OC Watchdog Bites Down On Fullerton's Illegal Water Tax

OC Register's Teri Sforza wrote this for the OC Watchdog today...

Way back in 1968, when there were still lots of orange trees in Orange County, the city of Fullerton tacked a 2 percent charge onto folks’ water bills to cover the cost of providing that water.

In 1970, the city hiked that charge to 10 percent – and there it has remained for 41 years.
This charge is “in lieu of franchise fees” — what a private company would pay the city for the exclusive privilege of providing water — and in lieu of property taxes, which many special districts collect to help provide water service.

That 10 percent fee generated about $2.5 million for Fullerton last year — and more than $27 million since 1997, according to city figures.

TROUBLE?
“We believe the fee and revenue transfers are illegal,” says a letter from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which arrived over the holidays in City Manager Joe Felz’s mailbox.
“If a private company provided water service to the residents of Fullerton, the City could charge the private company a negotiated franchise fee for occupying public rights of way with its pipelines,” say the Howard Jarvis folks. “That is not the case in Fullerton, however, as the City operates its own municipal water utility.  The rates the City may charge are governed by the California Constitution, which limits rates to just the amount required to provide service, and prohibits transferring rate revenue for use elsewhere.

Read the rest of the story here...

Tonight is the Water Rate Study Session at the Fullerton Public Library's Main Branch at 4:30 PM.  Arrive early and expect standing-room only.

New Technology Could Kill Fullerton Commuters

The OC Register reported yesterday that the Federal Railroad Administration has granted Caltrans with $55-million to construct, among other things, a third rail to connect Fullerton and Commerce. 

The Register's report also includes an important but completely misunderstood issue.

And $13.5 million will fund a global-positioning-based system for much of the line between Moorpark and San Onofre. Also called Positive Train Control, the system prevents collisions and derailments. The Federal Rail Safety Improvement Act makes the system mandatory by 2015.

“The implementation of the Positive Train Control will improve safety for our passengers,” said Laura Scheper, a spokeswoman for the Orange County Transportation Authority, which oversees Metrolink service in the county.

So what's the problem?  A new company known as LightSquared.  Their use of a nearly identical frequency as that used by global positioning systems (GPS) causes GPS receivers to fail.  

I have expressed serious concern regarding the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) granting LightSquared, LLC conditional approval to build a nationwide 4G-LTE wireless broadband network (FCC File No. SAT-MOD-20101118-00239). Early testing by GPS technology leaders, Garmin and Trimble Navigation, demonstrated that LightSquared’s technology would likely interfere with Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers, degrading their performance in the best case scenario and completely jamming GPS receivers in the worst case scenario.

The Department of Defense, FAA, DHS, NASA, DOI, DOT, DOC, and the Professional Land Surveying and Engineering professions, have all expressed serious reservations in regards to this plan by LightSquared, LLC to build 40,000 ground stations in the U.S. that could cause widespread interference to GPS signals.

The National Marine Manufactures Association said in a letter to the FCC that "they are especially concerned with the apparent lack of concern shown in the Technical Working Group report to the effect of the LightSquared proposal on existing devices."  The July 29, 2011 letter goes onto to say that "it is notable that the testing that was done by the Technical Working Group did not include recreational marine applications."

This network of ground stations will transmit signals within the L-band frequency immediately adjacent to the GPS L1 frequency at more than one billion times the strength of the low-power GPS signal from space!  Furthermore, each mobile phone using LightSquared’s wireless service would potentially become a portable GPS jamming device by jamming GPS receivers in its immediate vicinity.

The result of having GPS-guided trains AND LightSquared means a nearly certain disaster is on the horizon!

LightSquared has openly admitted to the interference after conducting their own tests! "Initial tests of LightSquared’s terrestrial base stations, however, have shown that these transmissions can cause interference issues for GPS receivers."

Telecommunications lobbyists acknowledge that "it is likely there will be interference issues that will need to be solved".

I wrote a letter to the FCC and Congressman Royce and have not heard back from either.  I'm not holding my breath...

Cal State Fullerton Proves Once Again They Know How to Waste Millions!



 FULLERTON - The Orange County Register is reporting that Cal State Fullerton has spent $143-million to add student housing and a cafeteria for 1064 additional students.  That figure does not include the cost to float the initial $143-million bond which could cost students and taxpayers $250-million.  That works out to about $235,000 for each bed or $470,000 for a small bedroom with no kitchen.   Students need the housing but the cost seems too high. 

This is the epitome of big government waste but its nothing new to CSUF who pays their president, Milton A. Gordon, $294,615 (not including benefits and perks).  Gordon lives in a donated mansion on a sprawling estate in the Fullerton hills.  Living rent free, he still commands a massive salary while students and taxpayers get stuck with the bill. 

CSUF, like other universities, allows faculty top enter an early retirement program.  The program allows full-time faculty to retire early and continue to work part-time.  It sounds good on paper but the practice means we, the taxpayers, are paying extra for less.  The retiree also immediately qualifies for FREE parking while other part-time employees must pay to park their car at their work. 

The long list of CSUF wasteful spending continues to grow as does the cost of tuition.  If CSUF students and their families want to lower tuition, they need to hold the CSUF administration responsible. 

Apartment Shortage?

Fewest vacant O.C. apartments since 2007

Orange County Register, Jeff Collins
The Orange County apartment occupancy rate has held steady for nine months at 95% — highest since fourth quarter of 2007 — a point where there’s little momentum to push up rents, according to apartment tracker RealFacts.

Nonetheless, rents are rising, climbing $50 a month last spring to $1,532 a month, second quarter figures released Thursday show.

“Ninety-five percent occupancy suggests market equilibrium and demand is strong,” said Sarah Bridge of RealFacts.

“When occupancy goes above 95%, it means it’s hard to find an apartment to rent and applicants needing an apartment may be willing to pay even more. If occupancy goes below 95%, rent growth starts to slow down.”

READ MORE...

Is No News Good News?

Based on the headlines from the Orange County Register, it appears Fullerton is no longer being covered unless the story fits into real estate, grocery shopping, arts/culture, special deals (like free ice cream or glasses), or other touchy-feel-good category

As President Obama says in nearly EVERY speech he gives, "Let me be clear".  News comes in all shapes and sizes and the aforementioned topics deserve a spot somewhere in our local paper.  However, when 90%+ of our paper is acompilation of stories that lack substantive content, you are missing the News. 

Here are this week's headlines (Saturday 4/2-today) in the Register:

Get free eyeglasses today

What's on sale? Your grocery deals this week

Library turns into science lab for a night

Nonprofit helps people earn a fresh start

Hillcrest Park plan moves ahead

Girls Inc. leader is honored for service

Angels ticket and train for $7 roundtrip

Police women honored for service

Represent your city

Teen builds app for Troy High

Mayor emphasizes business in State of City

O.C. teams prep for Science Olympiad finals

3 weekend dining ideas

Royce: Tea Party pressure ‘an advantage’

Only a handful might be considered substantive.  The rest are ok for fillers and the back page human interest columns but where's the real news?  Serious crimes occur daily in Fullerton and there is rarely a mention unless someone dies.  The Fullerton Police blotter is a partial list and even it paints a clearer picture of Fullerton than does the current reporting from the OC Register. 

Greenhut slaps the GOP

Sunday morning brought with the drizzle my morning paper.  On the cover of the OC Register was picture of Assemblyman Chris Norby from our own 72^nd Assembly District in Steven Greenhut’s editorial.  Interest rising, I pulled off the orange bag and read.

Clearly irritated, and rightly so, Greenhut used 976 words to pound the empty skulls of Orange County Republicans against the walls of their precious redevelopment agencies. 

Norby was the only Republican to stand up and vote against the massive municipal tax shelter known better as redevelopment agencies.  Unfortunately, the bill needed ONE MORE VOTE to pass!  No other Republican was willing to stand up in the Assembly; not one!

I read Greenhut’s editorial with the bitterness of knowing my own party dropped the ball. 

Greenhut wasted no ink getting to the point:

California Republicans love to talk about limiting government, fighting bureaucracy and keeping taxes low, but March 17 they proved that this is nothing more than a rhetorical device. Given the opportunity to rein in the size and power of government in a tangible way, Assembly Republicans – with a sole exception – punted. They rallied to save some of the most abusive and wastrel government agencies around.

You can (and should) read all of his editorial HERE.



I’m disappointed in my party.  Time and again they prove to be the party of tax and spend.  On the issue of taxation and limited government they have proven to be a toothless, all-bark-and-no-bite, organization.

OC Register Editorial: Don't blow chance to scuttle redevelopment agencies

(As the debate over dismantling California's powerful and wealthy redevelopment agencies winds down to background noise behind Japan and Libya, the OC Register's editorial staff would like to remind us that redevelopment agencies are still a very real problem.  Here is a portion of yesterday's editorial.)

The vote on Gov. Jerry Brown's plan to end redevelopment agencies was still open Tuesday, so there was still some hope that these noxious local fiefdoms can be shut down, but so far Republican Assembly members had been a major disappointment on the issue. The bill was one-vote shy of the two-thirds majority needed for passage and only Republican, Chris Norby of Fullerton, had voted "aye."

Redevelopment is the epitome of big government at the local level. There are about 400 active agencies statewide, and they routinely abuse eminent domain, run up debt without a public vote and micromanage land-use decisions in cities. Redevelopment agencies were formed in the 1940s to combat blighted urban cores, but they now function mainly to entice developers to build sales-tax-generating big-box stores and auto malls. It's corporate welfare mated with government abuses of power.

Read the rest of the editorial HERE.

OC Register: 2,000 lawsuits and claims filed against O.C. towns

Fullerton officials would be wise to read the summation by OC Register reporter Jeff Overley. 

"Regardless of whether a town has its own police department, there appeared to be a significant link between the rate of claims and a city's age, with older towns facing more legal issues, possibly from well-worn infrastructure. Coastal cities and towns with a higher median age for residents also faced a larger rate of claims." - Jeff Overley, Orange County register Staff Reporter

Fullerton is 107 years old this year and her infrastructure closely resembles her age.  Its time to get our priorities straight and fix our city.

Fullerton Brewery Named Entrepreneur of the Year for 1,200% Growth

Local brewery grows 1,200% in one year!  Ok, so maybe going from a single employee to a dozen doesn't sound as exciting but it is still great to hear about a company growing in the middle of the terrible recession.  The company is Bootleggers Brewery in Fullerton.  It has the greatest IPA I have ever had.  In fact, their wide selection of brews is by far some of the most unique and tasty concoctions you will find anywhere!

Congratulations to Aaron and Patricia Barkenhagen, owners of Bootleggers!

The OC Register's Jessica Terrell wrote an article on the brewery.  Read more about it here.
Disclosure: I was given a small tasting of some of their beers.  When I was ready to pay, I was told it was on the house.  Thanks! 

City to Bleed $14.1 Million from Redevelopment Agency As Governor's Proposed Budget Looms

An urgent meeting is scheduled for this afternoon at City Hall.  While most meetings are scheduled for 6PM or later, this one is set for 4PM, forcing many to leave work early in order to speak at the meeting.

The urgency of the council/Redevelopment Agency meeting comes after Governor Brown announced his intentions of squashing Redevelopment Agencies as component of saving money and redistributing funds to their normally allocated destinations. 

This afternoon’s Agenda has only one item (MISSING WORD ADDED BY ME):

CONSIDER APPROVING A COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FULLERTON AND THE FULLERTON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR (PARTIAL) FUNDING OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, GRAFFITI REMOVAL SERVICES, AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

In a nut shell, City Hall sees their glass house shattering and is looking to pull out as much money as possible from the Redevelopment Agency in order to install street lights in the Lemon/Truslow area, stabilize the slopes along Harbor Boulevard just below the YMCA, improve Hillcrest Park, and build a parking garage at the Fullerton Transportation Center. 

In all, the City/Redevelopment Agency is looking to move $14,100,000 from the Redevelopment agency coffers to the City of Fullerton coffers to help cover some of the upfront costs associated with these projects.

If any of those mentioned sound familiar it’s because just last Tuesday the City Council decided to ask Congress for some money to address them.

This sounds like the scheme of someone who desperately pulls out every bit of equity from their house ($14.1M from RDA’s tax increment), maxes out all of their credit cards ($29M in tax bonds) for that new sports car (town homes and condos and garages) knowing they are about to get slapped by a court-ordered judgment (governor’s proposed budget) that will surely leave them penniless.

Once again, the lack of leadership has manifested itself by the procrastination of City Hall to tackle our crumbling infrastructure.  Water-mains continue to erupt forth from our streets like Old Faithful while the ever-expanding potholes begin to resemble the Grand Canyon.  At this rate, residents will be able to sell tickets to the spectacle as our city sinks into the abyss of municipal doom.

Also in the news, the California State Controller’s Office Announced that they have selected the Placentia Redevelopment Agency among 18 agencies to be reviewed by the Controller’s Office.

“The heated debate over whether RDAs are the engines of local economic and job growth or are simply scams providing windfalls to political cronies at the expense of public services has largely been based on anecdotal evidence,” Chiang said. “As lawmakers deliberate the Governor’s proposal to close RDAs and divert those funds to local schools and public safety agencies, I believe it is important to provide factual, empirical information about how these agencies perform and what they bring to the communities they serve.”

Read more about the review at http://gregsebourn.blogspot.com/2011/01/controller-launches-review-of.html

Mayor Pro Tem Makes Sexually Suggestive Remark At Council Meeting

At Tuesday's City Council meeting (1/18/2011) Fullerton Mayor Pro Tem Don Bankhead said "Mayor, if you need any help, I would be more than happy to help you!"  At that moment Mayor Dick Jones had his arm around a Miss Fullerton contestant while the Mayor Pro Tem seemed to study the young ladies.  You can watch the exchange here.  Forward the video player to 0:20:00.

The unsavory comment, captured on the City's cable TV feed, reflects a good example of poor leadership and disgraceful public service.  Mayor Pro Tem Bankhead was first elected to the Fullerton City Council in 1988.  If he can complete this term without a sexual harassment law suit and another recall election, he will have served for 26 years.

When does a cell phone become a computer?

Reading an Orange County Register Editorial, Court hangs up on Fourth Amendment, I learned that the California Supreme Court ruled on January 3, 2011 police may search the files and data stored on the cell phones of suspects who are arrested without having to obtain a warrant. 

The Administration of Justice major in me thinks the practice is a quick way to get information to use against the suspect.  As an investigatory practice, it sounds expedient.

The Constitutionalist in me says STOP!  What's the rush? Go get a warrant. 

The editorial sums up the ruling like this:

It is archaic and short-sighted to liken cell phones to an article of clothing or a wallet; they are more akin to minicomputers, often containing extensive, intimate personal and professional data. Applications on phones store financial information, bank records and passwords, not to mention personal e-mails, photos and text messages. Giving police offers undue power to seize and peruse cell phones without a warrant is a threat to fundamental rights.

Indeed, it is archaic and short-sighted.. 

My current Blackberry has far more computing power than my home PC, which is admittedly old and outdated but still in daily use.  Like most smart-phone users, my Blackberry provides direct access to my social network accounts, multiple email accounts, confidential work files, and sensitive data.  My phone acts as a single portal into the far corners of my life.  As such, I protect my phone like I would others might protect their laptop or a fine piece of heirloom jewelry.

Often, when posting bail and being released, personal items such as the clothes of the suspect are returned to him or her.  If a phone was truly on the same level as clothing, officers might remove the battery and inspect it for physical contraband before returning it to the suspect.

The standards, though nearly the same, are different when it comes to arrest versus search and how each are carried out.  In California, the officer must have probable cause to detain or arrest someone.  The search and seizure of property, however, is a little more strict. First, only a judge may issue a warrant.  Second, before the judge can sign off on the warrant, two requirements must be met: the judge must reasonably believe (1) that a crime has been committed, and (2) that evidence of that crime is likely to be found in the place(s) described in the search warrant.¹ If the facts presented in the warrant application are convincing, the judge must sign and issue the search warrant.²

It takes a good argument supported by evidence to get a judge to sign a warrant.  This process helps create a filter against abuse and unreasonable searches and seizures.  Unfortunately, the California Supreme Court thinks that the mere arrest of a suspect, no matter the circumstances, allows for law enforcement to  dig into the arrestee's personal property which may be unrelated to the reason for their arrest. 

Imagine if a Justice of the Supreme Court were arrested, say for DUI, and their phone searched.  Would information in their phone, such as a text message to his or her spouse requesting a ride home after a few too many drinks, be used against them at trial?  Yes.  What if the Justice was married but requested a ride home from a secret lover?  Would the secret be out of the bag and would it would the information be used against the judge at trial?  Yes.  Would the Justice be more likely to think a warrant necessary for the search of his or her phone?  Yes, especially when the divorce attorneys obtained the same information used by the criminal court for the DUI from the court transcripts. 
¹California Penal Code 1525 -- Issuance; probable cause; supporting affidavits; contents of application. ("A search warrant cannot be issued but upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, naming or describing the person to be searched or searched for, and particularly describing the property, thing, or things and the place to be searched.")

²California Penal Code 1528 -- Issuance; magistrate satisfied as to grounds; formalities; command; duplicate original warrant. ("(a) If the magistrate is thereupon satisfied of the existence of the grounds of the application, or that there is probable cause to believe their existence, he or she must issue a search warrant, signed by him or her with his or her name of office, to a peace officer in his or her county, commanding him or her forthwith to search the person or place named for the property or things or person or persons specified, and to retain the property or things in his or her custody subject to order of the court as provided by [California Penal Code] Section 1536.")

OC Register: Habitat homes create Fullerton community

On a quiet, low readership Saturday, the Orange County Register posted an article, read it here, to showcase the work of Habitat for Humanity in Fullerton.  This is one of the very few times that I think the City may have used Redevelopment Agency tax-dollars in a nearly responsible manner.  In fact, I think it might have been the very best use of tax-dollars by the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency to date.

Usually the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency robs Peter to pay Paul.  More specifically, the Agency skims tax dollars that would otherwise be directed to public services such as police, fire, street maintenance, education, etc.  Then the Agency takes the fruits of their "crimes" and spends the money evicting very-low-income residents.  The Agency will then strong-arms the property owners to sell their investments to the Agency before the owners can realize the return on their investment properties, all under the threat of eminent domain and an even lower return on their now doomed investment should the case go to court. 

Once the property is in the hands of the Redevelopment Agency, the existing structures are bulldozed to make room for fewer units.  The rental costs, much less the mortgage, for these new units is usually higher than the old tenants could possibly afford.

This leads to using public funds to export very-low-income and low-income residents from Fullerton.  I suppose that is one way to deal with poverty, albeit the wrong way.

In this latest article, the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency spent $2.4 million to evict dozens of poor families, bulldoze apartments, and give the properties to Habitat for Humanity.   The math works out to $218,181 per home being funded with public money. 

But $2.4 million is a drop in the bucket.  Let's not forget two prominent events of 2010 which I think epitomizes just how irresponsible the Agency and our own City Council has acted.

In July we learned how the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency blew through $22.7 million going through the motions outlined above.  Then, realizing they needed more money to satisfy their insatiable appetite, the passed a $29 million tax bond.  

It is only a matter of time before the public employee unions realize one of the many reasons cities are cutting funding for departments is because redevelopment agencies are skimming tax revenue.  

Robin Hood and the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency's Wealth Redistribution Program

The Fullerton City Council is responsible for the redistribution of wealth within their City Hall. 

The Fullerton City Council will oversee about $300-million in expenditures for fiscal year 2010-2011.¹  One-third of the budget is allocated for Redevelopment Agency use, while the remaining 2/3, or $200-million, are for the general operation and maintenance of the City. Let’s look at that one-third or $100-million.

The City budget breaks down the source of the Redevelopment Agencies money into two areas.  First is the beginning balance rolled over from last year, which is $86.1-million.  The roll-over is from the previous year’s tax-increment (that portion of property tax revenue above what was typically collected before the establishment of the Agency’s zone), and bond revenue.  The second source of revenue is this year’s tax-increment, estimated at $16.6-million.

Those sources are very non-descript and deserve a little more attention.  Let’s look at who pays the tax-increment and why.



Fullerton Redevelopment
Project Area 3



John Smith purchased a home in 1995 and was paying the standard 1%+2% property taxes on the home until 2000, when the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency rezoned his property which was in an area designated as blighted.  At the moment the new zone was created, the property taxes on his property which were going to the local agencies were frozen.  Any INCREASE in his property taxes caused the additional revenue to be diverted from the local agency (City Hall) and into the hands of the Redevelopment Agency.  The diverted portion is the tax-increment.  This is detrimental to the overall well being of the City because it robs Peter (the police, fire, schools, and infrastructure) to pay Paul (the Redevelopment Agency). 

As if that wasn’t bad enough, it gets worse.  Let’s look at Fullerton Redevelopment Agency’s Project Area 3. This area is bounded on the North by Rolling Hills Drive, on the West by State College Blvd, on the South by Chapman Ave., and on the East by the 57 FWY and portions of Placentia Ave.  Most of the area is Cal State Fullerton property under the jurisdiction of the State, not the City of Fullerton.  That means there is no property tax collected on the State-owned portion.  There are a number of large homes which are considered blighted.  Or are they? 

I believe that nearly ALL of the homes in Project Area 3 are very nice and were only included in the zone so that the Redevelopment Agency would have a stable source of tax revenue.  Now that the project areas have been consolidated into one massive redevelopment project, it begs the question, what does the Redevelopment Agency need the money for?



Notice the homes in the north and westerly areas of this image. 

Most of these homes are in the $500,000-$1-million range and yet they

are all blighted. 



According to the Revised Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2010-11, the City Council acting as the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency will spend $2.5-million on salaries and benefits for the Agency’s seven employees.  It will also spend $13.6-million on what the budget describes as “maintenance and support”.  I wonder if that includes conferences in Las Vegas…?  The Agency will also spend $10,000 on “Operating Capital Outlay”. So far, that brings the total to $16.1-million in expenditures.  The budget breaks down the remaining funds into two categories:  current capital projects ($13.9-million) and capital projects in progress ($24.3-million).  That leaves $49.5-million in the bank.  And yet the City Council felt the dire need to use the taxpayer's credit card to pass a $29-million bond in October!  The budget doesn’t go into sufficient detail on appropriations and allocations beyond that.  To find those details, one has to search the Redevelopment Agency’s records.  Save that for another post. 

The objective outlined for Project Area 3 is simple: Cooperate with Cal State Fullerton in efforts to enhance the Arboretum and in university district planning.  So, prior to consolidation, the tax-increment collected from all of those nice homes would go to supporting an arboretum and university district planning.  I had to write that a second time to get it to sink in.  All of those home owners paying property taxes to support those two endeavors.  Many of those homes were built after the Project Area was created, meaning that all or nearly all of the property taxes collected will go to the Redevelopment Agency and NOT to police, fire, education, and infrastructure.  Now that the project areas are merged into one mega project, the property taxes collected from those nice homes in the hills are going towards funding low- to moderate-income housing programs as well as small business loans. 

What makes things worse, yes worse, is that on one hand Redevelopment Agency staff is saying we have a shortage of low-income housing and on the other hand we are pushing low-income families out of the City. 

I have written and rewritten about the Orange County Register’s story on the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency blowing $22.7-million to redistribute Fullerton wealth many times.  You can read the original OC Register story here.

In essence, the Agency evicts families from very low-income and low-income apartments, bulldozes the apartments, and rebuilds nice condos for qualified moderate-income families.  It would be much like rounding up all of Fullerton’s homeless, giving them some money, and dropping them off in another city.  It’s unethical and doesn’t actually solve the problem. 

The Fullerton Redevelopment Agency is now a lumbering beast of debt and growing power that robs from the tax payers and gives to companies specializing in redevelopment projects.  The Agency is constantly growing its sphere of influence but for what purpose?  Officially the Agency exists to remove blighted conditions. Blight exists because the City of Fullerton has long ignored the graffiti, crime, and slum conditions.  The City of Fullerton should have been citing land lords at the first sign of a violation of the municipal code.  The City of Fullerton should have maintained the streets, sidewalks, and parkways.  The Police Department should have been more proactive in preventing crime. 

Of course it’s easy to sit back and Monday night quarter back the path our elected leaders have been taking us down for years.  Determining the best path out of this mess is a little more problematic.  It will first require that our City Council realize that it is time to pull the plug on the redevelopment machine.  It will require strong leadership from people who care about the long-term wellbeing of our city and are not afraid to walk alone. 

It will help to have the support of the public employee associations which should be easily garnered since they stand to directly benefit the most from the dismantling of the Redevelopment Agency.  The Agency has been bleeding the other departments for years.

Borrowing from Lincoln, City Hall should be a government of the people, by the people, for the people.



TEXAS: Lower Taxes, Lower Government Spending, and Less Regulation

For those who point at Texas with a disapproving eye, it looks like Texas has the leg up on California in numerous ways.  From Jan Norman at the Orange County Register:

Texas’ competitive advantage over California, according to the study, is lower taxes, lower government spending and less regulation.

The study compared the two states on six broad categories:

• taxes on labor
• taxes on capital
• taxes on consumption
• overall tax environment
• regulatory environment
• government spending policies

The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a free enterprise and personal responsibility research institute. One of the study’s authors is former Californian Arthur Laffer, a supply side economist who advised President Ronald Reagan. “A comparison between Texas and California is not only valid but vital for our country,” Laffer said. “Both are large, strategically located states with strong demographics and bountiful natural resources. But California’s regulatory and tax costs, coupled with budgetary and policy instability, render it an impotent competitor when standing next to low-tax, business-friendly Texas, which levies no capital gains or income taxes to support its affordable government.”

 

Laffer is perhaps best known for advocating that lower taxes can actually increase revenues to government by encouraging economic growth.

“It’s just striking how the states with no income tax (including Texas) outperform the states with high income taxes (California’s highest personal income tax rate, 10.55% is third highest in the nation),” Laffer said.
Sally C. Pipes, president and CEO of San Francisco-based Pacific Research Institute, said, “If Californians still have trouble understanding why so many of our former neighbors have gone to Texas, this scorecard spells it out in painful detail.”

California does outperform Texas on a few measures:

• State and local property tax burden per capita: California $32.89, Texas $36.50
• Sales tax per $1,000 of personal income: California $25.62, Texas $29.47

But on most measures that the study uses, Texas comes out ahead:

• State sales tax rate: Texas 6.25%, California 8.25%
• Marginal corporate income tax rate: Texas 1% GRT, California 8.84%
• Total state and local government expenditures per capita: Texas $7,763.49, California $11,256.83
• Average annual growth in government spending: Texas 7.02%, California 7.29%
• Recession-related job loss from peak employment to July 2010: Texas, -2.3%, California, -8.7%

“The lighter regulatory burden in Texas also helps its economy flourish in comparison to California, which overloads businesses in the state with excessive costs and burdens,” the 2010 study says.

 

 

 

Public Pay Rises Despite Recession

August 31st, 2010, 4:12 pm
by Teri Sforza, Register staff writer

"In the five years between 2002 and 2007, the number of full-time equivalent employees in all state and local governments in California grew just three percent, while the cost of paying those folks grew 26 percent."

What is more amazing are the special districts like water and sanitation districts.

"How this breaks down may tell us something interesting about this government transparency thing. Stay with us here!

• State government, alone (a rather closely-watched entity), saw employees rise 2 percent, and payroll rise 23 percent, between 2002 and 2007.
• Local government, alone (less closely-watched?), saw employees rise 4 percent and payroll rise 27 percent.
• School districts, alone (a mixed-bag on how well they’re watched), also saw employees rise 3 percent and payroll rise 27 percent.
• But special districts, alone (perhaps the most unwatched governments of all), saw employees rise 14 percent, and payroll rise 40 percent."

And who runs these districts?  We, the People, though indirectly.  Often, our local city council members are appointed by their respective councils to represent their city's interests in a particular district.  It is convenient for these representatives (elected by us and appointed by fellow council members) to raise taxes disguised as fees to cover the costs of rising pensions, executive board per diem, cost of living adjustments, insurance premiums, and environmental mitigation.  These are all controlled by local districts except certain environmental requirements.  Our local elected representatives are completely responsible for the "passing along rate hikes".  They are the ones who we elect to represent our interests.  They are supposed to fight to keep rates low.  But do they?  No!  They continually raise taxes and push it off onto the end user, you and me, and call them fees.  And ultimately, when questioned, they say "we just got to recover our costs." 

Please remember that your vote in November will have a far reaching impact on your taxes, personal income, local businesses, and how your community is represented.  Think before you vote.

The Orange County Pension Law Suit Is "Radical", Says Att. Gen. Brown

In yesterday's Op-Ed, The OC Register's editorial staff said, "... his brief in opposition to the board lawsuit called it 'radical.'"  Yes, our own Attorney General will not defend tax payers.  As the OCR points out:

"What is really radical is the $3.7 billion unfunded pension gap the county faces, of which the retroactive pension spike accounts for about $100 million. Mr. Brown, supported for governor by a number of public worker unions, discounted the lavish benefits given to county workers. We'd like to hear what he would do about the runaway pension situation."

Indeed, we would all like to know his plan.  Unfortunately, his plan will surely include higher taxes.

 

OC Watchdog Has Inside Scoop On Orange County Employee Pensions

The OC Watchdog is barking up the OC pension tree and have discovered a few interesting facts.  Before we get into what they found, though, we have to put it all in the right context.  The OC Register "told the court, we will use the information for research and analysis and not just post the raw data."  Why would they tell the court that?  Why not publish the raw data?  Anyway, you might remember  a few of these folk's names, like Bob Citron and Mike Carona:

"Robert Citron, the disgraced treasurer whose risky investments led Orange County into the largest municipal bankruptcy of its time, is collecting around $148, 327 a year. That’s an increase of more than 50 percent above the $92,904 a year pension that he made when he retired in 1994 – thanks to cost of living raises."

And then there is retired OC sheriff Mike Carona who is receiving $217,457 per year while out on bail appealing his federal witness tampering conviction.

Another top OC pension earner is Blake Anderson, who came in fourth on the County's pension list:

"... former Orange County Sanitation District general manager Blake Anderson, who was forced to resign in 2005 after hiring a leadership guru at $180,000 to help the sewer agency find its corporate soul. Dharma Consulting was hired by Anderson on a no-bid contract at $15,000 a month. Anderson, who was criticized in a later audit for exceeding his authority, now lives on about $228,025 a year."

I hope the list is released in its entirety and without redacting.  I think tax payers deserve to know how much is spent on county employee pensions.  Something that we always need to keep in mind is that the people we elect today will be the bloodsucking pensioners of tomorrow.  Stop defined-contribution pension plans for ALL elected officials!

OC Register Sides With Gun Owners

"Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day," wrote Justice Samuel Alito, who was joined in the majority by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. (from the OCR)

The big question on my mind is this:  Is the right to keep and bear arms in the name of self-defense only a right of someone occupying a residence?  What about the "houseless" (a term my brother likes to use and rightfully so)?  What about business owners and workers?  Do you have to have a structure in which you you live, pay rent, or own in order to defend your self with a firearm?  I think not.

Based on the Court's ruling, I think the right to self-defense is not limited to the domicile but rather anywhere a person is.  The only exceptions that I could foresee might include public schools and buildings such as City Hall, where there is a police presence and command of security to defend the defenseless. 

The real question...when will California recognize the U.S. Constitution?

OC Register Op-Ed

Worth re-reading is the OC Register's editorial on the 4th District race from March 22, 2010 titled "Editorial: Fourth District supervisor race draws six".  Here is a sampling to wet you whistle.

"Two members of the Anaheim City Council, Harry Sidhu and Lorri Galloway, have filed their intentions to run. Mr. Sidhu said he is running to "alleviate some of burdensome regulations in the county" in an effort to help create "more makers and less takers."
Ms. Galloway says in a video on her Web site that she wants to focus on jobs and the economy, though an example she gives as a job generator is high-speed rail, a tax-funded, big-government boondoggle."

The editorial closes out with this:

"The Register's Editorial Board plans to talk more with the candidates for supervisor in the coming weeks, assessing their positions and competence for the nonpartisan job. At the very least, the next supervisor must be a staunch advocate for property rights and opposing eminent domain, for reducing the size of county government, and, most importantly, for hard-nosed pension reform."

For those who missed it, the OC Register said that "At the very least, the next supervisor must be a staunch advocate for property rights and opposing eminent domain, for reducing the size of county government, and, most importantly, for hard-nosed pension reform."  It is clear who that person will be, Shawn Nelson.  He is the only candidate who meets ALL of the Register's requirements.  June 8th is fast approaching and I smell victory!