Texas provides an online tool that explains that, a wonderful example of innovative public administration, as reported by the Houston Chronicle.
An excerpt.
“What are you paying for garbage pickup? How about for having a fire department on call to douse your house if it goes up in flames?
“A new tool introduced on the city's website on Wednesday tells you. The "My Tax Dollars at Work" feature attempts to show how the hundreds of millions it takes to run city services for 2.1 million people translates to dollars and cents out of your pocket.
“Plug in the appraised value of your home, specify whether you claim a residential homestead exemption and you get a customized report. The site generates a department-by-department estimate of where your property tax money gets spent.
“Councilwoman Melissa Noriega attached an amendment to this year's $1.8 billion general fund budget mandating the tool.
"People should know where their taxes go," Noriega said. "Taxes aren't really just money, they're an investment in your city. This website is going to allow you to see where that investment goes and what it does."
“The councilwoman said she believes taxpayers will be surprised by what they find. She used her own property taxes as an example. "Thirty-nine dollars a year goes to garbage pickup. I need to tell you, to have somebody come twice a week, including recycling collection, to pick up your trash for $39 a year is a bargain," she said.
“Open-government advocates heaped praise on the initiative.”
Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 02, 2011
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Taxes & Prices
When you tax business, consumer prices go up, not a good thing, but California has apparently done it anyway, as this article from the California Chamber of Commerce notes.
An excerpt.
“October 21, 2011) Yesterday the California Air Resources Board (CARB) voted to adopt the rules for a cap-and-trade program that would set a maximum limit for greenhouse gas emissions while allowing regulated industries to buy or trade emissions credits to meet the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions as established by AB 32. Included in what was approved by CARB yesterday is tax, estimated by a CARB member to raise $2 billion from businesses, that will drive up costs for California consumers.
“California Chamber of Commerce Policy Advocate Brenda M. Coleman has urged the Board to eliminate what has been identified as an illegal and arbitrary tax. The CalChamber has also argued for adoption of an operable, cost-effective market designed to meet the goals of AB 32 without creating undue harm to the economy.
“Imposing a tax on business via CARB’s proposal does nothing to maximize environmental benefits required under AB 32 and it is not needed to ensure the stringency of the overall cap,” said Coleman. "In fact, the tax proposed by CARB contradicts the AB 32 requirements of minimizing costs and maximizing benefits for California’s economy in the design of emission reduction measures. The tax will negatively affect all California businesses and increase costs that will be passed down to consumers.”
An excerpt.
“October 21, 2011) Yesterday the California Air Resources Board (CARB) voted to adopt the rules for a cap-and-trade program that would set a maximum limit for greenhouse gas emissions while allowing regulated industries to buy or trade emissions credits to meet the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions as established by AB 32. Included in what was approved by CARB yesterday is tax, estimated by a CARB member to raise $2 billion from businesses, that will drive up costs for California consumers.
“California Chamber of Commerce Policy Advocate Brenda M. Coleman has urged the Board to eliminate what has been identified as an illegal and arbitrary tax. The CalChamber has also argued for adoption of an operable, cost-effective market designed to meet the goals of AB 32 without creating undue harm to the economy.
“Imposing a tax on business via CARB’s proposal does nothing to maximize environmental benefits required under AB 32 and it is not needed to ensure the stringency of the overall cap,” said Coleman. "In fact, the tax proposed by CARB contradicts the AB 32 requirements of minimizing costs and maximizing benefits for California’s economy in the design of emission reduction measures. The tax will negatively affect all California businesses and increase costs that will be passed down to consumers.”
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Nonprofits Struggle
As with any business organization, and nonprofit corporations are still essentially that, adapting to the business—philanthropic—environment is crucial for survival, and those noted in this article from the Sacramento Bee have done a good bit of marketing getting their work and financial needs front page coverage.
As far as their work goes, one I know of, the American River Conservancy, has done some good with its trail building program, but the money for that should come exclusively from private philanthropy rather than the tax payers.
An excerpt.
“Nonprofit conservation groups have preserved tens of thousands of acres of land in California – wild places where both hikers and animals roam. Now, some of them say the economic slump could force them to scale back.
“Others say lean budgets make it harder for them to scrutinize land use proposals for environmental effects – a key role such groups play in the state's push-pull development process.
“Most groups don't like to talk about their financial difficulties, but one, the American River Conservancy, recently took the unusual step of going public. In an email to members and supporters, the group confessed that "times are hard" and it needs to raise $250,000 by year-end or it will be forced to cut programs in 2012.
"What is happening to our organization is happening to a lot of organizations. We're just being honest about it," said Alan Ehrgott, the conservancy's executive director.
“A major factor is the squeeze on government programs that provide money for land acquisition and education. In addition, private foundations that give grants to environmental groups have seen their endowments shrink substantially as the stock market has struggled.
"Every group really has got to focus on what they do well, what their core priorities are," said Tim Little, executive director of the Oakland-based Rose Foundation, which donates to environmental groups and is also helping coach them through tough times.
“Like a number of other land groups operating in the Sacramento region, the American River Conservancy has worked on setting aside land for both recreation and wildlife habitat.
“The conservancy has helped preserve 12,000 acres in the American River watershed, particularly along the south fork in the Coloma area. Among these projects was the acquisition last year of Gold Hill Ranch, site of the Wakamatsu Colony, the first Japanese settlement in North America.
“It also has built more than 27 miles of public recreation trails, including the new South Fork American River Trail, which opened last year between Salmon Falls Road and Highway 49.”
As far as their work goes, one I know of, the American River Conservancy, has done some good with its trail building program, but the money for that should come exclusively from private philanthropy rather than the tax payers.
An excerpt.
“Nonprofit conservation groups have preserved tens of thousands of acres of land in California – wild places where both hikers and animals roam. Now, some of them say the economic slump could force them to scale back.
“Others say lean budgets make it harder for them to scrutinize land use proposals for environmental effects – a key role such groups play in the state's push-pull development process.
“Most groups don't like to talk about their financial difficulties, but one, the American River Conservancy, recently took the unusual step of going public. In an email to members and supporters, the group confessed that "times are hard" and it needs to raise $250,000 by year-end or it will be forced to cut programs in 2012.
"What is happening to our organization is happening to a lot of organizations. We're just being honest about it," said Alan Ehrgott, the conservancy's executive director.
“A major factor is the squeeze on government programs that provide money for land acquisition and education. In addition, private foundations that give grants to environmental groups have seen their endowments shrink substantially as the stock market has struggled.
"Every group really has got to focus on what they do well, what their core priorities are," said Tim Little, executive director of the Oakland-based Rose Foundation, which donates to environmental groups and is also helping coach them through tough times.
“Like a number of other land groups operating in the Sacramento region, the American River Conservancy has worked on setting aside land for both recreation and wildlife habitat.
“The conservancy has helped preserve 12,000 acres in the American River watershed, particularly along the south fork in the Coloma area. Among these projects was the acquisition last year of Gold Hill Ranch, site of the Wakamatsu Colony, the first Japanese settlement in North America.
“It also has built more than 27 miles of public recreation trails, including the new South Fork American River Trail, which opened last year between Salmon Falls Road and Highway 49.”
Monday, October 10, 2011
California Should Follow Florida’s Lead
Repealing the smart growth laws is a smart move, as reported by New Geography.
An excerpt.
“The state of Florida has repealed its 30-year old growth management law (also called "smart growth," "compact development" and "livability"). Under the law, local jurisdictions were required to adopt comprehensive land use plans stipulating where development could and could not occur. These plans were subject to approval by the state Department of Community Affairs, an agency now abolished by the legislation. The state approval process had been similar to that of Oregon. Governor Rick Scott had urged repeal as a part of his program to create 700,000 new jobs in seven years in Florida. Economic research in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States has associated slower economic growth with growth management programs.
“Local governments will still be permitted to implement growth management programs, but largely without state mandates. Some local jurisdictions will continue their growth management programs, while others will welcome development.
“The Need for A Competitive Land Supply: Growth management has been cited extensively in economic research because of its association with higher housing costs. The basic problem is that, by delineating and limiting the land that can the used for development, planners create guides to investment, which shows developers where they must buy and tells the now more scarce sellers that the buyers have little choice but to negotiate with them. This can violate the "principle of competitive land supply," cited by Brookings Institution economist Anthony Downs. Downs said:
“If a locality limits to certain sites the land that can be developed within a given period, it confers a preferred market position on those sites. ... If the limitation is stringent enough, it may also confirm a monopolistic powers on the owners of those sites, permitting them to raising land prices substantially.
“This necessity of retaining a competitive land supply is conceded by proponents of growth management. The Brookings Institution published research by leading advocates of growth management, Arthur C Nelson, Rolf Pendall, Casey J. Dawkins and Gerrit J. Knapp that makes the connection, despite often incorrect citations by advocates to the contrary. In particular they cite higher house prices in California as having resulted from growth management restrictions that were too strong.
“...even well-intentioned growth management programs ... can accommodate too little growth and result in higher housing prices. This is arguably what happened in parts of California where growth boundaries were drawn so tightly without accommodating other housing needs
“Nelson, et al. also concluded that “... the housing price effects of growth management policies depend heavily on how they are designed and implemented. If the policies tend to restrict land supplies, then housing price increases are expected” (emphasis in original).”
An excerpt.
“The state of Florida has repealed its 30-year old growth management law (also called "smart growth," "compact development" and "livability"). Under the law, local jurisdictions were required to adopt comprehensive land use plans stipulating where development could and could not occur. These plans were subject to approval by the state Department of Community Affairs, an agency now abolished by the legislation. The state approval process had been similar to that of Oregon. Governor Rick Scott had urged repeal as a part of his program to create 700,000 new jobs in seven years in Florida. Economic research in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States has associated slower economic growth with growth management programs.
“Local governments will still be permitted to implement growth management programs, but largely without state mandates. Some local jurisdictions will continue their growth management programs, while others will welcome development.
“The Need for A Competitive Land Supply: Growth management has been cited extensively in economic research because of its association with higher housing costs. The basic problem is that, by delineating and limiting the land that can the used for development, planners create guides to investment, which shows developers where they must buy and tells the now more scarce sellers that the buyers have little choice but to negotiate with them. This can violate the "principle of competitive land supply," cited by Brookings Institution economist Anthony Downs. Downs said:
“If a locality limits to certain sites the land that can be developed within a given period, it confers a preferred market position on those sites. ... If the limitation is stringent enough, it may also confirm a monopolistic powers on the owners of those sites, permitting them to raising land prices substantially.
“This necessity of retaining a competitive land supply is conceded by proponents of growth management. The Brookings Institution published research by leading advocates of growth management, Arthur C Nelson, Rolf Pendall, Casey J. Dawkins and Gerrit J. Knapp that makes the connection, despite often incorrect citations by advocates to the contrary. In particular they cite higher house prices in California as having resulted from growth management restrictions that were too strong.
“...even well-intentioned growth management programs ... can accommodate too little growth and result in higher housing prices. This is arguably what happened in parts of California where growth boundaries were drawn so tightly without accommodating other housing needs
“Nelson, et al. also concluded that “... the housing price effects of growth management policies depend heavily on how they are designed and implemented. If the policies tend to restrict land supplies, then housing price increases are expected” (emphasis in original).”
Tuesday, October 04, 2011
New Terminal A Beauty
While I haven’t been there yet, the photos and comments about it reveal a truly magnificent building that we should all be proud of, but as this editorial from the Sacramento Bee notes, the bottom line is important.
An excerpt.
“The new Central Terminal B is one impressive building, bringing a "wow" factor to Sacramento International Airport.
“It is also the most expensive public works project in local history, adding $950 million to the airport's credit card.
“Officials better hope that the thousands who traipsed through the terminal for a look-see over the weekend will return as paying customers once it opens for business on Thursday.
“Travelers are supposed to repay one-third of the debt through the existing $4.50 surcharge on every plane ticket; those who park at the airport will pay more. Airlines will fork over rent and landing fees, which more than doubled. Restaurants, concessionaires and car rental companies will also help pay the freight.
“Whether all those fees will be enough depends on how many people use the airport and on the broader state of the economy.
“Boardings dipped every year during the recession and the airport has lost flights. It would certainly help if more residents fly in and out of Sacramento instead of San Francisco and Oakland.
“As The Bee's Tony Bizjak reported a week ago Sunday, the new terminal's first five years will be crucial. By 2014, the airport's projected revenue, once operating costs are deducted, will be only 14 percent more than the required debt payment. That's a far thinner margin than the 33 percent typical for airports of Sacramento's size.”
An excerpt.
“The new Central Terminal B is one impressive building, bringing a "wow" factor to Sacramento International Airport.
“It is also the most expensive public works project in local history, adding $950 million to the airport's credit card.
“Officials better hope that the thousands who traipsed through the terminal for a look-see over the weekend will return as paying customers once it opens for business on Thursday.
“Travelers are supposed to repay one-third of the debt through the existing $4.50 surcharge on every plane ticket; those who park at the airport will pay more. Airlines will fork over rent and landing fees, which more than doubled. Restaurants, concessionaires and car rental companies will also help pay the freight.
“Whether all those fees will be enough depends on how many people use the airport and on the broader state of the economy.
“Boardings dipped every year during the recession and the airport has lost flights. It would certainly help if more residents fly in and out of Sacramento instead of San Francisco and Oakland.
“As The Bee's Tony Bizjak reported a week ago Sunday, the new terminal's first five years will be crucial. By 2014, the airport's projected revenue, once operating costs are deducted, will be only 14 percent more than the required debt payment. That's a far thinner margin than the 33 percent typical for airports of Sacramento's size.”
Monday, October 03, 2011
California’s Debt
It’s a lot, as this article from the Sacramento Bee notes.
An excerpt.
“California will devote nearly 8 percent of its general fund budget to paying off debt this fiscal year, more than twice the share of eight years ago, according to a new report from Treasurer Bill Lockyer.
“The state has long borrowed for massive public works projects intended to last across generations.
“But state leaders and voters went on a notable binge during flush economic times in the past decade.
“They approved bonds for parks, flood protection, classrooms, children's hospitals, stem cell research and high-speed rail. They borrowed in 2004 to bridge a budget deficit from the last recession.
“As new bills stacked up, the state entered a historic economic downturn and revenues fell sharply over the past three years.
“The combination of higher bond payments and declining tax revenues has driven the debt burden to 7.8 percent of the general fund budget. Lockyer also blames a drop in tax rates this summer, after the expiration of 2009 temporary tax hikes.
“The rate is more than double the 3.4 percent California devoted to debt in 2003-04.
“California also faces a higher debt burden compared with other states. It owes $2,542 per person, compared with the national median of $1,066.”
An excerpt.
“California will devote nearly 8 percent of its general fund budget to paying off debt this fiscal year, more than twice the share of eight years ago, according to a new report from Treasurer Bill Lockyer.
“The state has long borrowed for massive public works projects intended to last across generations.
“But state leaders and voters went on a notable binge during flush economic times in the past decade.
“They approved bonds for parks, flood protection, classrooms, children's hospitals, stem cell research and high-speed rail. They borrowed in 2004 to bridge a budget deficit from the last recession.
“As new bills stacked up, the state entered a historic economic downturn and revenues fell sharply over the past three years.
“The combination of higher bond payments and declining tax revenues has driven the debt burden to 7.8 percent of the general fund budget. Lockyer also blames a drop in tax rates this summer, after the expiration of 2009 temporary tax hikes.
“The rate is more than double the 3.4 percent California devoted to debt in 2003-04.
“California also faces a higher debt burden compared with other states. It owes $2,542 per person, compared with the national median of $1,066.”
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Equity, Economy, Efficiency
They are the three pillars of good public administration—also described as fairness, thrift, and competency—which are necessary for it to be good in practice, and this article from the Miami Herald reports on one community’s attempt to ensure it does.
An excerpt.
“In this school of sorts, the coursework features walking tours of inner-city neighborhoods, exercises on how to balance a mock municipal budget — and a guest speaker who has pleaded guilty to charges of extortion, perjury and public-meetings violations.
“Welcome to the Good Government Initiative, an effort to improve the quality of leadership in corruption-plagued South Florida.
“At the heart of that lofty goal is this question: Can public officials be taught to avoid the mistakes of their ethics-challenged forbears — and to better serve their constituents in an often-toxic political climate?
“There’s an old saying that when the student is ready, the teacher appears,” said Katy Sorenson, the former Miami-Dade County commissioner who retired last year and founded the program. “And I think that people that are eager to learn seek that out and can learn lessons.”
“The program’s inaugural class began meeting last week. The group comprises 18 state lawmakers, county commissioners, city council and school board members in their first term or first four years in elected office in Miami-Dade, Broward, Monroe and Palm Beach counties. In eight sessions between August and November, they will cover a syllabus ranging from land use regulations to dealing with the media.
“Driving the program is the idea that elected officials — particularly rookies — can learn to ask more pointed questions, propose effective policies and work together at a regional level to tackle big problems.
“Politicians have sought the same sort of training for years through national organizations, such as the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. And local agencies, including the Miami-Dade ethics commission, teach officials about the law.
“But Sorenson’s program is the first broad effort geared at reaching out to, and fostering relationships among, local officials.
“When you run for office, you have a certain mindset,” said Juan Carlos Zapata, a former Republican state representative from Miami who spoke to the program’s students over the weekend. “And then you get elected and you realize how things really operate. Nobody really prepares you for this.”
“Sorenson, in collaboration with the University of Miami and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, created the program to fill a leadership void she saw in local politics. She met with scores of public officials to brainstorm a curriculum and reminisced about her early years in office — such as when the late Commission Chairman Arthur Teele deferred an agenda item so Sorenson could get a crash course in municipal bond financing.”
An excerpt.
“In this school of sorts, the coursework features walking tours of inner-city neighborhoods, exercises on how to balance a mock municipal budget — and a guest speaker who has pleaded guilty to charges of extortion, perjury and public-meetings violations.
“Welcome to the Good Government Initiative, an effort to improve the quality of leadership in corruption-plagued South Florida.
“At the heart of that lofty goal is this question: Can public officials be taught to avoid the mistakes of their ethics-challenged forbears — and to better serve their constituents in an often-toxic political climate?
“There’s an old saying that when the student is ready, the teacher appears,” said Katy Sorenson, the former Miami-Dade County commissioner who retired last year and founded the program. “And I think that people that are eager to learn seek that out and can learn lessons.”
“The program’s inaugural class began meeting last week. The group comprises 18 state lawmakers, county commissioners, city council and school board members in their first term or first four years in elected office in Miami-Dade, Broward, Monroe and Palm Beach counties. In eight sessions between August and November, they will cover a syllabus ranging from land use regulations to dealing with the media.
“Driving the program is the idea that elected officials — particularly rookies — can learn to ask more pointed questions, propose effective policies and work together at a regional level to tackle big problems.
“Politicians have sought the same sort of training for years through national organizations, such as the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. And local agencies, including the Miami-Dade ethics commission, teach officials about the law.
“But Sorenson’s program is the first broad effort geared at reaching out to, and fostering relationships among, local officials.
“When you run for office, you have a certain mindset,” said Juan Carlos Zapata, a former Republican state representative from Miami who spoke to the program’s students over the weekend. “And then you get elected and you realize how things really operate. Nobody really prepares you for this.”
“Sorenson, in collaboration with the University of Miami and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, created the program to fill a leadership void she saw in local politics. She met with scores of public officials to brainstorm a curriculum and reminisced about her early years in office — such as when the late Commission Chairman Arthur Teele deferred an agenda item so Sorenson could get a crash course in municipal bond financing.”
Monday, September 12, 2011
Crumbling California
What is happening to our beloved state is sad, as written about in New Geography.
An excerpt.
“The recent announcement that California's unemployment again nudged up to 12 percent—second worst in the nation behind its evil twin, Nevada—should have come as a surprise but frankly did not. From the beginning of the recession, the Golden State has been stuck bringing up a humbled nation's rear and seems mired in that less-than-illustrious position.
“What has happened to my adopted home state of over last decade is a tragedy, both for Californians and for America. For most of the past century, California has been "golden" not only in name but in every kind of superlative—a global leader in agriculture, energy, entertainment, technology, and most important of all, human aspiration.
“In its modern origins California was paean to progress in the best sense of the word. In 1872, the second president of the University of California, Daniel Coit Gilman, said science was "the mother of California." Today, California may worship at the altar of science, but increasingly in the most regressive, hysterical, and reactionary way.
“California's dominant ruling class—consisting of public-employee unions, green jihadis, and Democratic machine politicians—has no real use for science as Gilman saw it: as a way to create prosperity for its citizens. Instead, the prevailing credo of the state has been how to do everything possible to return to its pre-settlement condition, with little regard for what that means to the average Californian.
“Nowhere was California's old technological ethos more pronounced than in agriculture, where great Californians such as William Mulholland, creator of the Los Angeles Aqueduct, and Pat Brown, who forged the state water project, created the greatest water-delivery system since the Roman Empire. Their effort brought water from the ice-bound Sierra Nevada mountains down to the state's dry but fertile valleys and to the great desert metropolis of Southern California. Now, largely at the behest of greens, California agriculture is being systematically cut down by regulation. In an attempt to protect a small fish called the Delta smelt, upward of 200,000 acres of prime farmland have been idled, according to the state's Department of Conservation. Even in the current "wet" cycle, California's agricultural industry, which exports roughly $14 billion annually, is slowly being decimated. Unemployment in some Central Valley towns tops 30 percent, and in cases even 40 percent.
“And now, notes my friend, Salinas Mayor Dennis Donohue, green regulators are imposing new groundwater regulations that may force the shutdown of production even in areas like his that have their own ample water supplies.
“Salinas was the home town of John Steinbeck, author of The Grapes of Wrath and great chronicler of Depression-era California. Today for many in hardscrabble, majority-Latino Salinas, home to 150,000 people, The Grapes of Wrath is less lyrical than real. "California," notes Donohue, a lifelong Democrat, "remains intent on job destruction and continued hyper-regulation."
“California's pain is not restricted to farming towns. The state's regulatory vigilantes have erected a labyrinth of rules that increasingly makes doing almost anything that might contribute to increased carbon emissions—manufacturing, conventional energy, home construction—extraordinarily onerous. Not surprisingly, the state has not gained middle-skilled jobs (those requiring two years of college or more) for a decade, while the nation boosted them by 5 percent and archrival Texas by a stunning 16 percent over the same time period.”
An excerpt.
“The recent announcement that California's unemployment again nudged up to 12 percent—second worst in the nation behind its evil twin, Nevada—should have come as a surprise but frankly did not. From the beginning of the recession, the Golden State has been stuck bringing up a humbled nation's rear and seems mired in that less-than-illustrious position.
“What has happened to my adopted home state of over last decade is a tragedy, both for Californians and for America. For most of the past century, California has been "golden" not only in name but in every kind of superlative—a global leader in agriculture, energy, entertainment, technology, and most important of all, human aspiration.
“In its modern origins California was paean to progress in the best sense of the word. In 1872, the second president of the University of California, Daniel Coit Gilman, said science was "the mother of California." Today, California may worship at the altar of science, but increasingly in the most regressive, hysterical, and reactionary way.
“California's dominant ruling class—consisting of public-employee unions, green jihadis, and Democratic machine politicians—has no real use for science as Gilman saw it: as a way to create prosperity for its citizens. Instead, the prevailing credo of the state has been how to do everything possible to return to its pre-settlement condition, with little regard for what that means to the average Californian.
“Nowhere was California's old technological ethos more pronounced than in agriculture, where great Californians such as William Mulholland, creator of the Los Angeles Aqueduct, and Pat Brown, who forged the state water project, created the greatest water-delivery system since the Roman Empire. Their effort brought water from the ice-bound Sierra Nevada mountains down to the state's dry but fertile valleys and to the great desert metropolis of Southern California. Now, largely at the behest of greens, California agriculture is being systematically cut down by regulation. In an attempt to protect a small fish called the Delta smelt, upward of 200,000 acres of prime farmland have been idled, according to the state's Department of Conservation. Even in the current "wet" cycle, California's agricultural industry, which exports roughly $14 billion annually, is slowly being decimated. Unemployment in some Central Valley towns tops 30 percent, and in cases even 40 percent.
“And now, notes my friend, Salinas Mayor Dennis Donohue, green regulators are imposing new groundwater regulations that may force the shutdown of production even in areas like his that have their own ample water supplies.
“Salinas was the home town of John Steinbeck, author of The Grapes of Wrath and great chronicler of Depression-era California. Today for many in hardscrabble, majority-Latino Salinas, home to 150,000 people, The Grapes of Wrath is less lyrical than real. "California," notes Donohue, a lifelong Democrat, "remains intent on job destruction and continued hyper-regulation."
“California's pain is not restricted to farming towns. The state's regulatory vigilantes have erected a labyrinth of rules that increasingly makes doing almost anything that might contribute to increased carbon emissions—manufacturing, conventional energy, home construction—extraordinarily onerous. Not surprisingly, the state has not gained middle-skilled jobs (those requiring two years of college or more) for a decade, while the nation boosted them by 5 percent and archrival Texas by a stunning 16 percent over the same time period.”
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Oil Drill/Spill Response
While not knowing many of the details surrounding the issue of oil spill response, as reported by the Sacramento Bee, it is clearly crucial that California maintain an ability to respond effectively to any oil spill along our shoreline.
And, an important addition, we should certainly be moving towards allowing more drilling for oil—covered by the highest level of protection available—along our coastline.
An excerpt.
“Standing on the deck of the Exxon Valdez within hours after the tanker ran aground in March 1989, I watched 11 million gallons of toxic crude oil drift in a thick mat toward the shoreline of Alaska's Prince William Sound.
“As Alaska commissioner of environmental conservation, I knew the first few hours of an oil or hazardous-substance discharge are crucial. The ability to respond to an oil spill – and respond quickly – is critical to reducing harm to ocean life, coastal communities and livelihoods.
“Last year's BP oil disaster off the coast of Louisiana was yet another tragic reminder of the importance of both prevention and response preparedness. And here in California, recent experience also underscores the importance of oil spill prevention and response: In just the past five years, the vessels Cosco Busan, Dubai Star and DaTang 18 have made headlines and destroyed ocean life by spilling fuel off our coast.
“With all of this evidence in front of us, it is hard to understand how a common-sense proposal designed simply to maintain California's oil spill prevention and response training capacity could be at serious risk in the Legislature.
“Here's how it works: California's oil spill prevention and response programs are primarily managed by the Office of Spill Prevention and Response, and paid for by the Oil Spill Prevention and Administration Fund. The fund comes from a 5 cent fee on each barrel of crude oil or petroleum product delivered to a marine terminal in California. That is, funding for oil spill prevention and response training comes not from taxpayers, but from the oil companies themselves – companies that have, by the way, posted massive profits in the past two quarters.”
And, an important addition, we should certainly be moving towards allowing more drilling for oil—covered by the highest level of protection available—along our coastline.
An excerpt.
“Standing on the deck of the Exxon Valdez within hours after the tanker ran aground in March 1989, I watched 11 million gallons of toxic crude oil drift in a thick mat toward the shoreline of Alaska's Prince William Sound.
“As Alaska commissioner of environmental conservation, I knew the first few hours of an oil or hazardous-substance discharge are crucial. The ability to respond to an oil spill – and respond quickly – is critical to reducing harm to ocean life, coastal communities and livelihoods.
“Last year's BP oil disaster off the coast of Louisiana was yet another tragic reminder of the importance of both prevention and response preparedness. And here in California, recent experience also underscores the importance of oil spill prevention and response: In just the past five years, the vessels Cosco Busan, Dubai Star and DaTang 18 have made headlines and destroyed ocean life by spilling fuel off our coast.
“With all of this evidence in front of us, it is hard to understand how a common-sense proposal designed simply to maintain California's oil spill prevention and response training capacity could be at serious risk in the Legislature.
“Here's how it works: California's oil spill prevention and response programs are primarily managed by the Office of Spill Prevention and Response, and paid for by the Oil Spill Prevention and Administration Fund. The fund comes from a 5 cent fee on each barrel of crude oil or petroleum product delivered to a marine terminal in California. That is, funding for oil spill prevention and response training comes not from taxpayers, but from the oil companies themselves – companies that have, by the way, posted massive profits in the past two quarters.”
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Government & Business
This article from the San Francisco Chronicle about the problems California has in collecting fees from business for using government land highlights the apparently inherent difficulty government—at least in our state—has dealing effectively with business at all.
While this is an unfortunate trend, it is one that is changing in Sacramento County, as we saw with the very successful Gibson Ranch Park transfer of management control from the Parks Department to private enterprise.
An excerpt from the article.
“California is doing a poor job of collecting rent from energy companies and other businesses that are profiting from public land, costing the fiscally challenged state millions of dollars, according to an audit released Tuesday.
“The examination by the state auditor found the State Lands Commission, which is responsible for natural and cultural resources on public land, could have generated $8.2 million from a sample of 35 leases, some dating back 30 years.
“Besides holding surface and mineral rights on dry land, the commission's jurisdiction extends to the 4 million acres of tidelands and submerged lands that lie along the coast and the beds of rivers and lakes.
“The report found the commission has failed in many cases to collect rent from energy companies, marinas and other businesses that use California's public land. It also has not properly reassessed the land's value.
"This report concludes the commission has not always managed its more than 4,000 leases in the state's best interest with the result that it has missed opportunities to generate millions of dollars in revenues for the state's general fund," state Auditor Elaine Howle wrote in a letter accompanying the audit.
“The commission's executive director, Curtis Fossum, blamed budget cuts for hampering the commission's ability to conduct appraisals, manage leases and enforce agreements. Of the 242 positions supported by general state taxes that existed in 1990, just 63 remain.
"These losses are principally those positions that performed much of the workload that we are now being criticized for failing to perform," Fossum wrote in a response to the audit.
“Even with the staff reductions, Howle said, the commission has not figured out how much staff is needed to address the current workload.”
While this is an unfortunate trend, it is one that is changing in Sacramento County, as we saw with the very successful Gibson Ranch Park transfer of management control from the Parks Department to private enterprise.
An excerpt from the article.
“California is doing a poor job of collecting rent from energy companies and other businesses that are profiting from public land, costing the fiscally challenged state millions of dollars, according to an audit released Tuesday.
“The examination by the state auditor found the State Lands Commission, which is responsible for natural and cultural resources on public land, could have generated $8.2 million from a sample of 35 leases, some dating back 30 years.
“Besides holding surface and mineral rights on dry land, the commission's jurisdiction extends to the 4 million acres of tidelands and submerged lands that lie along the coast and the beds of rivers and lakes.
“The report found the commission has failed in many cases to collect rent from energy companies, marinas and other businesses that use California's public land. It also has not properly reassessed the land's value.
"This report concludes the commission has not always managed its more than 4,000 leases in the state's best interest with the result that it has missed opportunities to generate millions of dollars in revenues for the state's general fund," state Auditor Elaine Howle wrote in a letter accompanying the audit.
“The commission's executive director, Curtis Fossum, blamed budget cuts for hampering the commission's ability to conduct appraisals, manage leases and enforce agreements. Of the 242 positions supported by general state taxes that existed in 1990, just 63 remain.
"These losses are principally those positions that performed much of the workload that we are now being criticized for failing to perform," Fossum wrote in a response to the audit.
“Even with the staff reductions, Howle said, the commission has not figured out how much staff is needed to address the current workload.”
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Green Jobs, In the Red
The much hyped green jobs tsunami that was going to sweep the country has—so far anyway—been a real bust, as the Heritage Foundation reports.
An excerpt, with links at the jump.
“President Barack Obama has a problem on his hands when even his stalwart allies at The New York Times have no choice but to admit to a glaring reality: The President’s “green jobs” promise has failed miserably.
“On Friday, the Times printed a harsh assessment of the state of the “green” economy—including a conclusion that the President’s promise to create five million green jobs over 10 years has proven to be nothing more than “a pipe dream,” with California’s Bay Area providing a particularly poignant example of how “green” jobs have actually been lost, not gained: “In the Bay Area as in much of the country, the green economy is not proving to be the job-creation engine that many politicians envisioned . . .“A study released in July by the non-partisan Brookings Institution found clean-technology jobs accounted for just 2 percent of employment nationwide and only slightly more — 2.2 percent — in Silicon Valley. Rather than adding jobs, the study found, the sector actually lost 492 positions from 2003 to 2010 in the South Bay, where the unemployment rate in June was 10.5 percent.”
“California isn’t the only place, though, where the green dream is falling short of reality. Last year, Seattle won a $20 million federal grant to invest in weatherization programs. The money was to be spent on insulating crawl spaces, serving to create jobs while helping the environment by reducing the energy needed to heat homes. The program, which was announced at the White House on the eve of Earth Day, has proven to be a total flop. Seattlepi.com reports: “[M]ore than a year later, Seattle’s numbers are lackluster. As of last week, only three homes had been retrofitted and just 14 new jobs have emerged from the program. Many of the jobs are administrative, and not the entry-level pathways once dreamed of for low-income workers. Some people wonder if the original goals are now achievable.”
An excerpt, with links at the jump.
“President Barack Obama has a problem on his hands when even his stalwart allies at The New York Times have no choice but to admit to a glaring reality: The President’s “green jobs” promise has failed miserably.
“On Friday, the Times printed a harsh assessment of the state of the “green” economy—including a conclusion that the President’s promise to create five million green jobs over 10 years has proven to be nothing more than “a pipe dream,” with California’s Bay Area providing a particularly poignant example of how “green” jobs have actually been lost, not gained: “In the Bay Area as in much of the country, the green economy is not proving to be the job-creation engine that many politicians envisioned . . .“A study released in July by the non-partisan Brookings Institution found clean-technology jobs accounted for just 2 percent of employment nationwide and only slightly more — 2.2 percent — in Silicon Valley. Rather than adding jobs, the study found, the sector actually lost 492 positions from 2003 to 2010 in the South Bay, where the unemployment rate in June was 10.5 percent.”
“California isn’t the only place, though, where the green dream is falling short of reality. Last year, Seattle won a $20 million federal grant to invest in weatherization programs. The money was to be spent on insulating crawl spaces, serving to create jobs while helping the environment by reducing the energy needed to heat homes. The program, which was announced at the White House on the eve of Earth Day, has proven to be a total flop. Seattlepi.com reports: “[M]ore than a year later, Seattle’s numbers are lackluster. As of last week, only three homes had been retrofitted and just 14 new jobs have emerged from the program. Many of the jobs are administrative, and not the entry-level pathways once dreamed of for low-income workers. Some people wonder if the original goals are now achievable.”
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Hatchery Trout Stolen
Security probably needs to be beefed up, as this report from the Fresno Bee on the theft of about 1,000 trout indicates.
An excerpt.
“Somewhere in California, someone has a truckload of stolen merchandise that probably is starting to stink.
“What's believed to be the first-ever large-scale theft from a fish hatchery in the state has wardens from the Department of Fish and Game scouring markets and roadside stands looking for thousands of pounds of trophy-sized trout.
“Workers on Sunday arrived at the San Joaquin State Fish Hatchery located 12 miles north of Fresno to find the gate pried open, blood covering the floors and 70 dead trout left behind.
“Department spokesman Patrick Foy said as many as 1,000 trophy trout were stolen.
"If anyone smells anything fishy, they should give us a call," Foy said.
“The trout, which sell for up to $7 a pound, were 3 years old and weighed 3 pounds each.
“The thieves face grand theft charges.
“Foy said the thieves cut down bird netting and used it to corral the fish in an accessible part of the hatchery below Millerton Lake. The hatchery is at 17372 Brook Trout Drive in Friant, one mile below Friant Dam.
“The thieves filled up dozens of ice chests before getting away before dawn on Sunday.
"They were some of our best fish and the biggest fish," hatchery manager Greg Paape said.
“The trout were part of a program paid for by fishing license fees to keep lakes stocked for fishing enthusiasts. They would have been released soon into Shaver Lake in the Sierra Nevada….
“The hatchery is one of 20 in the state – 12 produce trout, and eight others raise salmon and steelhead.”
An excerpt.
“Somewhere in California, someone has a truckload of stolen merchandise that probably is starting to stink.
“What's believed to be the first-ever large-scale theft from a fish hatchery in the state has wardens from the Department of Fish and Game scouring markets and roadside stands looking for thousands of pounds of trophy-sized trout.
“Workers on Sunday arrived at the San Joaquin State Fish Hatchery located 12 miles north of Fresno to find the gate pried open, blood covering the floors and 70 dead trout left behind.
“Department spokesman Patrick Foy said as many as 1,000 trophy trout were stolen.
"If anyone smells anything fishy, they should give us a call," Foy said.
“The trout, which sell for up to $7 a pound, were 3 years old and weighed 3 pounds each.
“The thieves face grand theft charges.
“Foy said the thieves cut down bird netting and used it to corral the fish in an accessible part of the hatchery below Millerton Lake. The hatchery is at 17372 Brook Trout Drive in Friant, one mile below Friant Dam.
“The thieves filled up dozens of ice chests before getting away before dawn on Sunday.
"They were some of our best fish and the biggest fish," hatchery manager Greg Paape said.
“The trout were part of a program paid for by fishing license fees to keep lakes stocked for fishing enthusiasts. They would have been released soon into Shaver Lake in the Sierra Nevada….
“The hatchery is one of 20 in the state – 12 produce trout, and eight others raise salmon and steelhead.”
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Home Sales Up
Single-family home sales form a very important financial foundation for local government—as noted in our newly formulated guiding principle—and, as reported by the Sacramento Bee, are rising in our region.
An excerpt.
“Home prices in Sacramento have dropped so much that more and more people can't resist the bargains.
“Researcher DataQuick reported Tuesday that the number of single-family homes sold in Sacramento County jumped 12.5 percent in July from the same month a year ago.
“Sales in El Dorado, Placer and Yolo counties also posted double-digit percentage increases last month, DataQuick said.
“Buyers continue to crowd the lower end of the market, where falling prices have made it cheaper to own than to rent in many cases. Prices are now 50 percent below their 2007 peak.
"It's all bargain shopping and bottom feeding because prices have come down so much," said DataQuick analyst Andrew LePage.
“The local sales numbers run counter to statewide results for July. The number of homes sold in California dropped 1.4 percent from July 2010, and in the Bay Area – usually a key barometer of Sacramento's housing market - sales dropped 1.7 percent.
“According to DataQuick, the median price for a single-family home in Sacramento County was $161,000 last month, a 10.6 percent decline from the year-earlier period.
“Median prices in El Dorado County fell 18.6 percent to $250,000 in July while the median in Placer County was down 10.4 percent at $259,500. Yolo County's median was off 8.1 percent at $221,500.
“Those low prices present opportunities for investors hoping to rent out properties and flip them when the market improves.
“They've also attracted renters like Adam and Monica Stark, who earlier this month purchased a two-bedroom, one-bathroom ranch-style home in Tahoe Park for $90,000.”
An excerpt.
“Home prices in Sacramento have dropped so much that more and more people can't resist the bargains.
“Researcher DataQuick reported Tuesday that the number of single-family homes sold in Sacramento County jumped 12.5 percent in July from the same month a year ago.
“Sales in El Dorado, Placer and Yolo counties also posted double-digit percentage increases last month, DataQuick said.
“Buyers continue to crowd the lower end of the market, where falling prices have made it cheaper to own than to rent in many cases. Prices are now 50 percent below their 2007 peak.
"It's all bargain shopping and bottom feeding because prices have come down so much," said DataQuick analyst Andrew LePage.
“The local sales numbers run counter to statewide results for July. The number of homes sold in California dropped 1.4 percent from July 2010, and in the Bay Area – usually a key barometer of Sacramento's housing market - sales dropped 1.7 percent.
“According to DataQuick, the median price for a single-family home in Sacramento County was $161,000 last month, a 10.6 percent decline from the year-earlier period.
“Median prices in El Dorado County fell 18.6 percent to $250,000 in July while the median in Placer County was down 10.4 percent at $259,500. Yolo County's median was off 8.1 percent at $221,500.
“Those low prices present opportunities for investors hoping to rent out properties and flip them when the market improves.
“They've also attracted renters like Adam and Monica Stark, who earlier this month purchased a two-bedroom, one-bathroom ranch-style home in Tahoe Park for $90,000.”
Monday, August 15, 2011
Retool the Message?
In this editorial from the Sacramento Bee, the proponents of a regional parks district to take over the parks that Sacramento County has not been able to take care of for years (to be funded by a sales tax increase) are urged to retool their message, which is apparently not yet resonating with taxpayers.
Our advice, on the other hand, would be to drop this adventure in futility—extracting yet more taxes from an already over-taxed public during one of the worst economic times in memory—and instead examine the real-world success of the type of innovative parks management noted by Doug Ose in a recent article, which we blogged on, and visit Gibson Ranch.
Here is the response from Doug Ose to the current editorial on the comments page:
“As often as the editorial board opines on the issue of regional parks in Sacramento County, they have yet to visit Gibson Ranch and see the success that private management has achieved. The editorial board of the Bee has consistently opined about what an evil turn of events it is that private management was given the opportunity to operate Gibson Ranch. Now, the editorial board argues that the only way to preserve regional parks is to adopt an operating system developed for the Bay Area. The editorial board does not talk about creating revenue by offering programs and services that the public wants and thereby having the park system support itself. The editorial board does not talk about reforming maintenance practices. The editorial board does not talk about revamping work rules that dictate narrow job classifications and employee compensation far in excess of what is paid in the private economy. The editorial board only talks about increasing taxes so as to give more money to a new governmental bureaucracy probably run by the very same people who proved incapable of sustaining the parks in the first place.
“Let's just review the facts. Gibson Ranch Regional Park was closed by the County Parks Department the day after Labor Day 2010. Prior to that, it was open only on Saturdays and Sundays, except on summer Fridays when the Rio Linda Elverta Recreation and Parks District stepped in and operated the facility. Little if any maintenance was performed and the facility deteriorated almost beyond repair. Rental cabins and camping spaces and the swim hole were closed to the public. The Ranch House was closed. No programs or services were offered to the general public. The bathrooms weren't being cleaned for weeks on end. The garbage sat moldy and uncollected in the garbage cans from months previous. The grass was being cut about every five weeks. The pastures were unkempt. The Hmong community moved their cultural events to another location. Country in the Park relocated to Capitol Mall. A new $400,000 entry gate was installed. The public was not able to use the park.
“Compare that with now. The park is open every day. The bathrooms are cleaned every day. The garbage is collected and removed every day. The grass is regularly cut. Camping is slowly growing into an everyday occurrence. Civil War Days is back and thriving with over 3,000 people attending on May 21/22. The Hmong community has returned and held a large cultural event on July 9/10 that attracted about 18,000 people over two days. The Midnight Mass Car Show was held on July 30 and attracted over 12,000 people. Country in the Park will be held at Gibson Ranch on September 11. In addition, companies are holding their annual picnics at Gibson Ranch. Families are holding reunions at Gibson Ranch. Birthday parties abound. BBQs every weekend. The rental cabins are on the verge of being completely remodeled after 15 years of no use. The lake has been stocked with trout and people are pulling fish out every day. The contrast is startling from just over four months ago to today.
“The plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors is working at Gibson Ranch. Under the lease arrangement approved by the Board, the County manages a contract. Services and programs are funded and delivered by a private operator subject to certain performance standards. The park is open and people are using it.
“The editorial board is getting ready to "sell" you on the need for new taxes and a new governmental bureaucracy. There is no need for either. Come to Gibson Ranch and see for yourself.” (highlighting added)
Doug Ose August 12, 2011 @ 1:04 AM
Our advice, on the other hand, would be to drop this adventure in futility—extracting yet more taxes from an already over-taxed public during one of the worst economic times in memory—and instead examine the real-world success of the type of innovative parks management noted by Doug Ose in a recent article, which we blogged on, and visit Gibson Ranch.
Here is the response from Doug Ose to the current editorial on the comments page:
“As often as the editorial board opines on the issue of regional parks in Sacramento County, they have yet to visit Gibson Ranch and see the success that private management has achieved. The editorial board of the Bee has consistently opined about what an evil turn of events it is that private management was given the opportunity to operate Gibson Ranch. Now, the editorial board argues that the only way to preserve regional parks is to adopt an operating system developed for the Bay Area. The editorial board does not talk about creating revenue by offering programs and services that the public wants and thereby having the park system support itself. The editorial board does not talk about reforming maintenance practices. The editorial board does not talk about revamping work rules that dictate narrow job classifications and employee compensation far in excess of what is paid in the private economy. The editorial board only talks about increasing taxes so as to give more money to a new governmental bureaucracy probably run by the very same people who proved incapable of sustaining the parks in the first place.
“Let's just review the facts. Gibson Ranch Regional Park was closed by the County Parks Department the day after Labor Day 2010. Prior to that, it was open only on Saturdays and Sundays, except on summer Fridays when the Rio Linda Elverta Recreation and Parks District stepped in and operated the facility. Little if any maintenance was performed and the facility deteriorated almost beyond repair. Rental cabins and camping spaces and the swim hole were closed to the public. The Ranch House was closed. No programs or services were offered to the general public. The bathrooms weren't being cleaned for weeks on end. The garbage sat moldy and uncollected in the garbage cans from months previous. The grass was being cut about every five weeks. The pastures were unkempt. The Hmong community moved their cultural events to another location. Country in the Park relocated to Capitol Mall. A new $400,000 entry gate was installed. The public was not able to use the park.
“Compare that with now. The park is open every day. The bathrooms are cleaned every day. The garbage is collected and removed every day. The grass is regularly cut. Camping is slowly growing into an everyday occurrence. Civil War Days is back and thriving with over 3,000 people attending on May 21/22. The Hmong community has returned and held a large cultural event on July 9/10 that attracted about 18,000 people over two days. The Midnight Mass Car Show was held on July 30 and attracted over 12,000 people. Country in the Park will be held at Gibson Ranch on September 11. In addition, companies are holding their annual picnics at Gibson Ranch. Families are holding reunions at Gibson Ranch. Birthday parties abound. BBQs every weekend. The rental cabins are on the verge of being completely remodeled after 15 years of no use. The lake has been stocked with trout and people are pulling fish out every day. The contrast is startling from just over four months ago to today.
“The plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors is working at Gibson Ranch. Under the lease arrangement approved by the Board, the County manages a contract. Services and programs are funded and delivered by a private operator subject to certain performance standards. The park is open and people are using it.
“The editorial board is getting ready to "sell" you on the need for new taxes and a new governmental bureaucracy. There is no need for either. Come to Gibson Ranch and see for yourself.” (highlighting added)
Doug Ose August 12, 2011 @ 1:04 AM
Monday, August 08, 2011
ARPPS PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
August 8, 2011
Sacramento, California
AMERICAN RIVER PARKWAY PRESERVATION SOCIETY (ARPPS)
If you are living in suburban California, you are part of the Dream, the California Dream.
A central part of the birthing vision of the American Dream was the California Dream and all that America promised, as Kevin Starr notes: “In a very real sense, the California dream was the American dream undergoing one of its most significant variations.” Americans and the California Dream 1850-1915. (1973). New York: Oxford University Press. (p.443)
The American River Parkway is surrounded by suburbs, which is appropriate being that a central axis of the California Dream is suburban single home ownership, and the American River running through it was where gold was first discovered, leading to one of the greatest migrations in history.
The suburban single home ownership aspect of the California Dream is under attack, as Joel Kotkin notes in a recent article, California Wages War on Single Home Ownership: “In California, the assault on the house has gained official sanction. Once the heartland of the American dream, the Golden State has begun implementing new planning laws designed to combat global warming. These draconian measures could lead to a ban on the construction of private residences, particularly on the suburban fringe.”
To help protect that vision, which we all hope to sustain, we have defined a sixth critical issue, shaped our approach, and formulated our sixth guiding principle.
Critical Issue #6) Continuing encasement of open space, restricting suburban community development upon which a sustainable tax base funding necessary public works is built, is contrary to sound future planning.
Our Approach: Suburban communities are where the overwhelming majority of American families wish to live, and the opportunity in our region for those communities to be built for the families who hope to live in them, is a shared supportive responsibility for those of us who presently enjoy our life in the suburbs and for those who hope to enjoy the suburban family lifestyle in the future.
Our Guiding Principle: The suburban lifestyle—as surrounds the American River Parkway—which is imbued within the aspirational center of the California Dream and whose vision is woven into the heart of the American Dream, is a deeply loved way of life whose sustainability we all desire.
Organizational Leadership
American River Parkway Preservation Society
Sacramento, California
August 8, 2011
Contact Information
David H. Lukenbill, Senior Policy Director
American River Parkway Preservation Society
2267 University Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
P: 916-486-3856 E: Dlukenbill@man.com
W: www.arpps.org B: www.parkwayblog.blogspot.com
August 8, 2011
Sacramento, California
AMERICAN RIVER PARKWAY PRESERVATION SOCIETY (ARPPS)
If you are living in suburban California, you are part of the Dream, the California Dream.
A central part of the birthing vision of the American Dream was the California Dream and all that America promised, as Kevin Starr notes: “In a very real sense, the California dream was the American dream undergoing one of its most significant variations.” Americans and the California Dream 1850-1915. (1973). New York: Oxford University Press. (p.443)
The American River Parkway is surrounded by suburbs, which is appropriate being that a central axis of the California Dream is suburban single home ownership, and the American River running through it was where gold was first discovered, leading to one of the greatest migrations in history.
The suburban single home ownership aspect of the California Dream is under attack, as Joel Kotkin notes in a recent article, California Wages War on Single Home Ownership: “In California, the assault on the house has gained official sanction. Once the heartland of the American dream, the Golden State has begun implementing new planning laws designed to combat global warming. These draconian measures could lead to a ban on the construction of private residences, particularly on the suburban fringe.”
To help protect that vision, which we all hope to sustain, we have defined a sixth critical issue, shaped our approach, and formulated our sixth guiding principle.
Critical Issue #6) Continuing encasement of open space, restricting suburban community development upon which a sustainable tax base funding necessary public works is built, is contrary to sound future planning.
Our Approach: Suburban communities are where the overwhelming majority of American families wish to live, and the opportunity in our region for those communities to be built for the families who hope to live in them, is a shared supportive responsibility for those of us who presently enjoy our life in the suburbs and for those who hope to enjoy the suburban family lifestyle in the future.
Our Guiding Principle: The suburban lifestyle—as surrounds the American River Parkway—which is imbued within the aspirational center of the California Dream and whose vision is woven into the heart of the American Dream, is a deeply loved way of life whose sustainability we all desire.
Organizational Leadership
American River Parkway Preservation Society
Sacramento, California
August 8, 2011
Contact Information
David H. Lukenbill, Senior Policy Director
American River Parkway Preservation Society
2267 University Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
P: 916-486-3856 E: Dlukenbill@man.com
W: www.arpps.org B: www.parkwayblog.blogspot.com
Tuesday, August 02, 2011
Los Angeles Suburban
It is the epitome of the California suburban dream, hated by the urbanists but loved by its residents—until freeways quit being built—who appreciate one of the greatest blending of polycentric living on the planet, an important insight concerning development that has not yet been understood by local leadership but noted by Bogart (2006):
“The dominant intellectual approach to describing cities during the twentieth century was the monocentric city model. In a monocentric city, all commercial and industrial activity takes place in the central business district, while the rest of the city consists of residential areas. This description was reasonably accurate as recently as 1950 in most cities…
“Even by 1960 observers such as Jane Jacobs and Jean Gottman had discerned a new structure for metropolitan areas, although popular interpreters of their work have neglected this insight. This new structure was called the polycentric city, in recognition of the multiple centers of economic activity that now comprised the metropolitan area. While some people have recognized this change for more than forty years, it still has surpassingly little impact on the design of public policy.” (p.9)
Bogart, W. (2006). Don’t call it sprawl: Metropolitan structure in the twenty first century. New York: Cambridge University Press.
LA is now in trouble, culturally and politically, as reported by New Geography.
An excerpt.
“Los Angeles today is a city in secular decline. Its current political leadership seems determined to turn the sprawling capitalist dynamo into a faux New York. But they are more likely to leave behind a dense, government-dominated, bankrupt, dysfunctional, Athens by the Pacific.
“The greatness of Los Angeles stemmed from its willingness to be different. Unlike Chicago or Denver or New York, the Los Angeles metro area was designed not around a central core but on a series of centers, connected first by railcars and later by the freeways. The result was a dispersed metropolis where most people occupied single-family houses in middle-class neighborhoods.
“Lured by the pleasant climate and a business-dominated political economy, industries and entrepreneurs flocked to the region. Initially, the growth came largely from oil and agriculture, followed by the movie industry. Defense and aerospace during World War II and the postwar era fostered a vast industrial base, and by the 1980s Los Angeles had surpassed New York as the nation's largest port, and Chicago as the nation's leading industrial center.
“The region hit a rough spot as the end of the Cold War led to massive federal cutbacks in aerospace. Los Angeles County lost nearly 500,000 jobs between 1990 and 1993. But it bounced back, adding nearly 400,000 jobs between 1993 and 1999. Aerospace never fully recovered, but other parts of the industrial belt—including the port and the apparel and entertainment industries—grew. An entrepreneurial class of immigrants—Middle Eastern, Korean, Chinese, Latino—launched new businesses in everything from textiles and ethnic food to computers. The pro-business mayoralty of Richard Riordan and the governorship of Pete Wilson restored confidence among the city's beleaguered companies.
“Then progress stalled. Employment stayed relatively flat from 2001 until 2005, when Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was elected, and then started to drop. As of this March, over the entire L.A. metropolitan area, which includes adjacent Orange County, unemployment was 11.4%—the third-highest unemployment rate of the nation's 20 largest metro areas.
“Why has Los Angeles lost its mojo? A big reason is a decline in the power and mettle of the city's once-vibrant business community. Between the late 1980s and the end of the millennium, many of L.A.'s largest and most influential firms—ARCO, Security Pacific, First Interstate, Union Oil, Sun America—disappeared in a host of mergers that saw their management shift to cities like London, New York and San Francisco. Meanwhile, says David Abel, a Democratic Party activist and publisher of the influential Planning Report, once-powerful groups like the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce and the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation lost influence.
“The machine that now controls Los Angeles by default consists of an alliance between labor and the political leadership of the Latino community, the area's largest ethnic population. But since politicians serve at the whim of labor interests, they seldom speak up for homeowners and small businesses.
“Mayor Villaraigosa, a former labor organizer, has little understanding of private-sector economic development beyond well-connected real-estate interests whom he has courted and which have supported him. He has been a strong backer of L.A. Live, a downtown ports and entertainment complex, and other projects that have benefited from favorable tax treatment and major public infrastructure investments. He's currently supporting a push to build a new downtown football stadium, though L.A. has no professional football team. His biggest priority is to build the so-called subway to the sea, a $40 billion train line to connect downtown with the Pacific.
“But L.A.'s downtown employs a mere 2.5% of the region's work force; New York's central business districts, by contrast, employ roughly 20%. "To put the entire focus of development on downtown L.A.," says Ali Modarres, chairman of the geography department at Cal State Los Angeles, "is to ignore the historical, cultural, economic [and] social forces that have shaped the larger geography of this metropolitan area."
“The dominant intellectual approach to describing cities during the twentieth century was the monocentric city model. In a monocentric city, all commercial and industrial activity takes place in the central business district, while the rest of the city consists of residential areas. This description was reasonably accurate as recently as 1950 in most cities…
“Even by 1960 observers such as Jane Jacobs and Jean Gottman had discerned a new structure for metropolitan areas, although popular interpreters of their work have neglected this insight. This new structure was called the polycentric city, in recognition of the multiple centers of economic activity that now comprised the metropolitan area. While some people have recognized this change for more than forty years, it still has surpassingly little impact on the design of public policy.” (p.9)
Bogart, W. (2006). Don’t call it sprawl: Metropolitan structure in the twenty first century. New York: Cambridge University Press.
LA is now in trouble, culturally and politically, as reported by New Geography.
An excerpt.
“Los Angeles today is a city in secular decline. Its current political leadership seems determined to turn the sprawling capitalist dynamo into a faux New York. But they are more likely to leave behind a dense, government-dominated, bankrupt, dysfunctional, Athens by the Pacific.
“The greatness of Los Angeles stemmed from its willingness to be different. Unlike Chicago or Denver or New York, the Los Angeles metro area was designed not around a central core but on a series of centers, connected first by railcars and later by the freeways. The result was a dispersed metropolis where most people occupied single-family houses in middle-class neighborhoods.
“Lured by the pleasant climate and a business-dominated political economy, industries and entrepreneurs flocked to the region. Initially, the growth came largely from oil and agriculture, followed by the movie industry. Defense and aerospace during World War II and the postwar era fostered a vast industrial base, and by the 1980s Los Angeles had surpassed New York as the nation's largest port, and Chicago as the nation's leading industrial center.
“The region hit a rough spot as the end of the Cold War led to massive federal cutbacks in aerospace. Los Angeles County lost nearly 500,000 jobs between 1990 and 1993. But it bounced back, adding nearly 400,000 jobs between 1993 and 1999. Aerospace never fully recovered, but other parts of the industrial belt—including the port and the apparel and entertainment industries—grew. An entrepreneurial class of immigrants—Middle Eastern, Korean, Chinese, Latino—launched new businesses in everything from textiles and ethnic food to computers. The pro-business mayoralty of Richard Riordan and the governorship of Pete Wilson restored confidence among the city's beleaguered companies.
“Then progress stalled. Employment stayed relatively flat from 2001 until 2005, when Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was elected, and then started to drop. As of this March, over the entire L.A. metropolitan area, which includes adjacent Orange County, unemployment was 11.4%—the third-highest unemployment rate of the nation's 20 largest metro areas.
“Why has Los Angeles lost its mojo? A big reason is a decline in the power and mettle of the city's once-vibrant business community. Between the late 1980s and the end of the millennium, many of L.A.'s largest and most influential firms—ARCO, Security Pacific, First Interstate, Union Oil, Sun America—disappeared in a host of mergers that saw their management shift to cities like London, New York and San Francisco. Meanwhile, says David Abel, a Democratic Party activist and publisher of the influential Planning Report, once-powerful groups like the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce and the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation lost influence.
“The machine that now controls Los Angeles by default consists of an alliance between labor and the political leadership of the Latino community, the area's largest ethnic population. But since politicians serve at the whim of labor interests, they seldom speak up for homeowners and small businesses.
“Mayor Villaraigosa, a former labor organizer, has little understanding of private-sector economic development beyond well-connected real-estate interests whom he has courted and which have supported him. He has been a strong backer of L.A. Live, a downtown ports and entertainment complex, and other projects that have benefited from favorable tax treatment and major public infrastructure investments. He's currently supporting a push to build a new downtown football stadium, though L.A. has no professional football team. His biggest priority is to build the so-called subway to the sea, a $40 billion train line to connect downtown with the Pacific.
“But L.A.'s downtown employs a mere 2.5% of the region's work force; New York's central business districts, by contrast, employ roughly 20%. "To put the entire focus of development on downtown L.A.," says Ali Modarres, chairman of the geography department at Cal State Los Angeles, "is to ignore the historical, cultural, economic [and] social forces that have shaped the larger geography of this metropolitan area."
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Supervisor’s Park Tax Increase
I watched the entire hearing on the tax increase proposal last Tuesday and contrary to this story in the Sacramento Bee, all the Supervisors agreed to was to ask staff to draft language which they could discuss and vote on in August, to determine if they would ask the state to pass legislation allowing them to put a tax increase on the ballot.
An excerpt.
“Sacramento County officials on Tuesday agreed to support a sales tax increase to fund the regional park system.
“The Board of Supervisors unanimously agreed to seek state legislation to allow a November 2012 election for a 0.1 percent sales tax increase.
“If approved by two-thirds of county voters, the tax would raise $17 million annually to support the county's 32 regional parks, including the popular American River Parkway.
“Such a tax would add 1 cent to a $10 purchase.
“The move came after a four-hour hearing, at which park advocates warned that the state legislative session offers only a small window this summer to move the proposed bill.
“There was also general agreement about the desire for a fix before another disastrous county budget cycle next year.
"The sense of urgency, I think, is palpable," said Supervisor Phil Serna.
“Support for the sales tax hike marks a partial victory for a group of park advocates that proposed the tax.
“The coalition, calling itself the Grassroots Working Group, also wants the county to support forming a new regional park district, with an independently elected board, to take over and manage the parks.
“Supervisors, however, were not willing to go that far yet. The board wants more time to study other governance options, as well as the specific structure of a new independent district, if that is the final path.”
An excerpt.
“Sacramento County officials on Tuesday agreed to support a sales tax increase to fund the regional park system.
“The Board of Supervisors unanimously agreed to seek state legislation to allow a November 2012 election for a 0.1 percent sales tax increase.
“If approved by two-thirds of county voters, the tax would raise $17 million annually to support the county's 32 regional parks, including the popular American River Parkway.
“Such a tax would add 1 cent to a $10 purchase.
“The move came after a four-hour hearing, at which park advocates warned that the state legislative session offers only a small window this summer to move the proposed bill.
“There was also general agreement about the desire for a fix before another disastrous county budget cycle next year.
"The sense of urgency, I think, is palpable," said Supervisor Phil Serna.
“Support for the sales tax hike marks a partial victory for a group of park advocates that proposed the tax.
“The coalition, calling itself the Grassroots Working Group, also wants the county to support forming a new regional park district, with an independently elected board, to take over and manage the parks.
“Supervisors, however, were not willing to go that far yet. The board wants more time to study other governance options, as well as the specific structure of a new independent district, if that is the final path.”
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Ditch Proposal
By the time this article from the Sacramento Bee of July 19th is posted one hopes the proposal to set up another parks bureaucracy and raise taxes to fund it, has been withdrawn.
It wasn’t. The board instructed staff to bring back the legislation language—to give them the option to ask Sacramento County residents to increase the sales tax by a percentage smaller than allowed now—in August.
An excerpt.
“A grass-roots proposal to fix Sacramento County's troubled parks system appears headed for a setback today, despite months of research and fundraising by a citizens group that formed in response to a county request for help.
“At issue is control: Will the county continue to own and operate its 32 parks, or should it turn them over to a new agency?
“A coalition of park advocates, calling itself the Grassroots Working Group, in May urged the Board of Supervisors to support the latter approach: a new park district funded by a special sales tax.
“County staff members, however, will urge their bosses in a report today to put aside that idea and consider a variety of other options.
“The parks coalition came into being more than a year ago after the former county administrator asked for ideas on how Sacramento County could stanch the steady erosion of its parks system, which includes the treasured American River Parkway.
“Successive years of budget cuts have gutted parks staffing by a third, resulting in poor maintenance of county parkland and rising concerns about public safety. The county also owns 6,000 acres of parkland that have never been opened to the public or provide limited access.
“The group raised $53,000 to study the issue, and a county staff member sat on the committee. It concluded the best fix would be to create an independent regional park district, similar to the respected East Bay Regional Park District, which owns parks in Alameda and Contra Costa counties.
“The group recommended funding for the special district come from a 0.1 percent sales tax increase in Sacramento County, which would raise $17 million annually. The group hired a pollster, which found that 73 percent of area voters would support an even larger increase.
“Current law does not allow counties to propose sales tax increases smaller than 0.25 percent. So the group also asked that the county seek state legislation allowing for a smaller increase. It wants local voters to consider a single ballot measure in November 2012 that would form and fund the district.
“Legislation also is needed to ensure that the county can remain in charge of the district's formation.
“The Board of Supervisors ordered its staff to spend two months studying the issue and produce a recommendation. That report comes before the board today at 3:15 p.m., and it calls for another 90 days of study.
“It does not reject the idea of an independent district, but it rejects the need for special legislation. It also calls on the board to consider other governance and funding options first.
"We don't think there is an urgency on state legislation," said Steve Szalay, interim county administrator. "Our view is that we should have a full discussion about revenue and operations before any decisions are made about what the governance should be."
It wasn’t. The board instructed staff to bring back the legislation language—to give them the option to ask Sacramento County residents to increase the sales tax by a percentage smaller than allowed now—in August.
An excerpt.
“A grass-roots proposal to fix Sacramento County's troubled parks system appears headed for a setback today, despite months of research and fundraising by a citizens group that formed in response to a county request for help.
“At issue is control: Will the county continue to own and operate its 32 parks, or should it turn them over to a new agency?
“A coalition of park advocates, calling itself the Grassroots Working Group, in May urged the Board of Supervisors to support the latter approach: a new park district funded by a special sales tax.
“County staff members, however, will urge their bosses in a report today to put aside that idea and consider a variety of other options.
“The parks coalition came into being more than a year ago after the former county administrator asked for ideas on how Sacramento County could stanch the steady erosion of its parks system, which includes the treasured American River Parkway.
“Successive years of budget cuts have gutted parks staffing by a third, resulting in poor maintenance of county parkland and rising concerns about public safety. The county also owns 6,000 acres of parkland that have never been opened to the public or provide limited access.
“The group raised $53,000 to study the issue, and a county staff member sat on the committee. It concluded the best fix would be to create an independent regional park district, similar to the respected East Bay Regional Park District, which owns parks in Alameda and Contra Costa counties.
“The group recommended funding for the special district come from a 0.1 percent sales tax increase in Sacramento County, which would raise $17 million annually. The group hired a pollster, which found that 73 percent of area voters would support an even larger increase.
“Current law does not allow counties to propose sales tax increases smaller than 0.25 percent. So the group also asked that the county seek state legislation allowing for a smaller increase. It wants local voters to consider a single ballot measure in November 2012 that would form and fund the district.
“Legislation also is needed to ensure that the county can remain in charge of the district's formation.
“The Board of Supervisors ordered its staff to spend two months studying the issue and produce a recommendation. That report comes before the board today at 3:15 p.m., and it calls for another 90 days of study.
“It does not reject the idea of an independent district, but it rejects the need for special legislation. It also calls on the board to consider other governance and funding options first.
"We don't think there is an urgency on state legislation," said Steve Szalay, interim county administrator. "Our view is that we should have a full discussion about revenue and operations before any decisions are made about what the governance should be."
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Local Governments, Parks, & Taxes
We referenced this article from City Journal yesterday and the issues it raises are crucial to understand regarding the move by many—including Sacramento—to increase taxes to pay for those services, including parks, which have literally been pushed out due to over-generous salary and pension benefits awarded to public employee unions by elected local leadership.
It may not be strictly a problem of not having enough money, but where the available money has been directed.
An excerpt.
“New Haven mayor John DeStefano has had a good relationship with his city’s municipal unions through most of his 17 years in office. But lately, those ties have frayed, thanks to the Democratic mayor’s claim that city workers’ wages and benefits—many granted by DeStefano himself in plusher years—have become dangerously unaffordable. DeStefano describes New Haven’s rising worker costs as “the Pac-Man of our budget, consuming everything in sight,” and he is laying off employees and exploring outsourcing to reduce expenses. The mayor’s actions brought angry police into the streets, blocking traffic and blaring sirens in protest. Members of a custodians’ union stormed out of a recent arbitration meeting, outraged by a mayoral proposal to save money. City unions even imported celebrity demagogue Al Sharpton to agitate for their cause.
“DeStefano’s plight will be familiar to mayors, city managers, city councils, and boards of education across America. The national media (as well as many policy experts) have focused on state budget battles, like the one in Wisconsin between Governor Scott Walker and public-employee unions. But the truth is that America’s problem with government-worker costs is disproportionately a local issue. Compensation, including wages and benefits, accounts for just 30 percent of state general-fund expenditures, the National Governors Association reports—which makes sense, since states also spend money on programs in which worker pay isn’t the main expense, such as Medicaid. In the typical city, town, or school district, by contrast, compensation costs generally range from 70 to 80 percent of the budget.
“Those compensation costs have soared over the years, as politicians made overgenerous promises to local government workers—not just pay but also the right to retire on full pensions at age 50 or 55, annual cost-of-living increases to those pensions, and full health care for life. These concessions haven’t merely resulted in big deficits; they have pushed many localities to the edge of fiscal ruin. Without substantial reform—soon—local taxpayers are likely to face a lethal combination of major tax increases and crumbling services.
“Pensions are an enormous part of the problem. New Haven’s $475 million budget, for instance, is projected to grow by just $4 million this fiscal year, but the city’s pension and health-care costs will rise $12 million, forcing cuts elsewhere. In San Francisco, pensions consume about 14 percent of the budget, and rising retirement bills for city workers accounted for one-third of this year’s $306 million deficit. Pension and health benefits account for 20 percent of the $500 billion that the nation’s nearly 14,000 public school districts spend annually. In a recent National League of Cities survey, nearly 80 percent of municipal finance officers listed rising pension payments as one of their most significant budgetary problems.
“Here again, the problem is disproportionately local. Yes, state-sponsored pension funds have accumulated anywhere from $750 billion to $3 trillion in unfunded pension and retiree health-care liabilities, depending on how the calculations are made. A huge portion of those liabilities, however, is actually owed by cities, towns, and school districts. States employ just 5.2 million of the 13 million active workers participating in state-sponsored pension funds; the rest are local employees, often teachers, who work for districts too small to manage their own pensions. Experts agree that pension costs for both states and localities are going to skyrocket. But states currently spend just 4 percent of their budgets on pensions, while many municipalities already spend 15 to 20 percent.
“Pensions are certainly at the heart of the budget crisis in Costa Mesa, California, a city of 110,000 residents that made news earlier this year when it decided to contract out more than a dozen city services and send pink slips to 43 percent of its employees. Costa Mesa’s workers, like those in many California municipalities, participate in the statewide CalPERS (California Public Employees’ Retirement System). Ten years ago, the city’s annual pension bill from CalPERS was $5 million. Since then, it has tripled to $15 million—16 percent of the city’s $93 million budget—and Mayor Jim Righeimer has warned that it could reach a staggering $25 million by 2015. Since these bills are for services already delivered, there’s no clear way to cut them; even the radical steps that Costa Mesa has taken will limit only future costs.
“What’s happening to Costa Mesa is no exception in the Golden State. Earlier this year, California’s Little Hoover Commission, a government oversight agency, observed: “Barring a miraculous market advance and sustained economic expansion, no government entity—especially at the local level—will be able to absorb the blow [from rising pensions] without severe cuts to services.” Los Angeles’s retiree costs currently make up an already troubling 18 percent of its budget, for instance, but the commission estimated that the percentage would swell to 37 percent by 2015. Retiree costs just for L.A.’s public-safety workers could double to $700 million annually, “enough . . . to fund a second police department in a major city.”
“The pension situation is even graver elsewhere in California. Anaheim is already spending 22 percent of its $252 million budget on pensions, and its mayor estimates that pension contributions could increase by 50 percent, or about $27 million, in four years. San Francisco’s comptroller has estimated that his city’s pension bill will rise from $357 million this year to $422 million next year and then to $800 million in just a few years. San Jose’s pension costs for police and firefighters have already quadrupled over the past decade. Without reform, the city estimates that its yearly pension costs, $63 million in 2000, will swell to $650 million in 2015.”
It may not be strictly a problem of not having enough money, but where the available money has been directed.
An excerpt.
“New Haven mayor John DeStefano has had a good relationship with his city’s municipal unions through most of his 17 years in office. But lately, those ties have frayed, thanks to the Democratic mayor’s claim that city workers’ wages and benefits—many granted by DeStefano himself in plusher years—have become dangerously unaffordable. DeStefano describes New Haven’s rising worker costs as “the Pac-Man of our budget, consuming everything in sight,” and he is laying off employees and exploring outsourcing to reduce expenses. The mayor’s actions brought angry police into the streets, blocking traffic and blaring sirens in protest. Members of a custodians’ union stormed out of a recent arbitration meeting, outraged by a mayoral proposal to save money. City unions even imported celebrity demagogue Al Sharpton to agitate for their cause.
“DeStefano’s plight will be familiar to mayors, city managers, city councils, and boards of education across America. The national media (as well as many policy experts) have focused on state budget battles, like the one in Wisconsin between Governor Scott Walker and public-employee unions. But the truth is that America’s problem with government-worker costs is disproportionately a local issue. Compensation, including wages and benefits, accounts for just 30 percent of state general-fund expenditures, the National Governors Association reports—which makes sense, since states also spend money on programs in which worker pay isn’t the main expense, such as Medicaid. In the typical city, town, or school district, by contrast, compensation costs generally range from 70 to 80 percent of the budget.
“Those compensation costs have soared over the years, as politicians made overgenerous promises to local government workers—not just pay but also the right to retire on full pensions at age 50 or 55, annual cost-of-living increases to those pensions, and full health care for life. These concessions haven’t merely resulted in big deficits; they have pushed many localities to the edge of fiscal ruin. Without substantial reform—soon—local taxpayers are likely to face a lethal combination of major tax increases and crumbling services.
“Pensions are an enormous part of the problem. New Haven’s $475 million budget, for instance, is projected to grow by just $4 million this fiscal year, but the city’s pension and health-care costs will rise $12 million, forcing cuts elsewhere. In San Francisco, pensions consume about 14 percent of the budget, and rising retirement bills for city workers accounted for one-third of this year’s $306 million deficit. Pension and health benefits account for 20 percent of the $500 billion that the nation’s nearly 14,000 public school districts spend annually. In a recent National League of Cities survey, nearly 80 percent of municipal finance officers listed rising pension payments as one of their most significant budgetary problems.
“Here again, the problem is disproportionately local. Yes, state-sponsored pension funds have accumulated anywhere from $750 billion to $3 trillion in unfunded pension and retiree health-care liabilities, depending on how the calculations are made. A huge portion of those liabilities, however, is actually owed by cities, towns, and school districts. States employ just 5.2 million of the 13 million active workers participating in state-sponsored pension funds; the rest are local employees, often teachers, who work for districts too small to manage their own pensions. Experts agree that pension costs for both states and localities are going to skyrocket. But states currently spend just 4 percent of their budgets on pensions, while many municipalities already spend 15 to 20 percent.
“Pensions are certainly at the heart of the budget crisis in Costa Mesa, California, a city of 110,000 residents that made news earlier this year when it decided to contract out more than a dozen city services and send pink slips to 43 percent of its employees. Costa Mesa’s workers, like those in many California municipalities, participate in the statewide CalPERS (California Public Employees’ Retirement System). Ten years ago, the city’s annual pension bill from CalPERS was $5 million. Since then, it has tripled to $15 million—16 percent of the city’s $93 million budget—and Mayor Jim Righeimer has warned that it could reach a staggering $25 million by 2015. Since these bills are for services already delivered, there’s no clear way to cut them; even the radical steps that Costa Mesa has taken will limit only future costs.
“What’s happening to Costa Mesa is no exception in the Golden State. Earlier this year, California’s Little Hoover Commission, a government oversight agency, observed: “Barring a miraculous market advance and sustained economic expansion, no government entity—especially at the local level—will be able to absorb the blow [from rising pensions] without severe cuts to services.” Los Angeles’s retiree costs currently make up an already troubling 18 percent of its budget, for instance, but the commission estimated that the percentage would swell to 37 percent by 2015. Retiree costs just for L.A.’s public-safety workers could double to $700 million annually, “enough . . . to fund a second police department in a major city.”
“The pension situation is even graver elsewhere in California. Anaheim is already spending 22 percent of its $252 million budget on pensions, and its mayor estimates that pension contributions could increase by 50 percent, or about $27 million, in four years. San Francisco’s comptroller has estimated that his city’s pension bill will rise from $357 million this year to $422 million next year and then to $800 million in just a few years. San Jose’s pension costs for police and firefighters have already quadrupled over the past decade. Without reform, the city estimates that its yearly pension costs, $63 million in 2000, will swell to $650 million in 2015.”
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Park Tax Increase Support Perplexing
I am always somewhat perplexed when a private enterprise, which I assume the Sacramento Bee still is, insist the only answer to helping parks is more taxes rather than exploring other options, like the public/private partnerships which have been done with Gibson Ranch Park and the Effie Yeaw Nature Center recently, and the Sacramento Zoo sometime ago; but that is what the Bee, in this editorial is insisting, increasing taxes.
Increasing taxes was appropriate decades ago when local, state, and national governments were growing to serve the basic public priorities of public safety, transportation infrastructure, public safety nets, etc.; but as has been all too well documented—by the Sacramento Bee about the number of county retirees with six figure retirements while still young enough to take on new jobs while drawing their retirement benefits, and by City Journal about the retirement benefits problem nationally—government has gotten so bloated that feeding it any more taxes has become counter productive.
An excerpt from the editorial.
“Over a period of years, the elected Sacramento County Board of Supervisors has allowed the regional park system, including the American River Parkway, to undergo a slow, steady decline.
“Finally, supervisors reached the point where they were considering zeroing out parks from the county budget. The county could not guarantee safe, clean and properly maintained parks. It could not develop long-held parklands, which have limited or no public access. It could not prepare a park and trail system for the population of the future.
“Per-resident general fund spending on regional parks dropped from $5.44 per year a decade ago to a paltry $1.33 in 2009-10. Today, the general fund provides just 19 percent of the regional parks budget, with fees providing 41 percent and other sources providing the balance.
“Supervisors did the right thing last May, committing to study governing and financing alternatives with the aim of placing a measure on the ballot in November 2012. They vowed to keep the parks budget at bare bones until then. So now comes decision time.
“The Grassroots Working Group charged with studying alternatives met once a week for a year. It raised private funds to hire the Trust for Public Land to study five options and commissioned a firm to do scientific polling of likely voters.
“At the backdrop were two major failures: An unsuccessful effort in 2007 to create a joint powers authority for the American River Parkway and an unsuccessful effort in 1994 to create a dependent parks district with county supervisors as the governing board and funding from $10 a year in property taxes.
“Voters clearly indicated they want something other than the current failed model, with county supervisors running the show, and they don't want property owners alone sharing the burden for parks.
“So the Grassroots Working Group recommended an independent parks district, based on the East Bay Regional Parks model, to run the parks, with its own elected board.
“It would be funded by a sales tax, so people outside the county who visit parks would pay, too. Twenty-five percent of the funds would go to the 17 special parks districts and four city park systems, including Sacramento, Folsom, Galt and Isleton, and not just to the county's regional park system.”
Increasing taxes was appropriate decades ago when local, state, and national governments were growing to serve the basic public priorities of public safety, transportation infrastructure, public safety nets, etc.; but as has been all too well documented—by the Sacramento Bee about the number of county retirees with six figure retirements while still young enough to take on new jobs while drawing their retirement benefits, and by City Journal about the retirement benefits problem nationally—government has gotten so bloated that feeding it any more taxes has become counter productive.
An excerpt from the editorial.
“Over a period of years, the elected Sacramento County Board of Supervisors has allowed the regional park system, including the American River Parkway, to undergo a slow, steady decline.
“Finally, supervisors reached the point where they were considering zeroing out parks from the county budget. The county could not guarantee safe, clean and properly maintained parks. It could not develop long-held parklands, which have limited or no public access. It could not prepare a park and trail system for the population of the future.
“Per-resident general fund spending on regional parks dropped from $5.44 per year a decade ago to a paltry $1.33 in 2009-10. Today, the general fund provides just 19 percent of the regional parks budget, with fees providing 41 percent and other sources providing the balance.
“Supervisors did the right thing last May, committing to study governing and financing alternatives with the aim of placing a measure on the ballot in November 2012. They vowed to keep the parks budget at bare bones until then. So now comes decision time.
“The Grassroots Working Group charged with studying alternatives met once a week for a year. It raised private funds to hire the Trust for Public Land to study five options and commissioned a firm to do scientific polling of likely voters.
“At the backdrop were two major failures: An unsuccessful effort in 2007 to create a joint powers authority for the American River Parkway and an unsuccessful effort in 1994 to create a dependent parks district with county supervisors as the governing board and funding from $10 a year in property taxes.
“Voters clearly indicated they want something other than the current failed model, with county supervisors running the show, and they don't want property owners alone sharing the burden for parks.
“So the Grassroots Working Group recommended an independent parks district, based on the East Bay Regional Parks model, to run the parks, with its own elected board.
“It would be funded by a sales tax, so people outside the county who visit parks would pay, too. Twenty-five percent of the funds would go to the 17 special parks districts and four city park systems, including Sacramento, Folsom, Galt and Isleton, and not just to the county's regional park system.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)