The Real Story Behind the Attempt to Kill Redistricting Reform
Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Morain let the cat out of the bag last Sunday. In his Bee column, he discussed the sudden passion of billionaire entertainment mogul Haim Saban for getting rid of the Citizens Redistricting Commission that is supposed to draw new legislative district lines in 2011. The Commission was established by Proposition 11, passed in 2008, but a number of congressional Democrats are pushing a ballot measure for this November to repeal the commission and return line drawing to the legislature.
This dubious measure, fronted by UCLA law professor Dan Lowenstein, comes at a time when approval for the legislature is hovering at about 10 percent. So it seems unlikely the people will vote to restore to indolent incumbents the right to draw their own district lines. But that’s not really what’s at stake here; this is about a reach for raw political power, and thanks to the $2 million contribution from Saban, the power grab initiative will make the fall ballot.
Why would Saban, who actually supported Proposition 11 in 2008, want to kill it in 2010? Morain provides the answer: “Saban makes no secret of his passion and it is not reapportionment. ‘I’m a one issue guy and my issue is Israel,’ Saban told the New York Times in 2004.
An Attempt to Stymie Pension Reform
One major battle to reform the public pension system is being played out over an assembly bill that would restrict the power of local governments to declare bankruptcy. Assembly Bill 155 by Tony Mendoza, D-Artesia, came out of the Senate Local Government Committee this week after Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg dumped an opponent of the bill from the committee allowing the union backed bill to move along its way.
The bill is a power play by the public employee unions to stymie the use of bankruptcy as a device to reconsider public employee contracts. The bill surfaced after the City of Vallejo declared bankruptcy and used the bankruptcy laws to reconfigure pension provisions for new city employees and demand higher contributions in the retirement fund from current employees.
In an environment in which city and state officials are looking for ways to maneuver past fiscal crises, public employee pensions and benefits have become a hot issue. Suggestions on revamping pensions and benefits have popped up from the governor’s office to non-profit foundations. Much attention has been focused on Steven Malanga’s essay in the City Journal laying California’s deficit problem at the feet of public employee unions.
Why Brown Should Drop the Debate Demand
If you read the newspapers or the state’s political bloggers, you might think that Jerry Brown’s demand for a debate with the two GOP gubernatorial contenders was a strategic masterstroke.
The verdict was nearly unanimous. The LA Times and Contra Costa Times gave Brown’s demand, made during a high-profile speech last weekend to the California Democratic Party convention, favorable coverage. Carla Marinucci of the San Francisco Chronicle gave Brown an award for “Best headline-grab,” arguing that the once and perhaps future governor “tossed off a savvy political punch and dominated the news cycle, while delighting his base.” And the journalistic wise men at Calbuzz scored it “a shrewd tactical win-win” for Brown.
This was an honest-to-goodness consensus: Brown had fired up Democrats at the convention, won the news cycle, and helped buck up underdog Steve Poizner, who could do more damage to Brown’s likely general election opponent, Meg Whitman. Brown himself seems to agree. His campaign has spent the week reviving the demand, and trying to make an issue of Meg Whitman’s quick refusal to accept the challenge.
Just for fun, let’s lob a contrarian grenade into the journalist-Brown love nest.
Brown’s debate demand is a significant mistake, in two ways.
Truck rule based on flawed data, ARB staff admits
A computer model that the Air Resources Board used to justify historic restrictions on diesel emissions from off-road construction equipment may have attributed twice as much pollution to those heavy trucks as they actually produce, according to interviews with ARB staff.
That error, coupled with the effects of the recession on the construction industry, means that the excavators, backhoes and graders that operate in California are producing only a fraction of the pollutants that the board believed was the case when it adopted the regulations in 2007.
The industry has been pushing the air board to repeal or at least suspend implementation of the rule, which requires contractors to get rid of old, heavily polluting engines and retrofit others with filters to capture the diesel particulate matter before it reaches the ambient air.
From the beginning, construction contractors have contended that the rule was misguided, would force some contractors out of business and had costs that exceeded its benefits.
Happy Earth Day
Today is the 40th anniversary of Earth Day. In 1970 the public’s primary environmental concerns (although that word was hardly common usage) were pollution from smokestacks and tailpipes, oil spills, and misuse of pesticides. Forty years later, the public would be astonished at how much cleaner are industrial and automobile emissions, how rare are reports of oil spills, and not only the prevalence of organic produce and meat, but how safely pesticides are applied and how quickly they disperse from our foods.
But maybe most surprising to Californians in 1970 would be that the leading environmental issue of 2010 is … CO2 emissions. Credit lots of things, but not least is the amazing progress we have made elsewhere: reducing air and water pollution, toxic waste in the ground, and land and habitat acquisition – all while accommodating enormous population and economic growth.