CaliforniaCityNews.org

What Did We Learn on Election Day?

Strong national trends and the spin machines from both major parties are doing their best to make hay of the election contests on Tuesday night. Here at CaliforniaCityNews we know that the most telling election results come from the diverse set of local elections we have from throughout the state and often provide a glimpse into the future of coming elections…

First, here’s what we do know: City election results largely mirrored the results and trends we have seen over the past four election cycles. New revenue measures (tax increase) continued to pass at the two-thirds rate - a remarkable number given the continued economic doldrums and voter angst about government activities at the state and federal level.

TRENDS

Continued support for revenue measures in these difficult times largely continued. The trend to protect local communities from the economic recession and state takeaways remained a compelling case for voters to entrust their local governments with additional revenue.

The strategy of “reduce and renew” on Utility Users Taxes (UUT’s) continued to be a winning one. 11 cities successfully utilized this strategy continuing a perfect record of wins by cities seeking to modernize their UUT ordinances. Only Coachella and Redondo beach lost UUT measures, a new UUT and an expansion as it related to a local power plant respectively.

Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT’s) also fared well with the vast majority passing. Losses only occurred in Artesia, Rancho Palos Verdes, Blythe and San Anselmo. Special note on a regional strategy employed by cities in San Mateo County that acted in unison to raise TOT rates together from 10-12%...all city measures in the county were successful.

What this tells us is that voters continue to be open to tax increases at the local level – especially if they are extensions of what they are already paying (maintaining services) or taxing someone else.

The most interesting change came in the results of sales tax measures. These measures are often a good gauge of voter sentiment because it’s the most tangible sign of voters willingness to pay more to maintain or enhance services in their local community. Three of the five measures lost Tuesday night -– not many to draw much of a conclusive analysis but from what we can discern the losses came about from local dynamics as opposed to larger statewide trends.

As we have always advised –- the most significant indicator of a sales tax measure passing or failing is the cohesiveness of the council and the confidence the community has in them. Contentious council races, split councils and a history of failed measures in the past are key indicators in the chances of a measures passage or failure. Losses occurred in the cities of Salinas (40% YES - 60% NO), Ventura (44% YES – 55 % NO) and San Carlos (44% YES – 55% NO).

Salinas has "gone to the well" perhaps bit too frequently in recent years with revenue measure campaigns, and the continued history of seeking new revenues in this climate makes passage in this city an uphill climb at best. Measure K was a full cent tax increase and the local dynamics and history of tax measures coupled with low voter turnout explain the low 40% voter threshold of support.

Ventura showed both early promise and potential challenges in late summer as the council voted to authorize a vote on measure A – a half cent sales tax increase. A couple of years ago voters narrowly rejected a special tax for law enforcement (Measure P6 garnered 62% of the vote) and polling has consistently showed voter support levels for new revenue in the high 50’s. Ventura endured a very acrimonious election cycle with the local POA spending 20K in negative attack mailers to knock off an incumbent who raised the public pension reform issue. Along with tepid support from the business community, the local paper and recent controversies surrounding 911 fees and utility surcharge increases, voter support collapsed.

San Carlos also had a split council. A very public debate between employee compensation levels and new taxes by council members proved to be enough to move voters into the NO column…eerily similar to Ventura. As early as this spring voter support levels were polling in the low 60’s.

The lesson remains…if your city council isn’t in unanimous agreement on moving forward with a tax increase - think hard about going forward. If the council can’t agree, don’t expect the voters to hand you new revenue to figure it out later.

Michael Coleman from CaliforniaCityFinance has his usual thorough rundown of the tax votes here. 

Water Talks Stalled

Assembly Republicans, unimpressed with plans to create a Coastal Commission-esque oversight body for the Delta, have introduced their own water legislation.  If that doesn't say this going nowhere fast, nothing does. 

The LA Times has a good rundown of the current status and atmosphere in the Capitol surrounding this issue, but Dan Walters has another good piece on what's really at stake -- the future of land use and development in California. 

"In a semi-arid state such as California, whether land remains undeveloped, is cultivated for agriculture, or is covered with houses and shopping centers depends almost entirely on the availability of water.  That was true when Los Angeles' civic and political gentry, eager for profitable land development in the San Fernando Valley, stealthily grabbed water from the Owens Valley a century ago. It's even truer today."

Prelude to a Canal?

The influential Westlands Water District and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California are getting behind the latest iteration of a a legislative water compromise in part "because they believe it brings the Peripheral Canal closer to reality," according to reports from the Capitol Weekly.

Ready to put their money where their mouth is, the "agencies themselves say they would pay for the huge project, using the money from the rate increases paid by their customers."  But hold on, just a minute here, say the enviros, for whom the idea of sanctioning a "Peripheral Canal" is tantamount to summoning the Prince of Darkness himself to our fair state. 

"The bill does not authorize a canal," a leading environmental negotiator was quoted, plainly. 

The water negotiations continued in the Capitol Monday, though Assembly Speaker Karen Bass is beginning to bristle that they are mostly being held in the confidence of the "Big 5," rather than on the floor. 

Read more on the early week progress in the Capitol Weekly.

Redevelopment Assoc. Sues State for $2 Billion Raid

The California Redevelopment Association (CRA) announced Tuesday that it filed a lawsuit in Sacramento Superior Court to stop ABX4-26, a state budget trailer bill passed in July as part of the 2009/10 state budget. ABX4-26 authorizes a $2.05 billion raid of local redevelopment funds to use for state purposes. A PDF copy of the petition filed today is attached.

The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of ABX4-26 and seeks to prevent the State from taking redevelopment funds for non-redevelopment purposes.

This is the second lawsuit filed by CRA.  In April 2008, the Sacramento Superior Court ruled in favor of CRA and invalidated 2008 budget language that would have shifted $350 million in redevelopment funds to the State. On September 28, the State dropped its appeal in the first case, making the April decision final and binding.

“We believe the second budget raid by lawmakers is just as unconstitutional as the first,” said CRA Executive Director John Shirey. “Lawmakers ignored the State Constitution and attempted to write state budget legislation around it. That’s simply irresponsible policy-making, and it illustrates why many have concluded state government is broken and needs fixing.”

Housing LA's Homeless Cheaper than Letting them Roam

A new study by the United Way finds that LA County taxpayers would save -- perhaps substantially -- by providing housing to the regions vast homeless population versus letting them roam the streets.  The study found that it costs taxpayers "$107,032 to provide housing and other benefits to a homeless person for two years, compared with $187,288 for those living in the street."  The higher costs are driven by increased hospital and jail visits by the homeless, which of course is ultimately paid for by taxpayers.

Read more from the San Gabriel Valley Trib or, from the horse's mouth, get the United Way overview here.

Guv Signs and Vetoes

The Governor relented on his mass veto threat this weekend.  Citing progress on water negotiations, Schwarzenegger got the pen out and started signing on the dotted line. 

His total for the session stands at 632 new laws approved this session -- which sounds like a lot until you hear it makes him the "stingiest" Governor for signing bills in recent history.  His signing totals have declined in each of the last four years, but he's still not the Veto King -- that still belongs to Deukmejian, who axed 436 bills in 1990. 

Most importantly, if you wanna know what wasn't on the list of bills for the Governor to consider -- Prop 1A securitization and HUTA clean up language.  It's alleged that the Senate is coming back to finish up that piece of business this week.  

And back to the raw numbers of bills, for those of you wishing for a bygone era in which the legislature was less concerned with passing hundreds of bills, Dan Walters reminds us that in 1967, Reagns first year as Governor, the legislature passed over 1,700 bills, and the Guv vetoed just 83 of them.

Get a full list of the signed/vetoed bills here.  LA Times has a good rundown of the major legislation here.

Costa Mesa Rethinks Position on Homeowner Help from Federal Stimulus

Costa Mesa originally wasn't so sure about taking federal stimulus money to help struggling homeowners in its city.  Talk of illegal immigrants potentially benefiting from the program had the mayor and some councilmembers hesitant, but the increasing need in their community seems to have assuaged, or at least tabled, their concerns. 

The funds are to be "used for short-term rental assistance, security deposits, utility payments, motel vouchers, housing searches and legal services. Mortgage assistance is not included, and the funds will not be given to the chronic homeless," according to the OC Register.

Montebello Recall Drama Puts Developers, Enviros on Ice

A little somethin' for everyone in this one.  The City of Montebello is trying to determine what to do with 500 acres of undeveloped land, which has pitted developers against environmentalists who cite the area as the largest refuge for the endangered California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica for all you orinthologists).  There's precisous little common ground between the warring camps, except for broad agreement that the drama City Hall needs to stop.

It seems a couple Montebello councilmembers are locked up in tough recall campaigns.  The recalls stem from a legal dispute over trash hauling rights... dangerous ground for an industry with a "different corporate culture," as Tony Soprano once observed. 

Read more in the LA Times.

LA Stadium Proponents Try Legislative Gimmick to Exempt Project from EIR

It's called a "mushroom bill" in Sacramento.  Translated: a bill that grows in the dark and is 99 times out of a 100, totally poisonous.  This is what proponents of the City of Industry NFL Stadium are trying this week in an effort to get the project around any environmental snags. 

Read more in the SacBee. 

Hemet Pursues Community Land Trust to Create Affordable Housing

Battling a worse-than-average housing bust, Hemet is considering a community land trust to try and create affordable housing and break out of the bust/boom cycle.  From the Press-Enterprise:

"Community land trusts are nonprofit, community-based housing organizations that acquire land through purchases or donations and hold it in perpetuity, said Rick Jacobus, an Oakland-based consultant hired to look into forming the land.

The land is then leased to the homeowners for as long as 99 years, cutting the overall cost of homes and helping to promote affordable housing."

Read more from the PE.