystal Crawford (Democrat) Assemblyman Martin Garrick (Republican) Assembly Republican Leader when the budget is 100 late and the legislature is in gridlock because the Republicans have taken a blood oath of “no taxes” is a good thing?
Crystal, if you are serious, give me a call after Tuesday about running in 2012.
District 75
Paul R. Garver (Democrat)
Nathan Fletcher (Republican) First, it’s Garrick bragging about being Assembly Republican Leader. Now, Fletcher being compared to Pete Wilson is a good thing? From what planet are these people?
Oh, if you didn’t know, this Assembly campaign isn’t just for re-election. It’s a dress rehearsal for Mayor in 2012.
But, I have a commercial in mind … it starts in a back room in the waning hours before the deadline for legislation to be considered … the words “Chargers” and “redevelopment” are uttered … well, I haven’t thought past that, but it would definitely be fun to do.
District 76
Toni Atkins (Democrat)
Ralph Denney (Republican)
Toni does what she has always said she didn’t want to do – no, not that!
I meant going to Sacramento. District 77
Mark Hanson (Democrat)
Brian Jones (Republican)
Watch Jones become a rising star in the Assembly Republican leadership.
This is depressing.
District 78
Marty Block (Democrat)
Rick L. Powell (Republican)
I want to be the media buyer for the California Teachers Association. I could retire. Today.
District 79
Ben Hueso (Democrat)
Derrick Roach (Republican)
Roach’s website home page two weeks before Election Day:
Thank you for visiting our new website. We will be adding new content over the next couple of days as we launch this new site.
His web address should be www.loser.com.
County Board of Supervisors (District 4)
Ron Roberts
Stephen Whitburn
Ron wins easily. Come on … Whitburn? The guy begins his political career by challenging Todd Gloria and splitting the gay community? And, where did he get all of that personal money? More importantly, where is that money now that it really counts?
Sorry, Steve, be you just ain’t ready for Prime Time … and after losing to Ron, he will be facing “perennial candidate” questions
And, Todd, the guy ran a campaign against you. Ron helped you. You wimped out. Disappointing.
County Board of Supervisors (District 5)
Steve Gronke
Bill Horn
Bill Horn, no problem. Well, he will have no problem winning. We are stuck with him. That’s a problem.
County Assessor/Recorder/Clerk
David L. Butler
Ernest J. "Ernie" Dronenburg
For races like this, where I don’t know or don’t care, or both, I usually look to the Union Tribune. Whomever the newspaper endorses, I vote for the other candidate.
Unfortunately, I’m not certain how long the UT will be around, so I’ll need to determine another method for deciding how to vote for two or more candidates or issues I don’t know or care about.
Lucky for David Butler, the UT still exists (in a Hospice sort of existence) and it endorsed Ernie.
Voter for this Butler dude. Or, not.
City of San Diego
City Council, District 6
Howard Wayne
Lorie Zapf
This is another difficult decision. I have known Howard Wayne for about 25 years and I’m still not certain about how I feel about him being an elected official. I attempted to dissuade him from taking some action on some issue while he was in the assembly, but he became all red in the face and told me he knew the subject matter better than I, he was right, I was wrong, and he would do what he knew was best. It only takes a little bit of power for some people to become drunk on it. Respect is to be afforded the office, not the individual. The office holder needs to earn our respect.
Which brings me to Lori Zapf. How can one dismiss a blatantly homophobic conversation by saying it was “taken out of context” or that her position has “evolved” over the years? Who takes James Hartline seriously anyway? I don’t know Lori, but from what I’ve read, it seems she would change her position on the weather if it would get her elected. Who is so eager to be an elected official in this city anyway?
I can’t see voting for Lori for much of anything. The question is whether to vote for Howard and hope for the best or not vote at all. Simply be aware that the Republicans are all in on this one – Lorie raised more the $90K in the last few weeks. It seems one more Dem on the Council would give them the numbers to override a Mayor’s veto.
Just for fun, let’s hold our collective noses an vote for Howard!
City Council District 8
David Alvarez
Felipe Hueso
Simple. No Hueso. No Inzunza.
Viva David Alvarez.
San Diego Unified School District (Area B)
Kevin Beiser
Steve Rosen
You can always write in Katherine Nakamura.
San Diego Unified School District (Area C)
Scott Barnett
John De Beck
This is the only race on the ballot I would rate as a toss-up. However, now that the Teachers Union pulled its endorsement of Scott and given De Beck’s years and years and years and … on the Board and resultant name identification, John should win.
But, then again, he might just lose on purpose, just to be contrarian.
County of San Diego Proposition A
PROPOSED SAN DIEGO COUNTY CHARTER AMENDMENT TO ENSURE FAIR AND OPEN COMPETITION FOR COUNTY CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS.
Shall the San Diego County Charter be amended to prohibit the County from requiring the use of project labor agreements on County construction projects except where required by State or federal law?
Analysis
This proposed amendment, if approved, would prohibit the County from requiring contractors to enter into project labor agreements as a condition of performing County construction projects unless a project labor agreement is required by State or federal law, or the project labor agreement is a condition to receive State or federal funding.
A project labor agreement is a type of collective bargaining agreement entered into between labor organizations and a contractor that applies to the contractor's construction project. The agreements can cover a wide variety of matters, but typically limit strikes, lockouts and other types of work stoppages in exchange for concessions from the contractor regarding wages, benefits and other terms of employment in connection with the construction project.
The proposed Charter amendment language only applies to County construction projects. Construction projects are defined as County projects for the construction, rehabilitation, alteration, conversion, extension, maintenance, repair, or improvement of any structure or real property. This proposed Charter amendment, with two exceptions, prohibits the County from taking action that would require a contractor to enter into a project labor agreement as a condition of performing a County construction project. The two exceptions are: (1) If State or federal law requires a project labor agreement in connection with a particular County construction project, the County would be able to require such a project labor agreement in order to comply with State or federal law. (2) If the receipt of State or federal funding is conditioned upon there being a project labor agreement applicable to a County construction project, the County would be able to require such a project labor agreement.
It is important to note that the proposed Charter amendment would not restrict contractors and labor organizations from voluntarily entering into project labor agreements on their own, independent of any County requirements. A contractor and labor organization will continue to be free to agree between themselves to enter into a project labor agreement on a County construction project even if the proposed Charter amendment is approved by the voters.
CROTTY’S OBSERVATIONS
Bill Horn was forced to a runoff, became scared, and threw this measure on to give himself something to yell about so he could make it through November without being required to respond to substantive questions. It worked.
Besides, the County already has a law that addresses PLAs.
It really doesn’t matter much, so let’s all vote “No,” and freak Horn out!
City of San Diego Proposition B
AMENDS CITY CHARTER TO ESTABLISH A GOOD CAUSE REQUIREMENT FOR CERTAIN TERMINATIONS OR SUSPENSIONS OF DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEYS.
Amends the City Charter to establish a good cause requirement for the termination or suspension of Deputy City Attorneys who have served continuously for two years or more, except that any Deputy City Attorney may be subject to layoff due to lack of work or insufficient appropriation to meet the salary requirements necessary to maintain existing personnel.
CROTTY’S OBSERVATIONS
Post-Aguirre, the Deputy City Attorney’s want to do this. They can do it because Jan wants them to like him. If it’s approved, the DCAs will become bureaucrats and not real lawyers.
When I was graduating law school, the City Attorney’s office was where you applied when you couldn’t get a job anywhere else.
The more things change, the more they remain the same.
City of San Diego Proposition C
DEVELOPMENT IN PACIFIC HIGHLANDS RANCH
This proposition amends ordinance number O-18568 (Proposition M of 1998) by removing the restriction on developing more than 1,900 dwelling units in Pacific Highlands Ranch until the completion of the SR-56/I-5 Interchange Project. This proposition also adds additional language that limits development until the City Council approves a program for phased development and approves a revised public facilities financing plan for Pacific Highlands Ranch.
Analysis
In a special election held November 3, 1998, voters approved Proposition M, a measure that allowed the development of a community now known as Pacific Highlands Ranch, subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions was that only 1,900 dwelling units could be built until ramps for westbound State Route 56 connecting with I-5 North, and for I-5 South connecting with eastbound State Route 56 (the SR-56/I-5 Interchange), were completed. The restriction had been requested by a neighboring community planning group because of its concern that traffic from Pacific Highlands Ranch would significantly impact surrounding communities. Pacific Highlands Ranch is now approaching 1,900 dwelling units, but completion of the SR- 56/I-5 Interchange, a Caltrans project, is not anticipated until at least 2020. Caltrans reports that when the community is fully built, Pacific Highlands Ranch will contribute 10 percent of the traffic using the future I-5/SR-56 Interchange, while the Carmel Valley planning area as a whole is projected to contribute 18 percent of the traffic.
Community amenities in Pacific Highlands Ranch are funded by Facilities Benefit Assessments (FBA), which are assessed against developers when building permits are issued. Building community amenities requires FBA funds, and the City cannot collect additional FBA funds for amenities in Pacific Highlands Ranch until after the SR-56/I-5 Interchange is complete. Planned schools, neighborhood parks, a community park, bike and pedestrian trails, a recreation center, and a public library that are all part of the community plan cannot be funded and built at this time.
This ballot measure would accomplish this change by amending Proposition M, which imposed the restriction of development to 1,900 dwelling units until the SR-56/I-5 Interchange was complete. The program for phased development would restrict building permits from being issued until the completion of community amenities and public facilities, consistent with thresholds established in the City’s General Plan. The revised Public Facilities Financing Plan would be incorporated into the phased development program for Pacific Highlands Ranch.
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Expenses incurred to prepare a program of phased development and revisions to the Pacific Highlands Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan will be borne by the Pacific Highlands Ranch Facilities Benefit Assessment, which is funded by builder/developer fees. There will be no costs to City taxpayers as a result of this ballot measure.
CROTTY’S OBSERVATIONS
This development was within an urban limit line. Prop M in 1998 grew out of a dispute with the developer over the “Phase Shift” they were seeking to build Pacific Highlands Ranch. Environmentalists were concerned about the number and the density of homes in what was then known as “Neighborhood 8A.” Negotiations led to a compromise that ended up as Prop M. Having no community group of it’s own, a neighboring community group requested the language tying density to the interchanges to assure the developer would set aside open space without increasing density, while still paying into the Facilities Benefit Assessment District. It was expected that the FBA and therefore continued lower density would run for 30 years.
Oh, well. Thirty years or 12 years, who really cares anymore?
By the way, the southbound exchange is completed.
When in doubt, vote no.
City of San Diego Proposition D
AUTHORIZES TEMPORARY ONE-HALF CENT SALES TAX AFTER CERTAIN CONDITIONS ARE MET (Kind of)
Authorizes the City of San Diego to impose a temporary one-half cent sales and use tax for up to five years, only after the City Auditor certifies that specific conditions have been met relating to City pensions, retiree health care, managed competition, and terminal leave for employees.
Analysis
State law authorizes the City to impose a sales tax increase for general purposes if it is approved by a two-thirds vote of the governing body and a majority of the City’s voters. On August 4, 2010, six members of the eight-member City Council approved a temporary, one-half cent increase to the sales tax in the City of San Diego that may be imposed only if certain conditions are first met. This measure seeks voter approval of the proposed increase.
The tax increase would not be operative until the City Auditor certifies that the following conditions have been met:
1. The City adopting an ordinance eliminating retirement offsets for elected officials and those City employees not represented by a labor organization. “Retirement offsets” are the amount of an individual’s retirement system contribution that the City agrees to pay on behalf of the individual.
2. The City adopting, by ordinance, a managed competition guide for various City services.
3. The Mayor completing a study of costs to the City of the Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP) program and presenting findings to the City Council. If the study finds DROP is not “cost neutral,” the City will initiate “meet and confer” proceedings with labor unions to make DROP cost neutral.
4. The Mayor soliciting requests for qualifications from bidders to assume operations of the Miramar Landfill.
5. The City adopting an ordinance eliminating terminal leave for City employees. Terminal leave allows employees to remain on the payroll when they end employment, using accrued leave, instead of taking a lump sum payment. Under the ordinance, upon separation from the City, an employee may only cash out accrued leave.
6. The City reducing the total cost of “retirement offsets” existing as of June 30, 2010 for employees by labor organizations.
7. The City reducing its retiree health care liability existing as of June 30, 2010.
8. The Mayor soliciting proposals from bidders to provide the City’s information technology services.
9. The City establishing a second tier pension plan for new employees represented by the firefighters union, comparable to one in effect for new police officers.
10. The City adopting an ordinance that would allow all City employees to voluntarily select or switch from a current retirement plan to a new alternative Defined Contribution Plan. The new plan may be subject to IRS and other governmental approvals, but obtaining such approval is not part of this condition.
The tax would be operative the first day of the first calendar quarter commencing more than 110 days after the State Board of Equalization receives the City Auditor’s certification. The City must deposit all revenues received from the tax increase into the City’s general fund. Proceeds could be spent for any lawful governmental purpose. The authority to levy the tax would expire five years after the operative date described above, or December 31, 2017, whichever is earlier. The City could suspend or terminate the tax earlier.
Fiscal Impact Analysis
If the conditions contained in Proposition D are fully implemented, the total projected savings to the City could range from $3.5 million to $428 million over the next five years, and $8.7 million to $855 million over the next ten years. The implementation of these conditions and the realization of any associated fiscal impact are contingent upon the outcome of the meet and confer process, managed competition and outsourcing requirements of the measure.
Some of the conditions are estimated to reduce the City’s pension and health care liabilities by approximately $200 million to $500 million and reduce taxpayer financial exposure for pension and retiree health care costs by approximately $20 million to $50 million annually. The other conditions such as managed competition, outsourcing and benefit reductions could save taxpayers an additional $626,000 to $43 million annually. These projected fiscal impacts do not include the additional potential savings from the new Defined Contribution Pension Plan or the results of the Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP) Cost Neutrality Study. The estimate savings are based upon current budget information, previous City experience, the application of industry standards and actuarial calculations and are preliminary. Only if the Independent City Auditor certifies that the conditions contained in Proposition D are satisfied, will the City’s General Fund receive a net estimated $102 million annually for five years in new sales tax revenue from the temporary one‐half cent sales tax.
CROTTY’S OBSERVATIONS
It’s a sales tax. There are a few things that may or may not take place and the tax will be imposed. But, come on. It’s not an answer to any budget questions. There will be a bit more money to pay some bills, but there will not be enough money to do everything that needs to be done. At the same time, we can’t just cut things out of City services and think we can get out of what has become an ongoing structural budget deficit.
Tax increases only require a majority if there is no dedicated use to which the revenues would be put. In other words, money collected through the sales tax would go in the big pile of money the City uses for just about everything else. The Council could spend it on anything.
I don’t have to choose sides because there are enough people on each side (and some on both sides) that you should already know where everyone stands.
I’ll say to vote “Yes” (I can hear Carl DeMaio’s anguished cries now).
San Diego Unified School District Proposition J
Shall San Diego Unified School District levy an annual tax of $98 per household, exempting low income seniors, for schools?
Analysis
This proposition, if approved by two-thirds of qualified electors voting on the proposition, will authorize the San Diego Unified School District ("District") to levy a special tax on each parcel of land within the District. The special tax will be levied as follows: (1) $98.00 per single family residential parcel; (2) $60.00 per multi-family residential unit; (3) $450 per commercial or industrial parcel; and (4) $98.00 per vacant or unimproved parcel. If approved by two-thirds of the qualified electors voting on the proposition, the special tax described above will be imposed annually for five years beginning on July 1, 2011. The tax will be collected by the San Diego County Treasurer-Tax Collector at the same time and in the same manner as ad valorem property taxes are collected. Any property owner aged 65 years or older may qualify for an exemption from the special tax if that property owner (1) occupies the parcel as a primary residence, (2) qualifies as a low income individual, and (3) submits an application with the District. The proceeds of the special tax can only be used for specified purposes identified in the Full Ballot Text and such proceeds will be placed into a special account. An independent citizen oversight committee will be established to monitor the expenditures of the special tax revenues. State law requires the District to submit an annual report detailing the special tax revenues collected and the manner in which they have been spent. The District has made this ballot proposition subject to these requirements.
CROTTY’S OBSERVATIONS
The School Board is more dysfunctional than the City. Do you really trust these bozos to do the right thing with the money? They had the opportunity to obtain millions of dollars from the federal government, but chose not to take it because it included teacher evaluations.
You can choose to vote “yes” if you like, but I’ve seen the polling.
It’s going to lose and lose big.
