Is Proposition 13 a Disaster or Savior of the Golden State?

CLICK HERE for link to May 30, 2008 KPCC audio program

It was thirty years ago that a ballot measure called the “People’s Initiative to Limit Property Taxation” became part of the California constitution. Designed to protect retirees from being taxed out of their homes, the initiative capped property tax rates throughout the state. Today, Prop. 13 is considered a third-rail of California politics, meaning if you want to get elected, don’t touch it. That said, many blame Prop. 13 for today’s budget deficit and other municipal woes, including the decline of California schools. What is the real legacy of Prop. 13?

• Peter Schrag, columnist with the Sacramento Bee and author of Paradise Lost, California’s Experience, America’s Future
• Joel Fox, past-president of the Howard Jarvis organization and a public-policy blogger

 Progressive Era Agencies Can’t Manage the Risks of Modern Eating

By: Nancy Scola

Source: Center for American Progress

Most Americans pulling into a highway rest stop to pick up a sandwich this summer vacation season will probably feel confident that the U.S. government is up to the task of ensuring that a bite to eat won’t spell a quick end to their road trip. But as things stand, responsibility for the safety of even the simplest of meals falls messily to any number of federal agencies and offices that make up the fractured food safety system.

As a Government Accountability Office report dryly notes, an open-faced ham sandwich sold at a highway rest stop is the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and subject to daily inspections. But add a second slice of bread and it becomes the Food and Drug Administration’s job to check in on the sandwich, which it does about once every five years. (more…)

By: John H. Makin of the American Enterprise Institute

The bursting of every bubble is followed by statements suggesting that the worst is over and that the real economy will be unharmed. The weeks since mid-March have been such a period in the United States. The underlying problem–a bust in the residential real-estate market–has, however, grown worse, with peak-to-trough estimates of the drop in home prices having gone from 20 to 30 percent in the span of just two months. Meanwhile, the attendant damage to the housing sector and to the balance sheets tied to it has grown worse and spread beyond the subprime subsector.

Of the 130 million U.S. housing units, 18.5 million–almost 15 percent–are empty. This bodes ill for the outlook for homebuilding; house prices; and the balance sheets of commercial banks, investment banks, and American households. In June, Congress will pass the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008. This is a symbolic measure that will not become effective until October 1 and, given its cumbersome structure, will provide virtually no relief to the households facing foreclosure that it is designed to help.

At the same time that U.S. house prices are continuing to collapse, the Federal Reserve’s interest-rate cuts to cushion the U.S. credit crisis, coupled with a continued surge of funds into emerging-market nations and a stubborn refusal by those nations to allow their currencies to appreciate and to stop holding domestic energy prices at far below market levels, have pushed the price of oil up by nearly 30 percent since mid-March alone. The rise is sufficient by itself to absorb virtually all of the $115 billion in rebate checks being distributed to Americans in the second quarter. If the jump in food and energy prices leaks into core U.S. inflation (which thankfully has not yet happened), then, as Federal Reserve vice chairman Donald Kohn said with classic understatement on May 20, “We would be facing a more serious situation” concerning inflation. Needless to say, with shaky financial markets and a shaky real economy, the need for the Federal Reserve to respond to an elevated threat of inflation would constitute a “serious situation” indeed. (more…)

Source: The Associated Press

The California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved gay marriage ban in a ruling that would make the nation’s largest state the second one to allow gay and lesbian weddings.

The justices released the 4-3 decision, saying that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George. Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno joined the majority.

In striking down the ban, the court said, “In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.”

While agreeing with many arguments of the majority, Justice Marvin Baxter said in a dissenting opinion that the high court overstepped its authority. Changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters, Baxter wrote. Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan joined in dissenting.

The cases were brought by the city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples, Equality California and another gay rights group in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco’s monthlong same-sex wedding march that took place at Mayor Gavin Newsom’s direction.

“Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the country — will have equal treatment under the law,” said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.

The challenge for gay rights advocates, however, is not over.

A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution.

The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.

If voters pass the measure in November, it would overrule the court decision.

Orange County, CA

SOURCE: OC Grand Jury Report 

The Orange County Campaign Reform Finance Ordinance Number 3862 (commonly referred to as TINCUP, an acronym for Time Is Now, Clean Up Politics) has been in effect since 1978 and was last updated in 1992. The ordinance sets specific limits for campaign contributions for County government’s elected officials and candidates, with biennial adjustments in odd numbered years in amounts compared to the consumer price index. It delineates the regulations for donations and receipt of donations to campaigns during an election cycle. The penalty for violating this ordinance is punishable as a misdemeanor with enhanced sentencing guidelines. The District Attorney’s office is charged with prosecuting criminal violations of this ordinance. However, it has not filed any charges in response to numerous complaints since 1992.

REASON FOR INVESTIGATION

Although the District Attorney is charged with enforcing the ordinance, no criminal charges have ever been filed for any alleged violations. Oversight of this ordinance has depended primarily upon voluntary watchdog efforts or rival candidates’ complaints.

The TINCUP ordinance was passed overwhelmingly by voters in 1978 at time of great mistrust in County government, primarily due to biases that were shown by elected officials or their staff members in favor of major political donors. The TINCUP ordinance was amended in 1992 but is not compatible with current campaign law.

METHOD OF INVESTIGATION

The Grand Jury reviewed the proposed amendments to the TINCUP ordinance and other supporting documentation. The recommended changes to the FCPC charter amendment were also reviewed. Statistical information was received from the District Attorney’s office regarding the number of referrals for investigation and prosecution. A video of the Board of Supervisors February 5, 2008, meeting regarding placing the initiatives on the June ballot was reviewed. Comments of all speakers on this issue were considered. (more…)

By David Crane

Special Advisor to the Governor for Jobs and Economic Growth

California is the richest state in the richest country in the world and we lead the world in entrepreneurship and innovation, but when it comes to infrastructure, we are neither rich, entrepreneurial nor innovative.  States and countries with a fraction of our wealth provide their citizens with far superior infrastructure services. People elsewhere travel on more convenient and comfortable transportation systems, study in better school facilities, live behind more secure levees, drink from more secure water systems, and more. California’s environment, quality of life, workers, students and innovators all suffer as a result of our infrastructure deficit.  

California’s failure has been well documented.  According to the Keston Institute at the University of Southern California, our state faces “precarious earthen levees … steady disintegration of schools, hospitals, and prisons … limits to our water supplies, and waste treatment and water reclamation systems that fall far short of their potential …and increasing congestion and air pollution symptomatic of outdated transportation systems based on technologies and plans developed more than two generations ago.”  

And a recent study by the Bay Area Economic Institute reported that California devotes only 1 percent of Gross State Product to infrastructure.  The historical norm, and the level believed to be necessary to maintain our standard of living, is closer to 2.5 percent.  

What accounts for this serious shortfall in infrastructure investment? There are three principal factors:

(more…)