1269487514 Analysis: Recent California newspaper editorialsMarch 22

Long Beach Press-Telegram: "Vote no on Proposition 16"

To understand what's wrong with California's initiative process, all you need to do is look at Proposition 16 on the June 8 ballot. This outrageous measure is funded by more than $25 million from PG&E, and its sole purpose is to protect PG&E profits.

Voters must say no. If they do, it will show what's right with the initiative process - and it could discourage other corporations from spending millions on transparently self-serving initiatives that in no way serve the public interest.

Proposition 16 is a constitutional amendment that would require local governments to win the approval of two-thirds of voters before providing electricity to residents through a local utility or instituting a "community choice" program. PG&E calls it the Taxpayers right to Vote Act, arguing that, though many cities do hold elections to decide whether to get into the power business, citizens should be constitutionally guaranteed a say.

In reality, PG&E's initiative would quash any such proposal. Requiring a two-thirds majority would discourage public officials from even attempting this kind of vote, especially in the face of a massive PG&E spending blitz.

This isn't just conjecture. in Sacramento in 2006 and San Francisco in 2008, PG&E's deep pockets enabled it to defeat simple-majority ballot measures that would have allowed or expanded municipal utilities. Government

officials now know they'd have no chance against PG&E if the threshold were raised to two-thirds, allowing a small minority to block the change. PG&E is capitalizing on mistrust of government and trying to convince voters that up is down. the company's CEO, Peter Darbee, essentially admitted as much in a March 1 meeting with shareholders.

Asked why the company was sponsoring the initiative, Darbee referred to the 2006 battle in which it spent more than $11 million to prevent Davis, Woodland and West Sacramento from defecting to the Sacramento Municipal Utility District.

"So it was really a decision about could we greatly diminish this kind of activity for all going forward rather than spending $10 (million) to $15 million a year of your money to invest in this," Darbee told the shareholders. "The answer was yes."

If that wasn't proof of the cynical intent of Proposition 16, look at the state finance reports: not a single organization or person other than PG&E has contributed a penny to the campaign. PG&E has said it will spend as much as $35 million to pass the measure. the organized opposition, lacking a wealthy backer, has raised about $20,000.

If Darbee is looking for a cheaper way to hold onto his customers, here's a suggestion: instead of spending tens of millions of ratepayer dollars on political campaigns, PG&E could use that money to lower rates and find more sources of renewable energy - the main reasons cities consider breaking away in the first place.

But don't hold your breath. And don't miss the opportunity to send PG&E an unequivocal message by ignoring the barrage of misleading advertising and voting no on Proposition 16. the constitution of the state of California should not be for sale.

The Daily Breeze: "Cleaning up our coasts"

California could soon become the second state to ban smoking at state beaches, and the first to ban smoking at state parks.

South Bay beach cities have already banned smoking on their beaches, so the bill proposed by state Sen. Jenny Oropeza, D-Redondo Beach, is a logical step toward uniformity. And at parks, the ban would help to remove a wildfire risk.

The odds for the bill, which is awaiting a second approval in the Senate after amendments were made in the Assembly, look promising. the Schwarzenegger administration would have supported the beach-smoking ban last year, but Oropeza chose to pull the legislation from consideration because of resistance from the state parks department. This year, the bill would exempt state parks that could not afford signs to announce the rules to visitors. it also would not apply in parking lots and at campsites.

It also has environmental benefits. Unlike many of Oropeza's past and current legislation, this bill has been approached not as a health issue for humans, but for marine life. Her office cites the risks to marine animals posed by ingesting cigarette waste and an Environmental Protection Agency finding that cigarette butts are the most frequently found marine debris in the United States. the Ocean Conservancy concurs, saying butts are the most common piece of trash picked up at beach cleanup days nationwide.

However, from that perspective, the ban's effect, while worth cheering, would likely

be minimal. Consider the hundreds of tons of trash - 135 after just one round of January storms - washed up on our beaches after this winter's rains. much of that came from storm drains and creek beds that travel down to the beaches - not litter deposited on the shores themselves. And since Oropeza renewed her push for the bill this year, we'll renew the suggestion we made when she introduced it last year. To keep cigarette debris away from our shores and wildlife, state and local governments also need to step up anti-littering efforts everywhere.

Oropeza's bill, which would impose $100 files for violations, could play an important role, even though it won't be enough. That's obvious when you see the current state of our streets and shores despite current state littering laws that impose $1,000 fines. still, in addition to whatever incremental difference the bill could make, maybe its passage will start getting the message out about the problem and what we really need to do to keep our entire state clean.

Orange County Register: "99 days, $19 billion to go for California budget"

Lawmakers and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger passed a signpost Tuesday on the road to closing a $20-billion budget deficit. March 23 marked 100 days left until the June 30 constitutional deadline to adopt a balanced budget.

After two months, the deficit has been reduced about $1 billion, to about $19 billion. at that rate, it will take 38 months to close the spending gap, well beyond the constitutional deadline. obviously, the pace must quicken. Even more obviously, major attitude changes will be required.

To his credit, Gov. Schwarzenegger has admonished lawmakers to further reduce state spending. however, together they resorted to a fast-shuffle, gas-tax maneuver he signed Monday, technically reducing the deficit about $1 billion, but without significantly disturbing how much the government collects or spends. Gimmickry won't solve the problem.

Also to the governor's credit, he persuaded legislators to ease some Californians' tax burdens. however, extending $10,000 tax credits for home purchases and granting sales-tax exemptions to purchase "green" manufacturing equipment aren't the best way to reduce burdensome taxes.

Tax credits and exemptions reward favored taxpayers by allowing them to keep some of their own money. Effectively, Sacramento retains control, selectively rewarding government-favored industries and stimulating government-preferred behavior.

The government and Legislature's fiscal mess is a size that provides a genuine opportunity to substantially change how government operates, to the benefit of everyone, not just a favored few. A mess this big screams for solutions of comparable magnitude.

Now is the time for Gov. Schwarzenegger and the Legislature to act boldly and pare to the bone the state's activities and the state workforce and bloated bureaucracy, and reduce the size and scope of government until it fits a budget $20 billion smaller than the governor proposed in January. next, they should establish firm spending caps limiting future budget increases to the annual growth in the cost of living and state population. And they should stimulate the entire economy by reducing tax burdens for everyone.

If they can't make these obviously needed adjustments in the face of this massive budget deficit, they never will. As of today, they have 99 days left, and counting.

Sacramento Bee: "Spiked pensions can't be defended"

A fire chief in Contra Costa County who retired last year at age 51 with a final year's salary of $221,000 ended up with an annual pension of $284,000. Another Contra Costa fire chief who earned $185,000 his final year on the job, wound up with an annual pension of $241,000.

As cash strapped state and local governments struggle to pay increased retirement costs, pension spiking has become a focus of public anger.

Public employee pensions in California are based on a retiring employee's age, years of service and compensation usually the employee's final year's pay. Pension spiking occurs most often when compensation is inflated during the worker's last year on the job. it occurs regularly not just in Contra Costa County.

Loopholes in state law make pension spiking easy and legal. Efforts to curtail the practice have gone nowhere in a California Legislature dominated by lawmakers whose campaigns are bankrolled by union members who benefit from spiking.

So at the same time cash-strapped state and local governments cut vital services, lay off some workers and furlough others, they also have increased payouts to their retirement funds. most recent retirement contribution hikes have gone to backfill the billions of dollars government pension funds lost in last year's stock market crash. but spiking makes the problem worse.

Two bills, one in the state Senate and one in the Assembly, have been introduced to address spiking. For the most part, they seek to bar unusually high pay raises in the last year of a person's career that fuel higher lifetime pensions. while that will help, it's not enough.

The bills, as currently drafted, do not strictly ban the inclusion of unused administrative leave, education incentives, uniform allowances, shift differentials and other types of special payments commonly used to inflate final compensation.

A more straightforward way to stop pension spiking would be to define final compensation strictly as base pay and nothing more.

Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, author of the one of the spiking bills, says he's seeking to craft a measure that has a chance of getting through legislative committees and to the governor's desk. He sees his bill as "a good start, a step in the right direction." it is that, but frankly given the state's dire fiscal situation, the Legislature's inability to do more to address an obvious abuse is appalling.

Lawmakers are weighing truly draconian budget cuts. the governor is seeking to eliminate services that help to keep sick elderly and disabled people in their homes. College students face steep fee hikes. Class sizes are growing and transit service has been slashed. Given that and more, to allow top government officials to retire as young as age 50 with pensions fully 30 percent fatter than the salary they earned while they worked is just flat wrong.

San Francisco Chronicle: "The science of water limits"

Score one for science. A national panel waded into California's water wars and sided with salmon and smelt in a politically loaded showdown with Central Valley farmers.

The report sprinkled "scientifically justified" throughout its 64 pages, which backed up water curbs denounced by valley water agencies and farmers. the findings came with important caveats and a call for more research on the state's sickly water system. but the message is clear: It's time to negotiate water use and not look for a political knockout punch.

After three years of drought, the federal and state water pumps in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta were dialed down to nearly zero, turning fertile Central Valley acreage into dust bowls in the nation's biggest farming state. Adding to the restrictions were decisions by two federal agencies to withhold water for declining stocks of salmon, sturgeon and smelt.

Under heavy pressure to aid farms, the Obama administration this past week ordered the faucets opened, an action eased by an especially wet winter. but before that announcement, farm leaders had begged for a fresh look at the restrictions and found an ally in Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who ordered up the $750,000 study, even though previous scientific studies by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had clearly established the need to preserve water for the fish.

The findings reiterated the need for curbs on water deliveries. Laws protecting jeopardized species were properly used in safeguarding plummeting fish stocks, the study by a 15-member panel said.

But there were concessions to the ag side. the giant pumps that kill fish and ship water south aren't the only villains. Pollution, dams, damaged watersheds, and the timing and amount of water withdrawals all play a role. Even other fish such as catfish and nonnative striped bass can be harmful, the scientists said.

Agriculture doesn't deserve the exclusive blame, the report said, in a finding that should soften the sting of its overall support for limits on water deliveries. Finding a flexible answer that siphons off water with minimal environmental damage is the best answer, though striking the right balance will take "careful monitoring, adaptive management and additional analyses."

Whether this happens is one of California's biggest challenges. A polarized debate exists between environmentalists and farmers, North versus South, and coast against valley.

This year's wet weather brought a reprieve, but it won't last forever in a growing state facing climate change. the report should remind the state that simple answers and political pressure won't solve a water crisis. it will take consensus and balance. That's good science too.

Marin Independent Journal: "Simple majority vote is the loser in this power fight"

Pacific Gas & Electric argues that it is spending millions on Proposition 16 because it wants to protect taxpayers. Its real motivation, of course, is to make it extremely difficult for local governments to set up public power agencies - which would take business away from the power giant.

Marin has become ground zero for the battle over what is called Community choice Aggregation, a state law that allows local governments or agencies to get into the power business. PG&E didn't fight the law when it won state approval.

Not anymore. especially not since Marin County's government, along with San Rafael, San Anselmo, Mill Valley, Sausalito, Fairfax, Tiburon and Belvedere, formed the Marin Energy Authority. MEA plans to get into the electricity business and supply power, using PG&E's lines, that it says will be far greener than the electricity that PG&E provides.

Marin's new power agency would be the first in California to operate under the law. PG&E does not want that to happen anywhere else, which is why it is spending so much to fight MEA's efforts and even larger amounts to promote Proposition 16.

Proposition 16 would amend the state Constitution so that two-thirds voter approval would be required before public entities could use taxpayer money to provide electricity to new customers or get into the electricity business.

PG&E has pumped $28 million into the yes on 16 campaign committee.

PG&E is playing for keeps, both in promoting Proposition 16 and in fighting the Marin Energy Authority's efforts. PG&E's argument that Proposition 16 is designed to protect taxpayers by requiring a two-thirds vote on public power is absurd.

PG&E representatives tout the need for transparency when huge public dollars are at stake. What is clear is PG&E is manipulating the election system to win unfair constitutional protection for its own financial interests and its already powerful grip on a giant swath of California's utility market.

We are not opposed to the concept of voting. Let the people decide - or at least indicate how they stand on an important public policy and pocketbook issue.

The simple majority vote has fallen out of favor, unfortunately, and not just with PG&E.

MEA leaders, while fighting Proposition 16 because of the two-thirds threshold, are just as fiercely opposed to letting voters have any say on setting up a public power agency.

They have refused to hold even an advisory vote on their plans, leaving it up to county supervisors and members of each city and town council in Marin to decide whether their residents, businesses, schools and agencies would automatically be switched from PG&E and become MEA ratepayers. Customers have to "opt out" if they don't want to be switched.

The use of taxpayer money to fight PG&E's attack also is troubling.

What this boils down to is the powers that be - whether PG&E or our local governments - no longer trust a simple majority vote of the people, a concept our democracy is based on.

Voters should reject Proposition 16 on June 8. it is a brazen attempt by PG&E to protect its business interests and thwart the spirit of a state law.

Analysis: Recent California newspaper editorials

Related products:

  1. California's $1.7 million rest stops. Money well-spent?
  2. Flushing Money Down the Drain
  3. In a survey, Californians recognize the state's ongoing water shortage
  4. Ashland resident resents $5000 water bill
  5. The SunBreak | News | Flood Plain Residents Prefer FEMA's Faucet …

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Filed under: News

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!