CaliforniaCityNews.org

How to effectively discuss water use with the public.

Assignment:  Communicate the need for reduced water consumption in your community.

Are Lawns Worth the Water they Need?

by Sarah West, Executive Director of the California Sod Producers Association

The answer is yes.  But is there a way for cities to preserve the benefits of lawns while shutting off the water waste?  How can cities keep the lawns their communities need and love with limited water supplies?

Smart Irrigation Controllers: How This New Technology Can Help Cities Save Water Now.

Climate change. Drought. Water restrictions. Mandatory water supply and runoff reductions. Cities are facing water challenges like never before. Some of these challenges sound biblical in proportion. And, there is little end in site if climatologists are correct.

So, how can a city save water now and plan for more water efficiency that will be necessary in the future?

Blog – It really isn’t a four letter word

by Mark Nuaimi, Mayor -- City of Fontana

When politicians want to run for elected office, they look for every avenue available to reach the voters – yard signs, magnets, mailers, those annoying phone calls, and knocking on the doors of voters at the most inopportune time.  But something happens when we become elected officials – suddenly access to the “constituents” is not as important as access to the “voters” used to be (except during re-election years).  But it is those constituents who elected us to serve them … except they don’t have easy access.  Or do they?   

Imagine you wake up on a Monday morning and the local fishwrap has just printed an editorial attacking an economic development plan that your city has been developing for the past six months.  The editorial board opined from the safe confines of their ivory tower with minimal research done by their cub reporter (who happens to be a retread thrown out of the last city he covered).  How many times have you wished you could print an immediate response to the garbage passed off as enlightened opinion?  Well through the use of Community Blogs you can!

Ballot Box Zoning, Right-to-Vote, Regardless of What You Call It… There are Several Unintended Consequences.

EDITOR'S NOTE: As part of an ongoing effort to initiate discussion and present all sides of the local government experience, the following guest editorial is presented by a leader in the building community.  As always, I encourage you to leave comments or contact me with thoughts on how to expand this dialogue.

by Kristine Thalman, Executive Director, BIAOC

A critical issue affecting the economic health of our local communities is this phenomenon known as “ballot box zoning.” Ballot box zoning is disguised as a voters “rights” initiative, employed by those that would use clever campaign rhetoric to halt progress in their communities.  The most common and egregious form of ballot box zoning is the so-called “right to vote” initiative.  These measures require a vote of the people to approve projects within a zone or entire city, whether residential or commercial, and may include development that involves everything from a room addition to simple backyard enhancements. 

ACWA ALERT - Jarvis Measure cause for alarm!

The Association of California Water Agency's (ACWA) has issued an alert today to all of their member organizations. The alert stresses that there is cause for alarm with the eminent domain reform measure sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association and the California Farm Bureau.

ACWA, the recognized authority and representative of the states water agencies, has agreed with the legal interpretations critical of the Jarvis measure that conclude that it is a direct threat to the state of California's ability to build and store water for California's growing population.

ACWA concludes that the initiative indicates that "There is no way to know how a court will rule, but the fact that the provisions can be open to such broad interpretations is cause for alarm."

This conclusion is central to the arguments advanced by opponents of the measure who suggest that the ability of California policy makers working to adequately address water needs for storage and consumption will be severely hampered. At a minimum this conclusion asserts that any new water projects will be tied up in litigation for years if the measure were to pass.

The Jarvis measured, funded in large part by the California Farm Bureau would effectively prohibit the use of eminent domain as a tool as a means to assist in California's growing water needs.

ACWA's statement of concern as the states leading authority on water issues is a death knell to proponents who have spent nearly a million dollars on qualifying the measure to date. There are three reasons why this development will likely lead to the end of this initiatives signature gathering process.

First, ACWA is a neutral third party in this debate. Opponents of the measure have relied on the opinions of some of the states most reknowned legal minds in the area of constitutional law, local government, redevelopment and land use. Proponents counter those claims with the opinion of the Institute for Justice, a non-profit legal adocacy organization who defended Ms. Kelo in the now famous Kelo Supreme Court case Kelo vs New London, Connecticut. Both sides of the debate have directly suggested that the others interpretations have been biased by their interests in the outcome of the measures qualification and passage. ACWA has been a neutral third party in this discussion - until now.

Second, ACWA's announcement essentialy solidifies the contention that the Jarvis measure is flawed. Their voice is now added to the growing chorus of experts and influentials that have serious concerns about this measures impact on California. Those concerned include high ranking officials in the Governor Schwarzenegger administration and Republican legislative leaders who publicly voiced their concerns in a recent Sacramento Bee article. At a minimum, these individuals and organizations agree that there will be many years of litigation trying to uncover the unintended consequences and impacts of the measures flaws.

Third are the political implications of this new announcement. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayer association and the California Farm Bureau are both well-recognized organizations in the Sacramento political community - however, neither has been claim to much success at the ballot box. Neither has shown the financial capacity required to succesfully qualify and campaign for a measure in recent memory. Indeed, this measure was the best hope for both organizations looking to influence the political debate in California in some time. The Farm Bureau reportedly had not raised and spent this much money on a previous measure since it strongly opposed the "Big Green" initiative in the early 1990's.

To this point the measure has been funded largely by Apartment Associations, Mobile Homepark owners and groups and the Farm Bureau. It is widely expected that the funding from these groups, already limited, will essentially dry up as more conerns arise about the implications.

Californiacitynews.org will continue to monitor the financial condition of the Jarvis measure along with other eminent domain reform efforts in California.

developing story....Mike Madrid

Red City vs. Blue City

It appears that attacking certain cities has become the latest strategy in becoming elected President of the United States. Not just any cities mind you - but, at least for the time being, 'sanctuary cities' - those municipalities that openly consider themselves safe havens for those who are in the country illegaly.

It's a curious but not surprising development in a country that increasingly is divided along ideological lines. The communities we live in define so much of our political identites. It's what makes Fresno, Fresno and Berkeley, Berkeley. After all, if we have already divided ourselves into red states and blue states, why not red cities and blue cities?

Collateral Damage

Jarvis Group “Faux” Eminent Domain Reform Would Sink
Water Projects in California
by Mike Madrid

Once a decade or so a special interest group or candidate for office commits a political snafu of such proportions that it sets a new standard for unintended consequences. Think Walter Mondale trying to connect with middle class voters in 1984 proclaiming to the American people “I will raise your taxes! I’m admitting it and the other guy isn’t.”

No surprise this came a few weeks before the greatest electoral landslide defeat in history against Ronald Reagan.

What was he thinking?

And just when it appeared as though the 2000’s were slipping away from us without such a mistake, a multi-million dollar misstep has occurred in the form of a faux “eminent domain reform measure” that is really an attempt to prevent rent control ordinances by enshrining it in the state constitution.

Welcome

Eminent Domain Reforms Imminent

By Assemblymember Hector De La Torre (D-South Gate)

This summer marked the two-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo vs. New London decision, which ignited a nationwide debate focusing on government abuses of eminent domain. 

While California law only allows the use of eminent domain to convey property to a private party for the purpose of eradicating blight, nonetheless California voters have become much more attune and negative to any use of eminent domain – even legitimate uses.

That’s why I have joined with the League of California Cities and a broad coalition of counties, homeowner groups, small business organizations, environmentalists, labor and public safety officials and introduced a package of strong new eminent domain reforms.