Why budget disaster may save California

California is broke, its elected officials are paralyzed in mortal fear of making tough decisions, and the people are angry.

Good.

Total system failure may be the only thing that can save California

I’m a father of two native Californians and a nearly lifelong resident of the state. I visit my state parks and beaches regularly, and I’m disappointed that most of them seem set to close. I believe that government is an appropriate tool for addressing some of California’s biggest issues. So, how can I believe that mess we’re in now is good?

It’s good because utter failure may be the only thing that can possibly snap California out of some long-cherished illusions and eventually set it back on a path toward government that is efficient, appropriate and responsible.

Let’s be clear about this. No matter what short-term steps the state takes to keep itself in business, including the measures Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is scheduled to discuss before a joint session of the California Legislature Tuesday, to a lot of people are going to be hurt. Consider yourself lucky if the only pinch you feel is that your favorite state park closes or starts charging a fee – and spare some thought for those whose families will see diminished opportunities for work, education and health.

California’s leaders and voters must take this crisis as an opportunity to disillusion themselves from the idea that the problems with the state’s budget and governance are temporary, and the mistaken belief that once we round the next corner everything will be fine. As painful as the coming budget cuts will be, greater harm would come from refusing to face up to the fact that the state’s structures for gathering income, spending funds and agreeing on a budget completely fail to serve the needs of Californians.

I don’t share anti-tax groups’ confidence that the only possible reading of May’s special election vote is a mandate for big cuts in state services, or the liberal interpretation that voters were rejecting spending limits. I think it just as likely that voters’ rejection of the proposed budget “solutions” reflects a simple annoyance that they were asked to make the decisions they elected other people to make.

But the reality is that we cannot deny the state government income while also demanding it provide a high level of service. The reality is that we have created a system that encourages elected officials to duck responsibility and dodge compromise in favor of pushing decisions onto the voters who put them in office. The reality is that until California examines itself under a very bright light, it will continue to operate in a fantasy of vain hopes and fake fixes.

Eight questions for California

California must address some questions at the foundation of the state’s problem with governance. I don’t have the answers to all of these questions, and it’s possible that we can fix our state by addressing only some of these issues. But all of these matters bear strongly on California’s ability to govern itself and to find the level of services and costs that Californians really want.

1. Does California need a full-time Legislature? Often, laws proposed in the Legislature can’t gain enough support to pass as they are first written. In most law-making bodies, this is when legislators alter their proposals to make them acceptable to more of their colleagues, or offer to exchange support of an opponent’s proposals for support of their own. In California, however, many times these failed proposals are simply kicked to the voters in the hope that political campaigning can achieve what compromise could not. This isn’t a problem with the people who hold office today, it’s a problem with the system. If legislators are unable or unwilling to fulfill their basic function of making law through debate and compromise, why pay them for a full-time job when they only do part of the work?

2. Is California’s system of voter initiatives doing more harm than good? According to a new survey conducted by students at the University of California, Riverside, voters still favor using ballot initiatives to decide budget matters. Perhaps this means that voters view initiatives as a way to make decisions the Legislature cannot or will not make, an understandable sentiment, but ballot measures are imprecise tools that institute changes that can’t be modified without another vote of the people. If California wants to hang on to this tradition of direct democracy, maybe it’s time for at least a common-sense change to our initiative process to require propositions to deal with only one subject at a time instead of mixing often unrelated issues in the same measure.

3. Does Proposition 13 still make sense? Prop. 13, which limited increases to property taxes in California, is still an untouchable issue to many state politicians. And indeed, voters may not yet be ready to change it. But more and more Californians have acquired their property long after the proposition passed, and some of them don’t see themselves as sharing the interests of those who still pay property taxes at 30-year-old rates. What we’re doing in California with Prop. 13 is penalizing new investment in the state – new buyers of homes – without producing any gain for the state on the surge in value some owners have realized simply by virtue of having bought a long time ago. Another effect of Prop. 13 that works against the interests of many Californians is the shift it produced in where local governments get their money. Prop. 13 is a big part of the reason so many small to mid-sized municipalities seem to keep building the same retail outlets instead of producing needed housing: Because of the limits on property taxes, local governments can’t get enough money out of new housing to pay for the increased level of services new residents require. In other words, because of Prop. 13, in many cases new housing costs local governments money. Retail development, on the other hand, does allow governments to obtain the necessary funding to support government services.

4. Are term limits causing more harm than good? I’ve never liked the idea of someone else telling me who to vote for, or when to stop voting for them, so I’ve always opposed term limits. But beyond my philosophical opposition, there are some important reasons why California might want to reconsider its term limits. One is that under our current term limits, legislators know they’ll be moving around so fast it’s unlikely they’ll be held accountable for the decisions they make – or dodge – in any single year. The effort required to build expertise on any given topic of governance and build the consensus required for substantive new laws just doesn’t pencil out for legislators who won’t be in their current office for long.

5. Are state electoral districts still favoring extreme politics? Last year, voters approved Proposition 11, which created a new method to set the geographic boundaries of state electoral districts. New district lines are expected to be in place for 2012 elections, but it remains to be seen if the new districts will be any more effective than the old in producing lawmakers who can meet in the middle of their ideologies to govern effectively. In the meantime, what’s certain is that we’re still stuck with too many legislators who occupy the far edges of the Republican and Democratic parties.

6. Is it time to eliminate the two-thirds requirement to pass a budget? The idea of modifying the requirement for a two-thirds vote for the Legislature to approve a state budget is particularly popular among Democratic lawmakers and activists. I don’t oppose a change on ideological grounds, but I think this proposal is looking at California’s problems from the wrong direction. If we change the structures that favor a flaccid and unaccountable Legislature, it’s far less likely the two-thirds vote requirement will be a problem. In any case, that UC Riverside survey found that the two-thirds requirement to pass a budget is still popular among voters.

7. Is it time to change the requirement that tax increases require a two-thirds vote of the people? As with the two-thirds vote requirement for the Legislature to approve a budget, many on the left are talking about trying to modify the requirement that many taxes require a two-thirds majority approval from voters. I can’t say that I think California’s tax income is always well-spent, and I’m wary of making the leash on new taxes too loose. But when voters decide whether they want low taxes or lots of services, this is one option they might very well choose.

8. Does California need a constitutional convention? This is the big gun of California reform efforts, and it’s already gathered some good momentum. A constitutional convention would be able to undertake fundamental changes to the most basic structures and systems of California government. I don’t think a constitutional convention is the only possible solution to California’s situation, but it certainly would provide a means to resolve many issues at once and to produce a relatively simple, clear proposal for reform instead of relying on a bunch of disparate plans. In spite of the uncertainty of what kind of new constitution we might end up with, this is one idea California must consider seriously.

What’s your idea to fix California’s broken systems?

I’ve presented a handful of ideas for changing the way California does business, but there are many others out there. Do you have a plan, a solution, a proposal? Leave a comment and join the debate, and if you’re on Twitter, @ me a reply.

http://www.repaircalifornia.org/index.php

Observations on San Francisco’s November 2008 election, part 2

More good stuff from the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association’s post-election analysis of the Nov. 4, 2008 election with Alex Clemens of Barbary Coast Consulting and David Latterman of Fall Line Analytics, plus a couple of my own comments (See part 1 of the observations here). This round includes Prop. 8, Chris Daly’s role as bogeyman, the next president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and Ron Dudum’s future:

Prop. 8 aftermath. The victory of California Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment withdrawing the right to civil marriage from gay men and women, has been deconstructed a million ways to Sunday already. Various analysts have offered their opinions: Prop. 8 won because African-American voters are more conservative on social issues than the electorate at large, and they came out in great numbers to vote for Barack Obama; or Obama is partially to blame because he wasn’t vocal enough about opposing Prop. 8 (and he said he was personally opposed to gay marriage); or San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom didn’t campaign against it actively enough; or Newsom was too visible and became a negative factor; or the anti-8 campaign just screwed up by being fractured in the beginning and missing out on key fundraising opportunities.

Whatever the explanation, both Clemens and Latterman said that support for gay marriage seems to be increasing by about one percentage point per year, and they expected to see the issue on the ballot again.

Clemens said he believed that the next time gay marriage appears on the ballot, supporters of gay marriage won’t rely on a paid-media campaign of television ads and mailers. Instead, they’ll do something like what the Obama campaign did with its vast pool of volunteers. That is, the campaign will be fought in the field, with supporters of gay marriage (probably including as many straight supporters of gay marriage as they can find) going door to door and talking with individual voters.

Alex Clemens, David Latterman and Gabriel Metcalf discuss the outcomes of the Nov. 4, 2008 election at SPUR.

My own guess about the fate of gay marriage in California is that the legal challenges to Prop. 8 will go on so long that a measure seeking to undo it will hit the ballot before all those challenges are resolved. If that’s within two years, I’d bet the new anti-8 proposition will lose, but in just a few years longer a subsequent proposition spelling out a constitutional right to civil marriage for gay men and women will win. After that, a few measures seeking to replicate Prop. 8 will come up, but will lose, before supporters decide to direct their money elsewhere.

Regarding the impact the victory of Prop. 8 may have on Newsom’s ambitions to be governor of California, Clemens said that while it may have a negative effect now, a few years down the line it may be good for Newsom to be seen as the father of gay marriage in California. “Four years from now,” said Clemens, “it will be a badge of honor.”

Daly done as a demon? District 6 Supervisor Chris Daly’s days as an effective bogeyman for opponents such as the Apartment Association, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and others seeking to bring the city’s moderate and conservative voters to the polls may be done, according to Alex Clemens of Barbary Coast Consulting and David Latterman of Fall Line Analytics.

Making sense of San Francisco’s Nov. 2008 election

If your head’s in a spin trying to take in the results of yesterday’s election and you live in San Francisco, take a long lunch this afternoon and pop over to SPUR’s post-election analysis. Expert political numbers man David Latterman and the witty and astute Alex Clemens will explain what happened at the polls yesterday — and how it fits into the context of local electoral politics.

The focus of SPUR’s election analyses usually is on San Francisco, but this time it’s certain to include discussions of the state and federal elections as well.

This regular event has grown over the years into a required piece of post-election analysis for everyone interested in San Francisco elections, so expect a crowded room along with unique insights.

It starts at 12:30 p.m. and runs to 2 p.m., tacking on an additional 30 minutes this time to handle the huge ballot. Five bucks for non-members and free for all SPUR members. San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, 312 Sutter St. at Grant Avenue (an easy walk from BART or the Muni Metro, with limited bike parking right out front). Note that this event takes place not in SPUR’s offices, but rather on the second-floor meeting room of the World Affairs Council.

SPUR

David Latterman’s Fall Line Analytics

Alex Clemens’ Barbary Coast Consulting

The election’s over — now what?

Obama will be the next president of the United States. California Proposition 8 looks to be headed for a win (as of this writing, by about 6 percentage points). San Francisco will have a couple of new supervisors, and a bunch of new laws and policies.

But what does this all mean? Can new officeholders actually do the things they promised in their campaigns? Starting Wednesday, Nov. 5 I’ll analyze selected election results and their potential impacts. Stay tuned.

Vote, vote, vote!

I’ve emerged from under the cruel thumb of my baby-borne cold too late to write anything of significance in advance of today’s election, unfortunately. But on the plus side, I feel pretty good now, which probably also has something to do with the fact that I’m basking in the afterglow of casting my vote in what has been a fascinating election on the federal, state and local levels.

Voting feels good. Go vote.

Polling place sign, November 2008 election

California green policies aid economy, says study

Contrary to the fears of opponents, California’s policies seeking to increase energy efficiency and fight global warming are actually good for the economy, according to a new study.

David Roland-Holst writes for the University of California, Berkeley’s Center for Energy, Resources and Economic Stability that based on past state policies and practices, implementing California’s historic “Global Warming Solutions Act” — also known as AB 32 — would create as many as 403,000 new jobs, boost household incomes statewide by as much as $48 billion and increase the Gross State Product by $76 billion.

Looking ahead, California’s ambitious plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as mandated by the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) puts the state on a more stable economic path by encouraging even greater investment in energy saving innovation.

The California Air Resources Board is on track to consider and possibly adopt an implementation plan for AB 32 in December.

Read the full report in PDF form here.

This post originally appeared in my other blog Golden State Cleantech. If you’d like to share or pass on this post, please visit the post from Golden State Cleantech.

California adopts short con for a budget — again

California now has an official budget, albeit nearly three months late, after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a revised proposal on Tuesday. But as with budgets of the past, it relies largely on gimmicks, shaky presumptions, rearrangements, gambles — and stiffing local governments.

The budget relies on revenue projections that presume California’s economic recovery will begin this year, and if you believe that one you probably thought a subprime mortgage sounded like a good idea two years ago.

However, the biggest tangible presumption on which the governor relies to make this budget even come close to working relates to the California Lottery. Instead of addressing the state’s long-term structural budget deficit, the 2008-2009 budget relies on borrowing $5 billion from lottery revenues. That’s ridiculous enough on its own, but it gets worse: Voters must approve the plan next year, most likely in June, just weeks before the state must adopt a new budget for the next fiscal year. And if voters don’t approve, and the state gets caught with its behind in the breeze? If that happens, massive midyear spending cuts and panicked emergency measures are inevitable.

The 2008-2009 budget also shifts hundreds of millions of dollars from local redevelopment agencies back to the state, which is only going to make things tougher for cities and counties trying to revive blighted areas.

On the plus side, it looks like the state will end up with a real rainy-day fund, though it’s not as robust as it probably should be.

I’ll leave further details to The Two Dans:

Daniel Weintraub on the California budget
Dan Walters on the California budget

San Francisco lawyer, fundraiser Robert McCarthy dies

Robert J. McCarthy, a lawyer, lobbyist and political fundraiser who counted scores of San Francisco city leaders as his friends and clients, died of cancer Sunday at his home in the city’s St. Francis Wood neighborhood. He was 61.

— Heather Knight, San Francisco Chronicle

Back when first started covering the San Francisco Planning Commission (in the days when Frank Jordan was mayor of San Francisco) as a reporter, I noticed a big, well-dressed guy who seemed to make all the commissioners sit up and pay attention whenever he spoke. That was Bob McCarthy, and I came to see him around quite a lot at City Hall.

I guess Bob eventually noticed me, too, because on occasion he would pull me aside in the hallway and complain — gently — about something I had written. I know that later on, when I became neighborhood editor and then managing editor of the San Francisco Independent, he also noticed those rare occasions when one of  my reporters misunderstood a story or just wrote it in a way that required him to speak up in defense of one of his clients.

I’m not one to hang around politicians and lobbyists except as professionally required, and of course I frequently disagreed with Bob and was annoyed at the way he tried to spin the stories, but I always found Bob McCarthy to be an exceptionally effective advocate for his clients and an interesting guy. San Francisco will be a less interesting without him.

Robert McCarthy dies – S.F. lawyer, fundraiser.

Don’t look now, but California Legislature has agreed on a budget

UPDATE Sept. 17: Schwarzenegger now says he’ll veto the budget offered by the Legislature. Good for him. I expected a bunch of bluster about it but no action. In spite of the negative impact of not having a state budget for so long, in the end this may be the best thing for California. Now, if only we had competitive electoral districts …

No, really — don’t look. The budget state legislators passed early this morning is as bad as anything they’ve come up with in the past decade or more, and California lawmakers just left the state’s budget process burning on the side of the road.

Thanks, guys.

Dan Weintraub of the Sacramento Bee suggests that California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger should veto the budget, even though there’s a good chance the Legislature would override him. Why? Well, writes Weintraub, that would put Der Arnold in a great moral position to push for real budget reform next year. Maybe so, but the Schwarzenegger we’ve seen of late doesn’t appear to have the stomach for that kind of fight, and a veto might anger legislators of both parties so much that it could harm the governor’s ability to push his agenda on other matters.

Dan Weintraub on the California state budget

Dan Walters (another fine SacBee columnist) on the California state budget

Bike lanes over S.F. Bay?

A key state agency will discuss a possible bicycle and pedestrian path over San Francisco Bay April 3, in spite of opposition from the California Department of Transportation.

The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, which oversees long-term uses of San Francisco Bay and regulates development in and around the bay, is scheduled to hear a report on the feasibility of constructing a path for pedestrians and bicyclists on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. Another agency that is responsible for setting tolls on Bay Area bridges has offered to help arrange financing and construct a movable barrier — but Caltrans already has voiced the opinion that such a trail would be a hazard to motorists and refuses to build it.

From the published meeting agenda:

“Briefing and Public Hearing on Bicycle and Pedestrian Access on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge The Commission will receive a briefing on the issue of whether a roadway shoulder on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge should be allowed to be used as a bicycle and pedestrian trail during non-peak commute hours or should be reserved for future use as a travel lane by motorized vehicles. Implementing either option will require a permit from BCDC. The Bay Area Toll Authority has determined that the bicycle and pedestrian option is feasible and has offered to help arrange financing the trail and installing a moveable barrier to protect the trail users. The California Department of Transportation has determined that the barrier would pose a safety hazard to motorists and has indicated that it will not construct the barrier and trail. The public will be given an opportunity to comment, and the Commission may provide policy guidance on the issue. (Brad McCrea) [415/352-3615 bradm@bcdc.ca.gov]”

The meeting of the BCDC is set for 1 p.m. April 3, on the second floor of the Ferry Building, at Market Street and the Embarcadero, in San Francisco.

The BCDC also is scheduled to discuss a proposed state law that would allow the BCDC to consider the impacts of climate change in making its planning decisions.

Resources:

The Bay Conservation and Development Commission

BCDC’s April 3 meeting agenda

The California Department of Transportation

The Marin County Bicycle Coalition