Jerry Brown has become the last potential gubernatorial candidate to make a view on one of the propositions on May 19, which is part of a pattern, as Brown has studiously tried to avoid giving any legitimate opinion whatsoever throughout the winter and spring.  He supports Prop. 1A, not because he can advocate for its substance, but because it represented a compromise:

The 2010 contender for governor was tepid in his endorsement of the measure, but credited Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders for their effort in crafting a compromise: “The budget thing is complicated and it is daunting,” he said. “They tried . . . and did the best they could to come up with something.”

“You can’t make the perfect the enemy of the possible,” Brown told calbuzz.

It’s a ringing endorsement.  And I’m thrilled that the leading candidate for Governor finds the budget “daunting” – very reassuring.  In addition, he declined to take a position on the other 5 measures because “I have to read them.”  And let’s be clear that only John Garamendi, among Democratic hopefuls, opposes Prop. 1A.  Maybe he read it.

The League of Conservation Voters, similiarly, endorsed the special election ballot measures without telling voters what the propositions would do, but with a healthy amount of fear.

Failure of these measures would open up a gaping hole in the budget and leave critical protections for our health, safety, and prosperous future at great risk […] The measures are not perfect, but they are our best option to protect critical funding for essential environmental, public health, and education services […] We need all of these props to pass, or California will lose more than $23 billion over the next four fiscal years-forcing billions upon billions in deeper cuts to education and other popular services […] When the state was near a complete shutdown this February, a small minority of legislators tried to use the budget meltdown to extract policy concessions on some of California’s most fundamental environmental protections in exchange for budget votes. Thanks to your help, we were able to fight back and defeat the most significant proposed rollbacks. If the Propositions fail in May, the budget deficit for next year will add an additional $6 billion dollars in cuts to essential programs to an already impossible budget.

That’s not even true on the merits.  The Governor and the Yacht Party GOT those concessions on environmental protections, exacting delays in regulating diesel pollution, to use just one example of the many concessions.  The CLCV is shading the truth and appealing to fear.

Calitics will have their special election ballot endorsements early this week.

This is from the press release:

Los Angeles, CA-The California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV) announced today their endorsement of Debbie Cook, the Democratic nominee for Congress in the 46th Congressional District.

“We’re proud to support Debbie Cook because she has shown time and again her commitment to protecting our coastal resources,” said CLCV’s Southern California Director David Allgood. “Mayor Cook has a long record of achievement on environmental, public health and other issues important to the people of the 46th District.”

In 1989, rather than see her city’s parks and beaches destroyed by private development, Cook led a group that collected 18,000 signatures for a successful ballot measure to require voter approval in order to build in Huntington Beach public parks and beaches.

After attending law school, she joined the Bolsa Chica Land Trust legal team, winning a case that protects sensitive coastal habitat throughout California to this day. As Mayor of Huntington Beach, she led the fight to stop the Orange County Sanitation District from dumping partially-treated sewage into the ocean, resulting in cleaner water for our beach’s recreational users.

Cook’s opponent, longtime Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, ignores science to deny that climate change is man-made, favors drilling off the coast of California and has spoken against the landmark Clean Trucks Program at the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles – which will slash toxic truck emissions by 50%, significantly reducing the port-related diesel pollution that leads to 2,400 premature deaths per year, according to the California Air Resources Board. He currently has a low 10 percent rating on the League of Conservation Voters’ congressional scorecard.

It’s not surprising that Cook would get the endorsement; what’s crucial here is whether or not she becomes a cause for the environmental movement the way that Jerry McNerney became a cause in 2006.  Rohrabacher’s rejection of port cleanup, which just passed the California State Senate, could be a really salient issue in this district, part of which covers Long Beach and most of which is situated on the coast.  Some hard-hitting ads and mailers accusing Crazy Dana of allowing kids to suffer and die from pollution seem to be in order.

UPDATE: Cook is also pivoting off of the historic nominating speech by Barack Obama at the DNC, holding 200 “Making History” parties in the district and raising money for Cook’s campaign.  This is really a local effort.  You can sign up at her website.

XPosted 5/7/2008 9:55 PM PDT on MyDesert.com by BluePalmSpringsBoyz

Greg Pettis, a Cathedral City Councilman for more than 14 years, a former Mayor Pro-Tem of Cathedral City, and Democratic candidate for the 80th Assembly District to replace the termed out, thank God, Bonnie Garcia (R), has long demonstrated his commitment to the environment and considered growth.  In its endorsement, The Desert Sun (Pettis is our pick for Democratic nominee in 80th Assembly District), stated:

Pettis has been in office 14 years as a Cathedral City councilman. He knows the Coachella Valley best. He has strong relationships with local officials and understands local issues.

He has built a solid record of achievement while on the council, and we believe he is electable and will be effective in Sacramento…

…He plans to focus on…expanding incentives for green and renewable energy sources.

More below the flip…

Part of his ‘record of achievement’ in the Coachella Valley has included that he has been instrumental in creating an economically vibrant community with strong neighborhoods and a thriving downtown to attract good paying jobs to Cathedral City.

Among some of his proudest legislative accomplishments include:

(1) Creating green building standards to save water and make buildings more energy efficient

(2) Negotiating the Multi-Species Habitat Plan to guide sustainable growth

(3) Serving on the Salton Sea Authority

In addition to his duties as a Councilmember, Pettis has served as board member of the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy.  He has also served on the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.  Pettis is also Harvard-educated, graduating from the State and Municipal Government Program from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

In recognition of Pettis’s commitment to the environment and to smart growth, the California League of Conservation Voters found him most qualified to defend the local and state environment and to promote rational growth amongst the local communities.  The following is from a Press Release from the Pettis for 80th Assembly District campaign:

CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS ENDORSE GREG PETTIS

The California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV) announced (February 18, 2008) that they are endorsing Greg Pettis (D-Cathedral City) for the open 80th Assembly District seat.  

“While there are many good candidates running for this seat, Greg Pettis’ long history of involvement on improving air and water quality, forward-looking smart growth planning and commitment to combating global climate change is what earned him our Board’s trust,” said David Allgood, CLCV Southern California Director.

“We were particularly impressed with forward-looking legislation Greg has implemented like Cathedral City’s Green Building Standards which require new construction in Cathedral City to be 10-15 percent above state efficiency standards to help reduce water use, his tireless work negotiating the Multi-Species Habitat Plan to manage growth in the desert and his vote to install solar panels to provide all electricity needs for City Hall.”

“Additionally, his Pettis Plan for Progress takes a thoughtful look about how Sacramento can act locally while leading globally.”

Pettis said he was honored by CLCV’s endorsement because “it validates my campaign theme that we need experienced leadership in Sacramento if we are going to create a healthier California, and that includes a healthier environment.”

Pettis is serving his 14th year on the City Council of Cathedral City. He has also served on the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Salton Sea Authority and Riverside County Transportation Commission.

CLCV is the non-partisan political action arm of California’s environmental movement.  

CLCV conducts rigorous research on candidates in order to make endorsements in key races. Our endorsements are backed with expertise, and we assist candidates with the media, fundraising, and grassroots organizing strategies they need to win. We also campaign to educate voters about candidates’ environmental records.

Clearly, according to CLCV goals, the board ‘rigorously’ investigated each of the four Democratic candidates in the 80th AD race and found Pettis to be the candidate with the best bona fides for the California environmental movement.

Yesterday I put up a Quickie about a eminent domain reform proposal brought to the floor by Asm. Hector De La Torre linking to the “Californians for Eminent Domain Reform” website. I was going to do a whole post, but other things came up and it never happened.  But, this is a good idea, politically.

For some reason, the wingers have themselves all frenzied up over eminent domain and are prepared to spend heavily on it (see Prop 90). But that’s not even the worst part, it’s that the wingers think that eminent domain is their way to attack a number of other progressive causes (again, see Prop 90).  Follow me over the flippio for some additional background and details of the current proposal…

First, what is eminent domain? Eminent domain is the right of a government to take property.  It is generally pretty rare (only 2 homes in the Bay Area in the past decade) In the United States, the Constitution requires a fair cash value in return. To me, that seems reasonable enough.  After all, cash is fungible and if you get the proper market value, you can go buy some other comparable property.  I know, there’s sentimental value, but the wingers don’t seem to have a problem with the sentimental value attached to public lands like beaches (Trestles) or old growth forests or opens spaces, etc.  It’s pretty convenient that way for them.

Now what seems to have gotten the Right in a tizzy is the Kelo v. New London Supreme Court decision which ruled that municipalities can take land for private purposes so long as there is a rational reason for doing so. In that case, they were trying to redevelop and grow the tax base.  Seems reasonable enough to me, but the Wingers hate it. So, they pressured the legislature to give them a deal or else! Else, of course, being they will go to the ballot and do it their way.

And ELSE! is what happened.  Prop 90 lost, so now they are back.  Prop 90 had its “damage” provisions, that would be terrible for environmental and other land-use restrictions.  Zoning? Forget about it. There are a couple of “Son of Prop 90” props out in the field now, each with their own trojan horse agenda. Most of them still include some “damage” provision, but others include topics as far afield as rent control.  You see, they think eminent domain reform is a great issue for them, so they are going to try to take down as much of the other stuff that they don’t like as possible.

So, business and environmental groups lined up against Prop 90, and many of these partnerships have been transferred over to the Californians for Eminent Domain Reform.  This group includes the League of Conservation Voters, the California Small Business Association, the League of Cities, and so on.  So, why even bother with eminent domain reform, when eminent domain is rare? Well, to put it simply politics.  This issue is quite tiresome, and the Right wants to continue bludgeoning the public commons with it.  So, Asm. De La Torre (D-South Gate) has created a compromise plan (ACA 8)that would limit eminent domain, but still provide flexibility to the state and municipalities.  If ACA 8 passes the Legislature, it will appear on one of the three 2008 ballots. The plan has several main provisions outlined on their facts page. 

Protect Homeowners from Eminent Domain by prohibiting the State or any local government from using eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied home for transfer to another private party. This provision would prohibit taking a home through eminent domain to make way for a new private development. (ACA 8)

Protect Small Businesses from Eminent Domain by:

  * Prohibiting the State and local governments from using eminent domain to acquire property where a small business is located to transfer to another private party, except as part of a comprehensive plan to eliminate blight and only after the small business owner is first given the opportunity to participate in the revitalization plan.  (ACA 8)

  * If the small business does not participate in the revitalization plan it can choose between relocating or receiving the value of the business. If the small business relocates, it will receive:
  o Fair market value of the real property (if owned by the small business).
  o All reasonable moving expenses.
  o Expenses to reestablish the business at a new location, up to $50,000.
  o Compensation for the increased cost of rent or mortgage payments for up to 3 years. (Statutory)

  *
  If the small business does not elect to relocate it will receive:
  o Fair market value of the real property (if owned by the small business).
  o 125% of the value of the business if the business could not have been relocated and remain economically viable. (Statutory)

Owner’s Right to Repurchase Acquired Property. A home or small business acquired by eminent domain must be offered for resale to the original owner if the government does not use the property for a public use. The state or local government shall use reasonable diligence to locate the property owner. (ACA 8)

All in all, it’s a price worth paying to get this issue away from the Wingers.  I will be watching ACA 8 carefully as it proceeds through the Legislature, and see if it ends up as something worth supporting.