All posts by paulhogarth

Uncategorized

Prop 8 Aftermath: Newsom Biggest Loser, a Dire Need for Reform and the Chronicle’s Cluelessness

From today’s Beyond Chron.

Mayor Gavin Newsom and his gubernatorial ambitions lost big-not because the voters approved Proposition 8, but because his campaigning proved (once again) how incapable he is of directly engaging those he disagrees with.  San Franciscans have long known that Newsom is thin-skinned, as he doesn’t meet with the Board of Supervisors – even after voters formally asked him to.  Newsom’s press conference on November 5th at City Hall again showed how defensive he is to criticism, as the Mayor dismissed the local election results – including the embarrassing defeat of his Community Justice Center.  Prop 8’s passage is a setback to advancing marriage equality, and it’s time to hold the movement’s leaders accountable.  It also exposed a perverse flaw in our initiative process: how can a simple majority vote to change the Constitution, while most tax increases and bond measures in California require a two-thirds vote?  And while the SF Chronicle made a big deal of how 25% of San Franciscans voted for Prop 8, that’s about how many voted for Proposition 98 on the June ballot-which got killed statewide.

Newsom Biggest Loser-at Home and Statewide:

I don’t buy the conventional wisdom that Gavin Newsom “gloating” about the state Supreme Court decision cost the defeat of marriage equality.  The Mayor had every right to celebrate that joyous occasion-and as he told a City Hall press conference, he has “no regrets” about standing up for a civil rights issue.  And you have to admire how he didn’t let reporters goad him about how Prop 8’s passage hurt his gubernatorial ambitions.

But it did … and not because California voted to put discrimination in the Constitution, nor because the Prop 8 campaign used him as their poster child.  Newsom allowed the opposition to scare him into believing he was a pariah, and he kept his campaigning against the measure on college campuses and liberal precincts.  Unlike Mark Leno, who regularly goes on right-wing talk radio to promote gay rights, Newsom isn’t comfortable stepping out of his bubble – which is not a good sign if he wants to run for Governor.

Newsom hasn’t lost the LGBT community.  They still love him, and will strongly support his gubernatorial campaign.  But their liberal allies-like organized labor-will look for another candidate, because Newsom proved his weaknesses at assembling a “winning” coalition.  I rarely agree with Phil Bronstein of the SF Chronicle, but his scathing analysis was fairly accurate.  Newsom is so insecure that he can only campaign in front of favorable crowds.

In 1978, Supervisor Harvey Milk made himself the public face on television to defeat the Briggs Initiative – that would’ve banned LGBT teachers – and we won a huge victory.  Was an openly gay politician thirty years ago any more of a “liability” for a statewide campaign than a San Francisco Mayor with gubernatorial ambitions?

We’ve known for years that Newsom is thin-skinned – and it affects where he chooses to campaign.  In 2006, San Franciscans passed an advisory measure that he engage in policy discussion with the Supervisors – which he simply refused to do.  When I asked him about it, he lied to me about meeting with the Board President “once a week.”  In 2007, when Question Time was a mandatory ballot measure, he prioritized its defeat while ignoring other propositions like Muni Reform.

At Wednesday’s press conference, Newsom was particularly defensive when asked about local election results.  The Mayor devoted substantial resources to promoting moderate candidates for Supervisor in Districts 1, 3, and 11 – but it looks like all three of them lost.  Newsom deflected that question by heralding the re-election victories of his allies on the Board – Carmen Chu and Sean Elsbernd – although their races were never in question.

He also took credit for the passage of Proposition A (a hospital bond where Newsom was just one of many, many elected officials to support), the defeat of Proposition K (the prostitution measure where D.A. Kamala Harris deserves more credit), and the passage of Proposition V (the JROTC measure that passed by a much smaller margin than most people expected.)

Of the three measures where Newsom was the main sponsor, two of them – Propositions L and P – were soundly defeated.

Prop L (the Community Justice Center)’s defeat was a real shock, and the Mayor has no one to blame but himself for failing to run a campaign.  I had written before that Supervisor Chris Daly’s threat to “defund the CJC” (the Mayor’s reason for keeping Prop L on the ballot) had no real teeth.  But now that the voters have spoken, Newsom’s archrival has a powerful argument for getting his colleagues to kill it.

Next Steps After Proposition 8:

Progressives are still mourning the passage of Prop 8-which was completely avoidable if the campaign had been far less reactive.  City Attorney Dennis Herrera is suing to invalidate Prop 8, and the ACLU has filed a complaint – but like all legal matters, we won’t get results for a long while.  Another route is to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which bars same-sex couples from Social Security, joint tax filings or immigration rights-even if they live in a state with marriage or civil unions.

Repealing DOMA requires an act of Congress, followed by the President’s signature.  As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama supported a complete repeal of DOMA – which made him a far better candidate for the LGBT community than Hillary Clinton.  It’s a no-brainer to go full-speed ahead on repealing DOMA, but there’s no question that Prop 8’s passage will make it far more politically difficult.  And even if successful, it still won’t bring back marriage equality in California.

Unless a lawsuit prevails, our sole remedy is to run a statewide initiative campaign to repeal Prop 8 – which is daunting, exhausting and altogether depressing after what we just went through.

But if we must, there’s a clear lesson: we cannot allow the people who ran “No on 8” to the ground repeat the same mistakes, and that means asking tough questions.  Rick Jacobs of the Courage Campaign also adds that the queer community could learn a lot from the Obama phenomenon: don’t be afraid to be yourself, and don’t defer to the self-appointed leaders who have failed us time and again.

The Need for Initiative Reform:

In the past two days, many have pointed the absurdity that a simple majority of California voters can vote to change the state Constitution – effectively taking rights away from a small minority.  Amending the United States Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate, which then must be ratified by three-fourths of all state legislatures.  At his press conference, Mayor Newsom stated: “protections in the Constitution have always been there to respect the rights of the minority – versus popular opinion.”  All major civil rights laws and court decisions would likely have been repealed if voters had their say.

But in California, you can change the Constitution by a simple majority vote.  The only bulwark from a “tyranny of the majority” is that the number of signatures required to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot is higher than what you need for a statute.

In California, it costs millions of dollars to run a signature-gathering campaign to put something on the ballot.  So we now have a cottage industry of “signature gathering firms” who get paid by wealthy interests to collect enough signatures to put something on the ballot.  For example, when Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens wanted a proposition to benefit his gas companies, he paid a “signature gathering firm” to put Prop 10 on the ballot.  Voters wisely rejected Prop 10, but we’re not always that lucky.

Meanwhile, state and local governments are strapped for cash because they cannot raise revenue or issue bonds without putting a proposition on the ballot.  In most cases, these measures require a two-thirds supermajority.  I don’t support abolishing initiatives, nor is it necessarily a bad thing to have voters change the Constitution.  But we should require all state constitutional amendments to get at least a two-thirds majority by the voters.

San Franciscans are Not Conservative:

Once again, the Chronicle proved how clueless it is about the city’s electorate-as Heather Knight reported that San Francisco “defied its far-left reputation.”  Evidence?  One-in-four voters “surprisingly” voted to ban same-sex marriage.

Is that because blacks (including those in San Francisco) voted for Prop 8-which gave the proposition a majority statewide vote?  No.  The truth is that San Francisco always has a conservative minority on everything.  In June, for example, 25% of San Francisco voted to ban rent control – even though Proposition 98 lost big statewide.  With all the complaints I have about the “No on 8” campaign – and how they totally blew it with African-Americans – they did very well locally.  San Francisco strongly supported marriage equality.

But what about San Franciscans supporting JROTC, rejecting public power and prostitution, or flushing down the George W. Bush Sewage Treatment Plant?  That doesn’t mean we are a conservative electorate.  All of these measures had their problems, and the so-called “liberal” point of view wasn’t supposed to prevail.  In fact, as I argued on Wednesday, the SF Democratic Party’s slate card went a long way to narrow the margin in those races – preventing what should have been a more decisive “conservative” vote.

As much as the Chronicle wants to believe otherwise, we’re still a left-wing town.

California, Marriage Equality

Why We Lost Prop 8: When Reactive Politics Become Losing Politics

41 Comments

From today’s Beyond Chron.

Proposition 8 is still “too close to call,” but the initiative to ban marriage equality led all night – with the measure ahead 52-48 at 3:00 a.m.  It pains me to describe it this way, but “No on 8” – like Michael Dukakis – blew a seventeen-point lead.  Progressives were lulled into complacency by early poll numbers, and distracted by the Barack Obama campaign – even after it became apparent he would win.

But “No on 8” was also a reactive campaign that did not anticipate the opposition’s arguments to sway swing voters.  Bloggers were effective at pushing memes to define the opposition, but it failed to define much of the race.  And “No on 8” did not push a simple and compelling message – “Obama Opposes Prop 8” – to the African-American community until the other side beat them to it, forcing them to play catch-up.  This is no time for making excuses, or inspiring words that we’re part of a greater struggle.  Our right to marry just got taken away from us, and we’ve got to be smart if we’re going to get it back.

I’ll freely admit I was one of many progressives distracted by the presidential race and lulled into a false sense of security about Prop 8.  But in early October, after returning from a week in Wisconsin to help Obama, it became apparent that Barack was going to win by a landslide-and that Bay Area activists were wasting their time driving to Reno while there was important work to be done at home.  New poll numbers on Prop 8 jolted me out of complacency (one could say I “reacted” to bad news), but my pleas about the presidential race fell on deaf ears.  Somehow, progressives still shell-shocked from 2004 were afraid that simply believing Obama was going to win would “jinx” the outcome.

I heard a lot from marriage equality activists last night about “how far” we have come since the days of the Knight Initiative-Proposition 22, where 61% of California voters in March 2000 voted to add discrimination in the marriage code.  But we forget how incredibly conservative that particular election’s turnout was-and we simply don’t have the same excuse for Prop 8’s recent fate. California voters who narrowly supported Prop 8 also rejected the anti-choice Proposition 4 (despite it also being neck-and-neck in the polls), approved a bond for high-speed rail (Proposition 1A), and crushed Proposition 6 (the Runner Initiative) despite the state’s general “law and order” reputation.

We need to face the fact that Prop 8 passed because a lot of liberal people voted for it-swing voters who should have known better, if only they had the right message.

These swing voters like to think of themselves as “tolerant.”  They believe they support gay rights, but are not always comfortable thinking much about the issue.  They have a “live-and-let-live” approach, and don’t appreciate any group of people indoctrinating their worldview on the rest of society.  For a while, the “No on 8” message worked well with this crowd: it is morally wrong to have religious extremists impose their definition of marriage on the rest of society, singling out groups of people who don’t apply and depriving them of a basic right.  Telling them the Mormons were funneling $20 million into the Prop 8 campaign was an especially effective message for this group.

The problem happened when the Prop 8 campaign-through blatant lies and deceit-changed the subject into gays and lesbians imposing their agenda on our elementary school children.  Suddenly, the people who were “indoctrinating” people who have a “live and let live” attitude was the homosexual agenda.  It became apparent to me a few weeks ago when I was phone-banking for “No on 8.” I spoke to a black woman in San Francisco’s Western Addition who was dead-set against gay marriage now that she had been scared into believing we were imposing our lifestyle on her.  And when people are afraid, it’s hard to make them listen to facts-especially if they don’t know you.

One of the basic lessons in activism is to not react to a problem when it comes up, but to be pro-active and frame the agenda.  It’s not like right-wing extremists haven’t used the “gay marriage will be taught in our schools” line before, and the campaign should have been ready to anticipate such attacks.  As far back as 1998, the first ballot proposition to ban marriage equality in Hawaii had a TV spot with a small child reading a book about two fathers-and he then gets confused.  The message back then for swing voters was the same message California swing voters got now-“will my kids have to learn about it?”

Another basic rule is to anticipate what strategies the opposition will come up with to lure voters, and to preempt them with your own overtures.  Gay marriage supporters were not happy that Barack Obama said he believes marriage is “between a man and a woman,” but he rarely got credit for going further than any presidential candidate had gone before.  He supports fully repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, and – more importantly – he came out against California’s Proposition 8.  Knowing that Obama was going to win the state comfortably, “No on 8” should have stressed Obama’s opposition from Day One.

They did not, and it allowed the Prop 8 campaign to get African-American voters on their side by leading them to believe that Obama supports Prop 8.  As I’ve written before, the black vote was critical in this race.  Polls showing Prop 8 either ahead or behind hinged almost completely on whether African-Americans strongly supported it-or barely supported it.  Aggressive overtures needed to be made to that community, and there was no better messenger in this election for this group of voters than Barack Obama.

Instead, “No on 8” waited until the other side made their own hit piece that implied an Obama endorsement of Prop 8.  By then, we were being reactive.

Finally, I did go to the “No on 8” campaign office in the Castro as often as I could-but quickly became frustrated at what they were asking volunteers to do.  I was happy talking on the phone with swing voters-which was useful and effective-but they seemed more interested in having us do visibility in San Francisco, going to strongly liberal (even gay) parts of town to make sure our base knew they had to vote “no.”  Rather than preaching to the choir, we were told this was useful because much of our base was confused-that some supporters think they’re supposed to vote “yes” on Prop 8 to affirm gay marriage.

I don’t doubt there were a few cases of gay people in San Francisco who were confused, and accidentally voted for Prop 8.  But this appeared excessively anecdotal and reactive, when I was far more interested in being pro-active and effective in getting work done.  Ironically, it turns out that a percentage of our opposition was equally confused-if not more so, which made the issue a wash.  When I dropped “No on 8” literature in East Oakland, I ran into an African-American woman-who said she would vote “no” on Prop 8 because she “really didn’t want” gay marriage being taught in public schools.

It is now 4:22 a.m. on Wednesday morning, and Prop 8 is still up 52-48 with 90% of precincts reporting.  Now that discrimination has been enshrined in our Constitution, it will require another vote of the people to have it repealed.  I don’t doubt that with the state getting younger, future efforts at marriage equality will be successful.  But I can’t help believing we have seriously blown an opportunity in this election to give the right wing a stunning defeat-one that would forever leave them on the ash heap of history.

We need to start now to organize … and this time, let’s do it right.

Marriage Equality

SF Chronicle Jeopardizes Marriage Equality

From today’s Beyond Chron.

In the final stretch of this election, Proposition 8 is dangerously close in the polls-after months of it being safely behind.  With massive out-of-state funding, including $8.4 million from the Mormon Church, the “Yes on 8” campaign has scared many swing voters into falsely believing that marriage equality will intrude on their religion and indoctrinate their children.  And while the San Francisco Chronicle took a formal position against it, the paper’s news coverage-which has a far greater impact than its editorial endorsements-has actively pushed a meme that helps Prop 8’s message.  Over the last two weeks, the paper has treated a first-grade teacher’s wedding as front-page news, repeated the line that Gavin Newsom is a liability and that San Francisco is “so different” from the rest of the state, and fomented divisions within liberal constituencies that give wavering voters an “out” in supporting Prop 8.  With the stakes in this election higher than virtually any other race, the Chronicle should not think that merely opposing Prop 8 can absolve them of responsibility should it pass on November 4th.

When the state Supreme Court ruled that all couples have the right to marry, I boldly predicted that Prop 8 would fail.  Once swing voters started seeing their friends, neighbors and relatives get married, I reasoned, attitudes would evolve and the measure would go down-as it has changed opinions in Massachusetts.  The “No on 8” campaign’s basic message is that regardless of how one may feel about same-sex marriage, no group should be singled out of a basic right-a position that swing voters can respect and relate to.

The “Yes on 8” campaign knew they could only win if they changed the subject, so with heavy financial backing from the Mormon Church have flooded the airwaves with blatant lies and scare tactics like “churches could lose their tax-exempt status” and “children in public schools will be taught gay marriage-even if parents object.”  Now some swing voters who say they have “no problem” with gay people are afraid that marriage equality will “indoctrinate” their children and interfere with religious practices.  And once voters are afraid and don’t trust you, it’s a lot harder to make them listen to facts that refute it.

So why did the San Francisco Chronicle make its front-page story on October 11th about a first-grade class attending their lesbian teacher’s wedding?  Going to see your teacher get married is nothing new, and certainly not front-page material.  When I was in second grade, a (straight) teacher at my school got married.  Not only did her students attend the wedding-they even sang at the wedding.  I don’t fault the school for bringing the first grade kids to the lesbian wedding-which, by the way, had the blessing of each child’s parents.  But putting it on the front page of the Chronicle gave the “Yes on 8” campaign what they needed: a visual that gays are “indoctrinating” young children.

According to Jill Tucker, who wrote the Chronicle story, the parents who organized the trip actively sought media coverage-and the paper decided on its own that it was “news” enough to deserve front-page treatment.  But the Chronicle didn’t have to accept their solicitation.  If this was 2004, when San Francisco conducted same-sex weddings in defiance of state law, it probably would have been newsworthy-despite resulting in the same right-wing backlash.  But now that gay and lesbian weddings are sanctioned by the Supreme Court, a wedding is really not noteworthy.  Prop 8 opponents can point out the kids had their parents’ consent to attend, but the damage was done to scare swing voters.

One might excuse the Chronicle for a temporary lapse in judgment.  But its coverage of Prop 8 over the past two weeks has consistently framed San Francisco Values as freakishly out-of-touch with the rest of California-just like they did before on other issues.

An October 14th story described Mayor Gavin Newsom as “everyone’s worst nightmare” because the “Yes on 8” side used his Supreme Court victory speech in one of their ads-as if now we should never applaud a court decision.  John Diaz even lectured Newsom that what draws cheers in San Francisco won’t “play well in Redlands or Redding”-as if those two Republican cities are more representative of California than San Francisco.  No Democratic statewide candidate, by the way, ever does well in Redding or Redlands-so don’t be surprise when Newsom fares poorly in those parts for his gubernatorial bid.

Newsom himself only reinforced the Chronicle’s meme by keeping a low profile during the Prop 8 campaign.  He did speak at the “No on 8” campaign office kick-off in the Castro, but (half-jokingly) described San Francisco as “forty-seven square miles surrounded by reality.”  So according to our own Mayor, San Francisco isn’t the “real” America?  As far as I’m concerned, that sounds too much like how Republicans are talking these days.

On October 22nd, the Chronicle had another front-page story about Prop 8.  Pursuing a narrative that only gives cover to swing voters for voting against marriage equality, John Wildermuth quoted a 29-year-old student who said she had gay friends-but argued she could “still love these persons and be for Prop 8.”

Why is that dangerous?  Because supporters of Prop 8 claim their measure is not about hate-but rather about preventing one group from “imposing” their lifestyle on the rest of us.  Swing voters like to think of themselves as tolerant (but they’re uncomfortable with anyone indoctrinating them), and such a line gives them the perfect “out” to say they can vote for Prop 8 without being bigots.  Wildermuth, however, never used his article to ask an obvious question: how can you “love” gay people while taking away their rights?

But that wasn’t even the worse Chronicle article that day.  A companion piece about each side in the Prop 8 fight targeting African-Americans only further legitimized the fearful aspects of that community.  The piece pictured a black woman wearing an Obama shirt and holding a “Yes on 8” sign-without mentioning the irony that Barack Obama strongly opposes Prop 8.  If the Chronicle asked her about that, her answer didn’t make it in the article.

The piece also uncritically quoted a black minister, who explained his position in favor of Prop 8 by saying: “you didn’t see very many blacks getting married in San Francisco.”  The Chronicle could have pointed out that (a) San Francisco has a relatively small black population, (b) gay couples can now get married anywhere in the state, and (c) there are about 7,400 African-American gay couples living in California.  As Harrison Chastang has written, the black community today is less riled up to oppose same-sex marriage than four years ago.

Under the auspices of “journalism,” the Chronicle painted a picture that implies black voters-who will be voting in droves for Barack Obama-will help pass Prop 8.  Never mind that this coverage only brings out the worst aspects of fear and ignorance, at a time when black marriage equality supporters are working hard to educate their community about this critical issue.

Proposition 8 isn’t your run-of-the-mill electoral fight where armchair pundits can reduce the coverage to “who’s up” and “who’s down” like they do for candidate campaigns.  The stakes are much higher here because it’s a constitutional amendment-and one that will have a far more lasting effect on the lives of ordinary people.  Politically, passing Prop 8 passage could be a disaster for marriage equality supporters-turning back the clock on this civil rights movement for many years.  That’s why the Chronicle needs to be very sensitive on how they analyze the issue, without fueling lies and misconceptions.

The Chronicle may have taken a formal “no” position on Prop 8-as have virtually every major newspaper in California.  But its news coverage will have a much greater effect on the outcome than the paper’s oft-ignored editorials.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Outside of work hours and on his own time, Paul Hogarth has phonebanked for “No on 8” at their campaign office in the Castro-and urges Beyond Chron readers to do the same.

California, Marriage Equality

How to Stop “Yes on 8” Banner Ads on your Blog

The anti-gay bigots at “Yes on 8” (California’s initiative to eliminate marriage rights) have spent a ton of money on Google ads — and are targeting blogs and computers based out of California.  Progressive blogs who abhor Prop 8 have found “Yes on 8” ads pop up on their front page, because they have Google banner ads.  This has led many websites who use Google Ad Sense to get grief from their readers for supporting a homophobic agenda … even though they knew nothing about promoting “Yes on 8” ads.

Fortunately, there’s a way for blogs who use Google Ad Sense to filter out “Yes on 8.”  Here’s how …

(1) Login to your AdSense account.

(2) Click on ‘AdSense Setup’ tab.

(3) Click on ‘Competitive Ad Filter’ sub-tab.

(4) Enter url in this form: ‘www.protectmarriage.com’ in the box provided under ‘AdSense for Content Filters’

(5) Click on ‘Save Changes’

It may take a few hours for AdSense to start blocking the ads, but it works.

The “Yes on 8” campaign has spent a ton of money to get out their message, and I’m afraid it’s working.  Don’t let your website or blog become an unwillingly complicit in this effort.

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Schwarzenegger Sinks to New Low

From today’s Beyond Chron.

Arnold’s executive order laying off 10,000 state employees – and slashing another 200,000 paychecks to the federal minimum wage – is not just insulting because he’s punishing people for the actions of others.  It’s that the budget crisis we’re in is largely his fault, and the Governor refuses to take responsibility.  Starting with Schwarzenegger’s first day in office when he repealed the Vehicle License Fee, Arnold has played one game of fiscal gymnastics after another – leaving us with today’s budget deficit of $17 billion.  With right-wing Republicans in the state legislature still playing their usual game of obstructionism, Arnold has shown no leadership of reining them in – and now says that state workers have to suffer.  When Newt Gingrich did this to federal employees in 1995, he paid a heavy political price for it.  Will the press let Arnold off the hook again?

Imagine you’re a nurse in a state hospital, or a lawyer in the Attorney General’s Office – and your boss says you now have to work for $6.55/hour.  That’s what Arnold calls a needed stopgap measure for a state budget that is six weeks past due.  It’s easy to blame the legislature’s Republican minority – who every year refuse to pass a budget with any tax increase whatsoever, and can hold it hostage because the state requires a 2/3 majority.  But we’ve come to expect irresponsible obstructionism from these right-wingers – who still won’t say how they’ll come up with a solution.  Schwarzenegger’s supposed to be a “post-partisan” moderate Republican, and it’s his job to bring them in line.

The Governor admitted last week that laying off temporary workers and cutting everyone else’s salaries down to minimum wage won’t resolve anything.  But Arnold has nobody to blame but himself for the fiscal mess we’re in today – because for five years, he has repeatedly played a game of “borrow, borrow, borrow” to put off one budget crisis after another.  And inevitably, the chickens have come home to roost.

In 2003, on his first day in office, Arnold Schwarzenegger repealed the Vehicle License Fee.  This modest tax had been around since 1935 – where car owners paid 1.5% on the purchase of a new automobile.  Governor Earl Warren raised it to 2% in 1948, but the state temporarily lowered it in 1998 because of excess revenues (understanding that it would be restored when the state hit hard times.)  In one fell swoop in 2003, the state lost $5 billion in revenue for the first year – with increasing losses each successive years.

We already had an $11 billion deficit when Arnold repealed the so-called “car tax” – but never mind.  Schwarzenegger then placed a $15 billion bond measure on the March 2004 ballot, called it the “California Recovery Act” and convinced voters that we needed it to bring our fiscal house in order.  The trouble with bonds is that they have to be paid back with interest – and paying off one year’s deficit is now costing the state $1 billion a year.

If it had never been repealed, the Vehicle License Fee would net the state $6.5 billion this year.  Add the $1 billion we currently owe for interest on the 2004 Bond, and the Governor is single-handedly responsible for a $7.5 billion hole in this year’s budget alone – or almost half the deficit.  So what’s Arnold’s solution for this year’s budget, since he balks at raising taxes?  Another bond measure – borrowed against future lottery revenues.

When you’re already in a hole, it’s a good idea to stop digging.  “What about next year,” asked a frustrated Assemblyman Mark Leno.  “Are we going to bond against future income taxes?  Are we going to bond against future property taxes?  This is like an addict desperate for the next fix.  We need to be honest with the people of California, and admit that the state has a revenue problem.  And the way you get out of it is through taxes.”

The Democrats in the legislature have a comromise to plug the state’s $17 billion deficit – which involve a painful set of budget cuts coupled with reasonable tax increases.  $5.6 billion could be achieved by asking Californians who make more than $272,000 a year to pay an extra 1% on their state income tax (from 9 to 10%.)  This increase was originally placed in the ’60s by Governor Ronald Reagan, repealed by George Deukmeijan and then restored temporarily by Pete Wilson.  So it’s the Reagan-Wilson tax rate for the wealthy.

Another $1.1 billion could be raised by nixing a tax break that businesses use when they have a net operating loss one year.  “In a year when we’re asking the blind, disabled and elderly not to take a cost-of-living adjustment,” explained Leno, “it’s fair to also ask businesses not to benefit from an accounting allowance.”  Another $1.5 billion could be realized by temporarily lifting a fine that people who owe back taxes must pay – which would actively encourage scofflaws to pay up, bringing the state more revenue.

But Republicans in the legislature – whose votes are needed to get a 2/3 majority to pass the budget – simply refuse to acknowledge we have a revenue problem.  All 15 GOP State Senators and 31 of their 32 Assembly members have signed the infamous Grover Norquist pledge to “oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes.”  Schwarzenegger refuses to bring them in line – and now wants to punish state workers with layoffs and pay cuts.

For years, I’ve assumed that – beyond the 2/3 requirement – the culprit for this gridlock is the state’s ultra-partisan redistricting.  After the 2000 U.S. Census, the Democrats and Republicans in the legislature drew the lines in such a way that each district was virtually guaranteed to elect a member of one party or another.  The result is that Republicans who go to Sacramento are extremely conservative – and come from districts whose electorate is more likely to punish an incumbent for being “too moderate” than “too extreme.”

But that’s no longer the case.  In a recent statewide poll of registered Republican, 65% said the state legislature should pass a budget (even if it means more taxes) – whereas only 29% said “no new taxes” (even if it means gridlock.)  These G.O.P. legislators are out of touch with their own constituents – and it’s time for them to join the Democrats and support some very modest revenue measures.

Moreover, the media needs to shame Arnold for passing the buck on state employees – as opposed to all the other times they’ve let him off the hook.  People who work for the state don’t deserve that kind of abuse, and the Governor’s as bad as Newt Gingrich for taking this move.

Uncategorized

Obama Rejected Illinois Rent Control Ban

From today’s Beyond Chron.

Chicago does not have rent control.  In 1997, the Illinois legislature passed – and Republican Governor Jim Edgar signed – SB 531 (the Rent Control Preemption Act), which prohibited local jurisdictions from passing it.  At the time, no city in Illinois had rent control – but the real estate lobby had a national effort to quietly stop it in places before it starts.  SB 531 passed with little fanfare: the State House voted for it 96-18, and the State Senate approved it 46-6.  One of the six senators who voted “no” was Barack Obama – although many liberal Democrats voted with landlords and the Senate’s Republican majority.  Obama’s vote – when one considers how few people stood up with him – is an example of his core progressive principles.  While it’s valid to say that he should have done more to defeat it, consider that Obama was a freshman in a very hostile climate – and as a community organizer had learned to pick his battles.

Illinois Senate Bill 531 was part of a larger national campaign in the 1990’s by the real estate lobby to defeat tenant protections.  Efforts to weaken rent control in California (where Costa-Hawkins passed in 1995) and repeal it in Massachusetts (which the voters narrowly did in 1994) got the lion’s share of public attention.  But a more quiet and effective tactic – which also encountered less opposition – was to pass “rent control preemption” in states where it did not exist.  The Farm Bureau used a similar tactic in the 1970’s to push anti-farmworker legislation, and in some states it slipped by without the United Farm Workers (UFW) knowing it.

Last month’s defeat of California’s Proposition 98 was a strong mandate for rent control – and the genesis of a renewed tenant movement.  But when Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley and other cities have had rent control for years, it’s easier to mobilize renters against a landlord attack.  Chicago did not have rent control when SB 531 passed – and besides a tenant’s rights ordinance passed in 1986 by Mayor Harold Washington, had few protections.  When landlords pushed a bill to ban rent control in Springfield, Democratic legislators did not feel pressured to mount an opposition.

Enter Barack Obama, a freshman legislator in early 1997 from Chicago’s Hyde Park. At the time, the Illinois State Senate had a Republican majority – led by James “Pate” Philip of suburban DuPage County, a powerful figure who said that black people “do not have the work ethics that we have” and opposed raising welfare payments because “they’d probably just buy more lottery tickets.”  Obama, who had literally just arrived in Springfield, had to vote on a real estate-funded bill sponsored by Tom Walsh – another DuPage County Republican and an ally of “Pate” Philip.

It goes without saying that Obama did not have much power at the time to stop SB 531.  He voted against it, but only five of his colleagues joined him.  What’s disconcerting is how many liberal Democrats voted for it – including John Cullerton of Chicago’s Lincoln Park and Donne Trotter from Chicago’s South Side.  It’s clear from the roll call vote that there wasn’t much pressure to oppose it, and the Democratic leadership at the time did not prioritize it as an issue.  The fact that Obama was one of only six to vote “no” is an encouraging sign about his political convictions.

Obama came to Springfield – and then Washington – with the mind of a community organizer, and it guided much of his early career.  But like most seasoned organizers, he understood the art of the possible.  Obama was not in the position at the time to defeat SB 531, which was effectively a done deal.  Not only did Republicans control the State Senate, but there was no mobilized rent control constituency in Illinois to fight it.  It’s a lot harder to motivate renters to protect a right they don’t yet have – than to save a right they have grown to depend on for their own livelihood.

But Obama’s vote in 1997 is instructive for those following his current presidential bid – as they fear his perceived move to the center.  Anyone who follows Obama’s record in the State Senate understands his background – where his vote against SB 531 was just one example.  As a columnist for the right-wing National Review recently lamented, Obama worked closely in the State Senate with the Illinois chapter of ACORN to pass living wage legislation and curb banking practices.  “You begin to wonder whether,” he writes, “in his Springfield days, Obama might have best been characterized as ‘the Senator from ACORN.'”

In 1995, the Chicago Reader wrote an instructive profile of Obama as he made his first bid for office, which offers more clues.  “What if a politician were to see his job as that of an organizer,” said Obama, “who does not sell voters short but who educates them about the real choices before them? As an elected official, I could bring church and community leaders together easier than as a community organizer or lawyer. We would form concrete economic development strategies, take advantage of existing laws and structures, and create bridges and bonds within all sectors of the community. We must form grass-root structures that would hold me and other elected officials more accountable for their actions.”

When Obama becomes President, it will be the job of affordable housing activists to work with his Administration and hold him accountable – and to help alter the political reality so that we don’t lose more battles like SB 351.  For now, I’m just relieved that he wasn’t on the wrong side of that vote.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Paul Hogarth was an elected Commissioner on the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board from 2000-2004, and is now a tenant lawyer in San Francisco.  He has volunteered on Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, and grew up in Chicago’s Hyde Park – where in the mid-1990’s he lived three doors down from Obama.

Uncategorized

Pelosi Passes the Buck; Gore Let Off the Hook at Netroots Nation

5 Comments

(I’m under a mountain of work, so I have a lot on Netroots Nation stored up, but this from our pal Paul about the Pelosi/Gore session is good.  And BTW, I asked the Iraq question. – promoted by David Dayen)

From today’s Beyond Chron.

It’s no surprise that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi got a tough reception at Netroots Nation – as bloggers asked about the Iraq War, impeachment and (of course) FISA.  Pelosi passed the buck on all of these issues – saying that she’s let House Judiciary Chair John Conyers handle executive contempt, blamed Senate Democrats for selling out on FISA and said that only electing Barack Obama will get us out of Iraq.  When Al Gore popped in to make a surprise appearance, the crowd gave a hero’s welcome to the ex-Vice President – posing a sharp contrast with Pelosi.  Bloggers cheered Gore’s ambitious environmental agenda to make the United States 100% free of fossil fuel energy by 2019.  But nobody bothered to ask Gore why he didn’t push for this 15 years ago when he could have done something about it.  Meanwhile, Pelosi’s excuses frustrated the audience – but they each have an element of truth to them.  On the other hand, if Pelosi says she “doesn’t have the votes” in Congress to get what we want, she should start being more supportive of primary challenges that bloggers wage against bad Democrats.

“God bless the impatience of youth,” said Pelosi as she kicked off the Convention’s main event on Saturday morning.  “That’s what gives me hope.  I share your frustration in not ending this War.  We need to be persistent, relentless and unsatisfied at pushing us to where we should be.  And there are only 107 days until the Election.”

Everyone expected Pelosi would get a tough crowd, and about half a dozen demonstrators from Code Pink were there to heckle her about the War.  But liberal bloggers aren’t about direct-action street-level theater, preferring the tactic of asking hard-hitting questions that put politicians on the spot.  Gina Cooper of Netroots Nation even warned attendees at the beginning that anyone who disrupted the forum would be ejected, and the crowd cheered.

At the forum, Pelosi was asked questions like: (a) is impeachment back on the table?; (b) if Karl Rove is still in contempt of Congress, will he be arrested?; (c) if the FISA bill was a compromise, what was the gain? and (d) why hasn’t Congress ended the War?

For the most part, Pelosi passed the buck – saying that she agreed with the frustration of bloggers, but blamed others for why no action has been taken.  On the first two points, she deferred to House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers – who is leading investigations of the Bush Administration.  “We passed a resolution of contempt on the House floor,” she said, “and I’m proud that we got every Democrat to vote for it.  But Mr. Conyers is in charge of the investigation, and we’re in good hands with him.”

On FISA, Pelosi blamed the Senate – where 17 Democrats voted with all the Republicans – for sending them a bad bill.  “Our options were limited,” she said.  “It was a moment of taint.  Was the final bill [which passed both houses] a bill that I would have written?  No.  Was it better than the Senate version that had passed?  Yes.”

Pelosi added that as House Speaker she has only had “two major regrets”: (a) the Senate version of the FISA bill that they had to work with, and (b) failing to get 60 votes in the Senate to end the Iraq War.  Later on in the forum, she added that the only way to end the War will be to elect President Barack Obama.  Eventually, moderator Gina Cooper turned to Pelosi and said what was on a lot of peoples’ minds: “it sounds like some of your colleagues must get with the program with the American people.”

There’s certainly truth to what Pelosi said: any effort to impeach Bush or Cheney will start at the Judiciary Committee, Democrats have a razor-thin majority in the Senate, and even voting to defund the War won’t end it until a Democratic President brings the troops home.  But while Pelosi says she is on our side, one conclusion we can draw is that she hasn’t kept her colleagues in line.  The netroots have always tried to hold bad Democrats accountable – and in recent years have waged primary challenges against entrenched incumbents who vote the wrong way on issues.  The bloggers could work with Pelosi.

But Pelosi has not generally supported these challengers, actively working against the netroots.  For example, Pelosi held a fundraiser for Congressman Al Wynn – while he was getting a primary challenge from netroots favorite Donna Edwards.  Edwards won that election, and attended Netroots Nation as a newly minted Congresswoman.  In what must have been an awkward moment, Pelosi acknowledged Edwards at the beginning of the forum.

It wasn’t the first time that a powerful Democrat came to a netroots Convention and faced a tough audience.  But unlike Hillary Clinton (who at last year’s Yearly Kos sarcastically mocked the crowd when they booed her), Pelosi kept her grace while saying much of what the bloggers didn’t agree with.  Whatever you think of her answers, she did not condescend.

While bloggers gave Pelosi a chilly reception, they enthusiastically cheered former Vice President Al Gore – who made a surprise appearance during Pelosi’s forum.  “We have a historic climate crisis,” said Gore.  “It’s connected to an economic crisis, and the national security threat it creates. Drilling oil we won’t use for 15 years to deal with gas prices now is like responding to an attack from Afghanistan by invading another country.”

Gore has always been a sentimental favorite of the netroots (“I feel right at home here,” he said), and the crowd eagerly responded to his challenge to eliminate fossil fuel dependency by 2019.  “I need your help,” he said. “You seek to influence, and I respectfully ask for your help.”  And with only 11 years to get there, we don’t have much time.

But nobody asked the former Vice President why he didn’t agitate on these issues in the mid-1990’s, when he was in a position to get things done.  If we had started this 15 years ago, eliminating fossil fuel dependency would be far more doable.  No doubt Gore is now using his “elder statesman” role to fight global warming – but the Clinton-Gore Administration was lackluster in responding to this climate crisis, such as reneging on their pledge to shut down an incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio.  When Gore ran for President in 2000, Friends of the Earth endorsed Bill Bradley in the Democratic primaries.

If the netroots insisted on giving Nancy Pelosi a hard time, why didn’t they challenge Gore as well?

Marriage Equality

Obama’s Opposition to Marriage Amendment isn’t “News”

Cross-posted with Beyond Chron.

The SF Chronicle announced “breaking news” on their website yesterday (and front-page headline today) that Barack Obama is against Proposition 8 – California’s right-wing constitutional amendment to repeal marriage equality.  Too bad the “breaking” news was a letter that Obama sent to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club several days earlier, and was publicly read at their Pride Breakfast on Sunday.  But regardless of how you define news as “breaking,” Obama has been on record opposing Prop 8 for the past six weeks – as he issued a formal statement on the day of the California Supreme Court’s decision.  The Chronicle yesterday referred to Obama’s May 15th statement as “carefully nuanced” – even though his position was quite explicit, and he even used some of the same language.  Obama has always opposed Prop 8, and his pledge to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act gives LGBT couples very strong reason to campaign for him in the fall.

It’s amusing for the Chronicle to treat a letter read to a crowded room of activists two days earlier in downtown San Francisco as “breaking” news.  Spain won the Euro Cup on June 29th – the same day that Obama’s letter was read.  Would SFGate.com announce Spain’s victory two days after the fact on their front page and call it “Chronicle Breaking News”?  Readers would naturally find that strange, so how is this example any different?

Obama’s position against California’s anti-gay marriage initiative – a welcome addition as activists mobilize to defeat it – isn’t “breaking news.”  In fact, it’s not even news.

Six weeks ago, when the state Supreme Court issued its powerful decision on marriage equality, Barack Obama – like most politicians – issued a statement.  While the statement included some wishy-washy language that Obama “respects” the court decision, supports civil unions and that states should make “their own decisions,” he also formally came out against California’s Proposition 8.

“On the issue of constitutional amendments,” said the May 15th statement, “Senator Obama has been on record for some time: He opposes all divisive and discriminatory constitutional amendments, state or federal.  That includes the proposed amendments in California and Florida.” (my emphasis)

Now compare it with Obama’s letter from three days ago: “As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law … And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.” (my emphasis)

Far from accusations by the right wing that Obama has “flip-flopped” on the issue (which the Chronicle quoted without criticisms), Obama opposed efforts to change California’s Constitution six weeks ago – and he opposes the amendment now.  But somehow, the Chronicle dismissed what the Obama campaign released on May 15th as a “carefully nuanced statement.”

Granted, Obama’s letter on June 29th was more forceful – and it also cited his support for axing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and repealing the Defense of Marriage Act.  The latter is extremely important, because California same-sex couples still don’t have all the benefits of marriage until the federal government treats them equally.  But even that isn’t news: Obama supported repealing both laws back during the primaries, which made his platform more gay-friendly than Hillary Clinton.

On May 15th, Obama’s position was that marriage should be left to the states – but that he opposed any and all state constitutional amendments.  So his allegedly “nuanced” position was that marriage could be legislated as being between a man and a woman – just as long as you didn’t enshrine hate within the constitution.  Obama didn’t change that position with his letter – he just re-iterated his opposition to California’s Proposition 8, in case you didn’t hear it the first time.

After having carefully read (and re-read) Obama’s letter to the Alice B Toklas Club, the only “news” I can see is that he publicly acknowledged the same-sex couples who got married since the Supreme Court decision.  “I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks,” he wrote.  “I look forward to working with you in the coming months and years, and I wish you all continued success.”  That may be news – but the media completely missed the boat on why.

In All the President’s Men, which details how Washington Post reporters helped bring down Richard Nixon with Watergate, the paper’s editor dismisses a salesman trying to sell him a feature for a weather report for people who were too drunk the day before, with the line: “Send it out to the San Francisco Chronicle – they need it.”  Apparently, the Chronicle still hasn’t learned in the past 35 years that yesterday’s news is not “breaking news.”

But it wasn’t just the Chronicle that got this story wrong — even liberal blogs treated the Alice B Toklas letter as a break from Obama’s prior position.  But Barack Obama has opposed changing the California Constitution to discriminate against same-sex couples for quite a long time – which gives the LGBT community more reason to enthusiastically support his candidacy.

EDITOR’S NOTE: In his spare time and outside of regular work hours, Paul Hogarth volunteered on Obama’s field operation in San Francisco. He also ran to be an Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention.

Uncategorized

“Flag City” Just Another Media Myth About Obama

From today’s Beyond Chron.

Yesterday’s Washington Post had a front-page piece on Findlay, Ohio – the “Flag City” – where small-town voters in the ultimate swing state still believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim.  What the Post didn’t report is that Findlay voted 2-1 for George Bush in 2004, and in 2006 rejected Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown (who won a landslide victory statewide.)  It’s just the latest example of the media projecting the myth that the Presidential race is somehow close, and grasping for non-existent trends to keep it alive.

But reality says otherwise.  Women and Latinos who supported Hillary Clinton are flocking to Obama, despite the narrative that Democrats are “divided.”  State-by-state polls consistently show Obama on his way to surpassing 270 electoral votes – with hints that November could become a rout.  Even national polls with Obama ahead by double digits are dismissed as “outliers,” along with the constant reminder that Michael Dukakis blew a 17-point lead (without any context of two very different candidates).  The media won’t admit that the Presidential race is over, and Obama is going to win.

Eli Saslow’s Washington Post article was the worst example of “journalism by anecdote” – where a handful of interviews in a town most readers have never heard of is supposed to suggest a national electoral trend.  Apparently, some Findlay residents believe that Barack Obama is “a gay Muslim racist born in Africa who won’t recite the Pledge of Allegiance.”  That Findlay’s official nickname is “Flag City, USA” only feeds the perception that it’s Middle America – and the fact that it’s in Ohio (whose electoral votes swung the last election) suggests that where goes Findlay, so goes the nation.

But the Post failed to do what took me about five minutes to look up online.  According to past election results, Findlay doesn’t represent Ohio – much less the nation.  In 2004, George W. Bush got 11,866 votes there compared with 5,724 for John Kerry – a two-to-one margin that far outpaced Bush’s statewide victory.  Even in 2006, when Ohio swung Democratic and booted out a longtime Republican Senator, Findlay stuck with the G.O.P. incumbent by a twelve point margin.

If the Post interviewed voters in Harlem to gauge what’s going on with the Obama-McCain race, they would be ridiculed for asking a sample of voters who don’t “represent” America.  But here they get away with painting a picture of this election based on a small Republican town.

Saslow’s piece did indicate one statistic that’s supposed to alarm pundits about Obama’s chances in November – one in 10 Americans falsely believe that the Illinois Senator is a Muslim.  But more Americans than that believe Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, or that Iraq was linked to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.  When we hear malicious rumors meant to undermine Obama’s candidacy, journalists fail to ask if those who believe them would ever support him in the first place.  As Randy Shaw wrote, Barack Obama is perceived as a weak candidate because he’s failing to get the racist vote.

But anyone who closely follows the election online knows that Obama has solidified the Democratic Party base – and is on a clear path to winning the presidency in November.  After Hillary Clinton suspended her primary campaign and endorsed Obama, pundits wrote (and still write) stories about disgruntled Hillary supporters who will vote for John McCain in the November election.  Women are not supposed to vote for Obama because, according to Geraldine Ferraro, he’s run a “terribly sexist campaign.”  Latinos are supposedly too racist to vote for a black candidate – and pundits say a sizable number will vote Republican (ignoring the party’s xenophobic jihad on immigration policy.)

But the facts are getting into the way of that theory.  A recent poll shows Latinos breaking 62-28 for Obama over McCain, with other polls showing similar results.  When you consider that Bush got 40% of the Latino vote in 2004, it’s obvious that Latinos are deserting the G.O.P. in droves.  Along with labor’s unprecedented get-out-the-vote effort to target that community in November, Obama is likely to pick up either Colorado, New Mexico or Nevada – and possibly all three states.

And McCain has more to worry about Republican women deserting him than vice versa.  Not only have Democratic women united behind Obama, but polling shows McCain’s anti-choice record (once women hear about it) is going to be a huge liability.  “I’m sure there are female Hillary Clinton voters who will go for John McCain in the general election,” said Katha Pollitt in The Nation, “but I don’t think too many of them will be feminists. Because to vote for McCain, a feminist would have to be insane.”

Obama will win the general because he has a solidified lead in all the states John Kerry won in 2004 – even swing states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.  While the blue states won’t be enough to win the Presidency, it prevents Obama from having to play defense – giving him 252 electoral votes in the bag and shifting the battle into traditionally Republican states.

To surpass the magic number of 270, Obama just needs to win all the Kerry states, Colorado (where he’s been consistently ahead in the polls) and Virginia (whose demographic shift favors Democrats.)  But Obama is likely to also win Iowa and New Mexico (Gore won both), and he’s ahead in Ohio – regardless of what people in “Flag City” believe.  Florida will be tough but winnable, while Nevada, Montana, Missouri and North Carolina are all still in play.  Even Georgia – where Obama is firing up the state’s many black voters and young voters, coupled with former Congressman Bob Barr playing spoiler for McCain – could generate an upset and help Obama win that state.

But what’s even more encouraging is how Obama’s strategy differs from John Kerry.  In 2004, Kerry’s chances dwindled as the campaign zeroed in on fewer swing states – precluding the odds of winning and not leaving much room for error.  When he stopped advertising in Arkansas and Missouri to focus on Ohio, he reduced his supporters in those states to mere bystanders.  But that won’t happen this time – with superior resources and more grassroots supporters, Obama is running a “50 state strategy” that will give all his supporters something to do.  The campaign is even putting money in states like Texas where they have virtually no chance of winning – but a little help could put Democrats running in targeted races over the finish line.

Nevertheless, the mainstream media still acts like this is a horse race – even when their own national polls show Obama winning by double digits.  Newsweek recently had Obama up by 15 points, while the Los Angeles Times had him up by 12 points – but the press dismissed these polls as mere outliers.  Of course, polls are just a sample of the electorate — and you can never be sure if a single poll is a fluke or an accurate trendsetter.  But when a series of polls start showing the same pattern, it becomes impossible to ignore.

Naturally, nervous Democrats refuse to believe that these latest polls show Obama is going to win – because they’re still haunted by the ghost of Michael Dukakis (who famously blew a 17-point lead in 1988.)  But Obama is not like Dukakis, Kerry or Gore – who failed to excite their base and resisted fighting back at the right-wing noise machine.  Not only has Obama proven a willingness to be a “street-fighter” in this campaign when he faces attacks, but the Democratic base is likely to turn out in droves for him – regardless of what they think his chances are at prevailing.

Because the media is fixated on the narrative that Democrats are divided and Obama is a “weak” candidate, they focus on any sign of his vulnerabilities without an overall context of what it means for the presidential race.  The fact that some voters in “Flag City” think that Obama is a Muslim doesn’t mean he will lose Ohio – and it certainly doesn’t belong on the front page of the Washington Post.  Democrats should work hard for Obama in the general election regardless of what the odds are – but they shouldn’t let the media’s myth cow them into believing John McCain has a shot.

EDITOR’S NOTE: In his spare time and outside of regular work hours, Paul Hogarth volunteered on Obama’s field operation in San Francisco. He also ran to be an Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention.

Uncategorized

Prop 13 Forum at Berkeley Ignores Rent Control

6 Comments

With all the hype today on the 30-year anniversary of Prop 13 — today’s SF Chronicle wouldn’t stop talking about it — it’s incredible that NOBODY is talking about rent control and how Prop 13 paved the way for it.  In today’s Beyond Chron, I take my alma mater to task for hosting a one-day conference on Prop 13 without mentioning rent control.

I majored in political science at Cal – and while I had an excellent education, the Political Science Department was always a bit out of touch.  Today, UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies will host a one-day conference on the 30th Anniversary of Prop 13 – where a field of experts will evaluate its “political, economic and fiscal impacts.”  Incredibly, none of them will talk about rent control (at least none of them are experts on it), although one of Prop 13’s most significant effects was the passage of rent control ordinances in cities throughout California.  Tuesday’s crushing defeat of Proposition 98 – sponsored by the same Howard Jarvis Taxpayers’ Association that pushed Prop 13 in 1978 – demonstrates a statewide mandate for laws that protect tenants.  Any serious reflection on Prop 13’s thirty-year legacy must involve rent control.

In June 1978, the right-wing Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association pushed Proposition 13 on the ballot – amid rising property taxes and a deadlocked state legislature that wouldn’t solve the problem.  No doubt Prop 13 passed because elderly homeowners were afraid of losing the “American Dream,” but residential landlords also played a factor in making it happen.  Tenants were told that if Prop 13 passed, landlords would pass their property tax savings in the form of lower rents.  After they broke that pledge, rent control was born.

Nowhere is this more obvious than Berkeley – where tenant groups tried in vain to pass rent control in the 1970’s.  After a crushing defeat in 1977, rent control was presumed dead until Prop 13 passed the following year.  In November 1978, Berkeley voters passed Measure J – which mandated that landlords pass 80% of their Prop 13 savings to renters.  Two years later, voters enacted a permanent rent control ordinance – which is alive today.

A similar thing happened in San Francisco.  In 1978, voters narrowly defeated a measure to have landlords pass 100% of their Prop 13 tax savings to tenants.  Sensing that a rent control ordinance was inevitable, the Board of Supervisors and Mayor Dianne Feinstein passed one in 1979 – which is why many San Franciscans can still live in the City today.  

Similar rent control ordinances also passed in Santa Monica, West Hollywood, East Palo Alto and Cotati – along with weaker measures in Los Angeles, San Jose and Oakland.  Over 100 cities in California also have rent control for mobile home parks.  Today, over one million households across the state are covered by some form of rent control.

By 1980, landlords were so concerned about the growing momentum for rent control that they placed a statewide Proposition on the ballot to abolish it.  But a strong grass-roots movement defeated this measure, including TV commercials with actor Jack Lemmon.  Landlords did get the state legislature to pass the Ellis Act in 1986 and Costa-Hawkins in 1995, but they have never succeeded in completely killing rent control for thirty years.

Of course, Prop 13 had a huge impact on the California state budget that still haunts us today – along with decreased property taxes that have ruined our local public schools.  So it makes sense for the UC Berkeley forum to include budgetary experts.  But besides Terri Sexton, an economics professor at Cal State Sacramento who will talk about “Prop 13 and Residential Mobility,” none of them touch on housing.  And “residential mobility” will probably focus on Prop 13’s effect on homeowners (rather than just renters.)

It’s not like Berkeley’s Political Science Department could not find rent control experts to talk about Prop 13’s effect.  Myron Moskovitz (who was one of my law professors at Golden Gate University) wrote Berkeley’s Rent Control Ordinance, convinced Governor Jerry Brown to veto rent control repeal and is the state’s foremost expert on landlord-tenant law.  Marty Schiffenbauer led Berkeley’s rent control campaigns, both before and after the passage of Prop 13.  Both still live within walking distance of the Cal campus.

They could have also invited Christine Minnehan of the Western Center on Law & Poverty, who lobbies the state legislature on rent control issues – and was an aide to State Senate President David Roberti.  I can’t think of a better expert on the politics of rent control today, and she could provide detailed knowledge about Prop 13’s impact.  She lives in Sacramento, and could have come down to the forum.

Prop 13 plays a major role as to why Californians support rent control.  If homeowners have the stability of knowing that their property taxes won’t rise more than 2% a year, renters deserve to know their landlord can’t spike their rent during a real estate boom.  In 1978, homeowners voted for Prop 13 because they were afraid of losing their homes.  In 2008, tenants voted against Prop 98 because they were afraid of losing their homes.

When I was an undergrad at Cal, the Political Science Department sponsored a panel for students about what they can do with their political science degree.  But without thinking it through, they scheduled it on Election Night at 7:00 p.m.  I was too busy getting people out to vote, so did not attend – but I expressed my displeasure with the Department’s secretary.  Today’s forum proves that an “ivory tower” mentality still governs a public university that boasts one of the best Political Science departments in the nation.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Paul Hogarth graduated from UC Berkeley with a Political Science degree in May 2000.  He was elected to the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board later that same year, got his J.D. at Golden Gate Law School in 2006, and is now a tenants’ rights attorney in San Francisco.