For Clients & Friends of The Gualco Group, Inc.

IN THIS ISSUE – “I Should Be Standing 40 Feet Under Water”

Capital News & Notes (CN&N) harvests California legislative and regulatory insights from dozens of media and official sources for the past week, tailored to your business and advocacy interests.  Please feel free to forward.

READ ALL ABOUT IT!! 

FOR THE WEEK ENDING APRIL 23, 2021

 

Workforce Dropouts…A Troubling Pandemic Trend

CalMatters

It’s a troubling trend: For two out of three months in 2021, California’s unemployment rate shrank partly from thousands of people dropping out of the workforce.

The Golden State’s unemployment rate hit a pandemic low of 8.3% in March, down from 8.5% in February, according to figures released Friday by the Employment Development Department. But the decline was largely caused by the nearly 40,000 Californians who stopped looking for work altogether, even as employers added 119,600 new jobs. Similarly, California’s unemployment rate improved 0.3% between December and January, partly because 36,500 people dropped out of the job market. February is so far the only month in 2021 that saw an increase in the civilian labor market.

Lynn Reaser, an economist at San Diego’s Point Loma Nazarene University: “Many people have either quit their jobs or stopped looking for work. Some needed to care for children and for parents. Some feared becoming infected at work. Some despaired at finding a job and opted for unemployment benefits. Still others have simply burned out.”

The numbers suggest that it will take more than fully reopening on June 15 for California’s economy to bounce back — and for the state to close gaps that persisted long before the pandemic hit. According to Mount Saint Mary University’s recently released Report on the Status of Women and Girls in California, 57% of men said working from home had a positive impact on their career, compared to 29% of women. And 34% of male parents said they received a promotion amid the pandemic, compared to 9% of female parents.

 

California Economic Recovery: Rosy or Cherry-Picking?

CalMatters commentary from Dan Walters

California, which has been mired in a pandemic recession for the last year, enjoyed some modest economic gains in March as the state’s unemployment rate dropped to 8.3%.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, not surprisingly, immediately trumpeted the job report as showing “the steady progress that we need to bring California back.” He faces a recall election later this year and the state of the economy, particularly employment, will be one of the major factors in determining his fate.

However, the governor’s rosy interpretation of the March numbers was an exercise in cherry-picking. A deeper dive into the monthly data paints a cloudier picture.

For instance, Newsom said “California added 119,600 jobs in March,” but that’s only the number of payroll jobs in 11 major industries. A more pertinent number is that total civilian employment, which includes the self-employed, increased by a much more modest 9,900.

March’s unemployment rate, 8.3%, is a slight decline from February, but in the larger context, remains very high — the nation’s third highest, in fact, behind Hawaii (9%) and New York (8.5%). Four states were tied for the lowest jobless rate, 2.9%.

Moreover, the official unemployment rate itself is misleading because it is merely the percentage of Californians in the labor force who were jobless and doesn’t take into account those who have dropped out of the labor force and are no longer seeking employment.

California’s labor force declined by 40,000 persons between February and March and is down a half-million from February 2020, the last month before Newsom declared a pandemic emergency and began ordering businesses to shut down in an effort to slow COVID-19 infection rates.

A more accurate comparison is that in March, 1.6 million fewer Californians were employed than had been working in February 2020. In March, California had regained 44% of the nonfarm jobs lost last year while the nation as a whole regained 62%.

Counties in the San Francisco Bay Area have seen their unemployment rates drop to levels approaching pre-pandemic levels, such as 4.8% in Marin County. Jobless rates, as usual, are much higher in agricultural counties such as Imperial (15.7%) and Colusa (15.4%).

The situation in Los Angeles County, which has a quarter of the state’s population, is depressing the entire state. Its jobless rate of 10.9% is one of the highest of any major metropolitan area and reflects the huge job losses from shutdowns of hotels, restaurants and other service sectors.

The governor has promised to fully reopen the economy by June 15, but that assumes there is no resurgence of the virus. Moving toward full employment also assumes that parents who had dropped out of the job market to take care of their housebound children will return to work once schools have resumed classroom instruction.

School reopenings have been very slow, however, largely due to stalemates between school administrators and unions over salaries and working conditions.

Economists, including those in Newsom’s finance department, believe that fully returning to pre-pandemic levels of employment will take several years. Therefore, by recall election day next fall, the state probably will still have a relatively large number of workers who have been unable to find work or have given up and dropped out of the labor force.

Newsom, no doubt, will continue to put a positive spin on the employment numbers as the recall election draws nearer. He has a lot — his political career — riding on whether the economy fully reopens in June and, as he hopes, Californians feel positive vibes about their personal economic futures when ballots arrive in the mail.

https://calmatters.org/commentary/2021/04/california-newsom-jobs-unemployment-pandemic-recall/?mc_cid=90ce8dd54d&mc_eid=2833f18cca

 

Newsom Declares Limited Drought Emergency

Sacramento Bee & Governor’s Office

Gov. Gavin Newsom officially declared a drought emergency in one of the driest regions of California, the Russian River watershed in Northern California.

While the governor stopped short of declaring a statewide drought, the move makes various forms of drought assistance available for Sonoma and Mendocino counties and could allow the state to take swifter action on curtailing farmers and others from pulling water from the river.

Newsom said his order won’t bring the imposition of water-conservation mandates, however.

The Democratic governor issued the declaration during a visit to Lake Mendocino in Ukiah, where he stood in a cracked, dry lake bed that vividly demonstrated the impact of the drought.

“I’m standing currently 40 feet underwater, or should be standing 40 feet underwater,” he said.

The lake is normally fed by the Russian River, and Newsom was accompanied by officials from the region who have been pleading for help in recent weeks.

State Sen. Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg, added: “Lake Mendocino is the canary in the coal mine when it comes to California’s drought.” McGuire said he is working with colleagues in the Legislature to propose a $2 billion budget proposal focused on the drought.

Newsom’s disaster declaration also cited the ultra-dry conditions in the Klamath Basin, along the California-Oregon border, but his drought declaration only applies to the Russian River area.

Newsom’s top water policymakers accompanied him to Lake Mendocino and pledged to closely monitor the impact of declining water levels on endangered fish species such as Chinook salmon. Environmentalists say protections for fish were relaxed in the last drought to free up more supplies for farms and cities, leading to dramatic declines in fish populations.

Even though Newsom has acknowledged California is “in the second year of these drought conditions,” he’s refused to declare a statewide drought emergency. Such a declaration could translate into sweeping cutbacks in urban water use, including restrictions on watering lawns.

He stuck with the no-declaration stance, saying, “I anticipate being strategic and targeted in terms of the formal emergency declarations as needed. We’ll be strategic based upon conditions as they take place. As relates to statewide order, we have certainly gamed that out, but right now, we’re not prepared to advance a statewide order.”

Officials in his administration have said a statewide declaration is more likely to occur in 2022 if the state endures a third straight dry winter.

Some political observers believe that Newsom, who is likely facing a recall later this year over his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, is reluctant to make the state’s drought official because any restrictions could anger voters.

Central Valley legislators continued pressing him Wednesday to make the declaration statewide.

“With the governor’s drought declaration today in Sonoma and Mendocino counties, the Central Valley can’t afford to be overlooked,” state Sen. Andreas Borgeas, R-Fresno, said in a statement. “California is in a drought. We need a statewide emergency declaration immediately in order to deliver more water to farmers and growers in the Valley.”

Water agencies in the Russian River area have already taken initial steps toward conservation as water levels have fallen. The city of Calistoga, for example, recently declared a “Stage II” emergency and imposed water restrictions effective May 1.

Declaring a regional emergency, rather than a statewide emergency, isn’t unprecedented. When former Gov. Jerry Brown declared an end to the last drought, in 2017, he kept the order in place in Fresno, Kings, Tuolumne and Tulare counties. That order still stands for those counties.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/water-and-drought/article250843019.html?#storylink=cpy

Governor’s Emergency Declaration:

https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/4.21.21-Emergency-Proclamation-1.pdf

 

Governor Bans New Fracking; Seeks to End Oil Production By 2045

CalMatters

California will stop approving new oil fracking by 2024 under an executive order that Gov. Gavin Newsom announced today with little fanfare following months of confusing mixed messages.

The order is a blow to oil companies in California, but a limited victory for environmentalists who have been pushing Newsom to do more to combat fossil fuels, climate change and pollution in disadvantaged communities.

The controversial practice has long raised concerns from nearby residents and environmental groups. In fracking, chemicals and water are injected into underground rocks at high pressures to crack them open and unlock the oil or gas.

In signing the order, Newsom contradicted a claim he made in September when he said he can’t legally ban fracking on his own. Instead, he asked the Legislature to act. “We simply don’t have that authority. That’s why we need the Legislature to approve it,” he said on Sept. 23.

Newsom’s move comes a week after the Legislature rejected a bill that would have banned fracking.

The governor has been sending inconsistent messages about fracking for months, infuriating environmentalists: In September, he asked lawmakers to send him a bill banning fracking. But when one was introduced, he never publicly threw his weight behind it. The bill set off a feud between environmentalists and labor unions, which are both influential constituencies with Democrats, and it was voted down in its first committee.

Oil industry spokesperson Kevin Slagle said Newsom is “taking a great legal risk” in using his executive power to ban fracking permits.

“This is an illegal mandate and we will use every means to fight it,” said Slagle of the Western States Petroleum Association, which represents oil and gas companies.

About 95% of fracking occurs in the San Joaquin Valley, nearly all of it in four Kern County oil fields.

Fracking accounts for a small amount — 17% — of California’s total oil and gas production, and the governor’s action has no impact on the rest.

Newsom’s order directs the California Geologic Energy Management Division, the agency that oversees oil operations, to immediately begin drafting rules that will stop issuing new fracking permits by January 2024.

“The climate crisis is real, and we continue to see the signs every day,” Newsom said in a statement. “I’ve made it clear I don’t see a role for fracking in that future and similarly, believe that California needs to move beyond oil.”

The order will not ban existing fracking, so fracked wells already in operation can continue. About 150 wells per month undergo hydraulic fracturing in California, according to a 2015 study.

But Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot said the riskiest process related to fracking is the drilling of new wells, and that will stop in 2024. Existing permits for wells must be used within one year, he said.

“Those wells that have been fracked presumably will continue to produce oil in coming years. But the impact or the activities that we’re concerned about, which is essentially the violent explosion of chemicals through the subsurface, will end,” he said. “Period. Full stop.”

Fracking a well “involves actually one specific time limited event. Think about this as essentially shooting down a cocktail of chemicals and sand and water and sometimes acid underground, in a fairly violent way that fractures the subsurface,” he said.

Environmentalists say it’s not enough when action to battle climate change and pollution from fossil fuels is needed immediately. Instead, they said Newsom needs to end all oil and gas production in the state and require health and safety buffers around existing wells.

“Directing his regulatory agencies to do the work over two and a half years that the governor can do today is more of the dodging we’ve seen from Newsom during his entire tenure,” said Food & Water Watch California Director Alexandra Nagy.

In addition to the fracking order, Newsom directed the California Air Resources Board to consider phasing out all oil extraction by 2045, when the state is tasked with achieving carbon neutrality under an executive order signed by former Gov. Jerry Brown.

“We believe that we’ve got all the policies in place that will mean that we don’t need oil by 2045,” said California EPA Secretary Jared Blumenfeld.

An environmental group, the Center for Biological Diversity, sued California in February for approving nearly 2,000 permits for new oil and gas wells, including some fracking projects, in 2020. It alleged that the California oil regulators violated environmental laws by failing to conduct analyses of environmental and health effects before issuing the permits.

Newsom is likely facing a recall election later this year and is working to unify Democrats to oppose the GOP-led effort to oust him from office. The failure of the fracking bill appeared to shield him from having to choose sides in a politically fraught fight. But the governor is facing pressure from environmentalists who say Newsom “over-promises and under-delivers” when it comes to meaningful climate policy.

“We recognize the threat to California’s economy and our workers in this ban, and we will fight for them,” said oil industry spokesman Slagle. ”We’re not sure what changed. Maybe the politics around him (Newsom) have changed.”

Other states have already banned fracking, including New York, where Gov. Andrew Cuomo enacted an executive order in 2014. So environmentalists question why Newsom feels as though he doesn’t have the power to do so. Washington and Maryland banned it through legislation.

“I think most everyone understands that the clearest, most direct way to actually ban fracking would be through a law change. But since that hasn’t happened, the governor has made clear we need to use our regulatory authority to do so,” Crowfoot said.

Brown refused to ban fracking despite intense pressure from environmentalists, saying it made more sense to prioritize policies that would reduce the demand for oil.

Some Democrats in the Legislature urged more sweeping action because other forms of oil extraction — cyclic steam and steam and water flooding — are more plentiful in the state and threaten the health of people in nearby communities.

“While we believe an earlier end date is appropriate, at least having a set end date will trigger the long overdue conversation about what a transition away from oil looks like. To date, political paralysis has prevented that conversation from happening,” Senators Scott Wiener, a Democrat from San Francisco, and Monique Limón, a Democrat from Santa Barbara, who introduced the failed fracking ban bill, said in a statement.

Banning fracking would have minimal effect on California’s planet-warming greenhouse gases. All of California’s oil and gas production emits only about 4% of the state’s total greenhouse gases, and fracking would be a very small fraction of that. That’s because fracking emits less greenhouse gases per barrel of oil than other types of production.

If fracked oil is replaced with other oil, greenhouse gas emissions may actually increase, according to a 2015 report by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the California Council on Science and Technology. “If demand for oil remained constant, the replacement fuel could have larger greenhouse gas emissions,” the report says.

Oil companies say they are working on solar, wind and other cleaner energy sources but that they need fracked oil to meet consumers’ demand.

“We recognize that we are in an energy transition…But as we work together to get there, bans and mandates are only going to limit what is possible,” Slagle said. “Eliminating any form of production just means we have to rely on crude oil coming from other sources. If it’s not produced here, it’s coming from somewhere.”

Newsom’s staff said fracking permits in California already undergo “the most stringent (reviews) in the country,” involving experts from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. CalGem is working on new health and safety regulations for the wells.

But environmentalists say oil wells still pose a threat to people nearby.

“Communities need immediate relief to the heath assaults of oil and gas extraction in the form of an immediate 2500-foot health and safety buffer. Justice delayed is justice denied,” said Martha Dina Agruello, executive director of the Physicians for Social Responsibility – Los Angeles.

The biggest concerns about fracking focus on its use of chemicals, potential groundwater contamination and emissions of hazardous substances that can waft into nearby communities. There is little monitoring and data on what chemicals are used, so the extent of the pollution and health impacts is largely unknown.

“Operators have unrestricted use of many hazardous and uncharacterized chemicals in hydraulic fracturing,” the Lawrence Berkeley scientists said in their 2015 report. “No agency has systematically investigated possible impacts.”

They urged the state to limit use of hazardous chemicals and ban injection of fracking wastewater into the ground or storing it in pits that can pollute groundwater. “These practices should stop,” they wrote.

Fracking has been highly controversial since production surged around the world about two decades ago. The dramatic increase was driven by industry developing new techniques to produce oil and gas from previously untapped sources.

https://calmatters.org/environment/2021/04/newsom-ban-new-oil-fracking/

 

New CA Atty. Gen. Bonta Faces Progressive Scrutiny

CalMatters

Newly confirmed State Attorney General Rob Bonta told the Legislature during hearings this week he will take a tougher hand in policing the police — ensuring misconduct records are released to the public, thoroughly investigating officer-involved shootings and using the AG’s office to pursue civil rights probes of local law enforcement agencies.

“We need to rebuild trust between law enforcement and communities. And I believe that law enforcement are invaluable parts of our communities and that the vast majority want to build and earn that trust. Accountability is part of that trust,” Bonta, a Democrat former Assembly member since 2012, testified before the Senate Rules Committee.

Still, despite the broad support in the Legislature and his vows for stronger reforms, Bonta is likely to face close and continuing scrutiny from progressives, who’ve accused the state Justice Department in recent years of failing to hold police more accountable.

Assemblymember Reginald Jones-Sawyer, a South Los Angeles Democrat, told Bonta that the next attorney general must meet the demands of the moment. The verdict in the Floyd case, he said, “underscores what communities of color have long requested — accountability for bad officers.”

While the Legislature has enacted important law enforcement reforms over the past several years, Jones-Sawyer said, the department must “serve as a backstop and final arbiter in cases of abuse or misconduct by law enforcement. Too many Californians die or have their lives forever altered by the actions of bad law enforcement officials.”

Bonta’s nomination last month came after Xavier Becerra stepped down to become U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services. Becerra, who earned praise for confronting the Trump Administration on immigration and other key issues, frustrated progressives when it came to police reform in the wake of controversial deaths at the hands of police officers throughout the country, including California.

Under Becerra, who received substantial campaign donations from law enforcement unions, the AG’s office was hesitant to prosecute police officers involved in controversial shootings of unarmed civilians, dragged its feet on investigations of alleged civil rights abuses by some law enforcement agencies, and fought the release of police misconduct records despite a state law that opened certain disciplinary files to the public.

State Sen. Sydney Kamlager, a Los Angeles Democrat, asked about that lack of disclosure under a law that opened records pertaining to police use of deadly force and certain misconduct findings.

Bonta pledged that his office would be more transparent.

“I supported that bill as a legislator, and I know its letter and I know its intent,” he said. “And it is designed specifically to provide for increased disclosure and more transparency, and which will hopefully lead to greater oversight and accountability.”

During today’s two hearings, Bonta touted his progressive record as a five-term Bay Area lawmaker.

Among other law enforcement measures, he co-authored legislation approved last year requiring state prosecutors to investigate officer-involved shootings that result in the death of an unarmed person. Forming a division to handle an estimated 40 shooting investigations a year, he said, would be one of his most important initial priorities.

Becerra had resisted calls to become actively engaged in investigating force-related deaths in California’s police agencies, a job he insisted should remain mostly with local authorities.

“The attorney general’s office has not in the past generally investigated large numbers of officer involved shootings,” Bonta said. “Those who are grieving the loss of life of family members who died during interactions with law enforcement, anyone who’s being investigated, the Legislature in California, all deserve that we get it right, that it be thorough and accurate and comprehensive and reliable and full of integrity, so that when an investigation is complete, the results are trusted.”

Bonta also is co-author of pending Senate Bill 2, which would allow the state to decertify officers— effectively kicking them out of law enforcement—for misconduct. California is one of a handful of states without such power, allowing some officers even convicted of crimes to move from department to department.

“California talks often about how we lead, we’re first, we’re bold. Not when it comes to decertification,” Bonta told the Assembly committee. “This is not — should not be — a controversial concept that we’re talking about.

Progressive groups congratulated Bonta after the announcement of his nomination and called on him to continue helping to change the justice system. And numerous organizations, including the Western Center on Law and Poverty and the Anti-Recidivism Coalition, called in to the virtual confirmation hearings today to support the nomination.

Still, it’s unclear just how far Bonta can — and will — push police reform measures.

Bonta will need to start running immediately if he wants to keep the job in the 2022 election in a state with a history of conservative, voter-supported criminal justice policies like the three-strikes law. Law enforcement groups gave nearly $5 million in donations to California political candidates from 2015 through 2018, and nearly $7 million in independent expenditures including about $230,000 to re-elect Becerra, according to a CalMatters analysis.

The Peace Officers Research Association of California, the state’s largest law enforcement association, initially congratulated Bonta on his nomination, and its president said in a statement that the organization looks “forward to working with him to address the many important challenges and opportunities facing California’s law enforcement community today.”

Before voting to approve Bonta’s nomination, Assemblymember Tom Lackey, a Palmdale Republican, said it’s hurtful and unfair to broad-brush all of law enforcement because of the conduct of a few bad officers.

“I’m hoping you’ll be able to partner with law enforcement” on solutions, Lackey told Bonta during the Assembly hearing.

That Assembly committee moved his nomination forward on an 8-1 vote; two Republicans voted with the Democrat majority, and one — Megan Dahle from Bieber — opposed him. The Senate committee did likewise with three Democrats in favor and two Republicans abstaining.

Bonta fielded questions about a range of topics including illegal marijuana grows, gun rights and hospital mergers. But his message throughout was the same:

“An injustice against one is an injustice against all,” he said. “It’s why I decided to become an attorney, to fight for those who have been wronged, who are scared, who are hurt, who are mistreated and needed someone to fight for them. And it’s that fight for justice for all Californians that motivates me today.

https://calmatters.org/justice/2021/04/bonta-attorney-general-policing-california/

 

Legislature Considers Globe-Leading Carbon Rules

Capitol Weekly

California is known across the country as a trendsetter in climate regulations, with tough emissions standards and sweeping environmental protections.

Freshman state Sen. Dave Cortese (D-San Jose), however, is pushing for more ambitious carbon-neutral rules that could move California further ahead of the rest of the nation. The effort, praised by environmentalists,  has drawn fire from utility workers and gas companies.

Cortese, a former Santa Clara County supervisor, hit the ground running after taking office in December. He quickly introduced the “Building Decarbonization Package,” consisting of three senate bills, SB 30, 31 and 32 with their own decarbonization goals.  The terms “decarbonization” and “carbon neutral” refer to removing carbon dioxide from air emissions, with the goal of ultimately achieving zero CO2 emissions.

“Our state has played a vital role in enacting climate justice and energy policies that not only help to decarbonize all sectors of our economy, but lead to drastic benefits in job creation,” Cortese said at a recent conference with Environment California Research & Policy Center. “It’s time we demonstrate the same leadership to shift the publics’ perspective on electrification.

Senate Bill 30, also known as the State Buildings and Assets Decarbonization Act of 2021, would require all state buildings to become carbon neutral by 2035. Furthermore, the bill would require the state to divest from projects, both residential and nonresidential, that are not zero emission by 2023. Finally, starting next year all newly designed and constructed buildings would need to be zero emission, too.

“California could stand to reap some of the highest benefits in the country if we electrify all of our buildings by 2050,” said Lizzi Nickerson, a clean energy associate with Environment California.” If we were to go all electric for new buildings and retrofit old buildings to run on electricity, we can reduce emissions in CA by 27.4 million metric tons of CO2, equal to taking 6 million cars off the road.”

This helps avoid the worst impacts of climate change, Nickerson said, and even improves the air quality inside homes and businesses, as well as outside.

In a 2020 peer-reviewed study from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers at the School for Environment and Sustainability at the University of Michigan found California households had 33% less carbon emissions per square foot of residential space than any other state.

The study further recommended complete decarbonization of the United States’ electric grid, which they estimated would help meet the 28% emission reduction target for 2025 in the Paris Agreement.

“However, grid decarbonization will be insufficient to meet the 80% emissions reduction target for 2050 due to a growing housing stock and continued use of fossil fuels (natural gas, propane, and fuel oil) in homes,” the researchers wrote. “Meeting this target will also require deep energy retrofits and transitioning to distributed low-carbon energy sources, as well as reducing per capita floor space and zoning denser settlement patterns.”

Cortese’s SB 31 aims to develop new building decarbonization programs through the California Energy Commission and the Public Utilities Commission. The bill would allow the energy commission to distribute finding for projects that emphasize commercial and residential building decarbonization technologies. Cortese’s office said the bill is written with an “emphasis on providing opportunities for low-income customers.”

“In many parts of the country and the state these retrofits are not always cost effective,” said Claudia Deeg, an associate with California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG). “Which is why we need to implement policy solutions that can make it more affordable for people to retrofit their homes and buildings.”

Finally, Cortese’s SB 32, also known as the Decarbonization Act of 2021 would create requirements for all municipalities across California to incorporate building decarbonization goals in their respective General Plans, that are in line with State targets.

“We think that not only does (decarbonization) provide health benefits for society and communities, we also think this is a win win for consumers, environmental and public health groups and energy providers,” said Jose Torres, with the Build Decarbonization Coalition.

“Electrifying our home appliances allows us smarter, more controlled ways to interact with the electric grid. We also think we’ll be able to use clean power more consistently and lower overall costs than it would be to maintain the gas power status quo.”

So far, the supporters and detractors of Cortese’s plan are split almost evenly between environmental and climate justice groups supporting on one side, with union trades groups and gas companies objecting on the other.

In written testimony to the Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications regarding SB 31, the Utility Workers Union of America wrote that they support decarbonization and “applaud and respect the author’s intent,” but they oppose its premise.

“(The bill) is built on the premise that decarbonization can only happen if we abandon natural gas and, perhaps more importantly, the natural gas infrastructure in exchange for full electrification,” union representatives wrote. “In our view, we can achieve our decarb goals through a mix of solutions that are science-based and cost effective.”

Cortese pushed back on the naysayers, pointing to his experience as a county supervisor in the Bay Area to show that communities are already on board with the statewide changes he has proposed. Almost 40 cities and counties across the state have rules requiring new construction to be 100% powered by electricity, or at least prevent new gas hookups.

“What’s to stop us from implementing these policies one town, city or country at a time?” Cortese said. “There’s a good indication that how powerful the deniers are or the fossil fuel defenders whomever they are and whomever they may be, no matter however powerful they are in Sacramento or even D.C., they don’t have the ability to stop every town, every city, every county.”

https://capitolweekly.net/californias-winding-road-ahead-to-carbon-neutrality/

 

Should the State Help First-Time Home Buyers?

Sacramento Bee

California could get in the business of helping first-time home buyers make down payments under a new proposal that aims to lower barriers to ownership in an era of sky-high housing costs.

A coalition of seven Democratic senators formally announced the “California Dream for All” program last week as part of a larger budget proposal they want Gov. Gavin Newsom to consider.

The state would serve as a “silent partner” to first-time owners, in exchange for up to 45% ownership of a house. By their calculation, that means someone eyeing a $400,000 home could buy it for “a more affordable price” of $220,000, with the state picking up the other $180,000.

Owners would still have to maintain the property, pay taxes and manage insurance. Eligibility would hinge on income levels and housing prices, though the two metrics would vary regionally.

Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, called the program part of one of the “most daring proposals yet,” and said it would create a “once in a generation chance for transformational change.”

To fund the program, a “state-sponsored corporation” would make a one-time deposit using available dollars into a “new revolving fund.”

The state would then sell shares to investors to generate new revenue. As home values increase, so would the fund’s value, the Democrats say.

There is a chance that private companies and investors would replace the state-sponsored corporation to finance the fund, the plan’s blueprint includes. The state would provide tax incentives to inspire investment. The Democrats’ proposal states that the investors would help keep costs to the state low.

“So, Win-Win-Win,” the Democrats’ announcement reads. “Win #1 – homebuyers that can now afford a home and can thrive in the middle class and begin to build wealth; Win #2 – investors that get to protect and build their wealth by investing in California real estate; and Win #3 – California taxpayers and state budget that will face only minimal new costs.”

Homeowners could eventually “buy out” the fund to acquire a house completely. And because the program includes no residency time limits, owners could stay long enough to leave their home to family members.

The legislators argued that the program would help dismantle a decades-long affordability emergency that’s made buying a house all but impossible for middle-class Californians. The lawmakers said the state’s partnership would reduce wealth disparities by creating an important economic opportunity for these residents.

The average single-family detached home in California sold for $699,980 in January, according to the Department of Finance’s March 2021 bulletin, a near-22% increase from the year before. Prices in parts of Southern California have jumped 15% since last year to an average $619,750. Across the four counties of the Sacramento region, the median home price hit $530,000 in March.

Democrats want the program to target Californians with significant student debt, and those who lost homes during the Great Recession.

“We need to stop the perpetual cycle of poverty. And it’s my firm belief that a key strategy or component to this is making homeownership a reality for our residents,” Sen. Anna Caballero, D-Salinas, added. “Owning a home fundamentally changes family, and it is the fastest way to wealth creation in our country.”

The proposal has taxpayer advocates and housing experts waiting for more details.

Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, underscored the importance of helping first-time homebuyers.

“But,” he added, “the state of California has an unfortunate history of not executing well on efforts to help average Californians.”

Coupal raised questions of how applicants would be vetted, or how much money would actually be made available in the fund through the investment process.

David Garcia, policy director for the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, also said it’s unclear exactly how the program would work, or whether it would function “seamlessly with the real estate market.” He said sellers and banks might not want to work with the buyers.

But, Garcia added, the program could offer hope for aspiring homeowners in a time when buying a house has become “increasingly out of reach.”

“I think any innovative solutions they can come up with to drive home ownership is needed,” Garcia said. “We have good data on the fact that homeownership is increasingly falling out of reach for moderate income households in California, not just in high-income areas.”

https://www.sacbee.com/article250735029.html#storylink=cpy