IN THIS ISSUE – “None of the Above” Increasing in Political Power
POLITICS AS UNUSUAL
- “No Party Preference” May Be Politics of the Future
- CA Dems Convene
- Spoiler or Legit Gov Candidate? Former Hillary Aide Announces Late Bid
- State Sen. Mendoza Resigns to Avoid Ouster Vote
- New Half-Billion-Dollar Legislative Office Building Proposed
WATER & ENVIROMENT
- Key Water Right Ruling Finds State Board Violated Due Process
- Legislators Tell Panel to Release Water Storage Bond Money
- SJV Water District Officials Face State Corruption Charges
- AG Launches Environmental Justice Unit
HOUSING
- Prop. 13 Turns 40; New Ballot Initiative May Alter Historic Tax Limit
- 6 of 7 Least Affordable US Cities Are in California; Legislation Problematic
Capitol 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.
Ideas and inquiries are welcome: bob_gore@gualcogroup.com
Stay current daily! For our focused updates via Twitter: @jrgualco / @robertjgore / @gualcogroup
FOR THE WEEK ENDING FEB. 23, 2018
READ ALL ABOUT IT!!
“No Party Preference” May Be Politics of the Future
As the June 5 primary election approaches, Democrats still dominate California’s voting rolls and the percentage of “independent” voters continues to rise, according to new figures provided by the secretary of state’s office.
Just shy of a quarter of the state’s voters now forgo any party label, registering as “no party preference,” a slight increase from last year. If the trend continues, as expected, California’s pool of independent voters could soon surpass the number of Republicans in the state.
Democrats account for 45% of California’s registered voters, giving the party a 19 percentage point advantage over the GOP, the state registration figures show.
The Democratic Party’s slice of the electorate in non-presidential election cycles has remained relatively stagnant for two decades, while the Republican Party’s registration slipped by 10 percentage points.
The percentage of independents, meanwhile, has more than doubled since 1997.
Paul Mitchell, who runs the data firm Political Data Inc., said California could have more independent voters than Republicans by the November general election.
Voter registration trends for Democrats, while better, are not exactly rosy. Mitchell said more and more millennials, college students, young Latinos and Asian Americans are registering as independents.
“Democrats are celebrating Republicans losing registration. But they should be mourning,” Mitchell said. “This new registrant population looks like Democrats but they are registering as independents.”
However, in past elections, “no party preference” voters in California have leaned heavily Democratic at the polls.
Democrats continue to hold a firm grasp on most of Southern California, though the region has a fair number of Republican pockets.
Democrats dominate the electorate in Los Angeles County — home to 1 out of 5 voters in the state — and hold majorities in Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Imperial and Ventura counties.
Republicans hold only Orange County, home to four Republican-held congressional districts won by Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. Democrats hope to wrest most of them from GOP control, a pivotal piece of the party’s strategy to win back control of the House in November.
Republicans have a 3-percentage-point advantage over the Democrats in Orange County. Ten years ago, the GOP had a 10-percentage-point advantage.
Statewide, just under 19 million Californians were registered to vote in January — 76% of those who are eligible.
Here’s how they break down by party:
Democratic Party: 44.63%
Republican Party: 25.44%
No party preference: 24.95%
American Independent Party: 2.66%
Libertarian Party: 0.74%
Green Party: 0.48%
Peace and Freedom Party: 0.40%
Mitchell noted that many people who intend to register as independents mistakenly sign up with the American Independent Party instead of registering as “no party preference.”
A Times investigation in 2016 found widespread confusion among California voters who choose the American Independent Party, an ultra-conservative organization. A poll of AIP voters at the time found 73% mistakenly thought they had registered as “independent” of all parties. Those voters should have chosen the “no party preference” option.
Since the Times investigation was published, the percentage of Californians registered with the American Independent Party has declined from 2.75% in April 2016 to 2.66% in January. But the actual number of voters in the party has increased from 474,338 to 503,955.
“Fundamentally, the party name needs to be changed because voters are confused,” Mitchell said.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-voter-registration-20180216-story.html#nws=mcnewsletter
CA Dems Convene
Thousands of California Democrats will gather this week in San Diego for their annual convention, featuring several potential presidential contenders as well as candidates battling for endorsements from the party faithful in advance of the June primary.
Potential 2020 candidates speaking at the convention include Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, Sen. Kamala Harris and billionaire environmental activist Tom Steyer.
One notable California Democrat who repeatedly ran for president is not scheduled to appear: Gov. Jerry Brown, in his final year leading the state. He has previously faced protests and heckling from critics who did not agree with his stance on fracking.
During the three-day gathering that starts Friday, the party plans to show a tribute video for Brown before four of the candidates vying to replace him — Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, state Treasurer John Chiang and former state schools chief Delaine Eastin — speak.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein and her opponent, state Senate leader Kevin de León, will also address the gathering.
Alcohol-fueled parties are a mainstay of party conventions, but things have changed this year.
Newsom — known for throwing the biggest convention parties that have closed off streets and featured celebrities such as rapper Common — will instead greet delegates on Saturday afternoon and pop in to parties Friday hosted by the California Teachers Assn. and the California Faculty Assn.
Chiang and Feinstein are hosting breakfasts.
This may be a reflection of the convention taking place against the backdrop of the #MeToo movement. In Democratic Party circles, questions have been raised about the freewheeling — and at times risky — behavior at state party conventions. The party’s convention planners responded by organizing a 24-hour hotline to report assault or threatening behavior. They also are increasing the presence of security.
Spoiler or Legit Gov Candidate? Former Hillary Aide Announces Late Bid
Amanda Renteria, a longtime Democratic operative and the national political director for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, has filed paperwork to run for California governor.
Renteria, Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s operations chief, a job she took following her 2014 loss to Rep. David Valadao, R-Hanford, had been telling Democratic strategists that she was mulling what one described as a “disruptive” bid to succeed Gov. Jerry Brown. She did not immediately return a text message seeking comment on her statement of intention to run.
Becerra, who is running for a full term this year, has not endorsed in the governor’s race.
Renteria, 43, would join a contest featuring a male-dominated field led by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Her filing comes amid renewed questions into the leading Democrats’ extramarital affairs, now against the backdrop of the roiling #Metoo movement. Delaine Eastin, the state’s former schools chief, is far behind in polls and fundraising.
Renteria, who grew up in Woodlake southeast of Fresno, has been a favorite of Central Valley Democrats, even drawing then-Vice President Joe Biden to a rally for her campaign. She first met Becerra, whom she joined in Sacramento as a way to battle the Trump administration in the legal arena, while working as chief of staff for Sen. Debbie Stebenow, D-Michigan. She also worked for California Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
“California and other states are recognizing that the White House has real implications on everyday life even though you are 3,000 miles away,” Renteria told McClatchy’s Vida en el Valle last year.
Democrats were shocked and puzzled by the filing, with former state Sen. Dean Florez, a Villaraigosa supporter from Shafter, saying he was saddened by the development.
“If you are running for Governor, announce 6 months ago, attend the debates, hold a press conference with your supporters & speak directly to the press,” he wrote on Twitter, adding the hashtags #spoiler and #badpolitics.
Garry South, a strategist from Los Angeles who has helped run four gubernatorial campaigns in the last 20 years, noted Renteria does not have a public profile in the state.
“Her name on the ballot alone won’t make her a player in California,’ he said.
Newsom and Villaraigosa, meanwhile, have been campaigning for some time, and both were early Clinton backers in 2016 and 2008, when Villaraigosa was her national co-chairman.
“It’s way too late to get into the 2018 race. It’s too late to raise any significant amounts of money,” South said.
“I don’t know what she’s thinking. I just don’t see it. I think it’s crazy.”
Others close to Villaraigosa, who could lose voters to her given his focus on Latinos and voters in the Central Valley, downplayed her significance, unless Renteria can raise considerable money.
It’s unclear who would staff Renteria’s campaign: Three of the people who worked on her 2014 congressional bid are working on a Super PAC helping Villaraigosa.
California Democratic Party Chairman Eric Bauman told The Sacramento Bee on Wednesday that she won’t have a speaking slot at the party’s convention later this month in San Diego.
“The convention program is done. I couldn’t even squeeze in two minutes,” Bauman said.
She also will not be part of the party’s endorsement process, he added.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article200069104.html#storylink=cpy
State Sen. Mendoza Resigns to Avoid Ouster Vote
The #MeToo movement continued to convulse California’s halls of power on Thursday as Tony Mendoza, a powerful Democratic state senator, resigned from the Legislature after an investigation into allegations that he had made improper advances toward several women.
Mr. Mendoza, 46, a former elementary school teacher from Los Angeles, was the third California lawmaker to resign amid the national conversation about sexual harassment, which has toppled powerful figures in Hollywood, politics, the news media and other industries.
His resignation came just as fellow lawmakers were preparing to vote on whether to expel him from the State Senate or suspend him without pay. He had been on leave since January.
Mr. Mendoza has denied the allegations and apologized to anyone who had ever felt uncomfortable in interactions with him. He left office on Thursday with an incendiary resignation letter that blasted his colleagues and questioned the legitimacy of the three-month investigation into his conduct, saying he was not given “any opportunity to defend myself.”
He took particular aim at Kevin de Leon, the leader of the Democratic-controlled Senate, who is running for the United States Senate in a bid to unseat the incumbent, Dianne Feinstein. Mr. de Leon and Mr. Mendoza were once roommates, and their relationship had put an unwanted spotlight on Mr. de Leon’s actions — and on what he may have known about Mr. Mendoza’s conduct.
Mr. Mendoza wrote in his resignation letter that Mr. de Leon “will not rest until he has my head on a platter to convince the MeToo movement of his ‘sincerity’ in supporting the MeToo cause.”
The allegations against Mr. Mendoza arose last fall. Two law firms were hired to investigate. A four-page summary of their findings was released on Tuesday. According to the summary, investigators determined that it was “more likely than not” that Mr. Mendoza, who is married, had engaged in a pattern of inappropriate conduct.
It said that witnesses had reported “a pattern of unwelcome flirtation and sexually suggestive behavior” directed at female staff members and other women working in the State Capitol in Sacramento. Mr. Mendoza had not engaged in any sexual relationships with the women, and had not been physically aggressive toward them, the report said.
In one instance, investigators found that Mr. Mendoza had invited a Senate fellow, a woman in her early 20s, suggested that they vacation together and offered to rent a spare room in his house to her.
Mr. Mendoza has filed suit against the State Legislature, alleging that he has been treated unfairly because he is Latino. He indicated he is considering running for his old seat in the fall, and former assembymember Rudy Bermudez announced his campaign within minutes of the resignation.
Two other Los Angeles-area legislators, Raul Bocanegra and Matt Dababneh, have lost their jobs amid sexual harassment allegations. Both were Democrats in the State Assembly.
Another lawmaker, Cristina Garcia, is on leave from the Assembly after a report by Politico that two men had accused her of improper sexual conduct. Ms. Garcia, a Democrat, has been a prominent voice in Sacramento against sexual harassment in state government.
New Half-Billion-Dollar Legislative Office Building Proposed
Once seen as a modern marvel that enhanced the original 19th century landmark in California’s capital city, the state Capitol’s 66-year-old annex was declared by architects and lawmakers on Wednesday to be long overdue for demolition and replacement.
“There’s many ways in which the building is not welcoming to all Californians,” said Assemblyman Ken Cooley (D-Rancho Cordova), the legislator leading the effort.
The Joint Rules Committee of the California Legislature embraced a $543-million proposal to build a new addition to the original Capitol building, providing ample meeting space for lawmakers and their constituents, and built with a focus on the safety and security needs of employees and visitors.
“I think we owe it to them to provide an annex that is accommodating to all folks,” state Sen. Anthony Cannella (R-Ceres) said.
The three-year project, which has not yet been approved by state officials, would completely remove and replace the building that was attached to the original Capitol in 1952. That building was symbolic of the state’s boom times of the mid-20th century, quickly becoming a key part of the governing process as legislative sessions were extended into a year-round operation.
“Even the elevators will have class,” said an article published in the Los Angeles Times on Sept. 11, 1950, about the annex building then under construction. The article went on to peg the total construction cost at $7.25 million.
Today, however, the unadorned building housing almost all legislator staff offices, the governor’s private suite of offices and large committee meeting rooms has become a frequent point of criticism. Much of the building lacks a sprinkler system in the event of a fire. Several of its narrow hallways and rooms aren’t fully compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act. A parking garage for lawmakers directly under the building has raised security concerns. There are continual complaints about temperature, plumbing and wiring.
And as school groups and activists would attest, the 1952 addition was never properly aligned with the historic Capitol completed in 1864 — a visitor looking for a second-floor office on one side of the building may wonder why access is through the third floor on the other side.
“I get confused with navigating this building,” Cannella said during Wednesday’s committee briefing.
The plan as currently drafted includes a new visitor’s center, as well as a relocated lawmaker parking facility. A key unanswered question is where the Legislature would be moved in the roughly three-year construction phase, a daunting task given the wide array of services that would be needed in an alternate location in Sacramento.
Gov. Jerry Brown raised the question of what to do about the existing Capitol annex in his 2016 state budget proposal. But while a spokesperson for the state Department of General Services agreed on Wednesday that the building is inadequate to serve current needs, the $543-million proposal has yet to be embraced by Brown. The expectation is that the cost would be paid for out of the state’s general fund, and lawmakers have pointed out that the Capitol project seems to fit the bill for using recent tax revenue windfalls on one-time expenses instead of ongoing programs.
Cooley, who was once a legislative staffer and is considered one of the Capitol’s honorary historians, noted that Brown was also governor during the seven-year renovation of the historic Capitol that was completed in 1982. He and other officials toured other statehouses across the nation in search of ideas on how to improve the aging seat of government in Sacramento.
“Many states are ahead of us on this curve,” he said.
Key Water Right Ruling Finds State Board Violated Due Process
Thousands of water-right holders who were told to cease diversions during the last drought were deprived of due process, a judge found Wednesday, raising questions about how the state will handle future shortages.
Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Brian Walsh ruled that the water users, including some mostly agricultural districts in the Delta, were not afforded “certain minimal protections” like formal hearings in which they might have challenged the state’s claim that there wasn’t enough water available.
Instead of having such an opportunity, the water users were warned to immediately cease diversions. One water district was threatened with a hefty fine, though the state ultimately backed down.
The judge also found that water districts that enjoy senior water rights — issued more than a century ago — cannot be cut off at all under the section of state water law that previously had been cited by authorities.
“It’s a good feeling to finally be vindicated against the egregious actions of the state,” said Jeanne Zolezzi, a Stockton-based attorney representing some of the water users.
Next time, she said, the state will have to do it “the right way.”
At the center of the legal dispute was the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District near Tracy. In the summer of 2015, during the worst of the drought, the State Water Resources Control Board alleged that Byron-Bethany had been illegally diverting water from the Delta even though it had been warned that there was no longer enough water in the system to make use of its 104-year-old water right.
The water board proposed a $1.4 million fine for 12 days of alleged illegal diversions. But the case was later dropped due to concerns over how the state arrived at its conclusion that there wasn’t enough water for Byron-Bethany and other water users.
“They were using all of this bad information and never vetted it publicly,” Zolezzi said Wednesday. “We didn’t even know what they were using.”
Even in dismissing the Byron-Bethany case, the water board continued to maintain that it has the authority to cut off senior water right holders under a certain provision of law.
That conclusion appears to be contradicted by Wednesday’s ruling, though the judge noted that there are other areas of the law that do give the state some authority over senior water users. His ruling doesn’t evaluate those areas.
In a prepared statement on Wednesday, Byron-Bethany General Manager Rick Gilmore said the judge’s decision “reaffirms and solidifies the strength of the oldest water rights in California.”
“Our legal team is currently reviewing the ruling and its implications in greater detail,” Gilmore said. “We are hopeful that the decision generates momentum for positive change.”
Water board spokesman George Kostyrko noted that the judge’s decision is just one part of a multi-phase trial, and that the litigation as a whole has not yet been fully resolved.
Said Kostyrko: “The board is reviewing the decision and evaluating next steps.”
http://www.recordnet.com/news/20180221/sj-water-users-cut-off-during-drought-win-round-in-court
Legislators Tell Panel to Release Water Storage Bond Money
With California facing another potential drought, legislators demanded Wednesday that a state agency release $2.7 billion in bond funding for dams, reservoirs and other water storage projects.
Assembly Republican Leader Brian Dahle, pulling a child’s red wagon, arrived at a meeting of the California Water Commission with a stack of petitions with 4,000 signatures supporting the two largest reservoir projects seeking bond money: Sites Reservoir north of Sacramento and Temperance Flat in the San Joaquin Valley. “Farmers like myself are concerned about the shortage of water – we’re seeing another drought cycle,” he told the commission.
The commission, which is in charge of doling out $2.7 billion in Proposition 1 bond money approved by voters in 2014, has come under attack in recent weeks. In January, the its staff issued a preliminary determination that the 11 projects under consideration aren’t eligible for nearly as much funding as they’d like.
Lawmakers and others accused the commission of effectively thwarting the will of the voters.
“Many people agree these projects make a lot of sense … but still received low scores (from the commission’s staff),” said Assemblyman James Gallagher, R-Yuba City. “There’s very clearly a mandate that this money be spent.”
Commission officials insisted that they’re ready to fund eligible projects but need more information from project proponents.
“The commission is anxious to get the money out the door,” said chairman Armando Quintero. The commission expects to make final decisions in July.
Under Proposition 1, the commission can’t award funding for projects that merely store water for individual water agencies; it can only fund “public benefits,” with an emphasis on eco-system improvements that help the troubled Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
The preliminary evaluation by the commission staff was deflating to many reservoir proponents. Temperance Flat, a $2.6 billion reservoir seeking $1 billion in Proposition 1 assistance, was deemed ineligible for any money. Sites Reservoir, a $5 billion project seeking $1.6 billion, was considered eligible for only $660 million.
Jim Watson, manager of the Sites Joint Powers Authority, said he’s confident the commission will ultimately fund Sites more generously. “Part of it is us better telling the story,” he said. “I know they’re all motivated to fulfill the mandate of Prop 1.”
Not everyone was urging the commission to fund new dams and reservoirs. Environmentalists such as Rachel Zwillinger, of Defenders of Wildlife, said some projects would hurt the environment and don’t deserve funding.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article201344454.html#storylink=cpy
SJV Water District Officials Face State Corruption Charges
Panoche Water District officials spent more than $100,000 in public money to buy themselves slot machines, car repairs, and kitchen appliances, funded landscaping on at their own homes, and covered interest-free loans, according to the California Department of Justice.
Five people – including the district’s former general manager – have been charged with embezzlement and other allegations in connection with a year-long probe that also turned up alleged evidence of illegal dumping of toxic waste on the water district’s property, authorities said.
The Panoche Water District is a public agency that facilitates water delivery to landowners for irrigation, municipal and industrial uses in western Merced and Fresno counties.
The water district’s ex-general manager Dennis Falaschi, ex-office manager Julie Cascia and manager of the San Joaquin River Improvement Project Atomic Falaschi, were arrested by the FBI on Wednesday and booked into Fresno County jail, officials said.
The district’s shop supervisor, Dubby West, surrendered to the Los Banos Police Department on Wednesday, Los Banos Police Cmdr. Jason Hedden said. Part-time employee Jack Hurley is expected to surrender to authorities Friday, according to news releases by the California Attorney General’s Office and the State Department of Toxic Substances Control, the agencies that worked on the investigation.
Officials at the Panoche Water District did not respond to multiple requests for comment Wednesday and Thursday.
According to a criminal complaint filed Feb. 16 in Fresno Superior Court, Dennis Falaschi used the water district’s funds for personal uses and directed or allowed employees to spend excessive amounts of money with district credit cards.
Dennis Falaschi used district funds to purchase two slot machines costing $2,805 and $2,701.58 and were delivered to him in Reno, Nev., according to the complaint.
Dennis Falaschi also signed off on moving 1,500 water district-owned pistachio trees to private property owned by his son, Atomic Falaschi, the complaint states.
Cascia reportedly used a water district’s credit card to purchase $4,109.22 in kitchen appliances and renovation costs, according to the complaint.
Cascia also used $6,459.05 in district funds for major repairs on a district-owned luxury SUV that she retained for personal use, the complaint states. Dennis Falaschi later allegedly sold that SUV to another employee for $5.
Dennis Falaschi and Cascia also signed off a loan of $20,882.79 for another employee to cover debt-collection, according to the complaint.
The complaint also states Dennis Falaschi fashioned agreements involving more than $60,000 in auto repairs to personal vehicles from a man identified in the complaint as Alan Sagouspe, who had unreported contracts or agreements of at least $800,000 with the district, according to an audit by the Office of the State Controller.
Employees allegedly spent district time performing landscaping services to private properties, according to the complaint.
The state Attorney General’s Office worked with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control on the investigation which launched after authorities discovered 86 drums of hazardous waste last year buried illegally on the water district’s property, officials said.
Following the discovery of 86 drums of chlorine, caustic soda, iron chloride and mixtures of used antifreeze, solvents and oil, the California DTSC launched an investigation into the district, according to a news release. That investigation branched out into allegations of embezzlement, authorities said.
The liquid waste leaked into the ground and the site was being decontaminated, according to the release.
Hurley and West are charged with illegally burying the barrels of waste, officials said.
“These arrests send the strong message that violations of the state’s hazardous waste laws are taken seriously and will be pursued and prosecuted to the maximum extent possible in order to protect public health, the environment and public resources,” DTSC Director Barbara A. Lee said.
Dennis Falaschi was charged with six felony counts of embezzlement by a public official, one count of conspiracy to embezzle and one count of illegal disposal of hazardous materials, according to Fresno Superior Court records.
Cascia was charged with four counts of embezzlement, one count of conspiracy to embezzle and one count of illegal transportation of hazardous materials, court records indicate.
Atomic Falaschi was charged with one count of embezzlement and one count of conspiracy to embezzle, according to court records.
Two others, Jack Hurley and Dubby West, were charged with illegal disposal of hazardous materials in connection with the embezzlement, according to court records. West also was charged with a count of illegal transport of hazardous materials.
The water district was the subject of a scathing report last year by the office of California State Controller Betty Yee, claiming there was an “egregious” lack of oversight for how officials spent the district’s money from 2013 to 2015, the Fresno Bee reported.
Yee’s office cited several financial issues in an audit report, including more than $86,000 interest-free loans to employees with lengthy repayment plans, unaccounted free housing and fringe benefits to employees, personal use of district credit cards, and dubious use of district vehicles.
“In California, those in public posts who abuse the public’s trust for personal gain will be held accountable,” Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a news release.
Dennis Falaschi, Julie Cascia and Atomic Falaschi are expected to appear in Fresno Superior Court on March 7, according to court records.
http://www.losbanosenterprise.com/news/local/crime/article201457694.html
AG Launches Environmental Justice Unit
Frustrated by declining federal regulation of the environment and health disparities between poorer and wealthier communities, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra on Thursday appointed a team of lawyers to fight pollution.
The four attorneys assigned to the new Bureau of Environmental Justice will focus on low-income Californians and people of color who suffer a “disproportionate share of environmental pollution and public health hazards,” according to Becerra’s office.
“The harsh reality is that some communities in California — particularly low-income communities and communities of color — continue to bear the brunt of pollution from industrial development, poor land-use decisions, transportation, and trade corridors,” Becerra said in a statement. “Meeting the needs of these communities requires our focused attention.”
The ideas of environmental justice and equity have gained increasing currency in recent years among activists and some local governments. The California unit will handle legal cases like one Becerra recently joined opposing the storage and handling of coal at the Port of Oakland.
Becerra has filed 30 lawsuits against the federal government, including challenges of Trump administration moves to open the California coast to offshore oil drilling, suspend the Clean Water Rule that sought to protect streams and wetlands, and repeal the Clean Power Plan that was intended to fight global warming.
Nearly half of the lawsuits were attempts to enforce laws ensuring that children have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink, the attorney general’s office said.
The office said it has so far won favorable rulings in seven lawsuits, including a Feb. 15 ruling by a U.S. District Court judge in San Francisco that the Department of Energy failed to implement energy efficiency standards for several polluting products, including portable air conditioners.
The attorney general’s office has been on its toes over the past year keeping track of moves by Trump, EPA administrator Scott Pruitt and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke affecting the California environment, officials said. Pruitt said he believes the EPA has for years overstepped its congressional mandate and unfairly hindered oil, gas and coal production.
Besides challenging federal deregulation, the Bureau of Environmental Justice will prioritize pollution cases that threaten public health, Becerra said.
Prop. 13 Turns 40; New Ballot Initiative May Alter Historic Tax Limit
This year is the 40th anniversary of Proposition 13, the iconic property tax limit measure that California voters overwhelmingly endorsed in 1978.
It’s only a slight exaggeration to say that it’s also the 40th anniversary of efforts to repeal or alter Proposition 13’s provisions, and those on the left side of the political ledger – unions, particularly – may be trying once again this year to undo it.
An initiative awaiting clearance for signature-gathering would create a so-called “split roll,” preserving Proposition 13’s property tax limits for homes and residential rental units, but removing them for other commercial and industrial properties.
The up-front proponents are such good government groups as the League of Women Voters, which contend that the state’s schools and local governments are seriously underfunded.
Standing in the shadows, however, are public employee unions which would benefit from having more money flowing to schools and local governments, especially since their budgets are being squeezed very hard by fast-rising pension costs.
How much more?
The Legislature’s budget analyst, Mac Taylor, estimates that a split-roll could generate net annual revenues in the $6-10 billion range.
Those are big stakes and while the unions could spend millions of dollars on a campaign to pass the measure, the business interests that would be paying more property taxes have even deeper pockets. After all, spending even $50 million to defeat a split-roll measure would be pocket lint in comparison to the multi-billion-dollar stakes.
So, if the split roll measure makes it to the ballot, it would likely be one of those massively expensive ballot measures for which California is famous, or infamous.
Proponents would pound on providing more money for schools, which, polling tells us, are the most popular thing that government does. That was the theme of two successful ballot measures that raised income taxes on the wealthiest Californians in 2012 and 2016, and in fact per pupil spending has increased by 66 percent in the last seven years.
Opponents will raise the spectre of undoing Proposition 13, which has consistently enjoyed high voter approval in polling over the last 40 years, arguing that if commercial property is hit with tax increases, homes will be the next target.
They also would point out that despite Proposition 13’s restrictions, property tax revenues have increased 12-fold since it was passed due to new construction and reassessment when properties change hands.
Finally, they may also contend – with a factual basis – that the extra money wouldn’t mean better schools and local government services, but rather would shore up pension funds that face huge unfunded liabilities.
So would California voters endorse a split property tax roll? Recent polling indicates that its proponents would face an uphill battle.
The Public Policy Institute of California has tested the issue periodically and once found a fairly strong level of support among likely voters, but the most recent PPIC poll found it had slipped from 60 percent in 2012 to 55 percent in 2015 and just 46 percent now.
One rule of the thumb about contentious California ballot measures is that they must begin with strong support, well over 50 percent, if they are to have a chance of prevailing against well-financed opposition, so 46 percent is a very weak starting point.
In years past, split-roll advocates have loudly announced campaigns for it, only to quietly throw in the towel when it became clear they had little chance of winning.
Ultimately, therefore, the 40th anniversary of Proposition 13 may be a whimper, instead of a bang.
6 of 7 Least Affordable US Cities Are In California; Legislation Problematic
If you’re a renter in California concerned about the high cost of living here, or looking to purchase your first home, your prospects aren’t looking up.
Projections show rents will continue to surge, especially for low- and middle-income people in places like San Francisco, Los Angeles and Sacramento, and home prices will become increasingly expensive, according to an economic analysis in the Anderson Forecast from the University of California, Los Angeles, released this month.
“It was already bad before, but it’s getting worse,” said David Shulman, a senior economist for the Anderson Forecast. “California is still attracting high-income people, who are creating an enormous amount of wealth, but low and middle-income people like teachers are leaving because housing has become extraordinarily expensive.”
Six out of the seven least affordable metropolitan areas across the U.S. are in California. They are Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, San Diego, Riverside and Sacramento.
“It’s getting harder and harder to live here,” Shulman said. “The state is running out of people who can afford the rents so those prices are beginning to fall…but if you look at the one-bedrooms for $1,500, those rents are continuing to go up.”
Market-rate development has outstripped the supply of affordable units. And “regressive” zoning and environmental regulations, combined with California’s reputation as a tech behemoth are leading to the “hollowing out of the middle class,” Shulman said.
“President Trump wants to keep people out by building a wall. California is more sophisticated – it uses zoning and development laws to keep people out, but they have the same effect,” he said.
“By not building enough housing, we are driving up evictions and homelessness, pushing people out of our state and jeopardizing the success of young people,” said state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco in a recent statement as Senate took up a range of bills aimed at boosting supply and streamlining construction of affordable housing.
But state lawmakers and Gov. Jerry Brown are at impasse over how to help.
The Legislature reached a budget deal last week that included no new money for affordable housing.
Brown last year proposed setting aside $400 million in one-time money, but wanted a set of regulatory changes in exchange that ran into resistance from lawmakers. He says says it takes too long and it’s too expensive to get affordable housing built.
The Democratic governor wants to streamline housing development by limiting environmental project reviews, lowering permit requirements that can drive up per-unit costs, providing financial incentives to cities and counties that build new housing and strengthening laws that require low-income set-asides in new construction.
Environmental groups and unions, however, raised objections.
Now, a series of bills in the Legislature that would establish an ongoing source of funding for housing and ease the permitting process for new construction appears headed for a high-stakes legislative test in coming months. Brown is again saying any deal must include the changes he is seeking.
The governor and lawmakers have other politically difficult issues coming up than may derail a housing deal.
Brown is pushing to extend the state’s cap-and-trade program beyond 2020 to generate money for high-speed rail. It requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of the Legislature and is under fire by business groups that consider the rule requiring companies to buy permits to release greenhouse gases an unconstitutional tax.
Democrats, reluctant to pass new fees or taxes following their April vote to raise state gas taxes, acknowledge financial proposals for housing, also requiring a two-thirds vote, could be challenging.
“I’d love to get something done before the end of the year,” Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon said in an interview. “It may be tricky.”
Housing advocates and tenants’ rights groups say the governor and state lawmakers are ignoring one of the biggest problems in California.
“It’s shameful that they’re headed on summer recess without doing anything to address what has turned from a crisis to a housing catastrophe,” said Ray Pearl, executive director of the California Housing Consortium, an advocacy group and sponsor of several housing bills this session. “What the Legislature continues to do is talk instead of act.”
Housing advocates are pushing for passage of two funding bills. Senate Bill 2 from Sen. Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, would add a $75 fee on real estate transactions and generate up to $300 million per year for housing. It’s opposed by taxpayer advocates including the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
“Yes it’s a fee so it takes a two-thirds vote, but I’m optimistic that we can get this one done,” Atkins said. “We’ve been working on it as part of a broader package.”
Assembly Bill 71 from Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco, would also raise $300 million a year by eliminating the mortgage interest deduction for second homes. It’s opposed by the powerful California Association of Realtors.
Other measures seek to accomplish Brown’s goals. Weiner’s Senate Bill 35 would streamline the approval process for affordable housing projects. Chiu’s Assembly Bill 73 would ease zoning and environmental review rules.
“We’ve been having a lot of conversations (about a housing package),” Chiu said. “We need to establish a permanent source of funding, streamlining housing creation and hold cities accountable to actually building it.”
Lisa Hershey of the advocacy group Housing California said she’s hearing pushback over whether lawmakers will act on housing this year given the upcoming cap-and-trade issue and the fact that Democrats already have voted to raise fuel taxes.
“The Democratic caucus really put their necks out there because it’s a tax, so they have been reticent to push for anything going forward that is a tax or a fee,” Hershey said.
She said she’s not optimistic if no action is taken, because next year is an election year.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article156864219.html#storylink=cpy