Congressman Calvert is sending out an email in response to the President’s address this past week.  In his response Calvert says, “The market-based loan modifications make sense for homeowners who are on the margins, but in some cases, people simply bought homes they could not afford.  While I agree that foreclosures adversely impact other homeowners, I do not believe homeowners who pay their bills on time and renters, who have saved up to buy a home, should foot the bill. The moral hazard in this case is simply too great and establishes a troubling precedent.”

This argument hardly seems credible coming from a gentleman who authored a bill loosening adjustable rate regulations that encouraged folks to purchase homes they couldn’t afford.  Back in 2003, Calvert wrote HR 1443 (Access to Affordable Mortgages Act) which amended the National Housing Act to assure that 5/1 Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs) were offered competitively in the marketplace.  At the time Calvert said, “Congress has recognized the importance of more loan options to home-buyers and banks by allowing a range of adjustable mortgage rates.  This provision will increase interest rate flexibility and thereby contribute to a stable economy and a robust real estate market.”

Considering that Mr. Calvert himself is a real estate professional, it’s amazing he couldn’t see the flaw in his own legislation and believed it would lead to a more robust real estate market and a stable economy.  The largest city in his district (Riverside) now has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation and ranks as the fourth largest foreclosure market in the country.  This is also the same “real estate expert” who purchased land illegally in Jarupa (another portion of his district).  With real estate experts like Mr. Calvert telling us what does and doesn’t work with regards to the real estate market, who needs the Obama economists, right?

Please note: the opinions expressed in this post are the opinion of me alone, and do not constitute any endorsement by the Calitics editorial board.

As we draw closer to March 3, I wanted to discuss some of the important things that are on the Los Angeles Municipal ballot.  Obviously, the Mayoral race is getting some attention, but it seems pretty obvious that Antonio will win that one in a cakewalk.  But there’s a lot of other stuff going on that I’d like to focus on–like local measures that can make a huge difference, as well as local races that will determine who gets to be the Democratic Party bench in the Los Angeles area.

I’d like to start with Measure B, a measure which, if passed, will end up generating 400MW of solar power within the L.A. Basin itself by providing funding for installation of solar panels on roofs all over the city.  Now, I’m not sure about the specifics, but apparently the measure got put on the ballot in some sort of backroom deal that hasn’t made some people all that happy–and they’re using that as a reason to vote against the measure.  Personally, I can’t think of anything more ridiculous than that.  If a measure is on the ballot, it should be judged by its merits, and then the process should be examined later.

And speaking of merits:

Measure B also requires the establishment of a training academy that will train people from underprivileged areas to install and maintain the facilities so that the workers don’t have to be imported from outside the city, and also gives a bid preference to equipment providers who are located within Los Angeles, which will incentivize the development of a solar industry in Los Angeles.  And if we have to import panels from China in the meantime, that’s still better than the alternative of burning coal.

So, bottom line: cleaner air, green-collar jobs, and industrial growth.  And how much will it cost?  Well, according to the Huron report commissioned by the DWP, it will cost the average ratepayer an addition of $1.05 on each monthly bill.  Not bad, all in all.  The best part about all this is that it can have an immediate stimulative impact, since many of the projects are ready to go once the measure is approved.  Not to mention, Measure B has the endorsement of just about every single prominent progressive politician and environmental organization in the area.  Bottom line: YES on Measure B.

There are also LAUSD School Board races and Community College races on the March 3 ballot, and Republicans have actually made an organized effort to win the Community College Board races, so getting out and voting in those is going to be especially important.  While Angela Reddock (2), Kelly Candaele (4), and Miguel Santiago (7) need you votes to win against the Republicans that are challenging them, Seat 6 is actually contested between three Democrats in addition to a Republican challenger: Nancy Pearlman is being challenged by labor movement figure Greg Akili, as well as Robert Nakahiro, a community activist whom I’ve met a few times.  That race might go to a runoff.

The LAUSD 4 race should also be interesting: it’s contested between two Democrats, Steve Zimmer and Mike Stryer.  While I think Mike is a great candidate, I was really impressed by Steve Zimmer when I got the chance to interview him.  Steve’s skill with organizing and his passion for improving education really shone through, and I’m definitely joining Eric Garcetti in pulling for Steve Zimmer.

Oh, and…Wendy Greuel for Controller and Jack Weiss for City Attorney (over Trutanich, please!).