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 Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 02, 2011
Monday, October 31, 2011
California Regulations
It is given as one of the major reasons businesses choose not to move here and for those already here, consider leaving.
The regulatory burden on the small farmer, as reported by the Sacramento Bee, makes the point clearly.
An excerpt.
“Farmers must live with plagues of uncertainties – pests, crop prices, labor shortages and, of course, the weather.
“Listen to a family farmer in California like Doug Brower, and there's a whole other reason it can be such a struggle: a tangle of regulations.
“Brower splits his time between Folsom and the Uhrhammer homestead hard by the Merced River south of Turlock, where he grows almonds and walnuts on 40 acres. His wife's family moved there just after World War II. Since he retired from 30 years as a military contract officer, Brower has been spending more time on the farm. Since his father-in-law passed away last October, he has taken over running it.
“The more he's learned about all the government rules he's supposed to follow, the more frustrated he has become. By his count, the farm is subject to at least a half-dozen local, state and federal agencies.
“There's the state Water Resources Control Board, which wants to know how much water he's pumping out of the river to irrigate his orchards. The orchards have rights to about 405 acre-feet of water a year. Since he can't afford fancy monitoring equipment, he mostly guesstimates his monthly diversions, but stays well below the limit.
“There's the state Department of Pesticide Regulation, which requires reports on what he sprays to protect his almonds from the navel orangeworm and walnuts from the husk fly and codling moth. If he didn't do it himself as a state-certified applicator, and had an employee spray instead, there would be many more safety rules to worry about.
“There's the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, which issues the permits he has to get to burn pruned limbs and other agricultural waste.
“There's state and federal Occupational Safety and Health and the state Employment Development Department, which want paperwork for the farm's one full-time worker.
“Until he found out at a seminar that he didn't have enough fuel to qualify, Brower thought he'd have to come up with a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan for his above-ground petroleum tanks.
“His home office is strewn with bulging files as he tries to keep track of all the requirements and when he's supposed to submit reports.
"I'm trying to do the right thing," he told me as he steered a beat-up golf cart through neat rows of nut trees.
“Brower says farmers like him are expected to know about every regulation issued by any government agency that might somehow apply to them. That's impossible, he says.”
The regulatory burden on the small farmer, as reported by the Sacramento Bee, makes the point clearly.
An excerpt.
“Farmers must live with plagues of uncertainties – pests, crop prices, labor shortages and, of course, the weather.
“Listen to a family farmer in California like Doug Brower, and there's a whole other reason it can be such a struggle: a tangle of regulations.
“Brower splits his time between Folsom and the Uhrhammer homestead hard by the Merced River south of Turlock, where he grows almonds and walnuts on 40 acres. His wife's family moved there just after World War II. Since he retired from 30 years as a military contract officer, Brower has been spending more time on the farm. Since his father-in-law passed away last October, he has taken over running it.
“The more he's learned about all the government rules he's supposed to follow, the more frustrated he has become. By his count, the farm is subject to at least a half-dozen local, state and federal agencies.
“There's the state Water Resources Control Board, which wants to know how much water he's pumping out of the river to irrigate his orchards. The orchards have rights to about 405 acre-feet of water a year. Since he can't afford fancy monitoring equipment, he mostly guesstimates his monthly diversions, but stays well below the limit.
“There's the state Department of Pesticide Regulation, which requires reports on what he sprays to protect his almonds from the navel orangeworm and walnuts from the husk fly and codling moth. If he didn't do it himself as a state-certified applicator, and had an employee spray instead, there would be many more safety rules to worry about.
“There's the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, which issues the permits he has to get to burn pruned limbs and other agricultural waste.
“There's state and federal Occupational Safety and Health and the state Employment Development Department, which want paperwork for the farm's one full-time worker.
“Until he found out at a seminar that he didn't have enough fuel to qualify, Brower thought he'd have to come up with a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan for his above-ground petroleum tanks.
“His home office is strewn with bulging files as he tries to keep track of all the requirements and when he's supposed to submit reports.
"I'm trying to do the right thing," he told me as he steered a beat-up golf cart through neat rows of nut trees.
“Brower says farmers like him are expected to know about every regulation issued by any government agency that might somehow apply to them. That's impossible, he says.”
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Sacramento Bee on Gibson Ranch, Wrong Again!
The Sacramento Bee—which inexplicably, does not like Gibson Ranch Park being operated as a forprofit, even though it is now open and being highly utilized by area residents, whereas before it was closed—ran an editorial yesterday, entitled “Back at Gibson Ranch, little county oversight”, which is apparently not quite accurate, as the response in the comments section from Doug Ose notes:
His response.
“Dear Pia -
“Once again you nitpick based on ignorance. You really should just pick up the phone and call me if you have questions.
“First and foremost, the County has received a monthly statement detailing all income and expenses including the names and amounts paid for all checks issued. The information forwarded to the County contains a precise breakdown of the monies collected for the Equestrian Trust Fund as well as a detailed listing to the penny of any expenditures made therefrom. This is precisely what was agreed to when the lease was executed. The reporting being provided dwarfs by orders of magnitude any reporting being provided to the County under any other existing County park lease with any of your beloved nonprofit organizations. I request that you cease and desist from impugning my character by suggesting that I am engaged in financial shenanigans.
“Second, the park is open every day, something that was not occurring prior to April 1, 2011. I fail to understand why you continue to object to the park being open.
“Third, the park is clean, the grass is mowed, the bathrooms are clean. I wonder how that compares to the parks you are operating.
“Your comments regarding the open ditches reflect the fact that you still have not visited Gibson Ranch since my team took it over. Prior to April 1, under the supervision of the former Parks Director, the irrigation ditches were dredged by the County, significantly enlarging the ditches and turning them into public hazards. The project being contemplated would eliminate the public hazard while preserving the ability to irrigate the pastures on the property. There are no marshlands within the area being irrigated by the ditches in question.
“The main challenge to local government remains that their obligations exceed their revenues. At Gibson Ranch, the County was budgeting over $200,000 per year to keep the park closed. The lease with me requires the County to pay up to $100,000 per year to correct deferred maintenance that accumulated prior to April 1, 2011. That is a net savings to the County of over $100,000 per year. And, the park is open. And, the accumulated deferred maintenance is being repaired.
“When we had lunch at the Crocker Art Museum prior to the Board's action to approve the proposed lease, I asked you what was the plan you wished to propose as an alternative to the one I was proposing. I appreciated your candor in admitting that you had no plan and that it was not your responsibility to create a solution that opens the park. Six months later, it is clear now that your only plan has been to use the bullhorn of the Sacramento Bee Editorial Page to advocate for new taxes dedicated to parks maintenance and operations on the November 2012 ballot. It must be frustrating for you to see my team PROVING EVERY DAY THAT NO SUCH NEW TAXES ARE NEEDED.
“Have a nice day..”
His response.
“Dear Pia -
“Once again you nitpick based on ignorance. You really should just pick up the phone and call me if you have questions.
“First and foremost, the County has received a monthly statement detailing all income and expenses including the names and amounts paid for all checks issued. The information forwarded to the County contains a precise breakdown of the monies collected for the Equestrian Trust Fund as well as a detailed listing to the penny of any expenditures made therefrom. This is precisely what was agreed to when the lease was executed. The reporting being provided dwarfs by orders of magnitude any reporting being provided to the County under any other existing County park lease with any of your beloved nonprofit organizations. I request that you cease and desist from impugning my character by suggesting that I am engaged in financial shenanigans.
“Second, the park is open every day, something that was not occurring prior to April 1, 2011. I fail to understand why you continue to object to the park being open.
“Third, the park is clean, the grass is mowed, the bathrooms are clean. I wonder how that compares to the parks you are operating.
“Your comments regarding the open ditches reflect the fact that you still have not visited Gibson Ranch since my team took it over. Prior to April 1, under the supervision of the former Parks Director, the irrigation ditches were dredged by the County, significantly enlarging the ditches and turning them into public hazards. The project being contemplated would eliminate the public hazard while preserving the ability to irrigate the pastures on the property. There are no marshlands within the area being irrigated by the ditches in question.
“The main challenge to local government remains that their obligations exceed their revenues. At Gibson Ranch, the County was budgeting over $200,000 per year to keep the park closed. The lease with me requires the County to pay up to $100,000 per year to correct deferred maintenance that accumulated prior to April 1, 2011. That is a net savings to the County of over $100,000 per year. And, the park is open. And, the accumulated deferred maintenance is being repaired.
“When we had lunch at the Crocker Art Museum prior to the Board's action to approve the proposed lease, I asked you what was the plan you wished to propose as an alternative to the one I was proposing. I appreciated your candor in admitting that you had no plan and that it was not your responsibility to create a solution that opens the park. Six months later, it is clear now that your only plan has been to use the bullhorn of the Sacramento Bee Editorial Page to advocate for new taxes dedicated to parks maintenance and operations on the November 2012 ballot. It must be frustrating for you to see my team PROVING EVERY DAY THAT NO SUCH NEW TAXES ARE NEEDED.
“Have a nice day..”
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.”
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Compassion & Principles
I watched the City Council meeting on tv last night about the Occupy Sacramento folks who want permission to camp out 24/7 at Cesar Chavez Park.
This is an important issue for the Parkway because if that permission was given it would also have to be granted to the homeless folks who want the same permission to camp 24/7, which would result in even more camping in the Parkway than is now happening.
Mayor Johnson chaired the meeting and he exhibited one of the best examples of compassion while sticking to principle that I have seen from a politician.
This article from the Sacramento Bee reports on the meeting.
An excerpt.
“Two weeks have passed since Occupy Sacramento protesters first took hold of downtown's Cesar Chavez Plaza. They have set up small shelters and a first-aid station, created a bank of laptop computers linked to the Internet and conducted several rallies.
“What they still don't have is a common call for grand social change.
“As the Occupy Wall Street movement persists around the nation and spreads to other countries, demonstrations have morphed into a canvas of disparate protests with distinctly local flavors. In Phoenix, the issue is immigration; in Atlanta, small business.
“And in Boston, a hub of higher learning, it's the lack of jobs for college graduates.
“There is no single global or economic cause unifying the Sacramento movement. However, by demanding to remain in the park at all hours, protesters have waded into a local political issue that predates their demonstration by years: the fight by homeless activists against the city's anti-camping ordinances.
"Our issue? We want to be able to stay here overnight," said Sean Thompson, 27, who recently dropped out of Sacramento City College to help coordinate Occupy Sacramento's presence in the park. "After that's resolved, then we'll start to talk."
“That demand appears unlikely to be granted anytime soon. Despite the calls of protesters who waved signs inside City Hall and set up vigil outside the building, the Sacramento City Council decided Tuesday night to continue enforcing the city's anti-camping rules and to not grant a permit allowing protesters to remain in a city park past closure hours.
“City police will keep clearing out the park across the street from City Hall at 11 p.m. on weeknights and midnight on the weekends.
“Councilman Steve Cohn had proposed to allow the protesters to keep their gear in the park overnight, but that plan was not moved forward by the council.
“Mayor Kevin Johnson said he would meet with protest organizers over the next few days and listen to their "thoughts and concerns."
"No one here disagrees with your right to protest and have your voices heard in a real way," the mayor said.
“City officials worry that if they allow the Occupy Sacramento people to camp at the park, they would have to make a similar exception for Safe Ground Sacramento, the group of homeless people and their advocates that has been pushing for a sanctioned spot where the homeless can camp at night.”
This is an important issue for the Parkway because if that permission was given it would also have to be granted to the homeless folks who want the same permission to camp 24/7, which would result in even more camping in the Parkway than is now happening.
Mayor Johnson chaired the meeting and he exhibited one of the best examples of compassion while sticking to principle that I have seen from a politician.
This article from the Sacramento Bee reports on the meeting.
An excerpt.
“Two weeks have passed since Occupy Sacramento protesters first took hold of downtown's Cesar Chavez Plaza. They have set up small shelters and a first-aid station, created a bank of laptop computers linked to the Internet and conducted several rallies.
“What they still don't have is a common call for grand social change.
“As the Occupy Wall Street movement persists around the nation and spreads to other countries, demonstrations have morphed into a canvas of disparate protests with distinctly local flavors. In Phoenix, the issue is immigration; in Atlanta, small business.
“And in Boston, a hub of higher learning, it's the lack of jobs for college graduates.
“There is no single global or economic cause unifying the Sacramento movement. However, by demanding to remain in the park at all hours, protesters have waded into a local political issue that predates their demonstration by years: the fight by homeless activists against the city's anti-camping ordinances.
"Our issue? We want to be able to stay here overnight," said Sean Thompson, 27, who recently dropped out of Sacramento City College to help coordinate Occupy Sacramento's presence in the park. "After that's resolved, then we'll start to talk."
“That demand appears unlikely to be granted anytime soon. Despite the calls of protesters who waved signs inside City Hall and set up vigil outside the building, the Sacramento City Council decided Tuesday night to continue enforcing the city's anti-camping rules and to not grant a permit allowing protesters to remain in a city park past closure hours.
“City police will keep clearing out the park across the street from City Hall at 11 p.m. on weeknights and midnight on the weekends.
“Councilman Steve Cohn had proposed to allow the protesters to keep their gear in the park overnight, but that plan was not moved forward by the council.
“Mayor Kevin Johnson said he would meet with protest organizers over the next few days and listen to their "thoughts and concerns."
"No one here disagrees with your right to protest and have your voices heard in a real way," the mayor said.
“City officials worry that if they allow the Occupy Sacramento people to camp at the park, they would have to make a similar exception for Safe Ground Sacramento, the group of homeless people and their advocates that has been pushing for a sanctioned spot where the homeless can camp at night.”
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).”
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.”
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Global Warming Bubble Continues Deflating
As this story from the American Spectator reports.
An excerpt.
“The theory that human activity is causing potentially catastrophic global warming is not science. It is politics, driven by special interests with ideological, political and economic stakes in the theory.
“For environmentalists, global warming corresponds with the authoritarian goal at the core of their movement: repeal of the industrial revolution (which President Obama's EPA has begun to implement). For governments, it presents an opportunity to vastly expand their power and control through taxes, regulation and bureaucracy.
“The theory also presents an opportunity for the United Nations to vastly expand its power and control. As an organization of world governments who would also gain enormously from acceptance of the theory, the UN is doubly corrupted as an honest broker on the issue. Yet, perversely, governments across the globe have delegated authoritative inquiry on the issue to the UN through its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
“Wily environmentalists have also successfully weaved economic stakes in the theory for some in the business community, starting with tens of billions -- growing into hundreds of billions -- of government subsidies for businesses that will pose as potential producers of the "green energy of tomorrow." This enables wily politicians to attempt to snooker voters with promises of "green jobs." Of course, those jobs would only become available if self-supporting producers of abundant low cost energy are replaced with an entire "green" industry that can survive on corporate welfare while producing unreliable high cost energy for the economy (resulting in job loss and a decline in America's standard of living).
“What is so shocking is the way formerly objective, reliable Western science has been seduced by all these interests into intellectual corruption in service of the global warming fraud (less shocking when you consider the tens of billions in "research" funding provided by the above special interests). But don't forget that scientists live and breathe in the far left environment of the academic world. Thus, many of them have social and ideological interests in advancing the global warming charade.
“The confluence of all these special interests and their money has now corrupted the broader scientific community. Formerly venerable, objective, respected scientific bodies such as the National Academy of Sciences have been taken over by politicians in scientific drag. Formerly independent scientific journals and publications have gone the same route rather than suffer the social and financial opprobrium that service to the truth will entail.
“This growing intellectual corruption is greatly magnified by our thoroughly politicized Old Media, which operates today only in service of politically correct causes. Consequently, so much of the public discussion on global warming that we see is actually "play acting," with supposed scientists, journalists, media commentators, politicians and others posing as if objective science actually demonstrates the danger of human caused global warming. One day Al Gore will receive an Oscar for his role in posing as savior of the planet, which actually reflects delusional mental illness in the man who almost became our president.
“But the politicization of Western science means the decline of Western science as well. That in turn augurs the decline of Western civilization, as objective science was a foundation of the rise of the West for centuries.
“Climate Change Reconsidered
“But real, objective science continues to flourish at little noticed work stations, offices, and independent institutes and foundations across the globe. The budding international headquarters of this worldwide counterrevolution has now flowered at the Chicago based Heartland Institute, which bravely soldiered on in devotion to real climate science when even compatriots told them objectivity on this issue was a lost cause.
“In 2009, Heartland published the 858-page Climate Change Reconsidered, a comprehensive, dispassionate, thoroughly scientific refutation of the theory that human activity is causing global warming. That served as the first answer to the quadrennial Assessment Reports of the UN's IPCC. No one is knowledgeable about the true scientific debate over global warming until they have read and analyzed this thorough publication. Play acting commentators should be challenged for their response to this report, and publicly dismissed if they have none.
“On August 29, Heartland released a 400-page follow up report titled Climate Change Reconsidered, reflecting the same thorough, objective, dispassionate analysis of the theory of global warming, and updating the science and developments. Heartland will continue the pattern of presenting full scientific alternatives to the UN's IPCC Assessment Reports (AR), planning to produce another full report in 2013 when the next IPCC AR is expected. Heartland has also sponsored annual international scientific conferences on climate change, several of which I have attended.”
An excerpt.
“The theory that human activity is causing potentially catastrophic global warming is not science. It is politics, driven by special interests with ideological, political and economic stakes in the theory.
“For environmentalists, global warming corresponds with the authoritarian goal at the core of their movement: repeal of the industrial revolution (which President Obama's EPA has begun to implement). For governments, it presents an opportunity to vastly expand their power and control through taxes, regulation and bureaucracy.
“The theory also presents an opportunity for the United Nations to vastly expand its power and control. As an organization of world governments who would also gain enormously from acceptance of the theory, the UN is doubly corrupted as an honest broker on the issue. Yet, perversely, governments across the globe have delegated authoritative inquiry on the issue to the UN through its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
“Wily environmentalists have also successfully weaved economic stakes in the theory for some in the business community, starting with tens of billions -- growing into hundreds of billions -- of government subsidies for businesses that will pose as potential producers of the "green energy of tomorrow." This enables wily politicians to attempt to snooker voters with promises of "green jobs." Of course, those jobs would only become available if self-supporting producers of abundant low cost energy are replaced with an entire "green" industry that can survive on corporate welfare while producing unreliable high cost energy for the economy (resulting in job loss and a decline in America's standard of living).
“What is so shocking is the way formerly objective, reliable Western science has been seduced by all these interests into intellectual corruption in service of the global warming fraud (less shocking when you consider the tens of billions in "research" funding provided by the above special interests). But don't forget that scientists live and breathe in the far left environment of the academic world. Thus, many of them have social and ideological interests in advancing the global warming charade.
“The confluence of all these special interests and their money has now corrupted the broader scientific community. Formerly venerable, objective, respected scientific bodies such as the National Academy of Sciences have been taken over by politicians in scientific drag. Formerly independent scientific journals and publications have gone the same route rather than suffer the social and financial opprobrium that service to the truth will entail.
“This growing intellectual corruption is greatly magnified by our thoroughly politicized Old Media, which operates today only in service of politically correct causes. Consequently, so much of the public discussion on global warming that we see is actually "play acting," with supposed scientists, journalists, media commentators, politicians and others posing as if objective science actually demonstrates the danger of human caused global warming. One day Al Gore will receive an Oscar for his role in posing as savior of the planet, which actually reflects delusional mental illness in the man who almost became our president.
“But the politicization of Western science means the decline of Western science as well. That in turn augurs the decline of Western civilization, as objective science was a foundation of the rise of the West for centuries.
“Climate Change Reconsidered
“But real, objective science continues to flourish at little noticed work stations, offices, and independent institutes and foundations across the globe. The budding international headquarters of this worldwide counterrevolution has now flowered at the Chicago based Heartland Institute, which bravely soldiered on in devotion to real climate science when even compatriots told them objectivity on this issue was a lost cause.
“In 2009, Heartland published the 858-page Climate Change Reconsidered, a comprehensive, dispassionate, thoroughly scientific refutation of the theory that human activity is causing global warming. That served as the first answer to the quadrennial Assessment Reports of the UN's IPCC. No one is knowledgeable about the true scientific debate over global warming until they have read and analyzed this thorough publication. Play acting commentators should be challenged for their response to this report, and publicly dismissed if they have none.
“On August 29, Heartland released a 400-page follow up report titled Climate Change Reconsidered, reflecting the same thorough, objective, dispassionate analysis of the theory of global warming, and updating the science and developments. Heartland will continue the pattern of presenting full scientific alternatives to the UN's IPCC Assessment Reports (AR), planning to produce another full report in 2013 when the next IPCC AR is expected. Heartland has also sponsored annual international scientific conferences on climate change, several of which I have attended.”
Wednesday, September 07, 2011
Nonprofits & Parks
The move by the state to more easily allow nonprofits, as reported by Southern California Public Radio, to manage state parks is a welcome one.
An excerpt.
“Legislation intended to keep more California state parks open is one step closer to becoming law. The State Senate approved AB 42 Wednesday, a bill that would allow nonprofit organizations to keep parks running.
“California already has this year due to budget cuts.
“Democratic Assemblyman Jared Huffman wrote the bill and says it would alleviate the ailing park system. It passed the Senate vote by a margin of 32-2.
“This may save a dozen, potentially more parks from closure where there’s a nonprofit group that could step up and enter into an operating agreement to keep things going," Huffman said.
“The state is already authorized to partner with local governments and private concession companies within the parks system. Huffman's bill would make the process easier.”
An excerpt.
“Legislation intended to keep more California state parks open is one step closer to becoming law. The State Senate approved AB 42 Wednesday, a bill that would allow nonprofit organizations to keep parks running.
“California already has this year due to budget cuts.
“Democratic Assemblyman Jared Huffman wrote the bill and says it would alleviate the ailing park system. It passed the Senate vote by a margin of 32-2.
“This may save a dozen, potentially more parks from closure where there’s a nonprofit group that could step up and enter into an operating agreement to keep things going," Huffman said.
“The state is already authorized to partner with local governments and private concession companies within the parks system. Huffman's bill would make the process easier.”
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.”
Friday, August 12, 2011
Parks Tax
The Sacramento Bee got this story on the ongoing negotiations a little more right than their previous reporting, which we blogged about, but the actual story is much better.
The supervisors have—if the state legislature agrees—given themselves the option to ask Sacramento County voters to approve a sales tax increase for parks, if, the new advisory committee they have charged staff with creating, decides that is the best way to go, which, in this economic environment, is very hard to imagine.
A major improvement is that the advisory committee, rather than the incestuous make-up, (see Progress Report # 1, page 5, at the jump) and tax increase default position of the Grassroots Working Group (GWG), other members of the advisory committee will include business interests and a wider representation of other community interests, giving the supervisors a more balanced analysis, and hopefully, if any survey are conducted, full transparency on the process and method, about which many questions have been raised concerning the GWG’s survey.
An excerpt from the Bee story.
“The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors will seek state legislation that would give the county the option of pursuing a 0.1 percent sales tax increase to generate revenue for parks.
“Supervisors and members of the Grass Roots Working Group, which backs forming a new regional park district, stressed that the legislation would simply allow the board to put such a tax measure before county voters….
“The Grass Roots Working Group urged the board to pursue the special legislation because surveys have shown voters would support a 0.1 percent increase.
“If approved by two-thirds of county voters, the tax would raise an estimated $17 million annually to support the county's 32 regional parks, including the American River Parkway.
“Rob Leonard, Sacramento County's municipal services agency administrator, said county staff members will recruit people to serve on an ad hoc committee to advise the county executive on matters related to the future of regional parks, including long-term funding, governance and a business model for maintenance and operation.
“The panel is to include representatives of the county Recreation and Parks Commission, Dry Creek Parkway Advisory Committee, American River Parkway Advisory Committee, American River Parkway Foundation, the Grass Roots Working Group, the Sacramento Metro Chamber of Commerce, the golf community and supervisorial districts.”
The supervisors have—if the state legislature agrees—given themselves the option to ask Sacramento County voters to approve a sales tax increase for parks, if, the new advisory committee they have charged staff with creating, decides that is the best way to go, which, in this economic environment, is very hard to imagine.
A major improvement is that the advisory committee, rather than the incestuous make-up, (see Progress Report # 1, page 5, at the jump) and tax increase default position of the Grassroots Working Group (GWG), other members of the advisory committee will include business interests and a wider representation of other community interests, giving the supervisors a more balanced analysis, and hopefully, if any survey are conducted, full transparency on the process and method, about which many questions have been raised concerning the GWG’s survey.
An excerpt from the Bee story.
“The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors will seek state legislation that would give the county the option of pursuing a 0.1 percent sales tax increase to generate revenue for parks.
“Supervisors and members of the Grass Roots Working Group, which backs forming a new regional park district, stressed that the legislation would simply allow the board to put such a tax measure before county voters….
“The Grass Roots Working Group urged the board to pursue the special legislation because surveys have shown voters would support a 0.1 percent increase.
“If approved by two-thirds of county voters, the tax would raise an estimated $17 million annually to support the county's 32 regional parks, including the American River Parkway.
“Rob Leonard, Sacramento County's municipal services agency administrator, said county staff members will recruit people to serve on an ad hoc committee to advise the county executive on matters related to the future of regional parks, including long-term funding, governance and a business model for maintenance and operation.
“The panel is to include representatives of the county Recreation and Parks Commission, Dry Creek Parkway Advisory Committee, American River Parkway Advisory Committee, American River Parkway Foundation, the Grass Roots Working Group, the Sacramento Metro Chamber of Commerce, the golf community and supervisorial districts.”
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Public Pensions & Parks Funding
A very generous supply of money for the former has reduced the funds from which the latter could be funded, as this article (California is examined) from City Journal reveals.
An excerpt.
“Recent polls show that public opinion is turning against government workers because of their rich pay and benefits—especially pension benefits. A spring poll conducted by the Los Angeles Times and the University of Southern California, to take one example, found that 70 percent of Californians favored a cap on public employees’ pensions because of the widespread perception that pension costs have become a crushing burden to state and local governments (see “The Compensation Monster Devouring Cities”). Faced with this declining support, unions have counterattacked by claiming that government pensions are actually quite modest. They argue, for instance, that the average annual pension of a state worker is under $30,000 in California and even less in New Jersey and New York. But their figures are misleading: the real size of pensions for those retiring now on full benefits is much larger.
“Consider California. Earlier this year, state treasurer Bill Lockyer, a Democrat who has received union backing in his political campaigns, claimed that the average retired state worker in California was getting just $2,500 a month in benefits. When Contra Costa Times columnist Daniel Borenstein investigated, he found that Lockyer’s average included people who had worked for the state for as little as five years and were collecting partial benefits, as well as those who had retired years before the state significantly enhanced pension benefits in 1999.
“But if you limit the average to currently retiring workers who have spent more time working for California and thus can retire with full benefits, a different picture emerges, Borenstein found. The average state worker retiring in 2009 with full benefits received a pension of nearly $67,000 a year. Local government workers in California did even better. Looking at his own town, Contra Costa, Borenstein found an average pension for new retirees of $85,500 annually. There’s more: though government workers don’t automatically qualify for Social Security, about 65 percent of the retired government employees who are members of CalPERS, the state’s government-employee pension system, do get Social Security benefits because the state has made contributions for them for years. The average benefit comes to $19,000 a year. So sweet are California’s pension deals that a report by the state’s Little Hoover Commission, a government watchdog agency, estimated that the average government worker retiring with full benefits and Social Security will get 109 percent of his final working salary as a pension.”
An excerpt.
“Recent polls show that public opinion is turning against government workers because of their rich pay and benefits—especially pension benefits. A spring poll conducted by the Los Angeles Times and the University of Southern California, to take one example, found that 70 percent of Californians favored a cap on public employees’ pensions because of the widespread perception that pension costs have become a crushing burden to state and local governments (see “The Compensation Monster Devouring Cities”). Faced with this declining support, unions have counterattacked by claiming that government pensions are actually quite modest. They argue, for instance, that the average annual pension of a state worker is under $30,000 in California and even less in New Jersey and New York. But their figures are misleading: the real size of pensions for those retiring now on full benefits is much larger.
“Consider California. Earlier this year, state treasurer Bill Lockyer, a Democrat who has received union backing in his political campaigns, claimed that the average retired state worker in California was getting just $2,500 a month in benefits. When Contra Costa Times columnist Daniel Borenstein investigated, he found that Lockyer’s average included people who had worked for the state for as little as five years and were collecting partial benefits, as well as those who had retired years before the state significantly enhanced pension benefits in 1999.
“But if you limit the average to currently retiring workers who have spent more time working for California and thus can retire with full benefits, a different picture emerges, Borenstein found. The average state worker retiring in 2009 with full benefits received a pension of nearly $67,000 a year. Local government workers in California did even better. Looking at his own town, Contra Costa, Borenstein found an average pension for new retirees of $85,500 annually. There’s more: though government workers don’t automatically qualify for Social Security, about 65 percent of the retired government employees who are members of CalPERS, the state’s government-employee pension system, do get Social Security benefits because the state has made contributions for them for years. The average benefit comes to $19,000 a year. So sweet are California’s pension deals that a report by the state’s Little Hoover Commission, a government watchdog agency, estimated that the average government worker retiring with full benefits and Social Security will get 109 percent of his final working salary as a pension.”
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."
Monday, August 01, 2011
Tax Increase Fixation
As a believer in strong government and a strong private sector working together to benefit and serve the public, it was somewhat sad for me to watch the hearings before the County Board of Supervisors Tuesday July 19th about increasing the sales tax to pay for parks.
Sad because there was no evidence coming from the public comments supporting the tax that there was any other way to deal with this issue, with the single exception from the comments by Doug Ose, who is showing that there is another way with his private sector management of Gibson Ranch Park.
It is also sad to see the Sacramento Bee, our hometown newspaper, with such a great history in our fair city, also fail to report, with any degree of balance that there is another way other than tax increases to take care of our parks, as they consistently do and repeat in this editorial.
An excerpt.
“It is no big surprise that, two years after its 50th anniversary, Sacramento County's regional park system is in deep trouble.
“The question that remains is whether the county and parks advocates, facing a budget crisis, can put aside differences and find common ground on a secure funding source and governance structure that everyone can live with.
“It was clear at Tuesday's Board of Supervisors meeting that all sides agree funding is the top priority. That's the good news. It is also encouraging that polling suggests that county voters would support a small tax hike to provide a dedicated source of revenue for parks.
“But now comes the tough part. As Supervisor Roberta MacGlashan rightly noted at the beginning of the meeting, funding for the parks and governance of the tax revenue cannot be separated. "If you put a tax before the voters," she said, "that question has to be settled."
“Supervisors will have to work hard to keep a coalition together – and to narrow options to what really is feasible.
“Three were discussed:
• An independent regional parks district, with an elected board of directors. The volunteer Grassroots Working Group, formed at the county's urging, recommended this.
• A Community Services District, with an elected board of directors. County staff recommended further study of this option, although countywide community services districts are uncommon.
• A Community Facilities District, with county supervisors as the governing body. Staff recommended further study of this option, too. It would require approval by city councils as well as county supervisors. Landowners (who would get one vote per acre of land) would have to approve a tax to fund the district.
“Supervisors seemed to agree that on funding options, seeking a sales tax from voters is preferable to a parcel tax. Certainly, it's cheaper for residents, since visitors would contribute to the revenue. To generate $10 million a year from a parcel tax would require a flat $21 tax on the county's 471,000 parcels. In contrast, a 1/16th cent sales tax for parks would generate $12 million a year, costing $8.89 each year for an average household.
“Proposals for auto rental and hotel taxes are nonstarters. That's going too far in assessing visitors for an amenity we all enjoy.
“In the end, supervisors voted unanimously to seek legislation that would give them an option to place a 1/10 cent sales tax for parks on the ballot. That's progress.”
Sad because there was no evidence coming from the public comments supporting the tax that there was any other way to deal with this issue, with the single exception from the comments by Doug Ose, who is showing that there is another way with his private sector management of Gibson Ranch Park.
It is also sad to see the Sacramento Bee, our hometown newspaper, with such a great history in our fair city, also fail to report, with any degree of balance that there is another way other than tax increases to take care of our parks, as they consistently do and repeat in this editorial.
An excerpt.
“It is no big surprise that, two years after its 50th anniversary, Sacramento County's regional park system is in deep trouble.
“The question that remains is whether the county and parks advocates, facing a budget crisis, can put aside differences and find common ground on a secure funding source and governance structure that everyone can live with.
“It was clear at Tuesday's Board of Supervisors meeting that all sides agree funding is the top priority. That's the good news. It is also encouraging that polling suggests that county voters would support a small tax hike to provide a dedicated source of revenue for parks.
“But now comes the tough part. As Supervisor Roberta MacGlashan rightly noted at the beginning of the meeting, funding for the parks and governance of the tax revenue cannot be separated. "If you put a tax before the voters," she said, "that question has to be settled."
“Supervisors will have to work hard to keep a coalition together – and to narrow options to what really is feasible.
“Three were discussed:
• An independent regional parks district, with an elected board of directors. The volunteer Grassroots Working Group, formed at the county's urging, recommended this.
• A Community Services District, with an elected board of directors. County staff recommended further study of this option, although countywide community services districts are uncommon.
• A Community Facilities District, with county supervisors as the governing body. Staff recommended further study of this option, too. It would require approval by city councils as well as county supervisors. Landowners (who would get one vote per acre of land) would have to approve a tax to fund the district.
“Supervisors seemed to agree that on funding options, seeking a sales tax from voters is preferable to a parcel tax. Certainly, it's cheaper for residents, since visitors would contribute to the revenue. To generate $10 million a year from a parcel tax would require a flat $21 tax on the county's 471,000 parcels. In contrast, a 1/16th cent sales tax for parks would generate $12 million a year, costing $8.89 each year for an average household.
“Proposals for auto rental and hotel taxes are nonstarters. That's going too far in assessing visitors for an amenity we all enjoy.
“In the end, supervisors voted unanimously to seek legislation that would give them an option to place a 1/10 cent sales tax for parks on the ballot. That's progress.”
Friday, July 29, 2011
Suburbs Rule
Urbanists continue to tout the narrative that the suburbs are dying, while reality continues to intrude, as this article from New Geography reports.
An excerpt.
“For well over a decade urban boosters have heralded the shift among young Americans from suburban living and toward dense cities. As one Wall Street Journal report suggests, young people will abandon their parents’ McMansions for urban settings, bringing about the high-density city revival so fervently prayed for by urban developers, architects and planners.
“Some demographers claim that “white flight” from the city is declining, replaced by a “bright flight” to the urban core from the suburbs. “Suburbs lose young whites to cities,” crowed one Associated Press headline last year.
“Yet evidence from the last Census show the opposite: a marked acceleration of movement not into cities but toward suburban and exurban locations. The simple, usually inexorable effects of maturation may be one reason for this surprising result. Simply put, when 20-somethings get older, they do things like marry, start businesses, settle down and maybe start having kids.
“An analysis of the past decade’s Census data by demographer Wendell Cox shows this. Cox looked at where 25- to 34-year-olds were living in 2000 and compared this to where they were living by 2010, now aged 35 to 44. The results were surprising: In the past 10 years, this cohort’s presence grew 12% in suburban areas while dropping 22.7% in the core cities. Overall, this demographic expanded by roughly 1.8 million in the suburbs while losing 1.3 million in the core cities.
“In many ways this group may be more influential than the much ballyhooed 20-something. Unlike younger adults, who are often footloose and unattached, people between the ages of 35 and 44 tend to be putting down roots. As a result, they constitute the essential social ballast for any community, city or suburb.
“Losing this population represents a great, if rarely perceived, threat to many regions, particular older core cities. Rust Belt centers such as Cleveland and Detroit have lost over 30% of this age group over the decade.
“More intriguing, and perhaps counter-intuitive, “hip and cool” core cities like San Francisco, New York and Boston have also suffered double-digit percent losses among this generation. New York City, for example, saw its 25 to 34 population of 2000 drop by over 15% — a net loss of over 200,000 people — a decade later. San Francisco and Oakland, the core cities of the Bay Area, lost more than 20% of this cohort over the decade, and the city of Boston lost nearly 40%.”
An excerpt.
“For well over a decade urban boosters have heralded the shift among young Americans from suburban living and toward dense cities. As one Wall Street Journal report suggests, young people will abandon their parents’ McMansions for urban settings, bringing about the high-density city revival so fervently prayed for by urban developers, architects and planners.
“Some demographers claim that “white flight” from the city is declining, replaced by a “bright flight” to the urban core from the suburbs. “Suburbs lose young whites to cities,” crowed one Associated Press headline last year.
“Yet evidence from the last Census show the opposite: a marked acceleration of movement not into cities but toward suburban and exurban locations. The simple, usually inexorable effects of maturation may be one reason for this surprising result. Simply put, when 20-somethings get older, they do things like marry, start businesses, settle down and maybe start having kids.
“An analysis of the past decade’s Census data by demographer Wendell Cox shows this. Cox looked at where 25- to 34-year-olds were living in 2000 and compared this to where they were living by 2010, now aged 35 to 44. The results were surprising: In the past 10 years, this cohort’s presence grew 12% in suburban areas while dropping 22.7% in the core cities. Overall, this demographic expanded by roughly 1.8 million in the suburbs while losing 1.3 million in the core cities.
“In many ways this group may be more influential than the much ballyhooed 20-something. Unlike younger adults, who are often footloose and unattached, people between the ages of 35 and 44 tend to be putting down roots. As a result, they constitute the essential social ballast for any community, city or suburb.
“Losing this population represents a great, if rarely perceived, threat to many regions, particular older core cities. Rust Belt centers such as Cleveland and Detroit have lost over 30% of this age group over the decade.
“More intriguing, and perhaps counter-intuitive, “hip and cool” core cities like San Francisco, New York and Boston have also suffered double-digit percent losses among this generation. New York City, for example, saw its 25 to 34 population of 2000 drop by over 15% — a net loss of over 200,000 people — a decade later. San Francisco and Oakland, the core cities of the Bay Area, lost more than 20% of this cohort over the decade, and the city of Boston lost nearly 40%.”
Monday, July 25, 2011
Parks Innovation by Ose
What Doug Ose has been able to accomplish at Gibson Ranch Park is exactly the type of innovation needed to be part of any discussion around other regional parks, including the American River Parkway.
His recent article in the Sacramento Bee is a must read.
An excerpt.
“For the past year, observers from the Grassroots Working Group to the editorial board of The Bee have consistently suggested that there are significant operational problems within the Sacramento County Department of Regional Parks and Open Space. I couldn't agree more.
“The primary argument has been that there is inadequate funding being allocated by the Board of Supervisors to the parks department to properly maintain the parklands under their control, and voters should therefore pass an increase in local sales taxes dedicated to parks. I couldn't agree less.
“In my view, the essential problem is that the world has changed and the parks department hasn't. Years ago, the department's charter was to acquire land and provide services funded by the county's general fund. In the last few years, it has become apparent that such an approach is not sustainable. The department has been slow to change – or actively resisted it – and now is in a financial corner. On top of that fiscal challenge, the department is saddled with work rules that constrain how it can respond to changing conditions.
“Here are the basic facts. The department controls more than 15,000 acres. Some years ago, a policy decision was made that county parklands shall not be allowed to have any commercial activities within their boundaries. Subsequent public outcry in favor of golf courses and raft rentals and the like has caused that policy to evolve over time, so we now have a hybrid policy where certain commercial activities are allowed but others aren't.
“Why are some commercial activities allowed and others not? If a proposal to develop a portion of the 15,000 acres noted above were to generate significant net revenue to Sacramento County, would that be a good thing or a bad thing?
“This is the crux of the problem.
"Somebody" determined that accumulating vast acreages of land is a good thing.
"Somebody" determined that revenue-generating enterprises located within publicly owned parklands is a bad thing.
“Now, "somebody" is struggling with how to fund the maintenance and operations of these vast acreages.
“Fortunately, there is a path out of this morass.
“First, stop making the problem larger. Place an immediate moratorium on further parkland acquisition/development or acceptances of parkland donations, which cost the county money.
“Second, decide what you want to be as a parks department. Given the long-term challenges of funding for collective bargaining agreements, health care and pensions, the department should evolve into a contract manager of partnerships with third-party operators that meet defined operating standards.
“Third, determine on a case-by-case basis which currently owned parklands are meeting a minimum level of active and passive recreational use by the public. Use actual numbers rather than estimates. Don't game the system to favor "treasured icons." Categorize each property as high-cost/low-use, low-cost/low-use, high-cost/high-use or low-cost/high-use. Keep the low-cost/high-use properties. If you have a property that is not meeting expectations, then get rid of it.
“Fourth, use proceeds from the sale of underutilized properties to fund the necessary repairs and/or maintenance for the retained properties. Concurrently, seek out a partner or partners who can operate the properties more efficiently – the agreement covering Effie Yeaw can serve as a model for such partnerships – and make a business deal with those partners.”
His recent article in the Sacramento Bee is a must read.
An excerpt.
“For the past year, observers from the Grassroots Working Group to the editorial board of The Bee have consistently suggested that there are significant operational problems within the Sacramento County Department of Regional Parks and Open Space. I couldn't agree more.
“The primary argument has been that there is inadequate funding being allocated by the Board of Supervisors to the parks department to properly maintain the parklands under their control, and voters should therefore pass an increase in local sales taxes dedicated to parks. I couldn't agree less.
“In my view, the essential problem is that the world has changed and the parks department hasn't. Years ago, the department's charter was to acquire land and provide services funded by the county's general fund. In the last few years, it has become apparent that such an approach is not sustainable. The department has been slow to change – or actively resisted it – and now is in a financial corner. On top of that fiscal challenge, the department is saddled with work rules that constrain how it can respond to changing conditions.
“Here are the basic facts. The department controls more than 15,000 acres. Some years ago, a policy decision was made that county parklands shall not be allowed to have any commercial activities within their boundaries. Subsequent public outcry in favor of golf courses and raft rentals and the like has caused that policy to evolve over time, so we now have a hybrid policy where certain commercial activities are allowed but others aren't.
“Why are some commercial activities allowed and others not? If a proposal to develop a portion of the 15,000 acres noted above were to generate significant net revenue to Sacramento County, would that be a good thing or a bad thing?
“This is the crux of the problem.
"Somebody" determined that accumulating vast acreages of land is a good thing.
"Somebody" determined that revenue-generating enterprises located within publicly owned parklands is a bad thing.
“Now, "somebody" is struggling with how to fund the maintenance and operations of these vast acreages.
“Fortunately, there is a path out of this morass.
“First, stop making the problem larger. Place an immediate moratorium on further parkland acquisition/development or acceptances of parkland donations, which cost the county money.
“Second, decide what you want to be as a parks department. Given the long-term challenges of funding for collective bargaining agreements, health care and pensions, the department should evolve into a contract manager of partnerships with third-party operators that meet defined operating standards.
“Third, determine on a case-by-case basis which currently owned parklands are meeting a minimum level of active and passive recreational use by the public. Use actual numbers rather than estimates. Don't game the system to favor "treasured icons." Categorize each property as high-cost/low-use, low-cost/low-use, high-cost/high-use or low-cost/high-use. Keep the low-cost/high-use properties. If you have a property that is not meeting expectations, then get rid of it.
“Fourth, use proceeds from the sale of underutilized properties to fund the necessary repairs and/or maintenance for the retained properties. Concurrently, seek out a partner or partners who can operate the properties more efficiently – the agreement covering Effie Yeaw can serve as a model for such partnerships – and make a business deal with those partners.”
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.”
Friday, July 08, 2011
Environmentalist Religion Grows
In our 2006 report on the Auburn Dam Policy Environment, we examined the history of the environmentalist movement and how it has become a religion, which, according to this article in the New York Times, is still growing.
An excerpt.
“WHEN the anchorman Howard Beale uttered his famous vituperations in the 1976 film “Network” (“I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!”), he was a grizzled, alcoholic veteran of the television rat race, at the climax of a long, slow boil.
“Rachael Kleinberger was luckier (or smarter): she already knew she wanted out at age 25, quitting her job at a reality-TV production company for a position at a nonprofit organization focused on the environment.
“I want to do something helpful,” she said, “or do something at the end of the day that’s like, ‘This makes me feel good that I spent this much time doing it.’ ”
“One doesn’t leave a promising media job for just anything these days. Ms. Kleinberger is one of a new wave of recent college graduates entering a career field that, like blogging and social media strategy, hardly existed a decade ago: environmental sustainability.
“Suddenly, “sustainability” seems to resonate with the sex appeal of “dot com” or “start-up,” appealing to droves of ambitious young innovators. Amelia Byers, operations director for Idealist.org, a Web site that lists paid and unpaid opportunities for nonprofit groups and social enterprise companies — some 5,000 of which are environmental organizations — said the number of jobs related to environmental work has roughly tripled in the last three years. “A lot of new graduates are coming out of a world where volunteerism and service has been something that has helped define their generation,” she said. “Finding a job with meaning is an important value to them.”
“The rapid expansion of green jobs isn’t confined to the nonprofit sector. There is money to be made here as well. Ivan Kerbel, director of career development for the Yale School of Management, a graduate-level business program, noted that environmental issues like reducing waste and carbon footprints were increasingly important to corporations of all kinds, something business students are recognizing. Even ultra-ambitious M.B.A. candidates with C-suite aspirations are integrating issues like sustainability into their education, he said.”
An excerpt.
“WHEN the anchorman Howard Beale uttered his famous vituperations in the 1976 film “Network” (“I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!”), he was a grizzled, alcoholic veteran of the television rat race, at the climax of a long, slow boil.
“Rachael Kleinberger was luckier (or smarter): she already knew she wanted out at age 25, quitting her job at a reality-TV production company for a position at a nonprofit organization focused on the environment.
“I want to do something helpful,” she said, “or do something at the end of the day that’s like, ‘This makes me feel good that I spent this much time doing it.’ ”
“One doesn’t leave a promising media job for just anything these days. Ms. Kleinberger is one of a new wave of recent college graduates entering a career field that, like blogging and social media strategy, hardly existed a decade ago: environmental sustainability.
“Suddenly, “sustainability” seems to resonate with the sex appeal of “dot com” or “start-up,” appealing to droves of ambitious young innovators. Amelia Byers, operations director for Idealist.org, a Web site that lists paid and unpaid opportunities for nonprofit groups and social enterprise companies — some 5,000 of which are environmental organizations — said the number of jobs related to environmental work has roughly tripled in the last three years. “A lot of new graduates are coming out of a world where volunteerism and service has been something that has helped define their generation,” she said. “Finding a job with meaning is an important value to them.”
“The rapid expansion of green jobs isn’t confined to the nonprofit sector. There is money to be made here as well. Ivan Kerbel, director of career development for the Yale School of Management, a graduate-level business program, noted that environmental issues like reducing waste and carbon footprints were increasingly important to corporations of all kinds, something business students are recognizing. Even ultra-ambitious M.B.A. candidates with C-suite aspirations are integrating issues like sustainability into their education, he said.”
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
Government Funding
The ongoing tragedy that keeps coming back to out-of-control public unions rewarding members way beyond the ability of local governments to pay, which is having huge impacts on funding for other priorities such as parks—with the willing support of those same local governments, including our hometown—is a malady that stretches across the country, as this article from the Wall Street Journal notes.
An excerpt.
“Although Democratic Mayor John DeStefano has enjoyed a good relationship with the New Haven, Conn., municipal unions through most of his 17 years in office, lately those ties have frayed. He says that workers' wages and benefits have become "the Pac-Man of our budget, consuming everything in sight," and must be cut. His budget-trimming proposals, including calls to privatize some jobs, have brought angry city workers into the streets in protest, and celebrity protester Al Sharpton to agitate for their cause.
“While the national media has focused on state budget face-offs between government unions and governors such as Wisconsin's Scott Walker, municipal officials like Mr. DeStefano are engaged in their own budget warfare. Wages and benefits account for 30% of state general fund expenditures, according to data from the National Governors Association. But U.S. Census surveys show that in the typical town or school district, employee pay and benefits can consume from 70% to 80% of the budget.
“Pensions are an enormous part of the problem. While pension payments now consume about 4% of state budgets, many municipalities are already spending 15% to 20% of their finances on pension costs. 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."
“Costa Mesa, Calif. (population 110,000) made news earlier this year when it sent layoff notices to 43% of its employees. In 10 years, the city's annual pension bill increased to $15 million from $5 million and now consumes 16% of the city's $93 million budget. In nearby Anaheim, pensions already account for 22% of its $252 million budget. San Jose's pension costs for police and firefighters have quadrupled in a past decade. Without reform, the city estimates that its yearly pension costs, $63 million in 2000, will swell to $650 million in 2015.
“Elsewhere the numbers are even scarier. Chicago's unfunded public pension fund liabilities are estimated by Joshua Rauh of Northwestern University and Robert Novy-Marx of the University of Rochester at $44 billion—nearly eight times annual city tax revenues. New York City's annual pension contributions were $1.5 billion (6% of city revenues) in 2002. They've exploded to an estimated $8.4 billion (18% of city revenues) in 2012.”
An excerpt.
“Although Democratic Mayor John DeStefano has enjoyed a good relationship with the New Haven, Conn., municipal unions through most of his 17 years in office, lately those ties have frayed. He says that workers' wages and benefits have become "the Pac-Man of our budget, consuming everything in sight," and must be cut. His budget-trimming proposals, including calls to privatize some jobs, have brought angry city workers into the streets in protest, and celebrity protester Al Sharpton to agitate for their cause.
“While the national media has focused on state budget face-offs between government unions and governors such as Wisconsin's Scott Walker, municipal officials like Mr. DeStefano are engaged in their own budget warfare. Wages and benefits account for 30% of state general fund expenditures, according to data from the National Governors Association. But U.S. Census surveys show that in the typical town or school district, employee pay and benefits can consume from 70% to 80% of the budget.
“Pensions are an enormous part of the problem. While pension payments now consume about 4% of state budgets, many municipalities are already spending 15% to 20% of their finances on pension costs. 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."
“Costa Mesa, Calif. (population 110,000) made news earlier this year when it sent layoff notices to 43% of its employees. In 10 years, the city's annual pension bill increased to $15 million from $5 million and now consumes 16% of the city's $93 million budget. In nearby Anaheim, pensions already account for 22% of its $252 million budget. San Jose's pension costs for police and firefighters have quadrupled in a past decade. Without reform, the city estimates that its yearly pension costs, $63 million in 2000, will swell to $650 million in 2015.
“Elsewhere the numbers are even scarier. Chicago's unfunded public pension fund liabilities are estimated by Joshua Rauh of Northwestern University and Robert Novy-Marx of the University of Rochester at $44 billion—nearly eight times annual city tax revenues. New York City's annual pension contributions were $1.5 billion (6% of city revenues) in 2002. They've exploded to an estimated $8.4 billion (18% of city revenues) in 2012.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)