State won’t pay for early warning system it approved this year

by Brian Leubitz

On September 24, Governor Brown signed SB 135 by Sen. Alex Padilla to create the so-called “ShakeAlert” earthquake early warning system. You would think that a great boon for earthquake damage prevention, right? Well, there’s a catch in the bill, it cannot be paid for by the general fund:

The Office of Emergency Services shall identify funding for the system described in subdivision (a) through single or multiple sources of revenue that shall be limited to federal funds, funds from revenue bonds, local funds, and private grants. The Office of Emergency Services shall not identify the General Fund as a funding source for the purpose of establishing the system described in subdivision (a), beyond the components or programs that are currently funded. (SB 135 Bill Text. Sec 8587 (c))

This is part of a more general discussion on the use of external funding mechanisms and the rise of the beggar state. Relying on private contributions is no way to run a sustainable government. We can’t be at the whim of every random billionaire with a foundation. But more specific to this issue, these limitations minimize the importance of the system.  ShakeAlert won’t give us hours, but the 30-ish seconds that it can provide can save lives. The system is no longer just a far-out concept: it really works.

In Japan, an alert network established in 2007 offered several seconds of advanced warning to 52 million people prior to a magnitude 9.0 quake that struck in 2011. And last year, sirens rang out in Mexico City around 30 seconds before a magnitude 7.4 earthquake rocked the region. “Japan and Mexico already have these systems. Even Turkey, Taiwan, and Romania have some early warning infrastructure in place,” Allen says. “Needless to say, we’re quite far behind.” (The Verge)

The Verge article about our preparedness is well worth a full read. It lays bare our national failures in this area. Despite our own state’s lack of funding for ShakeAlert, no other state has even gone so far. And given the rise of fracking-induced earthquakes, a national system seems wise.

Somehow the state needs to come up with the $80mil over five years to create the system, but delays could cost a lot more.

Nationwide Day of Support To Kick Off Campaign

by Brian Leubitz

While I love our great state of California, I’ll admit I still have feelings for Texas, the state where I grew up. I was afforded an amazing, and affordable, undergraduate engineering and law school education there. And my family still resides there.  

But as for Texas politics, well, they leave something to be desired. While Texas will eventually trend purple if demographics are destiny, the hopes for the election to replace Rick Perry were pretty dismal. Well, they were until late June when state Sen. Wendy Davis donned a pair of pink sneakers and spoke for over thirteen hours to prevent a horrible anti-choice piece of legislation.

While the Governor ultimately slammed that measure through by calling a special session for the bill, Wendy Davis had become a household name throughout the state, and nation.  And just a few days ago she announced that she was running for governor in next year’s election.

But the odds are still stacked against her. Greg Abbott, the leading Republican candidate, has a war chest of over $20 million. And the state allows unlimited contributions, so the wealthy Republicans will spare no expense to see the Republicans maintain the Governorship. Wendy Davis needs our help. Blogs across Texas and beyond are organizing today for a “money bomb for her campaign. They’re hoping to raise $10,000 today, and are almost there.

You can join in the fight by contributing today via ActBlue. And if you’ve missed the coverage of her filibuster, check out the Anderson Cooper interview to the right

Follow the tweets at #GiveToWendy.

Will face off against at least Betty Yee

by Brian Leubitz

In the merry-go-round of politicians, it is never surprising to see elected officials turn up on down ballot statewide races. Speaker John Perez, the first openly gay speaker of the Assembly, has today announced that he will be running for Controller:

Assembly Speaker John Pérez announced Wednesday he will run for state controller next year when he is termed out of his current job.

The announcement came as Pérez fielded audience questions at his Town Hall Los Angeles talk at the Biltmore Hotel in downtown.

“I’m faced with the reality that I’m term-limited next year and really struggled with what I would do,” Pérez said. “In the last two days I’ve made a decision. This afternoon I will be announcing that I will be running for controller.” (SCPR)

While rumors have swirled as to whether former LA Mayor candidate (and City Controller) Wendy Greuel will run for the position, Board of Equalization member Betty Yee has been running for a while. Yee, who has served in the Dept. Of Finance prior to her election to the BoE, has a wealth of experience for the position, and her grassroots connections will make her a strong candidate. But Perez will have a big war chest for the race and has higher name id than Yee.

Perez probably scares away most of the LA area elected officials thinking about the race (other than Greuel), and no serious Republican challenger has announced a run yet. But if it is to be a contest between Yee and Perez, it would get interesting.

by Art Pulaski, California Labor Federation

Whether BART closes down this week will come down to one issue and one issue only: whether the BART Board of Directors shows leadership or continues to act to hold Bay Area transit riders hostage by using the same playbook a small minority of elected officials in Washington, DC have used to close down our federal government.

No one in the Bay Area-whether they ride BART or not-wants to see a BART strike. This is especially true of BART workers, who live in one of the most expensive regions in the world and do not receive a paycheck while they are on strike.

To demonstrate their commitment to reaching a deal before cooling-off period expires tonight, BART workers have put a proposal on the table that is fair and affordable and incentivizes BART workers to keep the system one of the nation’s best.



But while BART workers have made three new public proposals in the past 10 days, management has offered zero.  In fact, they haven’t put out a new wage proposal publicly for more than 50 days.  Here’s where negotiations stand:

Just last week, BART workers agreed to cut their wage demands in half and pick up additional costs for their pensions and health care coverage. BART workers reached a deal with management that would have workers contribute an escalating share of their pensions over the next four years. They also have offered to increase their monthly payments for health coverage by 15 percent.

BART workers also proposed linking future additional pay raises to increased ridership. Workers proposed an innovative plan to link future additional pay increases to projected increases in ridership. Daily BART ridership has increased from 270,000 riders in 1999 to nearly 400,000 riders today. At the same time, there are fewer BART workers in vital frontline positions serving more passengers. Under the new proposal, BART workers would receive a small fraction of a percent raise for increases in ridership over budget projections.



Finally, BART workers have proposed real-world improvements to key safety and service issues, like safer procedures for working on the third rail, better lighting on tracks and in tunnels and open restrooms in stations.

This issue is not a smokescreen. BART’s actions have put workers and riders at risk, and workers are justifiably angry.  For example, over the past 10 years, state safety regulators repeatedly fined BART for directing district workers without electrician training or certification to work near the electrified third rail. Instead of reforming its procedures, BART management responded by authorizing more than $300,000 for attorneys to fight state safety regulators.

This deal is smart, fair and will result in better BART service and BART directors should tell district management and negotiators to accept it.

At this point, the burden of leadership is on BART management to strike a deal that puts riders and workers first.

Those ultimately accountable for the situation-BART’s elected Board of Directors-must step in and act responsibly before it’s too late. The Directors can no longer remain silent as BART management and its negotiators dismiss fair and reasonable proposals because of their opposition to labor unions. It’s time that the Board of Directors lead as they were elected to do and to help bring a resolution to these drawn-out negotiations.

Take action to support the hard-working men and women at BART — sign the petition to the BART Board of Directors today!

Voters favor the overall process, but see value in tweaks

by Brian Leubitz

The Public Policy Institute of California is out with a new report on the California initiative process (PDF). The quick takeaway: voters love it, but want to change it. In fact, the percentage of voters saying that they like the system has stayed about the same over the past ten years. In their most recent poll, 72% of voters supported the system. Despite the fact that most voters spend a few spare minutes about the proposed changes, about six in 10 adults (57%) and likely voters (60%) say that the decisions made by California voters are probably better than those made by the governor and state legislature. All that positivity despite the fact that 63% of likely voters think that special interests have too much control over the initiative system and 67% feel that there are too many initiatives. So, there’s that.

But, in the end we do pay those legislators to become experts on public policy, so why not use them? And it turns out that the voters aren’t actually against that, and favor two common sense reforms that would align the use of the plebiscite with our representative democracy:

Three in four adults say that the initiative process is in need of either major (40%) or minor changes (36%), while only 17 percent say it is fine the way it is.

*** **** ***

Eight in 10 (79% adults, 78% likely voters) favor having a period of time during which the initiative sponsor and the legislature could meet to look for a compromise solution before an initiative goes to the ballot. … Overwhelming majorities of adults (76%) and likely voters (77%) support a system of review and revision for proposed initiatives to try to avoid legal issues and drafting errors. … Lowering the vote threshold for the legislature to place tax measures on the ballot has solid majority support among adults (61%) and likely voters (60%). (PPIC Report)

Those first two reforms would go a long way toward reducing the number of measures actually on the ballot. While some subject matters will never really have the support in the legislature and will end up at the ballot, the time for public discussion in the legislature will be positive either way. Of course, that also raises another route for special interests to control the debate, as they can force issues onto the legislative docket even if they don’t plan on supporting the measure at the ballot.

The final issue is a little more surprising, as voters think that they should get the chance to vote on revenue issues more frequently. Perhaps this is somewhat a function of the Governor’s campaign promises to bring his taxes to the ballot, but the myth of the state’s love for supermajorities takes another blow here.  While it still won’t allow revenues to get a simple majority in the legislature, which would be a true representative democracy, it is a step in the right direction.

All of these changes would require measures on the ballot after approval from the legislature or signature gathering. It would not be a big shock for reforms along these lines show up in the next legislative session, but as constitutional reforms, they would still face challenges to getting to the ballot.

Rep. Takano indicates concern for security at Winter Olympics after anti-LGBT legislation and violence

by Brian Leubitz

Rep. Mark Takano (D-Riverside) and Rep. Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) authored a letter to the US Olympic Committee questioning security for athletes and fans at next year’s Winter Olympics. The pair cited the increasing hostility and violence furthered by a flood of anti-LGBT legislation.

We are very concerned with Russia’s anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) law and the upcoming Winter Olympics being hosted in Sochi. The protection of an individual’s human rights, regardless of a person’s background, is of utmost concern to us as Americans and Members of Congress. …

We call on the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) to ensure that any American athlete, or someone associated with an American team, is afforded the right to show solidarity with, and support of, LGBT people around the globe to be free from discrimination and harm. Wearing a pin or another outward manifestation of solidarity with LGBT athletes should not be defined as ‘political’ if it is not intended to support any clear political party or position but is intended, instead, to highlight the spirit of the Olympic Games, which celebrates the unique humanity of all athletes from every country and culture.

The Russian government has promised to maintain security surrounding the event, and to allow somewhat free expression. However, the IOC is somewhat glib about casting aside “political speech” as unappropriate for the Olympic games.

Of course, the other big question is how the notoriously corrupt IOC will handle the possibility of athletes publicly calling out the Russian legislation during medal ceremonies. The black power salute (right) that has become a pivotal moment in the fight for civil rights cost the two Americans and the Australian sprinter who won the silver medal, Peter Norman, dearly. It is still far from clear whether LGBT and supporter athletes would face the same kind of intimidation from the IOC.

The USOC can and should do more to protect athletes and supporters in Sochi while furthering the true spirit (rather than the corporatism) of the Olympic Games.

Central Valley Congressman Shifts in the Political Winds

by Brian Leubitz

Rep. Devin Nunes(R-Tulare) occasionally likes to pretend that he’s somewhat “moderate”. Not like really moderate, but Tea Party moderate. So, he was seriously considering voting for a clean continuing funding resolution to end the government shutdown. In fact, he said he would support it on September 30 to the Huffington Post, and the audio is available online(right there->). That would be meaningful, as there is now a bare majority for such a clean “CR” as the DC lingo goes.

But, now he says he is totally not down for a clean “CR”.  Apparently the Tea Party folks got the memo about Nunes doubts and let him know of their displeasure. The Tea Party is using the so-called “Hastert Rule” to prevent the House from voting on a clean CR, and at the same time they are using outside grassroots pressure to threaten any wayward Republicans.

The interesting thing here in California is that given our Top-2 system, representatives are now less threatened by primary challenges. While the seat is solidly Republican at a Cook PVI of R+12, the top two means that Nunes doesn’t need to run in a nutty R-only election anymore. As incumbent, he is exceedingly likely to make it through to the general election, whether against another Republican or a Democratic challenger. And, for better or worse, you have to like his odds in a general election matchup however it ends up.

But apparently fighting for his ideological masters is more apparent than fighting for his constituents.