CaliforniaCityNews.org

Facebook Dominance: ‘Yes on Prop 22’ Campaign Reaches 5,000 Mark for Fans on Facebook

While the campaign behind Proposition 22 already has a broad coalition of business, labor, environmental and taxpayer advocates, notably it has also surpassed the 5,000 fans mark on Facebook. You’ll recall that the initiative, known as the Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act, will block the state from taking, borrowing or diverting local government revenues. As social networking increasingly becomes a major factor in campaign efforts, the “Yes on 22” camp has proven more active than other proposition campaigns in engaging voters and supporters through Facebook. And if you haven’t already, you can become a fan on Facebook here, as well as invite friends to join the coalition and become a fan. For more about the initiative, see here.

Guv’s Op-ed in the Wall St. Journal; The Infamous Job Graph; Budget Vote on Tuesday

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger took to the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal recently to make his case for pension reform and what ails the state of California’s fiscal health. The governor also looked to rebuff reports that he was bullying state workers and hammered in on what appears to be the thesis of the article, which is stated as follows: “California simply cannot solve its budgetary problems without addressing government-employee compensation and benefits.” The op-ed includes a graph that the Bee has pointed out the governor has made a point of using quite frequently to make a point about the difference in jobs losses between the public and private sector. The graph is as follows and shows that the number of California public employee jobs lost in 2008 and 2009 is few:

While some state workers have argued the graph is out of context, the Bee concludes that within the timeframe mentioned, the state workforce saw a decline of 1 percent and the private sector a decline of 10 percent. The governor writes the following:

“I've held a stricter line on government employment and salary increases than any governor in the modern era (overall year-to-year spending has increased just 1.4% on my watch). Nevertheless, employee costs will keep marching upwards because of pension promises, and they will never stop doing so until we get reform. At the same time that government-employee costs have been climbing, the private-sector workers whose taxes pay for them have been hurting. Since 2007, one million private jobs have been lost in California. […] For years I've asked state legislators to stop adding to retirement debt. They have refused. Now the Democratic leadership of the assembly proposes to raise the tax and debt burdens on private employees in order to cover rising public-employee compensation.” 

You can read the full op-ed here. And to tie it all into the state’s much-delayed budget, the LA Times has reported that lawmakers in the Assembly and state Senate will vote on competing state budget plans on Tuesday. Notably, Tuesday is the end of the current legislative session. Read more about the scheduled vote here. And as for what Californians can expect from Tuesday's budget vote, the Bee details where the parties currently stand and how the process will play out. See here.

WSJ Reports Bay Area Officials Paid Higher Salaries; Vernon Administrator Relieved

While there’s been plenty of coverage already about the compensation of city officials, the Wall Street Journal gets in on the action and reports that overall officials in the Bay Area get paid more than city officials in other towns across the state that are of comparable size. Even with a weaker economy and the implementation of cuts, it still stands that the state’s northern counterparts – at least in the Bay – are earning higher income. Reportedly, officials in cities like were paid less than those in the Bay from cities of similar size. In fact, the analysis indicates such officials were often paid almost twice as much. The Journal reports that Dave Mora, West Coast regional director of International City/County Management Association, a Washington, D.C., organization representing municipal managers, said the following of officials’ pay:

“Salaries in the Bay Area, in terms of local government, are higher than other parts of California. Because the pay is so high, cities in the region have to cut more when the economy takes a nose dive.”

Within the Bay Area, it is officials from Silicon Valley cities that earn the highest compensation. Read more here. And in other salary-related news/controversy, Vernon has relieved one of its city administrators in light of a review of his compensation. The administrator had an annual salary of $380,000, $243,898 in consulting payments from a company that is headed by his wife. The Times reports:

“The additional money came because of a pay structure that allowed him and other top Vernon officials to bill for extra hours worked each month. O'Callaghan billed $300 an hour for time worked in excess of 160 hours a month — an arrangement equivalent to overtime that is unusual for salaried workers and all but unheard of in the public sector.”

Read more here.

City Hall Probe: Investigation of Oxnard Widens; 7 Search Warrants Served

Earlier this month, Oxnard’s City Hall was locked down while investigators searched the premises after obtaining a warrant. The Ventura County District Attorney’s Office announced that along with the FBI, the city was under investigation. Details of the initial search are available here. Ventura County District Attorney Greg Totten stated that the investigation was primarily focused on misappropriation of public money, possible conflicts of interest and the handling of contracts involving public works and other city projects. Reportedly a search warrant was obtained after officials failed to provide requested documentation, including info about public works contracts. However, many city leaders have said they were in the process of putting together the requested documents and were taken aback by the search of City Hall. Mayor Tom Holden has stated, “The most important thing is that we cooperate with (District Attorney Greg) Totten’s office and work together. The second thing, though, is that we have a city to run. We have to continue to move forward and provide services.”

Another issue of concern for the investigators was determining whether or not city officials had contractors pick up their expenses, even though they were doing business with the city. Read more here. In addition to conflict of interest issues, the DA’s office also obtained search warrants to look through the homes of City Manager Ed Sotelo, Assistant City Manager Karen Burnham and City Councilman Andres Herrera. Investigators obtained the warrants to search for documents related to city business. More on the search of the officials’ homes can be read here and here.

Finally, last Friday investigators obtained another warrant to search City Hall a second time to look for more financial documents. So far a total of seven search warrants have been served. Also, at least 10 city employees have been served with subpoenas to appear before the grand jury. More can be read here.

Livid in Livingston: Recall Vote Set for Tues. for Mayor and Council Member over Water Rates

Last week we relayed that residents in the small city of Hughson had recalled three councilmen facing corruption charges. Well, there is another recall effort underway in the city of Livingston and voters will decide the fates of two council members on Tuesday, August 31st. Originally a third council member was targeted by the recall effort, but not enough petition signatures had been collected to force City council member Frank Vierra to face a recall vote on Tuesday as well. Instead, it will be Mayor Daniel Varela Sr. and Councilwoman Martha Nateras that are the subjects of the recall, an effort first spearheaded back in February and that counts a former mayor of Livingston as one of the recall campaign's organizers. The effort came about primarily due to the two council members’ support of multi-year water rate increases and the legality of passing such increases on a simple majority vote.

And if the recall election isn’t enough to make matters feel contentious in Livingston, the Bee reports that opposing sides of the issue have had many signs stolen advocating both for and against the recall. The Bee reports:

“The "No! On the Recall" committee has had nine of its signs stolen in the past few days, said Myra Bettencourt, a committee member. All nine signs were paid for with donated money and cost about $100 each. […] However, supporters of the recall haven't been immune from the malicious acts -- three of their signs are missing and one was vandalized, said Gurpal Samra, former mayor and supporter of the recall effort.”

Read more here. And for a local take on the recall election, the editorial board for the Merced Sun-Star argues that the recall is not the way to fix Livingston and while residents may not like the water rate increases, they are necessary and have already been implemented across the state. The board writes:

“The rate hike is necessary to pay for state-mandated improvements to the wastewater treatment plant. We're all paying more. To make matters worse, Livingston hadn't increased its fees since the mid-1990s. Other cities voted in less obtrusive increases years ago. Past Livingston leaders couldn't summon the courage to do so. Varela, Nateras and Vierra did what many believe is the right thing. They are now paying the price for the unpopular decision. Critics of their move have been howling for more than a year.”

The board also writes the effort is a waste of the city’s money. Read more here. Reportedly the election will cost the city over $50,000.

Guest Feature--Part III: Prefurbia and a New Way for Cities to Grow and Regulate

In a special three-part series, here at CityNews we’re pleased to introduce readers to the work of Rick Harrison. Harrison is the President of both Neighborhood Innovations, LLC and Rick Harrison Site Design Studio and has designed over 650 neighborhoods in 46 states and 12 countries. Throughout his career he has worked extensively with land developers, builders, municipalities and educators throughout the United States and overseas and has become an industry leader in Land Planning, Civil Engineering, Land Surveying, Land Development and Computer Software Development. Below is part three, the final installment:

If you missed part one, click here. Part two can be viewed here.

Prefurbia, Part Three –A new way for Cities to Grow and Regulate.

By Rick Harrison

For the first five years that we began our venture into a new era of planning, we took every job that came through our door, only to discover that many developers used us because they believed that “coving” would save them money and maximize their profits. 

Let’s call these developers “A” types, those that see building a lot as a means to a profit, not as a foundation for many generations of families to live within.  The “A” type developer did not build our designs with any architectural controls or any landscaping themes.  Often our beautifully rendered designs became filled with vinyl-sided homes, and their only architectural theme was a prominent three-car garage door, and perhaps a bush at the front door stoop.

Because there is a considerable delay from a developer walking in our door to the approval process and on to the development of a site to a point of maturity, it took about 5 years to discover that we had many neighborhoods with a great plan that looked awful on the ground.  Worst yet, not only was our name on the plan, but these projects could be pointed to as an example for those competing with our methods.
So we decided to fire all type “A” developers and only work with those that wanted to harness the new methods to create better neighborhoods and not just cheaper projects.  We will call these type “B” developers.

As the type “A” developers brought new jobs in, we told them we would not work for them anymore.  We explained that their lack of architectural controls cheapens their lots and could destroy their profits if a developer nearby offered a neighborhood with the value of an architectural theme.  I had caught their attention.  I went on to explain that if we reduce the infrastructure 30% because of our methods, these costs savings should be applied to site amenities such as gazebos, and extra landscaping to spread more “value” throughout and reduce absorption rates (lots sell faster).  Something amazing happened: I was able to convert most type “A” developers into type “B” developers!

Instead of decreasing the demand for our services by only taking on type “B” developers, we had experienced a considerable increase in business.

Ballot Watch: Rancho Cordova 1st City to Propose Tax on Home-grown Pot for Personal Use

The city of Rancho Cordova would be the first in the state to tax home-grown pot for personal use if voters approve a local measure that will appear on November’s ballot. Known as the Personal Cannabis Cultivation Tax, the measure is generating outrage over the costs it would impose on cultivators who grow marijuana in their homes for their own personal use. Specifically, for such indoor cultivation of up to 25 square feet, the measure would place an annual tax of $600 per square foot, and a $900-per-square-foot tax for anything larger. However, medical marijuana advocates argue that such costs are not affordable and hence no one would be able to grow pot in their own home, so the measure is essentially a ban. Notably, the measure does not distinguish between medical and recreational cultivation. The Bee reports:

“Rancho Cordova Mayor Ken Cooley said the city is protecting its interests should California voters approve Proposition 19. The state initiative, also on the Nov. 2 ballot, would legalize recreational marijuana use for adults over 21, allow small residential cultivation and permit cities to tax retail pot sales. Cooley said the measure – which would impose a lower tax on outdoor growing – was a response to concerns ‘about problems caused in neighborhoods by growing marijuana. It just raised the issue for us that, as we comply with state law, we keep on top of quality of life issues,’ the mayor said.”

The California director for National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws has characterized that measure as punitive and likely unconstitutional. Currently the city does not allow medical marijuana dispensaries and an ordinance is now on the books that bans outdoor cultivation in excess of 25 square feet. The Bee points out that “Although other cities have targeted marijuana businesses and commercial cultivators for taxes, Rancho Cordova is the first to look at people who may grow pot for themselves.” Read more here.

Board of Equalization Announces Local Governments to See Reduced Sales Tax Allocations

Sales tax allocations to local governments across the state are set to remain flat, according to the Board of Equalization. Previously, the Department of Finance had estimated that there would be a 5.7 percent increase in allocations, but reportedly that estimate was off in light of a review of the state’s cash receipts. The BOE has indicated that for the second quarter of 2010, there was an overall decline in sales and use tax collections of approximately 10.4 percent. Additionally, cash receipts for the first quarter of 2010 remained flat compared to a year earlier. According to a recent statement, allocations to 99 jurisdictions will be reduced by an additional 5.4 percent, and 21 jurisdictions will receive no warrants. Furthermore, of the 21 jurisdictions that will receive no warrant in August, nine were due to the economic downturn, while 12 were due to other, unrelated issues. Read more here.

The End is Nigh: Disincorporation on the Table for Half Moon Bay w/o Sales Tax Measure?

We’ve relayed here in recent weeks at CityNews that plenty of city officials are hoping voters will be up for supporting local sales tax measures this November to boost the funds of cash-strapped cities. And in Half Moon Bay, city leaders are telling voters that passage of a sales tax measure is not just about budget issues but a matter of life and death, so to speak, as officials argue it may be the only way to prevent disincorporation and the dissolving of the city. The measure in question is Measure K, which is a one-cent sales tax increase that the city argues would generate an additional $1.4 million per year for the next seven years for the city’s struggling finances. While officials say that disincorporation is a matter of last resort, some have argued that turning over its budget, operations and services to San Mateo County may be unavoidable without the measure’s passage, especially due to the financial burden the city is facing from a $15 million lawsuit settlement. Mercury News reports:

“At first glance, disincorporation could save taxpayers some money: no more city administration to support. Police services would be contracted out, and the county would cover planning, building and public works projects from its offices in Redwood City. On the other hand, county officials said there is a chance that locals would end up paying more than they do now for fewer services. City Manager Michael Dolder admits disincorporation is one of the options on the table now. The City Council already cut $900,000 from the current budget -- including half its employees -- and imposed furloughs on those who remain.”

Reportedly the city currently has a deficit that is more than $500,000. Mercury points out that disincorporation is almost unheard of and the last city to do so was Cabazon in Riverside County. However, it didn’t actually have much of a functional government at the time of the vote. If disincorporation did occur, local residents would still be responsible for the leftover liabilities and the county would claim the area’s revenues. Read more here.

L.A. Gets Tough with Dispensary Restrictions; Eligible Businesses Few and Far Between

Back in June we relayed that an ordinance in Los Angeles was set to curb the proliferation of medical marijuana dispensaries in the city, which some have argued have not faced enough controls. In an update regarding the new law, in accordance with its restrictions, the city has announced that only 41 dispensaries are now technically eligible to stay in business. And 41 is a number the city anticipates will result in a flurry of legal activity, as there are currently 169 such businesses that filed paperwork to remain open. As a result, the city is hoping a judge will rule that the narrowing process is in fact legal. Reportedly around three-fourths of the city’s dispensaries do not meet the eligibility requirements stipulated by the ordinance, which officially took effect in early June. The LA Times reports:

“’We took a very strict interpretation of the ordinance and if it didn't match the ordinance exactly, then we declared them ineligible,’ said Holly Wolcott, the clerk's executive officer. The clerk's office sent letters Wednesday to the dispensaries notifying them of their status. ‘I'm sure every one of them is going to call us,’ Wolcott said. Rather than move ahead with a selection process that would clearly trigger a spate of new lawsuits by disqualified dispensaries, the city attorney's office plans to sue the ineligible outlets first and ask a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge to determine that the city's process was appropriate.”

Read more here. The Times also reported on the frustrations of many owners who have complied with state and city laws but are facing the effects of the ban over restrictions about having “the same ownership and management.” Rules about ownership changes are generating plenty of outrage. The city has reportedly already filed lawsuits to proactively ensure that a judge will rule the terms of the ban are legal. Read more here.

Finally, in other marijuana-related city news, Anaheim’s convention center served as the location for Orange County’s first medical marijuana convention, entitled “Know Your Rights Expo.” Reportedly more than a 1,000 people attended the event. Read more here.