All posts by Paul Rosenberg

Central Valley

Schwarzenegger Seemingly Sides With Floods vs. People

5 Comments

(Flooding may not be as dramatic as an earthquake, but it’s a very real possibility. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

GOP Gov Fires Reclamation Board Following Policy Change To Take Tough New Action Reviewing Flood-Plain Developments

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, California’s Reclamation Board, which overseas flood control in the Central Valley responded with concern. Its responsibilities include 1,600 miles of levees, most of which have been grandfathered into federal flood insurance programs, rather than passing rigorous inspections.  Further aggravating matters, the Central Valley is now the most rapidly urbanizing region in the state.

On September 16, the board approved what the Sacramento Bee described as “an aggressive new policy to begin reviewing all urban development proposals in designated flood zones.” The policy would bring pressure to bear on local governments to reject developments in high-risk areas where levees could not be counted on to protect against foreseeable floods.

In turn, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger responded with concern, firing all six members of the board 11 days later (there was one vacancy), and replacing them with a board of six Republicans and one Democrat.  A Schwarzenegger spokesperson claimed that the replacements had been in process for some time, but given Schwarzenegger’s secretive style of governing, there were only rumors beforehand, and no outside consultation or explanation.

“There was no communication about why the entire board was removed,” Board Chair Betsy Marchand, told the Associated Press. Marchand was a former county supervisor of Yolo County, home to UC Davis, where another fired boardmember, Jeffrey Mount, chairs the geology department.

There were, apparently, some rumors that Schwarzenegger was considering replacements, but the governor did not even extend the courtesy of contacting the outgoing members before making the announcement public. In fact, he allowed them to keep working on business that would never be completed. There was meeting on September 27 to discuss the board’s next agenda, which concluded at 1 pm. Anthony J. Cusenza, a retired Modesto dentist, found out that he had been fired when he got back to Modesto afterward.

Beneath his customary cadishness lurked his customary corruption. Construction interests are heavy contributors to Schwarzenegger’s political machine, and responsible development practices in flood-prone areas would inevitably drive up costs.  The Los Angeles Times reported:

A Times analysis of Schwarzenegger’s donors shows that at least 23% of the $75 million he has raised since 2002 has come from businesses or individuals involved in residential or industrial construction, development and real estate.

The Reclamation Board had only occasionally raised concerns about the booming urbanization of the Central Valley, until Katrina. That’s when they decided there was a need to be far more aggressive in highlighting the risks.

“I believe if you’re going to urbanize the land you’ve got to urbanize the levees. That’s the bottom line,” said board member Bill Edgar at the time. Most Central Valley levees were designed and built to protect farmland, not people.

According to The Sacramento Bee, reporting just after the policy change:

Friday’s action means the Reclamation Board will assume its full powers under the California Environmental Quality Act, which allows the agency to review and submit comments on major development projects. The board has exercised those powers only sporadically over the years.

The Bee went on to explain:

Board members said the need for the policy arises from a disconnect in California land-use policy. Cities and counties control urban development but have little obligation for flood control. That duty lies with levee maintenance districts, which have no input on land use.

The board hopes to bridge that gap by warning local governments that, before approving new homes and businesses behind levees, cities and counties should certify that those levees can withstand a 100-year storm, the federal government’s minimum standard.

If they can’t do so, the board’s comments will urge local governments to identify a flood-control plan for that development project, and to describe improvements that may be needed to withstand a flood, such as elevating homes above the flood line.

Local governments are free to ignore Reclamation’s advice about levee safety if they make certain legal findings that the benefits of a project outweigh the risk. But board members are hopeful that it will spur project changes to make homes and businesses safer, and it will help put consumers on notice that they are moving into a flood zone.

“I believe it’s not only appropriate, it’s an obligation,” said board member Tony Cusenza. “It’s our responsibility to see these people (in new developments) are protected one way or another.”

The board’s intentions—to inform residents, and bring short-term costs in line with long-term risks—were in line with the thinking of the re-insurance industry, whose companies have been concerned about the possible impacts of global warming for over a decade, at least since industry giant Swiss Re published its first relevant brochure, “Global Warming: Element of Risk.”

Gary Lemcke, a climatologist working for Swiss Re here in America, works with models that combine climate forecasts and risk assessment models, producing scenarios that point to future problems that could cost billions of dollars, just for a modestly warmer-than-usual summer, much less a catastrophic weather event.

“Don’t gamble with Mother Nature,” Lemcke warned in an interview with Random Lengths News on September 23. “That’s exactly what we are doing. We felt pretty safe in the seventies and eighties and thought it would go on forever. And stated building in areas where we shouldn’t build. There’s a lot of flood plain areas, as well that have been opened up for development, and that’s not the smartest thing to do. Whatever we do, nature in the end will bet stronger than us.  There will be loss. There will be damage. And an insurance policy is only going to bring us so far.”

But Schwarzenegger and his financial backers have more to worry about than the pesky Reclamation Boardmembers they just got rid of.  In part, the Boardmembers were responding to changes in federal policy—changes coming from FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) that were actually drafter a week before Katrina hit New Orleans.

According to another story in The Sacramento Bee:

A new federal flood-mapping policy could impose a mandatory flood-insurance rule on hundreds of communities nationwide and may even cause a building moratorium in some areas, according to state flood-control officials who are working to meet the requirements.

The memo, written by David Maurstad, acting director of FEMA’s mitigation division,  ordered that local officials in any floodplain that contains a levee must certify that it meets FEMA’s 100-year flood standard—the standard Central Valley levees did not have to meet previously, because they were grandfathered into the system.  If officials cannot certify meeting the standard, FEMA will assume that the levee does not exist, The Bee was told by Rod Mayer, acting chief of the division of flood management at the California Department of Water Resources. The Bee continued:

It could bring a twin shock for people to learn that their properties weren’t as safe as they believed, and that they would have to absorb flood insurance bills of hundreds of dollars a year.

In many cases, local communities could continue to build homes and businesses in those areas, Mayer said. But they may have to be elevated above expected flood levels, an expensive standard that many communities won’t be able to meet.

“Local agencies may find it very difficult to provide such certification,” Mayer said. “What I would expect to see is a moratorium on building in many areas behind levees.”

While FEMA recently certified that much of urban Sacramento met the 100-year standard, and more areas were still being upgraded, the grandfathering of the whole Central Valley system meant possibly dire consequences, according to The Bee:

But the true structural integrity of many of those levees remains suspect, and a full inspection might reveal that they don’t meet the FEMA standard.

“I cannot overstress how critical this is,” Rabbon said. “The potential outfall on this can really be horrendous, because almost all of the levees have been grandfathered into the national flood insurance program.”

…

A similar situation exists in many areas of the nation.

“It’s not just California, it’s the whole country,” Pineda said, noting that the Midwest also will feel a big hit from the requirements.

“It’s tough medicine,” Pineda said. “It’s going to be very controversial.”

Ironically, the FEMA directive is just the sort of “unfunded federal mandate” that the GOP used to rail about when it could blame Democrats.  It will be interesting indeed to see what kind of fancy footwork Schwarzenegger and his new board have in mind for the special interests they serve.

Reclamation Board Purge

Purged Board Members:

    Burton Bundy, a Los Molinos rancher and former Tehama County supervisor
    Dr. Anthony J. Cusenza, a retired Modesto dentist
    William H. Edgar of Sacramento, former Sacramento city manager
    Betsy A. Marchand of Davis, former Yolo County supervisor
    Jeffrey F. Mount of Davis, a professor of geology at the University of California at Davis
    Floyd H. Weaver, a retired school adminstrator and former vice mayor of Stockton

Schwarzenegger Appointees:

    Rose Burroughs of Denair, owner of California Cloverleaf Farms
    Benjamin Carter, a Colusa farmer and former Apple Computer executive
    Maureen Doherty, a farmer from Maxwell, Colusa County
    Francis “Butch” Hodgkins of Sacramento, former executive director of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency
    Teri Rie of Walnut Creek, a civil engineer with the Contra Costa County Public Works Department.
    Emma Suarez of Folsom, an attorney for the California Farm Bureau Federation
    Cheryl Bly-Chester of Roseville, owner of Rosewood Environmental Engineering
Diaries & Misc.

Governor Special Interests Vetos Fair Campaign Measure

(Schwarzenegger ’06 – Less information. Fewer rights. – promoted by Be_Devine)

At the same time that Girlie Man is trying to pose as some sort of defender of the people by vetoing the gay marriage bill and citing Prop 22 as the reason why, he has quitely vetoed another mesure that would empower voters by helping to improve their knowledge of who and what they are voting for.  

The measure he vetoed was even supported by his own, hand-picked Republican Secretary of State.

Here’s the press release from the bill’s author, Jenny Oropeza, who represents the 55th Assembly District (Carson, Wilmington, parts of Long Beach and Lakewood), and previously served as a Long Beach City Councilwoman, representing the racially-diverse downtown 1st District:

Jenny Oropeza
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Asm. Oropeza’s ‘fair campaign’ measure receives surprise gubernatorial veto

SACRAMENTO – Despite support from senior elections officials who are charged with conducting elections and working closely with candidates and voters, Gov. Schwarzenegger today announced his veto of a measure that would have made it easier for voters to hold candidates accountable for waging sleazy campaigns.

Schwarzenegger’s action on Assembly Bill 215 by Asm. Jenny Oropeza, D-Carson, came despite strong support from Secretary of State Bruce McPherson, whom Schwarzenegger appointed last March, and the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials.

“The governor’s veto is surprising because his own Secretary of State and election leaders statewide endorsed my bill,” Oropeza said. “Why would California’s top elected official want to limit voter access to key information about candidates for public office?”

AB 215 sought to raise public awareness of those candidates who comply with California Elections Code 20440, which outlines the “Code of Fair Campaign Practices.”

Specifically, the measure would have:

· Required the code language be published in the voter pamphlet.

· Directed the Secretary of State to list on its Web site those candidates who have pledged to wage fair and accurate campaigns.

· Encouraged local election officials to post a link the state’s Web site.

“The best elections are when voters are well informed about the issues and trust the candidates,” Oropeza said. “With this veto, the governor has limited voter access.”

AB 215 marks the first bill in Oropeza’s 2005 election-reform package to go to the governor.  She also introduced a measure to improve notification of closed polling places and another that would make it easier for new citizens to vote.

Oropeza in 2003 authored The Voter Bill of Rights, found at polls statewide.

For an analysis and Op-Ed on Oropeza’s election bills, visit her Web site.

Elected to the Assembly in 2000, Jenny Oropeza is among the highest-ranking Latinos in the Assembly and chairs the Assembly Transportation Committee.  More at www.assembly.ca.gov/oropeza

Uncategorized

Special Election for Special Interests

3 Comments

Nurses, Teachers, and Firefighters Take On The Terminator & His Corporate Masters

Republished From Random Lengths News
By Paul Rosenberg, Senior Editor

On August 24, governor Arnold Schwarzenegger complained about being forced into “begging” for money.

“Let me tell you, this is very hard for me to do,” he told the San Jose Mercury News. “I have never, ever asked anyone for money, not ever in my life. Now I have to go out there . . . and beg people for money, and it’s tough to do,” he told them. “But I have to because it’s the only way we get the message on television and communicate with the people.”

But to critics, it sounds just like the old bully’s line: It all started when he hit me back.

“Arnold started this fundraising war,” noted Doug Heller, Executive Director of the Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumers Rights (FTCR), referring to the fact that Scharzenneger is the one who called the special election in the first place—which will cost the state an estimated $80 million, and which 60% of likely voters say they don’t want in the latest poll from the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC).  

In fact it goes back even further, Heller noted, to last December, when “he stood up in Long Beach and said that California nurses were a special interest and he kicked their butts every day.” The nurses’ fight to preserve new staffing ratios signaled Scharzenneger’s first stunning defeat this year.

“Instead of spending time working in Sacramento, Scharzenneger has been chasing fat checks around the country.” Heller noted. “It’s incredible. I think he’s spent more time out of state than any politician in history…. He’s gone fundraising in Texas, in  Floridaa, in Chicago, in Boston, in New York, in New Jersey and Virginias.  He’s gone to Nevada. It’s like a Presidential campaign.”

FTCR is a non-profit watchdog group that mercilessly criticized Schwarzenegger’s predecessor, Democrat Gray Davis, for the same sort of special interest fundraising—fundraising that Schwarzenegger has far surpassed.

“When the Governor called the special election, he basically kicked off 17 months of non-stop campaigning,” said State Senator Deborah Bowen, who represents the South Bay and Harbor areas.  “Voters can look forward to a barrage of television commercials between now and November 8th, then people are going to turn around to start gearing up for the June 2006 primary election, and before you know it, it’ll be time for the November 2006 general election.”

Regarding the purpose behind it all, public service union leaders are particularly clear, seeing their members, and the people they serve right in the middle of the Terminator’s cross-hairs.

“Gov. Schwarzenegger’s “reform” proposals on the Nov. 8 ballot would gut school funding guarantees, attack teacher job security, and undermine union political power,” said A.J. Duffy, President of United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA). “It’s a special election for the special interests. Arnold’s initiatives will hurt our families and communities,” Duffy added.

As for who’s doing the begging, Heller has a different view.

“I think that the big corporate special interest are begging to give Arnold money, because it gives them influence,” Heller told Random Lengths.

“I don’t know if he’s begging when he meets them, but he ends up on his knees when the industry donors come to him for action, because every time one of his contributors has had an issue before the governor, Schwarzeenerger has bowed to their demands. Every time. With prescription drugs, with the car buyers’ rights, with the health care system, and with the energy companies.”

PPIC found that all of Schwarzenegger’s initiatives were in trouble, and that just one supported by his allies—but not yet endorsed by Schwarzenegger—was above 50 percent among “likely voters,” generally a more conservative group than the electorate as a whole. Schwarzenegger himself had a 34 percent approval rate among all Californians, and 41 percent approval, among the whiter, older group of “likely voters.”

His redistricting initiative (Prop 77) is opposed 49-34 percent, while a similar measure that would redraw districts after the census is working its way through the legislature, with bipartisan support. Schwarzenegger wants mid-census redistricting, a tactic Republicans have used in Texas and elsewhere to leverage slight majorities into supermajorities.

His budget initiative (Prop 76)—which would give him more power, and permanently cut school funding—is even less popular, opposed 61-26 percent.

His “teacher tenure” initiative (Prop 74) is leading, but under the 50 percent mark deemed necessary for propositions. It’s supported 49-42 percent.

Only 36 percent of likely voters believe it’s better to hold the special election.

“None of the propositions favored by the governor’s administration are inspiring much passion or enthusiasm among voters,” PPIC’s survey director Mark Baldassare observed.

In short, Schwarzenegger’s claim to represent “the people” against “the special interests” seems to have turned into a laugh line, helped out by his repeated attacks on popular public service employees—nurses, teachers, firefighters and home healthcare workers, who have fought back in a series of highly effective ads accusing the governor of trying to scapegoat them for his own failure to act as the unifying force he promised to be.

Publicly, Schwarzenegger remains upbeat about his chances to reverse public opinion, once all the money he’s raised begins to saturate the airwaves. And opponents are taking nothing for granted.  But perhaps the greatest concern is focused on initiatives pushed by his allies, but which he has so far not championed.  Chief among these is Prop75, would prohibit using public employee union dues for political contributions without individual employees’ active prior consent, which currently has 58 percent support.

There is no restriction on using corporate profits for political contributions—regardless of consumers or shareholders views—nor is one contemplated.  Indeed, utility ratepayers routinely have the money they pay used to lobby against their interests. This is part of the story of how California’s energy crisis, and multi-billion dollar looting came about.  But unions—though vastly outspent by business interests—represent the largest organized source of campaign money to offset the power of corporate special interests. So efforts to stifle union participation in politics have been a recurrent part of the rightwing agenda to “defund the left.”

“This is a deceptive measure with a hidden agenda to essentially clear the field of opposition to cuts in education, health care and retirement security,” said Sarah Leonard, Communications Director for No on 75.  

Indeed, just two boardmembers are listed on the website of the organization behind Prop 75. One of them, Jon Coupal, was the proponent of a pension-busting initiative that would have stripped public service employees—such as police and firefighters—of survivor benefits.  Schwarzenegger dropped support for it under severe criticism, but if Prop 75 passes, it would be much easier to pass a pension-busting initiative next year, Leonard and other Prop 75 opponents warn.

There are broader reasons to defend union power, explains economist Sylvia Allegretto, of the Economic Policy Institute. Union jobs pay more—11.5 percent more per hour on average, 12.7 percent more for blacks, and 16 percent more for Hispanics—and union political power helps protect those jobs, and raise standards for all workers.

“We have child labor laws, we have vacations and holidays, a lot of the battles for things we see today as normal everyday employment practices that people accept without thinking came from hard fought battles that unions won,” Allegretto explained.

Overtime pay is another result of union political power Allegretto pointed to, noting that millions of workers lost overtime protection because of Bush Administration rulemaking last year—an action made possible by declining union power.

“We call Prop. 75 the ‘Paycheck Deception Act,’” said UTLA’s Duffy, closer to home. “This deceptive initiative is about politics, not fairness. It’s sponsored by corporate sepecial interests who want to limit the political voice of teachers, nurses, police and firefighters.

“At UTLA, our members voluntarily contribute to our political action program. By law, only $5 a year from UTLA dues can be used for political purposes. With politics affecting just about every aspect of our professional lives and what happens in our classrooms, we must have a strong voice. Prop. 75 would silence that voice.”

On the other side, nobody’s silencing Schwarzenegger and those lining his pockets…yet.