I’ve been
reading documents from the lawsuit filed by Michael Ni, a San Mateo County
voter associated with the firm Verafirma, seeking to have electronic signatures
accepted for initiative petitions.

The
case is moving through the courts. The state argues that the law does not
permit such signatures. Verafirma disputes that.

But
what struck me in the court documents were a couple of powerful briefs, both
from progressives, that make the argument that electronic signatures could be a
force for political engagement. Antonio Gonzalez, president of  the Southwest Voter Registration Education
Project, wrote the court that e-signatures could ease engagement among Latino
voters – because while turnout among such voters is low, the "Latino adoption
rate for smartphone technology is
outpacing that of the total population."

We’ve got CEQA to thank for the fenced-off, boarded-up eyesore at Sunset Boulevard and Gordon Street in Hollywood.

That building, an old Spaghetti Factory restaurant, should have been a new 23-story condo and office tower by now. Except that it was killed by CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act. Not because the project was environmentally unsound. In fact, it successfully fended off a lawsuit from neighbors brought under CEQA that went all the way to the California Supreme Court.

The developers won, but by the time they got that court victory in January, they had dropped from financial exhaustion. A notice of default had been filed on the project last summer. So, opponents really won. They killed it with CEQA.

Had it not been for that lawsuit, probably by now the building would be up, complete with condos aimed at middle-class workers, creative offices, retail space and even a little park. Instead, we’ve got the boarded-up, abandoned restaurant that’ll sit there for God knows how many years.

Cross-posted at CalWatchdog.

In the hullabaloo over extending tax increases, one thing is being overlooked: As things now stand, on July 1, just 10 weeks away, California gets some pretty hefty tax cuts. You’ll have more change jingling in your pocket.

That’s when most of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s record $13 billion tax increases of 2009 expire. (The 1 percent income tax increase of that year already expired on Jan. 1.)

Overall, combining the Jan. 1 and July 1 tax increases, the average California family will have about $1,000 more to spend on food, children’s clothing, mortgage or rent payments, car payments, gas, charity, etc. Some of the tax cuts also will go into investments to create new businesses and jobs.

The following tax increases will cease as of July 1:

* 1 percent sales tax increase;
* 0.5 percent Vehicle License Fee increase (the “car tax”).

Cross-posted at NewGeography.

Those who run the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority evidently believe that, since the Consent Decree that forced it to improve service to its bus riders has expired, they are free to rewrite history to justify Metro’s elimination of nine bus lines, its reductions in service on eleven more, and its overall elimination of four percent of its bus service hours by attempting to show that MTA bus service is little utilized and not cost-effective.

The Consent Decree followed a decade of reductions in bus service and increases in fares while the majority of transit spending by the major LA transit agencies went to rail. As a result of a Federal Title IX (discrimination in utilization of Federal funding) legal action, Labor/Community Strategy Center v MTA, in 1996, Metro agreed to the CD. It was forced to eliminate the effective doubling of fares that it had imposed, to return to offering the monthly passes that had been highly utilized by low-income transit riders, and to commit to a relief of overcrowded bus service. Those of us who fought for the CD, and who fought Metro to make it live up to its commitments, believed the CD to be an incredible success.

MTA has always felt otherwise.

Recently, the California Attorney General’s Office posted the summary of all settlements of Proposition 65 cases for 2010. Under Prop 65, any person suing "in the public interest" must notify the Attorney General of the lawsuit and the outcome of the case. This summary of private settlements lists all cases brought by private plaintiffs over the past year. The data shows the total penalties, attorney fees and all other funds collected.

Well, it seems that a few eager attorneys have found quite a revenue stream in filing lawsuits against businesses that might have violated some portion of Proposition 65. Most are related to warning signs if the business is using a particular chemical listed in Proposition 65.

The 2010 private settlements once again show an interesting trend. There were 187 settlements in 2010 totaling roughly $13.6 million dollars. Of that money, approximately $7.8 million went to attorneys’ fees. This is roughly 57% going to the lawyers. The remaining amounts either went to civil penalties or other distributions. Most of the time only a small portion went to support an environmental cause. This distribution of fees is surely not what Californians intended when they passed the initiative in 1986.

If I hadn’t heard it from clients I wouldn’t have believed
it – Californians are asking their companies to leave the state.

Some time ago a decision-maker told me he had evaluated the
benefits of moving his department out of Los Angeles. He said: "When I
discovered how substantial the savings would be, I quipped in front of my
staff, ‘We should move to Texas.’ I was surprised by what happened next –
people approached me one by one, came in my office, closed the door, and asked
that we move to Texas. Once I saw the employee reactions, I’d like for the
relocation to occur."

Businesses relocate generally for cost factors (taxes, the
burdens of excessive regulations, high rents) but people move for life-style
reasons. Here is a sampling of employee motivations:

The budget compromise struck last week by President Obama and Republicans in Congress deals a major blow to plans by community clinics in California and across the nation to expand in order to serve people who will be newly eligible for subsidized health care when the federal health reform takes effect in 2014.

The agreement will take $600 million from the anticipated growth in funding for community clinics, which were expected to play a major role in providing care as part of the federal Affordable Care Act, passed last year and under assault by Republicans in Congress.

The deal shaves that money from $1 billion that had been set aside for the expansion of community health centers, according to Carmela Castellano-Garcia, president and chief executive officer of the California Primary Care Association.

Of the remaining $400 million in that fund, $250 million is already committed, leaving just $150 million to finance new expansions for the health centers. Three hundred and fifty health centers have already applied for a piece of that money.

Editor’s note: The
following is the prepared text of Mr. Corselli’s testimony before the Assembly
Local Government Committee yesterday opposing AB 46, which would dissolve the
City of Vernon. The bill passed
the committee.

Good
afternoon Mr. Chair and members of the committee.  My name is Peter Corselli.  I am the engineering manager for US Growers
Cold Storage, we have been in the City of Vernon for 61 years, and I am opposed
to AB 46.

US Growers
employs 150 people directly and several hundred more through contractors and
other business operations throughout the city. 
Ninety percent of our employees are members of either the Teamsters or
the Operating Engineers union. 

When L.A. City Hall thinks it knows what’s good for business, the business community usually ends up with a raw deal. As if Councilmembers don’t have enough of their own issues to grapple with—starting with the City’s own budget deficit—now they want to make hiring decisions for you. That’s right, the “Hotel Worker Right of Recall” proposal from Councilmembers Paul Koretz and Janice Hahn would require all 50-room or more hotels that close for renovation or reconstruction to offer former employees their former job when the new facility opens.

First of all, the City of Los Angeles should be 100 percent in support of owners who wish to upgrade their properties. Unless hotels invest in upgrades, they soon find themselves out of business or serving a clientele that generates less money to pay employee wages and benefits—also less money for city employees. No one wins under that scenario.

Hotels that close for renovation or reconstruction are in many cases under new ownership and usually are redesigned to reach a different market segment. Whether it’s a modest 2-star hotel or a luxury 5-star hotel, each establishment, along with a physical upgrade, wants to establish an upgrade in service as well. They do that by hiring a staff that is most qualified for the new jobs. That new staff may very well be their former staff, but not always. Just as newly-elected City Councilmembers seek to hire the best people for their new staff, rather than simply hiring the staff of the previous Councilmember, a private employer must be entitled to interview and hire the staff they deem best qualified to serve their customers.