Calitics - Front Page

Budget Politics: Porn Stars and Strippers Roaming the Capitol Halls

Julia Rosen — Fri, 09 May 2008 22:11:19 GMT

The budget fight has touched just about every single person with an interest in the fiscal policy of the state and that includes strippers, porn stars and others in the adult entertainment industry. The Democrats are trying to find ways to raise revenue and avoid having to cut even deeper than they already have into essential programs and education funding. That means "sin taxes" and other sales taxes and fees. LAT:

As state leaders hunt for politically palatable solutions to the swelling budget shortfall, some Democrats are proposing unorthodox ways to generate cash.
Strip clubs, six-packs, grocery bags and iTunes downloads are all in their sights as alternatives to broad income or sales tax hikes. So are gas guzzlers and yachts -- and a tax loophole for criminals.
Despite tough odds of overcoming an oath signed by their Republican colleagues to stop any tax hikes, Democratic lawmakers seem confident that their ideas will carry the day. They predict the public won't stand for painful cuts to schools and healthcare to close a shortfall the governor now pegs as high as $20 billion, and say anti-tax forces will ultimately have to accept that more revenue is needed to bring the state into the black.

This is nothing new. We are roughly in the same place we were a few months ago, only the deficit is even larger. Flip it.
The Democrats want to find legal (not illegal) ways to close the budget deficit. The Yacht Party has their arms linked red rover style, daring the Dems to break through. Governor Schwarzenegger is more of a mystery, though he does have to show his cards next week, with the announcement of the May revise, the updated version of his budget proposal.

Next Tuesday, Karen Bass will be sworn in as the new Speaker of the Assembly. Insert your favorite sports metaphor here about what she is stepping into on her first week on the job....

It is our job to hammer the Republicans as much as possible for their ridiculous tax policy positions. It's not as if the yacht tax loophole is the only common sense loophole to close.

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nu?ez (D-Los Angeles) has expressed bewilderment that GOP lawmakers won't even talk about eliminating the mortgage deduction for vacation homes valued at more than $1 million -- a move Republicans say would discourage the wealthy from buying property in California.

Public opinion is a real wild-card that will help swing this debate and early polling is giving the Democrats confidence in how they are proceeding thus far. While the legislators are mostly protected by safe seats, the public's opinion on how to solve the budget will play an important role. The media spotlight is going to be pretty glaring as Sacramento heads towards triple digit temperatures inside and outside of the capitol. That combined with upset constituents is what the Democrats are counting on to break the Republican's chain.

It's going to be one hot, controversial summer and not just because there are strippers and porn stars roaming the halls of the capitol.

Is AB 32 merely symbolic in the battle against CO2 emissions?

Brian Leubitz — Fri, 09 May 2008 18:23:18 GMT

I'm a nerd. I'm actually a bit bummed that I don't get gadgets to review like the gadget blogs. (Hey, as an aside, I might begin a weekly non-politics review of random stuff...let me know your thoughts.) Long story short, I read all the tech blogs.

Yesterday, over at Wired, there was a post about a report commissioned by the airline industry about emissions. Turns out the report didn't come out in their favor so they politely "declined" it. How sweet.

But this report shows that we have a long, long way to go. We will need to rapidly change how we live, how we do business if we are to really change the course of climate change. Airline emissions are really, really high:

A recently disclosed report finds that airlines are spewing 20 percent more carbon dioxide into the environment than previously estimated and the amount could hit 1.5 billion tons a year by 2025. That's far more than even the worst-case predictions laid out by the International Panel on Climate Change.
If you're looking to put that number in perspective, the European Union currently emits 3.1 billion tons of CO2 annually. Yup, that's the entire 27-nation, 457 million person EU.
"Growth of CO2 emissions on this scale will comfortably outstrip any gains made by improved technology and ensure aviation is an even larger contributor to global warming by 2025 than previously thought," Jeff Gazzard, a spokesman for the Aviation Environment Federation, the group that uncovered the report, told the Independent. "Governments must take action to put a cap on air transport's unrestrained growth." (Wired 5/7/08)

California is a big source of emissions. I would tell you how much, but unfortunately, the CA Climage Change Center seems to have taken down their report on Trends in California Emissions Levels. That's too bad, because it had all sorts of information on emission levels. Nonetheless, I can tell you the report was measured in millions, rather than billions of tons. So, even a 20% reduction in our emissions levels only puts a small dent in the problem.

We need to do more. Much of that has to be done by individuals like us who are living in "rich nations." We most consciously choose to eschew waste. That being said, even the poorest of Americans still has a carbon footprint more than double the world average, according to a study by an MIT class. AB 32 should not be considered an endpoint, but a first step.

What is CSU's Problem with the Loyalty Oath?

Robert in Monterey — Fri, 09 May 2008 17:34:25 GMT

Last week I brought you the story of another CSU teacher who was fired for wanting to change the state's ridiculous and anachronistic loyalty oath to suit her religious beliefs. Today's LA Times brings us the update on her story:

A Quaker who lost her appointment as a Cal State Fullerton lecturer after she objected to a state loyalty oath submitted a revised statement of her beliefs Thursday in a bid to win the job back.
People For the American Way, a Washington-based civil rights group now representing lecturer Wendy Gonaver, called on the university to reinstate her and adopt a policy protecting the religious freedom of all California State University system employees.
"She is willing to sign the oath as long as she can exercise her free-speech rights and note that her views as a Quaker would prevent her from taking up arms," said Kathryn Kolbert, president of the organization and a constitutional lawyer. "We would like to avoid filing a lawsuit, but we are certainly prepared to do so if we need to."

PFAW has clearly stepped up on this, and rightly so - this is a clear-cut case of violation of constitutional rights and Wendy Gonaver deserves support. They have proposed a new CSU policy regarding the oath in a letter to the Cal State Fullerton administration:

CSU recognizes that some of our employees may have religious or other objections to taking this oath. It is our policy to accommodate the religious and other beliefs of our employees by allowing an employee to append an explanatory statement to the employee's signed oath.

This would be a sensible policy, at least until the state finally does away with the moronic oath. No word yet on whether CSU is going to accept this, but the recent incidents suggest that CSU needs to reexamine their practices regarding the oath and need to adopt proposals such as this to guarantee the rights of their employees. There is absolutely no reason for them to resist this.

Unfortunately for Wendy Gonaver, Cal State Fullerton is resistant on offering her the job again:

[CSU General Counsel Christine] Helwick said the campus might not be able to rehire her despite the revision: "The addendum she is now proposing is different in tone, scope and content from the one she originally presented. However, the position for which she originally applied last August had to be filled by someone else when she refused to sign the oath."

This is BS. It wasn't Gonaver's fault, as the CSU implies, but their own. The CSU system, and CSUF in particular, should be able to offer her another position. And the CSU system needs to implement the PFAW's proposed policy change as well as get behind Alan Lowenthal's effort to do way with the oath. Enough is enough.

Unions: Sticking Together to Fight Corporate Power

davej — Fri, 09 May 2008 13:18:21 GMT

I have been writing about the strike by California Kaiser Permanente security guards working for contractor Inter-Con Security, who are demanding that laws be enforced and their rights be honored.

SEIU sent out a press release on the situation, titled, Workers With No Healthcare Protecting Kaiser Facilities, Security Contractor May Be Misleading California's Largest Healthcare Provider. In summary, the security guards at Kaiser are supposed to be provided with individual healthcare after working for 90 days, but it turns out that many are not. The security contractor Inter-Con Security has found a way around the promise: they classify workers as "on-call" instead of permanent.

As more and more workers report that Inter-Con is keeping workers on temporary or "on-call" status for months or years, it's still unclear whether Inter-Con is misleading Kaiser or if Kaiser is simply turning a blind eye to these tactics which short-change workers.

And their families are not provided with health insurance at all. The security guards -- paid as little as $10.40 an hour -- are supposed to buy it. The result is that 41% of the officers who responded to a survey cannot. And without paid sick days they cannot afford to take the time off to see a doctor anyway.

So here we are with a company finding ways around a promise by changing the classification of the workers to "on-call." This points out yet one more problem of workplaces that do not have unions. How many people are classified as "temporary" or "contractors"? This is one of the bigger scams that is going on these days. One reason companies do this is because if someone is not an employee the employer doesn't have to pay their share of the Social Security payroll tax. (There are other reasons as well, including avoiding paying promised benefits.)

How do you know if you should be called an employee or an independent contractor? For a quick guideline, let's go to the IRS. They say that by-and-large you are an employee,

if the organization can control what will be done and how it will be done. This is so even if the organization gives the employee freedom of action. What matters is that the organization has the right to control the details of how the services are performed.

Yet most of us see examples of people in this situation who are called "temporary workers" or "contractors" all the time.

Companies are not supposed to do this to us, but here's the thing: What can you do about it? You and I are individuals, alone. But corporations have the ability to amass immense power and wealth and influence. You and I as individuals must stand alone against this power and wealth. What can you or I or anyone else do on our own? The average person in our society has very little ability to stand up against this kind of power and wealth.

Over time people discovered that there are some things they can do that will work. One of these has been to form unions. By joining together the workers in a company can amass some power of their own. The company needs the workers in order to function so the workers -- if they stick together -- have the ability to make the corporation obey employee/employer laws, provide decent pay, and all the other benefits that the unions have brought us. This is why they are also call "organized labor." By organizing into a union and sticking together people have the ability to demand respect and compensation for their work.

This is what the security guards at Kaiser are trying to do. This is what you should do.

I encourage you to visit StandForSecurity.org.

I am proud to be helping SEIU spread the word about this strike.

Hey Californians! Judicial Races Matter, Too

eph89 — Fri, 09 May 2008 00:27:10 GMT

Lost in all the presidential primary news is the fact that California has another important primary coming up on June 3rd. Many of us are boning up on Prop 98 and 99 and understanding the importance of our votes on those measures.

But most of us are woefully unprepared for decisions in other contests, especially those for the office of Superior Court judge. And with turnout expected to be light, we could wind up with some very scary judges if people don't pay attention and vote.
Normally judges are appointed by the governor, serve out their six-year terms and are then considered reelected if there are no challengers. But this year, ten seats in LA County are open because the incumbents retired and Arnold Schwarzenegger didn't have enough time to appoint successors, or otherwise decided to leave the decision to voters. Similar situations exist throughout California.

If you're like many people I know, you leave this part of the ballot blank and feel a bit guilty. Or worse, you pick one like some people pick a horse race, by a picture, the sound of their name (seriously) - or even by a coin toss. Lest you think that the vote doesn't matter, consider the role these people serve in our judicial system. As the Times notes, they can "dissolve a marriage, break up a family, impose the death penalty, appoint conservators and decide whether a drug user ought to go to prison or deserves a break".

And if you still think your vote doesn't matter, consider two very different candidates among the many running in Los Angeles County for these seats.

A Good One. Thomas Rubinson, running for Office 82, is endorsed by the Metropolitan News-Enterprise, LA's daily for the courts and legal issues. The paper says he is "the only candidate for Superior Court Office No. 82 who possesses the qualifications for the post." It goes on to quote from a recent performance evaluation in his role as criminal prosecutor: "He is experienced, intelligent and well versed in criminal law and procedure. He has demonstrated good judgment in his handling and evaluation of cases. Mr. Rubinson is a reliable and dependable employee, often staying beyond regular working hours to ensure that the job gets done. He maintains a professional manner and demeanor at all times and possesses the highest of ethical standards."

A Scary One. On the other hand, Bill Johnson, running for Office 125, is the subject of a scathing LA Times editorial, which notes that "Los Angeles voters, if they don't pay attention, could hand judicial robes to a racial separatist who called for restricting U.S. citizenship to persons 'of the European race' and deporting blacks, Asians, Latinos and others who don't meet his racial criteria." Calling it a "stealth election" the Times explains that he's run for different offices under different names, and wrote a book supporting racial exclusion in the Constitution.

Would you have known this going into the polls? Absentee ballots are already going out. Make sure you're registered to vote. Get your absentee ballot. Know about your candidates (one good local resource in LA is the Metropolitan News-Enterprise). And vote on June 3rd!

Share your insights on judicial candidates in comments below.

State Republicans' Big Idea - Fix The Budget By Breaking The Law

David Dayen — Thu, 08 May 2008 21:27:38 GMT

This is really kind of incredible, what "law and order" Republicans have been reduced to.

Saying the ailing economy is putting enough stress on taxpayers, Senate Republican leader Dave Cogdill said Tuesday that Republicans will oppose any tax hikes to bridge California's budget deficit.
Cogdill suggested the deficit, which he pegged at $16 billion for the fiscal year beginning July 1, could be wiped out through service cuts and tapping into the reserves of voter-approved initiatives intended for early childhood education, mental health services and transportation [...]
Democrats, meanwhile, are likely to oppose Cogdill's suggestion to borrow money from three initiative-created funds: the county-based First Five commissions for children, established by Proposition 10; Proposition 63 to expand mental health services; and the Proposition 42 gas sales tax for transportation purposes.
Sen. Darrell Steinberg, the Senate's incoming president, said "no way" will he allow proceeds from Proposition 63, which he sponsored, to be used to defray the budget deficit.
"The voters of California passed an initiative which specifically prohibits the state Legislature from taking the money to balance the budget," said Steinberg, D-Sacramento, adding that such a raid on the initiative would be "unlawful."

The idea here is that if we only overturned three initiatives and defied the will of the people, and broke standing law in the state of California, then everything would be fine and we could place a gold brick in everybody's mailbox.

In other words, the Republican budget strategy is based entirely on embezzlement.

Frank Russo got out of a Yacht Party press conference and they basically said the same thing. From his notes:

This is their play: You need to have "reforms" in order to save money and balance the budget without raising taxes. All the Democrats do is talk about raising taxes. We are the only party that is talking about reforms and something other than taxes. The dems literally have no proposals. We've been criticized in the past for not being specific and forthcoming with our proposals (I lambasted them last year mercilessly for this) so here we have these ideas.
Take a look at the ideas and you find they are proposals to change the substantive laws in a number of areas and they are using the 2/3 vote requirement and the extreme financial emergency we are in as leverage to get things passed that they otherwise don't have the votes for.

This is not a budget fight - it's a hostage negotiation. The Yacht Party is playing the part of the hooded figures negotiating the terms of surrender. And big ups to Don Perata for signaling yesterday that he's extremely bullish on surrender, for his part.

Editorial: The Case Against Proposition G

paulhogarth — Thu, 08 May 2008 18:17:20 GMT

Today, Beyond Chron comes out against Prop G - a local San Francisco measure on the June ballot to redevelop Bayview-Hunters Point.

On June 3, San Francisco voters will decide the future of the largest remaining undeveloped acreage remaining in the City. Although its location at the Hunters Point shipyard and alongside Bayview's low-income minority community has long kept it out of sight and mind, this land is our last opportunity to remake the City's waterfront a striking community that continues to meet our city's needs.

Remarkably, almost all the information sent to voters has come from political consultants hired to sell this proposal. It comes in brochures with attractive drawings but very little else, with campaign costs already over $2 million and likely to set an all-time record for a San Francisco ballot measure.

San Francisco, the leader in so many areas, appears to be on the verge of giving birth to yet another first-of-a-kind: the stealth campaign to write public policy out of public view, through a ballot measure exclusively funded by the corporation anxious to seize a billion-dollar prize, and offered in language that wriggles, weasels, and walks away from all the promises it boasts.
Proposition G on San Francisco's June ballot challenges the old rule that public policy should be done in public. Why is a major decision involving the transfer of public land and rezoning of a neighborhood ignoring public debate?

It's not the cumbersome process of public participation that is the reason. It is the fear of facing questions in public about the details and how they will translate even good intentions into good public policy.

If such a stealth campaign can succeed without facing rigorous debate and discussion, it will become the way to operate in other San Francisco important decisions - and likely be copied as a new model in other cities with equally eager consultants and special interests.

In the case of this June's ballot measure to convey hundreds of acres for free to the Lennar Corporation, there's a reason why this needed to be a stealth campaign.

The actual details - and lack of details - would send alarm bells ringing for every voter. In fact, the measure is unprecedented in any major land use decision in our City's recent history.

Claim: Voters are told that this measure will result in 8,500 to 10,000 units of new housing, with 25% of the units affordable for moderate to low-income buyers.

Fact: The real wording voters are asked to approve has no written agreement that requires 25 percent of the housing be affordable, or even that requires 8,500 to 10,000 new units of housing be built. It merely states "this Initiative encourages the development of new housing in the Project Site with a mix of rental and for-sale units, both affordable and market-rate."

Claim: Voters are told that this measure will result in 8,000 permanent new jobs for San Francisco residents.

Fact: The real wording voters are asked to approve actually repeals an earlier written commitment for as much as 50 percent of the jobs to be targeted for San Francisco residents in building out this site. Instead, the language weakly states "this Initiative encourages and anticipates construction and permanent jobs for local economically disadvantaged residents, particularly in the Bayview, and a range of economic development opportunities, including retail and commercial space."

Claim: Voters are told that this measure will result in new parks and open space.

Fact: The real wording voters are asked to approve will result in the loss of valuable waterfront parks and open space which now could be converted into commercial office space. The promised parks are actually replacements elsewhere of the lost parks and open space.

"This Initiative will permit the City's park property at Candlestick Point, including land currently used for Monster Park and associated surface parking, to be transferred for development....At the same time, this Initiative requires that any park property transferred by the City be replaced with other public park and open space property of at least the same size in the Project Site...." As news accounts confirm, park of the "parks" to be built include an astro-turf like area of grass embedded into synthetic mesh to double as stadium parking.

Claim: Voters are told that there will be no new taxes required.

Fact: The real wording voters opens the way for General Fund dollars to be used and specifically taps into other city funds. The language states that this project should "minimize any adverse impact on the City's General Fund relating to the development of the Project Site by relying to the extent feasible on the development to be self-sufficient." Other provisions state that the Project will tap into the City's Affordable Housing Fund, use tax allocation bonds, rely on the issuance of community facilities bonds, and tax exempt financing tools.

Claim: Voters are told that the new owner will pay to clean up toxics at this site.

Fact: The real wording voters are asked to approve calls for the cleanup to be paid from state and federal funds. It states "To the extent feasible, use state and federal funds to pay for environmental remediation on the Project Site and help pay for transportation and other infrastructure improvements, and provide ways for other development project outside the Project Site to pay their fair share for new infrastructure improvements." In short, taxpayers will pay to clean up the site.

Finally, it then discards even these weak and watered down goals by asking voters to approve that "market changes" and "economic feasibility" could take back every provision put before the voters in this measure if the developer decides it won't be profitable.

The language states "certain variables, including, for example and without limitation, market changes, economic feasibility and the timing of the 49ners departure from Monster Park," that "the final development plan for the Project Site may be materially different from the Project and the boundaries of the Project Site may be materially different ..."

This ballot measure actually repeals some of the hard-won provisions of the former Bayview Hunters Point plan, including its provisions to require

? a written commitment to provide an opportunity for 1,000 permanent jobs for recipients of general assistance who undergo a job training program,

? a written commitment for a good faith effort that 50 percent of the construction jobs go to residents of the Bayview Hunters Point South Bayshore community as well as 25 percent of the
permanent jobs,

? a written commitment that there be adequate labor union representation,

? a written commitment to adhere to the city's administrative code including nondiscrimination based on domestic partner status,

? a written commitment to pay any shortfall in property taxes needed to pay tax allocation bonds as a result of reassessed property values (the new proposal also relies on tax allocation bonds but without this guarantee)

? height limits to protect the waterfront from being walled off from the city by inappropriate highrise developments

? and a city determination that the city will provide no more than twenty percent of the project construction.

Those provisions were written in the 1997 measure because of due diligence by the Board of Supervisors who demanded specific promises in writing. While it applied to a different proposal for this site, those standards ought to be upheld in this measure.

One thing alone explains how such empty promises were put on the ballot. It came from a closed door arrangement without any competitive bids from other developers, was written by the hand-picked developer, and has had none of the public hearings or consideration by the Board of Supervisors that are expected of any major City deal.

"We didn't want to start over because we are on a remarkably quick timeline, so they were the right one," Michael Cohen of the mayor's staff explained to the Chronicle. The rationale was spelled out: the timeline was linked to ink a deal that could persuade the 49ners that San Francisco would provide the site for a world-class football stadium.

"We have a plan that we can finance -- no surprises,'' Newsom said in an interview. "I want to put pressure on the 49ers. I want to make it very difficult for them to leave our city,'' Newsom said.
That may account for the fact that this measure has more devoted to a potential stadium than it does to such basic community needs as schools, health clinics and libraries in a new community with tens of thousands of residents - none of which are even mentioned in this proposed measure.

Contrast that with the City's other major land deals - Mission Bay and Treasure Island - which were put out to competitive bid.

Mission Bay commits in writing to having 28 percent of the housing be affordable to moderate-low income residents.

Treasure Island commits in writing to having 30 percent of the housing be affordable to moderate-low income residents.

Under Prop G, Lennar makes no promises in writing. Instead, it only commits to "encourage" a 25 percent affordability standard. Anything more would be a "poison pill."

The City rushed into this deal with Lennar without being fully appraised of the corporation's fragile finances or of its record of broken promises.

Rushed is a mild description. The City announced its no-bid selection of Lennar on one day, and the next day Lennar announced that its earnings had dropped 73 percent in the first quarter of 2007.
In all, last year Lennar reported it lost $1.9 billion, its stock falling by two-thirds and plunging it into junk bond realm. It had to lay off 8,000 of its 14,000 employees, cancel 90 land-swap deals it signed with other communities, and recently had to deny financial media reports that it might be bought out by a United Arab Emirates investor group.

In this San Francisco ballot measure, there are no timetables for completing any housing, no default payments to the city if Lennar can't deliver, and - worst of all - no provision to keep Lennar from selling San Francisco's last remaining land for housing and jobs to another company that would have a guarantee in writing from the voters that it could ignore every single statement told to the voters in this campaign.

Lennar's Troubled History:

Lennar's record is that it repeatedly has been unable to uphold its end of the bargain. Lennar committed when it won the development rights for the first Bayview parcel that the result would be 700 units of affordable housing.

Before the first housing was even built, Lennar announced it couldn't afford to keep its end of the deal. It cancelled all 400 affordable rental units it committed to build, insisting it needed the higher profits from selling homes. The only affordable units being built, 300 of them, are being paid for by the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency.

Last month, Lennar was part of a Las Vegas consortium that got default notices in the mail for $765 million for a parcel there.

Three years ago, Orange County signed with Lennar for the former El Toro air base, in exchange for thousands of housing units and a major new public park. Now the housing hasn't been built, the funds don't exist for the park, and the community is trying to renegotiate its deal with Lennar.

One official there noted in the Los Angeles Times, "Some of us felt we needed a Plan B all along." As the Times notes, "Now Lennar has started to rethink some of its promises."

Recently Palm Springs called in an $8 million bond in its Lennar deal after the company halted progress on its commitments. As one city manager there told the local newspaper, "if Lennar does not perform, they either pay us the money or they perform the work."

Vallejo's Mare Island also is finding Lennar backtracking on its commitments, even asking city officials to use their offices to persuade state regulators to give Lennar an easy time in meeting state requirements.

And in the last week of April, a Lennar partnership to develop 15,000 acres of the former Newhall Ranch close to Los Angeles defaulted and appears ready to declare bankruptcy.

Morningstar, the eminent investment company, advised "with debt of about $2.3 billion spread among joint ventures employing recourse debt, Lennar could be on the hook for $917 million in the event of a total meltdown. On top of this, we'd expect significant legal wrangling if and when its other two large nonrecourse ventures sour.

Both Heritage Fields, its massive venture involving the El Toro military base, and Kyle Canyon, its large Las Vegas venture, employ nonrecourse debt. That said, it's not unreasonable to assume the banks involved in the deals are doing all they can to make sure it's as difficult as possible for Lennar to exit the ventures cleanly if it chooses to do so."

The business sections of newspapers from Florida to Texas tell the same story: Lennar enters into an agreement for a land-swap that locks up valuable acreage in exchange for a promise to deliver affordable housing and public benefits, but then delays come, and to often, Lennar has walked away.

Bayview Hunters Point constitutes our City's most marginalized community, yet sits aside some of the most valuable real estate remaining for development. Promises have been made, and promises have been broken.

Someone, somewhere, always had an idea. A homeport for a battleship would revive the industry, but the battleship went into the mothball fleet instead. A grand suburban-style shopping mall and new stadium would create jobs in an area with high unemployment, but the football team's owners bickered with each other and the project stalled and died. Now one of the nation's largest homebuilders sees an opportunity to bank hundreds of acres of prime real estate for free, with promises it has no obligation to keep.

There is no mystery about what ought to be done.

Bayview-Hunters Point needs more housing suitable for families with children, more affordable housing of all types, grocery stores and dry cleaners, schools and pre-schools, more open space and parks, health clinics and recreation and community centers. Community plans should also encourage small businesses, and particularly retain and enhance the artist community.

In short, it needs to become a new and valued San Francisco neighborhood that provides real opportunity in housing, jobs and a quality of life.

That kind of outcome requires hard work, community participation, solid financial planning, and enough guarantees to ensure that someone else's dream doesn't become San Francisco's nightmare - worming its way into San Francisco's future by stealth.

Steve Ybarra wants a $20 million registration drive for his superdelegate vote

Brian Leubitz — Thu, 08 May 2008 17:43:40 GMT

To hear the big media folks frame it, you'd think Steve was also requesting a mansion in St. Moritz as well. But, in fact, Steve Ybarra's got a pretty good eye for good tactics, and this is just that: a tactical request. Ybarra wants the campaigns to spend $20 million on registering Latino voters in the Southwest. From the Comedy Central Blog:

Well, that's kind of, um, honorable. It's kinda not fair the way the article was written; it didn't mention his intentions until midway through and tricked me into thinking he was being greedy. ...
Still, it seems unlikely that Ybarra will get $20 million dollars out of the candidates, who need to spend that money ads calling each other names and accusing each other of being unAmerican.
Plus, I'm sure they can find ten or twenty superdelegates from below the border who will register and educate eligible Mexican-American voters for $2 million and a mattress to sleep on.

Well, obviously the last part was Daily Show-esque satire, but the campaigns are just not that likely to give up control of their precious dollars. I agree with Steve that such an investment would pay off quite handsomely in both the short and long term. But given the Obama campaign's tendency to move power inward, I wouldn't expect them to start taking orders from external sources.

Debra Bowen and Facebook

shayera — Thu, 08 May 2008 06:30:25 GMT

Anyone who hangs around on Facebook even a little has seen that Secretary of State Debra Bowen makes great use of it.

Late this (5/7/8) evening, she posted a "note": Facebook tip leads to conviction for voter registration fraud. Secretary of State Debra Bowen Announces
Conviction for Voter Registration Fraud in Orange County (warning pdf) The link is from the Secretary of State's website, since you have to be logged into Facebook to see the note.
It's basically a press release detailing a case tried in Orange County Superior Court. Sacramento based Don Cornell Williams plead guilty to registering 3 ineligible voters in 2006. A warrant for his arrest was issued in 2006 but he wasn't arrested until this year.
Apparently a complaint was filed against his signature gathering techniques this year. Which lead to his arrest on the outstanding warrant.

The press release does not mention where the tip came from. But since Bowen's note says "Facebook tip leads to conviction" I think we can all infer where.
Social networking taken to a whole new level.

Political Malpractice By Don Perata

David Dayen — Thu, 08 May 2008 05:48:03 GMT

Don Perata has no ability to end the recall, mind you, but in his mind he's done it.

First off, let's say that I'm happy to have been on the right side of Prop. 93, the outcome of which will send Don Perata into the sunset. What a laughable bit of incompetence this is.

Let's start with the fact that he doesn't get to say what's on the ballot and what's not. The authoritarian style of "what I say goes" is the only thing that would've doomed this otherwise perfectly justifiable recall of a legislator who forgot his district and went along with an obstructionist GOP that is harming the state to a severe degree. A real Senate leader would have broadened the race into a referendum on state Republicans and would have done very well. You either do something like this full-speed or you never start it in the first place. This half-step just furthers the narrative of Democratic weakness.

Combined with the stab in the back on SD-15, where Perata demanded that nobody contest Abel Maldonado in another winnable seat, the Senate Pro Tem has assured that there is no way we reach a 2/3 majority in 2008. It's still possible by 2010, but this is a wave election, a realignment year and we're waving the white flag in two prime Senate races. That's just stupid politics. I appreciate the need to speed along the budget; the state is broke. But this recall is over by June 3, and it's not like everything's going to be wrapped up by then. And the stupidest part is that Perata RECOGNIZES that the threat of the recall was helping provide leverage for the Republicans.

In a statement, Perata credited the recall for recent legislation that passed out of the Senate:
"The vote we couldn't get last year to close the tax loophole for yacht owners -- we got that vote," he said. "The vote we couldn't get to help homeowners facing foreclosure - we got that vote. You put everyone here on notice -- and I don't think people are going to forget that anytime soon."

No, you now let everyone off the hook because you've proven you can be bullied by a Republican hissy fit and tut-tuts from the conventional wisdom crowd in the media. No Republican will EVER take a Democratic threat seriously in the near future, crippling the leadership of Darrell Steinberg. And all the leverage on getting legislation passed in the Senate just ended.

Great friggin' job, Don. If you want to just go ahead and quit now and let any stray cat from Berkeley finish out your term, that'd be just fine with me.

...the thought has crossed my mind that Perata is just taking his name and aura off the recall because it'd be easier to pass without him, but if any organization associated with him donated a dime there'd be an even bigger hissy fit cry of "hypocrite," so his dropping the recall really signals a drop of any financial infusion, and I'm not seeing how Simon Salinas or the Dump Denham group will raise the necessary funds (especially considering that Denham is not restricted by any fundraising limits in a recall).

Blackwater Explodes into San Diego Mayoral Race

Lucas O'Connor — Thu, 08 May 2008 04:06:15 GMT

Full disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign

Blackwater made its way into the big time here in San Diego today, with mayoral hopeful Steve Francis picking up on the issue and savagely beating Jerry Sanders over the head with it. There's no love lost between these two (as you may remember or enjoy viewing), and they know that whether it's on June 3 or in the November runoff, they're in direct competition with each other for roughly the same political real estate in this mayoral race. So when Francis is kind enough to adopt the Courage Campaign frame in his press release entitled Blackwater Permit Issue Raises Serious Questions. Which makes Blackwater a defining issue as both Republicans try to stake a claim to the center-left.

Full text and further analysis on the flip.

"Once again, it appears that the too-cozy relationship between Mayor Sanders' administration and his lobbyist supporters may have led to an outcome that is not in the best interests of the people of San Diego. And once again, we see the corrosive effects of too much secrecy and not enough transparency in the dealings of our government. Right now, the Blackwater permit issue raises more questions than it answers. In light of the Blackwater West controversy last year, the fact that permits were sought using the names of Blackwater affiliates and not the Blackwater name itself raises serious questions. Was this a deliberate deception? How was a permit for a "vocational training school" given to a paramilitary training facility? Why was this matter not handled in an open and transparent way with public hearings and public comment period? Did Sanders' supporter and lobbyist firm Carpi and Clay receive preferential treatment for their client, Blackwater? How many times did Mayor Sanders and/or his top lieutenants meet with Carpi and Clay in 2007 and 2008 and what were the topics discussed at those meetings? What did Mayor Sanders know about the current permit issue and when did he know it? Due to the long track record of this Mayor in regards to special access for his lobbyist supporters, it is simply not credible for his Administration to investigate itself. I call on Mayor Sanders to invite an external investigation into this matter so that the citizens can be assured of the integrity of the process."

Francis reinforces some issues and broaches a few more in this release. First of all, the Carpi and Clay connection. The local lobbyists are playing about 18 different sides in this mess. Among their many local clients are the County and Port of San Diego. Nikki Clay was a registered Blackwater lobbyist during 2006 and 2007 while they were pursuing their Potrero facility. Her husband Ben Clay was recently nominated by Mayor Sanders to the local Stadium Board. Both are campaign contributors to Sanders' campaign and PAC in the past. One of the major criticisms of Sanders is that he's far too beholden to contributors and far too cozy with lobbyists. So that's the new.

The reinforced is that this is not a partisan issue, but rather an issue of fundamental government functionality and decency. We have a GOP mayor and his GOP challenger now battling over who can be tougher on Blackwater. Because Blackwater is simply bad no matter how you cut it. The only way for them to open a new facility is to obscure their identity and true motives, which breaks local governments. And that's without even getting into the community impact on local schools and security having lying mercenaries running around. The underlying issue that Steve Francis lays bare here and which goes beyond local issues is this: What they say they're doing is not what they're permitted to do. If this is allowed to slide, they aren't bound by what they say they're doing. The floodgates are open and they can do anything.

The door needs to be slammed now, and hard. Francis and Sanders are racing towards the center-left in this election; Francis on transparent government, Sanders on marriage equality and no-nonsense finance. And now, they're both racing on Blackwater. Cause nobody wants to be the one opposed to functional government.

Liveblogging the Sacramento Mayoral Debate

Brian Leubitz — Thu, 08 May 2008 01:31:53 GMT

Donald Lathbury of the CA Majority Report is liveblogging it. Check it out here.

Denham recall over?

Brian Leubitz — Thu, 08 May 2008 00:08:59 GMT

You know that recall Denham thing? Never mind. I just got an update from the Capitol morning report saying the following:

Pro Tem Don Perata announces end to recall campaign for Sen. Jeff Denham at 5 p.m. on North Steps.

More will surely follow.

Update by Lucas: Full Transcript of the statement(s) on the flip.
Perata:

"Like all of you, I've been worried a lot about the economy - falling home prices, rising gas prices - and how hard it's getting for people to find a job.
I've talked with both Treasurer Lockyer and Controller Chiang about the state's cash situation - and the need to do everything we can to reach an agreement on the budget.
A long stalemate is the last thing we need. Without a budget - we run out of cash - the richest state in America gone broke!
We won't be paying our bills - and we won't be giving our schools, our emergency rooms and our police the resources they need.
So I met with Republican Leader Dave Cogdill - and I asked him how we could clear the decks and start making some progress.One issue kept coming up. The Denham recall.
So today - in the spirit of putting politics aside to solve problems - I'm ending the recall campaign.
You're bound to ask, so let me tell you - there was no deal, no quid pro quo.
This is my call - and my best judgment about how to stop the long, slow slide into another long stalemate.
I hope it pays off. Because the same old rhetoric won't get the job done.
Let me also say this to the people who have devoted so much time and effort on the recall: thank you. You've already changed things for the better.
The vote we couldn't get last year to close the tax loophole for yacht owners -we got that vote.
The vote we couldn't get to help homeowners facing foreclosure - we got that vote.
You put everyone here on notice - and I don't think people are going to forget that anytime soon."

Cogdill:

"I applaud the wisdom of Senator Perata in making this decision. This eliminates an unnecessary distraction in an already contentious budget year. This will allow us to focus on doing what voters expect from us: achieving a balanced, responsible budget."

A Carboard Box For Your Troubles

Brian Leubitz — Thu, 08 May 2008 01:23:42 GMT

I'm quite proud to do some work against Prop 98!

By this time, I hope you've heard about Prop 98. But that's not the case everywhere, so much attention has been paid to getting the word out about the really negative effects that Prop 98 would have upon California. A great group of people came together in SF to talk about the Landlords' Scheme to eliminate rent control, tenant protections, and affordable housing regulations.

Several folks came with cardboard boxes to make the point that many people living in rent controlled units would be forced to the streets. Many units would be converted to luxury condo conversion projects and housing supply in San Francisco would dwindle further. Affordable housing is already tough enough to come by (just look at Craigslist if you don't believe me), the last thing we need is Prop 98 eliminating much of the affordable supply.

You can watch the entirety of the rally on YouTube over the flip, but some of the comments lept out at me. Some people expect that these propositions won't really affect their lives, but Prop 98 is very different. From June 4, 2008, landlords will have carte blanche to do what they please to tenants. "Just Cause" eviction will be a thing of the past, and renters will have to prepare for an onslaught. As Ted Gullicksen of San Francisco Tenants Union said, "San Francisco would become a city not just for the wealthy, but for the very, very, very wealthy. ... San Francisco would lose its character and its diversity."

It is not all that surprising that landlords' would try this, really. After all, they are businesses trying to maximize their shareholder and/or owner's pocket books. Heck, this is a great investment for people like Sam Zell, who stands to make $15 Million from a Prop 98 win. The problem is that they are using deceptive means to overturn the will of the people. The people in several cities across California have determined that they favor rent control. And practically every locality has chosen to require a "just cause" for eviction (as well as some state regulations).

But the landlords weren't able to get rent control overturned at the local level, at least totally. So instead of trying to convince localities to end it or to get state legislators to overrule the localities, the landlords' go with deception. They hide under the cover of eminent domain to end tenant protections. That's why this is so important to defeat June 3. We just can't let Prop 98 sneak by us, it would be the third leg of the stool. Prop 13, the 2/3 rule, and this. But that stool is one that doesn't support all Californians, only the super-wealthy.

Follow me over the flip for the videos and more. You can also get more photos at my flickr set.
Ted Gullicksen of San Francisco Tenants Union led off the remarks with a vision of the post-prop 98 San Francisco that I mentioned above. He also mentioned some of the many opponents of Prop 98, including the Governor, SF Mayor Gavin Newsom, both senators, and a whole lot more. It's hard to find more than a few right-wingers who have agreed with this crazy proposition.

Charles Mason of AARP noted that Prop 98 would hurt millions of seniors and all Californians. "AARP strongly believes we should enhance our neighborhoods. ... Prop 98 would jeopardize our abilites to create livable communities for seniors and other."

Some of the strongest remarks came from the folks at the St. Peters Housing Committee (Video 7/9) in both Spanish and English. They noted that carboard boxes are what San Franciscans would be left with. They pointed out that many children in San Francisco are dependent upon these housing regulations. Without protections for tenants, many Californians will be even more vulnerable than ever.

McNerney meeting with Clinton today

Dante Atkins (hekebolos) — Wed, 07 May 2008 23:32:51 GMT

This is Poltico's take.

However, I just received a call from Andy Stone, Communications Director for Jerry McNerney, who says:

The intent is to check in with both campaigns and not to endorse anyone. Jerry McNerney was walking to a meeting a meeting and was pulled aside by Senator Clinton for a conversation lasting only a couple of minutes.