 |
Home | Issues & Actions | About |
Archive Page This page is available as an archive to previous versions of LandWatch websites. |
KUSP LandWatch
News
Week of August 30, 2010 to September 3, 2010
Week of August 30, 2010 to September 3, 2010
KUSP provided a brief Land Use Report on KUSP Radio from January 2003 to May 2016. Archives of past transcripts are available here.
Week of August 30, 2010 to September 3, 2010
- Monday, August 30, 2010
Ballot Propositions Ahead!
- Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Down With The Majority: Proposition 26
- Wednesday, September 1, 2010
The Opposite Approach: Proposition 25
- Thursday, September 2, 2010
Speaking Of Revenues: Proposition 21
- Friday, September 3, 2010
Where Our Dollars Go: Proposition 22
The following Land Use Reports have been presented on KUSP Radio by Gary A. Patton. The Wittwer & Parkin law firm is located in Santa Cruz, California, and practices environmental and governmental law. As part of its practice, the law firm files litigation and takes other action on behalf of its clients, which are typically private individuals, governmental agencies, environmental organizations, or community groups. Whenever the Land Use Report comments on an issue with which the Wittwer & Parkin law firm is involved on behalf of a client, Mr. Patton will make this relationship clear, as part of his commentary. Mr. Patton’s comments do not represent the views of Wittwer & Parkin, LLP, KUSP Radio, nor of any of its sponsors.
| Monday, August 30, 2010 Ballot Propositions Ahead! |
 |
This week, I’m offering a quick tour of some of the important and interesting ballot propositions that will be on the November 2nd statewide ballot. Educating ourselves ahead of time can be like a “vaccination” against the toxic political advertising that is soon to come. Let me start by establishing the governmental framework in which we are going to be asked to vote on these state ballot measures. Government has what is generally called “plenary” power in matters related to the “public health, safety, and welfare.” That means pretty much everything. Government can do almost anything it decides to do, unless that action is directly prohibited by the Constitution. Note that normally it is our elected officials who are supposed to make these governmental decisions. We’ve delegated our power to them, though we do require our representatives to follow various “processes,” as they exercise this “plenary” governmental power. Those processes always permit public participation. That participation is supposed to result in our elected officials making good decisions. When public participation is either non-existent or ineffective (both frequent occurrences), the remedies provided include the initiative, referendum, and recall. When important policy issues continue to appear in public in that format, as on November 2nd, we can deduce that basic participatory democracy is falling short. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Tuesday, August 31, 2010 Down With The Majority: Proposition 26 |
|
All of the ballot measures on the November 2nd statewide ballot are initiative measures. The one measure that the Legislature had placed on the ballot, a proposed water bond, has now been removed. Proposition 26, sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce, would change the Constitution to require a two-thirds vote for virtually any governmental action to raise money. Currently, voters can raise “general” taxes by a majority vote. “Special taxes” require two-thirds. Proposition 26 would eliminate the difference. Various fees, which can be raised on a majority vote, would be redesignated as “taxes,” and they’d then require a two-thirds vote, too. Proposition 26, in other words, would amend the California Constitution to close what the sponsors see as a “loophole” in current law, and impose a blanket two-thirds vote requirement for revenue raising measures. When the public believes that the government isn’t doing a very good job, there is a natural temptation to penalize the government, and to make it harder for the government to operate. Of course, once it is harder for the government to operate, it will be even harder for the government to accomplish what the people want, and people will like the government even less. If passed, Proposition 26 will make it more difficult for local governments to undertake planning actions that respond to public concerns. You can get arguments pro and con in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Wednesday, September 1, 2010 The Opposite Approach: Proposition 25 |
|
Proposition 26, which I talked about yesterday, would change the California Constitution to provide a “minority veto” over virtually any effort by government to raise new revenues. Proposition 25, also on the November 2nd statewide ballot, takes on this issue of the “minority veto” from exactly the opposite direction. Currently, the State Legislature cannot enact the State budget, unless the budget receives a two-thirds vote. As a practical matter, this makes it extremely difficult for the Legislature to respond to what the majority of Californians want, since a minority of Legislators can prevent the majority not only from “raising” revenue, but also from “spending” it. If the public is dissatisfied with their government (and all indications are that they are massively unhappy with the State Legislature) one good reason may be that the State Legislature can’t ever seem to accomplish anything significant. This is true in the land use and planning area, as in other areas. Since anything significant usually does require spending some money, and since a minority can currently “veto” such expenditures, the “minority” can prevent the “majority” from taking effective action. Proposition 25 is called the “On-Time Budget Act of 2010.” Check out the arguments pro and con in the transcript for today’s Land Use Report. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Thursday, September 2, 2010 Speaking Of Revenues: Proposition 21 |
|
Proposition 25 and Proposition 26 advance different visions of how our state government should work. In a way, you can consider them aimed at governmental philosophy. Proposition 25 comes down on the side of “majority rule.” Proposition 26 comes down on the side of “minority veto.” Proposition 21 really isn’t about the philosophy of government. It’s about raising money. It’s a “no bones about it” appeal to the voters to authorize an increase in their annual contributions to the State of California. This would be accomplished by imposing a new $18 per year vehicle license surcharge. As a revenue-raising measure, Proposition 21 would increase state revenues by about $500 million per year, and increase funding for state parks and wildlife conservation by about $250 million dollars per year. I’ve put a description from the State Legislative Analyst in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report. He makes it clear that this is really a “fee for service” approach. Do the taxpayers want to increase their vehicle license fee by $18 per year, in return for a new funding source that can be used only for parks and wildlife conservation, and that will allow them to get into State Parks “free” (meaning at no additional charge) from now on? From the land use perspective, it seems like a bargain! For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Friday, September 3, 2010 Where Our Dollars Go: Proposition 22 |
|
Land use and transportation are vitally connected, which means that transportation funding decisions can have major impacts on the future shape and character of our local communities. Proposition 22 on the November 2nd statewide ballot, addresses a key policy issue: where do our transportation dollars go, once they arrive in Sacramento? State finance is complex, and as the state’s fiscal crisis has deepened, monies that have traditionally been reserved for transportation-related purposes have been diverted to the state General Fund, to meet the basic needs of education, the prisons, state administration, local government support, and other state obligations. Proposition 22 is aimed at changing that. According to the State Legislative Analyst, Proposition 22 would reduce or eliminate the state’s authority (1) to use state fuel tax revenues to pay debt service on state transportation bonds; (2) to borrow or change the distribution of state fuel tax revenues; or (3) to use vehicle license fee revenues to reimburse local governments for state mandated costs. There is more information in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
Archives of past transcripts are available here
|
CONTACT 306 Capitol Street #101 PO Box 1876 Phone (831) 759-2824 Fax (831) 759-2825 |
|