Can Deliberative Poll Solve California’s Girlfriend Problems?
If you look
for a path to fixing California’s governance crisis in traditional public
opinion polls, you’ll look in vain. California voters are frustrated but don’t
understand the basics of state finance and governance enough to identify a way
to reform. In this way, the California electorate is like the worst girlfriend
(or boyfriend) you’ve ever had: she is angry about just about everything, but
can’t give you any clear instruction about what you can do to make her happy.
What if
California voters learned how the governance system really worked, through some
sort of educational process? Would they be able to point to a coherent way
forward?
A Reckless Threat Against Prop 13
Governor Jerry Brown told an audience in San Francisco
yesterday that if he doesn’t get his tax plan on the ballot he expects labor
groups will file an initiative to change Prop 13 to raise property taxes on
business. Brown is trying to scare the business community into pressuring
Republicans to support his tax plan. But, many in the business community are
tired of the so-called "split roll" threat. They are preparing for battle.
In a business environment with the value of commercial
properties down about forty-percent and unemployment hovering around the
12-percent mark, an increased property tax is about the worst formula one can
imagine. Not only would business owners probably cut jobs to pay the tax, or
not hire the next employee to pay the new obligation, but small and minority
owned businesses, the very engine to drive the economy forward, would be hurt
and stalled because of the property tax increase.
Ironically, Brown made the statement at a meeting of 250
apartment owners and developers. The question authors of a split roll
initiative have to face is do they include apartments on the commercial side of
the roll or are apartments residential? Excluding apartments from the tax
increase cuts dramatically the revenue proponents of the split roll hope to
take in. Including apartments means a rent hike for renters.
Budget Judge
Controller John Chiang took a victory lap this week,
enjoying accolades from an unusual quarter – legislative Republicans and conservatives. But while Chiang has made
political hay by slamming shut the pay window, he has actually added to the
fiscal irresponsibility surrounding the budget.
If the Controller’s action is left unanswered, the
Legislature and Governor will effectively no longer have the final word on the
state’s budget. The Controller will be able to second-guess – and only after
the fact – whether a budget passed by the Legislature is a bona fide budget,
for purposes of deciding whether legislators will continue to be paid. The
criteria the Controller uses to determine "balance" is of his own devise. He
may change it from year-to-year as he pleases. He may even halt legislative pay
after the Governor signs and enacts a budget.
One can envision future Big Five negotiating sessions
becoming a Big Six, with appropriate consideration given to the Controller’s
priorities.
“Community Revitalization Trust” Bill Needs Revitalizing
One of the frustrating aspects of politics is that the right
hand doesn’t always seem to know what the left hand is doing, often to the
detriment of the very citizens that lawmakers and public agencies are
attempting to serve. A classic example of this is SB 535 (DeLeon), a bill
currently working its way through the Legislature.
SB 535 proposes to allocate a portion of greenhouse gas
(GHG) emitter fees collected as part of the cap-and-trade program under AB 32,
the state’s global warming law, to a trust intended to offset the impacts of
climate change on disadvantaged communities.
On the surface this sounds like a good idea, and it would be but for the
fine print. SB 535 does nothing to
address the impact on small and minority-owned businesses and the communities
they serve of the significantly higher electricity and natural gas rates
associated with cap-and-trade. These
costs have recently been estimated at hundreds of millions of dollars.
Outlawing New Houses in California
Cross-posted at NewGeography.
UCLA’s most recent Anderson Forecast indicates that there has been a significant shift in demand in California toward condominiums and apartments. The Anderson Forecast concludes that this will cause problems, such as slower growth in construction employment because building multi-unit dwellings creates less employment than building the detached houses that predominate throughout California and most of the nation. The Anderson Forecast says that this will hurt inland areas (such as the Riverside-San Bernardino area and the San Joaquin Valley) because their economies are more dependent on construction than coastal areas, such as Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area and San Diego.
Detached Housing Permits Remain Strong in the Historic Context: The Anderson Forecast reports that multi-unit building permits have recovered more quickly than building permits for detached housing. However, any such shift is likely to be highly volatile. Since the peak of the bubble, the distribution of building permits between detached and multi-unit in California has been on a roller coaster. Indeed the Anderson Forecast characterizes the “2010 US Census” as “showing a significant shift in demand toward condominiums and apartments.” Actually, the 2010 US Census asked no question from which such a conclusion about housing types or any question from which such a conclusion could be drawn.