Activists will “turn their back” on the openly gay candidate

by Brian Leubitz

Carl DeMaio is certainly something of an enigmatic figure. He’s openly gay and extremely conservative. Ok, I get that there are gay Republicans, but this one takes money from Prop 8 donors while promising them he “won’t push the gay special agenda” like the current Mayor, Jerry Sanders. Sanders, as you may recall, testified in favor of Marriage Equality in the Prop 8 trial. DeMaio, well, apparently being gay is enough as it is cool to through his community under the bus to become Mayor. One example:

DeMaio apparently saw no irony in accepting the endorsement of Roger Hedgecock, the former San Diego mayor who was forced to resign after he was convicted on 13 felony charges related to campaign fraud and perjury. Ultimately, a court overturned 12 of the charges on technical grounds and let Hedgecock plead to a misdemeanor for the 13th-but the fact remains, his mayorship ended badly.

The same can’t be said for Hedgecock’s career as a right-wing-radio blowhard. Peddling hate and fear has paid off with national broadcast deals. The LGBT community sees the irony, especially when it comes to DeMaio’s sexuality. In 1986, Hedgecock said he wouldn’t march in the San Diego Pride parade because he blames gays for “the worst plague that we have had in Western culture since the Black Death in the 16th century.” In 1994, Hedgecock sued Pride on behalf of “normal people” who wanted to march in the parade. In 2009, Hedgecock wrote a column that mocked the idea of homosexuality being a civil-rights issue.

DeMaio also has other supporters that won’t exactly be popular at this weekend’s San Diego Pride Parade. But beyond that, Demaio’s partner, Johnathan Hale, has something of a checkered past. He’s had a couple of different names along with a rap sheet that includes a felony conviction for burglary. And this actually matters.

It is rather interesting that DeMaio and Hale haven’t received more attention. I have to imagine that if Gavin Newsom’s spouse had a rap sheet, it would have come up in 2003 when he was running for Mayor. Yet, for some reason, the mainstream press in San Diego seem reluctant to cover it. If elected, Hale would likely have access to even more sensitive information than he does already.

I won’t lie, when given the choice between two relatively equal candidates, LGBT status really does matter to me. Yet DeMaio’s record is so odious as to become meaningless. I know that Bob Filner while not a member of the LGBT community, will do a far better job representing it.

This weekend is Pride in San Diego, and local activists will be turning their back on DeMaio.

Would start building in Central Valley

by Brian Leubitz

High speed rail in California has more than its share of opponents.  But today, it gets started in earnest:

With his most public cheerleading yet for California’s bullet train, Gov. Jerry Brown on Wednesday signed the $8 billion bill to kick off high-speed rail construction as he lobbied to win back voters who are increasingly skeptical of the rail line.

Brown’s day-long, dual-city signature event began during a morning press conference at Union Station in Los Angeles and is set to be followed by another gala with supporters at the future Transbay Terminal in San Francisco. The locations were fitting in many ways since the stations will serve as the two endpoints of the $69 billion line, though Brown had to fly between events.

The centerpiece of SB 1029, however, is $6 billion to start building the first tracks in the Central Valley early next year. The remaining $2 billion will beef up transit while laying the groundwork for high-speed rail in the Bay Area and Southern California, including electrification of the existing Caltrain line between San Francisco and San Jose.(SJ Merc)

So, today is in many ways a momentous one. It means more jobs in the short term, and better infrastructure for more jobs in the long term. It means a future of a more connected California.

“California’s communities will be transformed and linked across the state.  And our nation will enjoy increased global competitiveness, reduced dependence on foreign oil, and more affordable and convenient transportation options for all Americans,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

Using current day thinking, analysts predict poor ridership and many want to just stay with the status quo.  Unfortunately, the status quo, unless we like aging infrastructure and enormous traffic delays, isn’t really an option. Not building HSR demands big road and airport expansion projects. Plus, there is the fact that we’ve probably hit peak oil and gas won’t be getting substantially cheaper from here on out. Mass transit must become more efficient. That means everything from bus and commuter rail to HSR.

But HSR would offer California a unique proposition. Northern and Southern California, two very distinct centers of innovation would be even more easily linked. No other location in the world would offer similar resources. Now, HSR is just one step in increasing our competitiveness. We have to recommit to both K12 and higher education. But the cards are all still out there for an even more vibrant California, we just have to play the right ones.

Prop 40 proponents acknowledge failure, orphan measure

by Brian Leubitz

Earlier in the cycle, Senate Republicans, and the state GOP (along with a few wealthy donors) decided that putting a referendum on the ballot to reject the senate district lines would be a good use of money. Of course, Republicans (in particular Schwarzeneger)were the main supporters of the original initiative to change the redistricting process, but never mind that.

They had intended to get the courts to toss out the old maps for the 2012 election, but during the court case didn’t actually provide a reason to do so. You can read more about the CASupCt’s decision in my summary of the opinion, but long story short the Commission map was just the easiest and most representative map to use. It complied with the equal representation requirement, took a lot of comment about the lines from the public and generally tried to meet the goals of the initiative.

That left the GOP with a very visible problem: what to do about Prop 40? If they actively tried to win on the referendum, we would have another set of maps for 2014. With voters already confused from the once-a-decade redistricting, that hardly seemed wise politically.  Instead we got a ballot statement from the proponents of the referendum that basically said, we’re sorry, this is a waste of time, nothing to see here. In short, they left Prop 40 for dead, orphaning it on the ballot.

Joe Matthews looks at the eternal question of why orphaned/zombie initiatives stay on the ballot, but I’ll put in a point for keeping these measures on the ballot. Let’s say some other group thought that the senate referendum was a good idea, but they saw that the CAGOP was putting it on the ballot. They would have likely abandoned their own efforts. If we allowed the proponents to take measures off the ballot, we would just allow proponents to abandon other potential supporters. There is no hard and fast reason why some other group of supporters couldn’t come in and spend millions of dollars to help get the initiative passed.

IMHO, once the initiative is on the ballot, it belongs to the people. Colorado’s system of requiring both the Legislature and the proponents to agree makes a bit more sense, risks remain.

So, when you get to Prop 40, remember that pretty much nobody wants to see the referendum overturn the maps. But perhaps we get some interesting information on baseline yes/no percentages for referendums?

UPDATE from the comments: DavidT reminds us to vote YES on Prop 40 to keep the maps.

Cities throwing in the towel on fiscal issues

by Brian Leubitz

The budget issues in cities across the state are trying at best. With state cutbacks and lower than expected growth in sales tax revenue, many are facing severe budget issues.  So…

Facing the same financial stressors that pushed San Bernardino toward bankruptcy, cities across California are slashing day-to-day services and taking other drastic actions to skirt a similar fiscal collapse.

For some, it may not be enough.

San Bernardino on Tuesday became the third California city to seek bankruptcy protection in the last month and, while no one expects the state to be consumed by municipal insolvencies, other cities teeter on the abyss.(LATimes)

Now, decreasing the pressure to pay back bond holders in a time of crisis might be the best course for some of these cities. However, the other side of this issue is that benefits that were agreed to many years ago in a negotiation process are now being reversed. Typically, the cities negotiate  in order to reduce the fiscal strain at some point in the process, but when it comes to bankruptcy, all bets are off. And in many cases, this is putting some real stress on retirees.

“I am already taking generic meds for cholesterol and triglycerides against my doctor’s advice, I can’t afford the $70 co-pay. My wife cries all the time. She don’t understand how when they promise you all this stuff, then they can] just take it away,” he said in court documents.([LA Times)

The stigma of muni bankruptcies may be decreasing but the impacts are still substantial.  At this point, let’s hope that we can move forward through the traditional budgeting process for a while to come.

Lengthy ballot contains several big questions

by Brian Leubitz

Monday, the SoS office released the ballot numbering. Now, typically being at the top of the ballot is better, but unless you are very close it doesn’t play a huge role in the outcome. Here are a few off the cuff explanations. Though many are opinion-based, these shouldn’t be construed as endorsements.

Proposition 30              Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. The Governor’s Tax Measure would bring in billions of dollars for education and public services.

Proposition 31              State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. Restricts the budgeting process to a “pay as you go” formula through an unnecessarily strict and inflexible process

Proposition 32              Prohibits Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Prohibitions on Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute. (I work for No on 32) Right-wing attempt to go after labor, yet again. We’ve said no twice already, we need to say NO, NO, NO!

Proposition 33              Changes Law to Allow Auto Insurance Companies to Set Prices Based on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute. Mercury Insurance measure to change loyalty discounts.

Proposition 34              Death Penalty Repeal. Initiative Statute Repeals death penalty.

Proposition 35              Human Trafficking. Penalties. Sex Offender Registration. Initiative Statute. Former AG candidate Chris Kelly helped to get this on the ballot, it would further strengthen laws against sex offenders.

Proposition 36              Three Strikes Law. Sentencing for Repeat Felony Offenders. Initiative Statute. Reforms wasteful 3 strikes sentencing measure.

Proposition 37              Genetically Engineered Foods. Mandatory Labeling. Initiative Statute. Would require labeling of GMOs.

Proposition 38              Tax for Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute. Munger tax initiative dedicated to public education. Flat income tax boost.

Proposition 39              Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute. Changes a tax provision of a budget from a few years back. Would use revenue to fund clean energy projects.

Proposition 40              Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum. GOP temper tantrum gone awry. Could invalidate the State Senate Maps.

While the water bond may come off the ballot, the peripheral canal still has many supporters of its own

by Brian Leubitz

California has always been fractuous, coastal versus inland, north versus south. But many of the issues tend to be about water. Where it is (NorCal), where it isn’t (SoCal), who has a guaranteed supply(SF and its Hetch Hetchy reserve, etc) and who is chronically looking for more (LA and agrobusiness). Yet nothing really draws ire (and desire) like the Peripheral Canal.

In 1982, the California voters strongly rejected Prop 9, which would have secured the Canal by a vote of nearly 63%. The vote was, unsurprisingly, heavily tilted towards a NorCal v SoCal dispute. However, moving water out of Northern California for human and agricultural use and moving toward the more arid Southern California was just one reason.

It is just as true today that the consequences of moving the vast quantities of water south that the Canal designers envision would create unknown and possibly disastrous environmental consequences. Beyond the possible (if not likely) extinction of the Delta smelt, other fish and fisheries would be severely impacted. Given the likelihood that the Sierra snowpack will be in continual decline as we continue to see the signs of climate change, the health of the estuary would be even more threatened by a massive Canal today than it would have been 30 years ago.

But in reality, this is all about lobbying and the power of the diffuse interest of the many in the environment, and the power of the few moneyed interests of Southern California’s agrobusiness. In reality, Southern California was never a very good place to grow crops. Historically it has been very dry, with a small exception over a particularly wet 20th century. But that will not continue (and has not recently) and more and more irrigation is required in what is essentially semi-arid desert. That is not to say that agriculture is completely impossible there, but to continue to farm like water is abundant is short-sighted at best.

The Canal is frequently portrayed as something that will help the entire Southern California population, but as Restore the Delta’s Bill Jennings points out, the Canal is first and foremost a tool for the Westlands Water Districts and their powerful allies:

[The Canal] serves few. Two-thirds of delta exports serve corporate agriculture on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, which accounts for less than 0.5 percent of California’s economy and population. Only a third goes to urban areas that make up half the state’s population and economy. The water will be too expensive for farmers. And urban ratepayers will revolt if asked to subsidize corporate farmers.

Yesterday, a coalition of environmentalists, sportsmen, fishermen and other assorted organizations came together to write a letter to the Dept. of Interior to delay any green light for a Canal plan:

Twelve Members of the California Congressional Delegation requested that you not proceed at this time.  They are right.  Californians deserve a more forthcoming Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce.   Full disclosure – and “policy before plumbing” should be provided to all Californians and every taxpayer.  Absent responsible policy firmly in place, this proposal looms as a giant unfunded Federal mandate and a recipe for a boondoggle, not one for reliable water service. (Joint letter)

Those twelve members, well perhaps as is to be expected, consist mainly of the Bay Area’s delegation, but their words are nonetheless powerful:

The twelve California Democrats warned that the plan – as described in a recent briefing in Washington and public meeting in Sacramento – “raises far more questions than it answers, and appears to turn the maxim of ‘policy before plumbing’ on its head.” The Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) proposal recently developed by state and federal officials would allow for the construction of massive tunnels – capable of draining the Sacramento River at a rate of 15,000 cubic feet per second – but delay any decisions about the uses of the project for as many as fifteen years. The members of Congress wrote that a poorly designed plan for the Bay Delta “could increase water exports from the Bay-Delta estuary – while failing to restore the Bay-Delta ecosystem and rebuild salmon and other California fisheries as required by law.” (Press Release)

The Canal wasn’t ready in 1982, and it isn’t ready now. It is a poorly considered and underfunded project that threatens one of America’s greatest natural resources, the San Francisco Bay.