|
|
|
Uploaded: Monday, August 3, 2009, 1:03 PM
Convention backers ready to 'reboot California'
Santa Clara County Assessor Stone backs constitutional convention, tax overhaul
|
|
by Chris Kenrick
Palo Alto Online Staff
A statewide movement for a California constitutional convention is gaining steam, backers said Friday.
Several hundred local civic leaders, including more than two dozen elected officials, gathered Friday at Advanced Micro Devices in Sunnyvale to talk about "rebooting California."
Organizers proposed a constitutional convention to "take back California" from a "crumbling infrastructure, overflowing prisons, failing schools and a dysfunctional legislature."
"We're at a very critical moment in the history of California," said Jim Wunderman, CEO of the Bay Area Council, a business-sponsored advocacy group.
"Are we going to take California forward or let it slip back into mediocrity?
"People say a constitutional convention sounds like a great leap, it's a little bit scary, we could make things worse. What I say is, if you really want to be scared about something you should be scared of the status quo," Wunderman said.
Backers said they are creating a movement fueled by small donations styled after the presidential campaign of Barack Obama.
They outlined a scenario in which randomly selected citizens reflecting California's demographics would meet to address "systemic problems." Discussion would be confined to budget, election reform, governance and the state-local fiscal relationship.
Santa Clara County Assessor Larry Stone told the group he has "reluctantly concluded" a constitutional convention is the only way to fix a state government responsive to moneyed interests and loud voices over sound public policy.
"We still have time to turn this ship around from the iceberg," Stone said, calling for a complete overhaul of the state's tax structure, education code and campaign finance laws.
"The money chase is perverting our democracy," Stone said.
While several speakers argued that Proposition 13 has wreaked havoc on the state in ways never intended, Wunderman warned against taking aim at the 1978 property-tax-cutting initiative, which remains wildly popular.
Only 17 percent of Californians want to see it changed, according to a poll taken last year by the Public Policy Institute of California, Wunderman said.
"There's a lot of opportunity to work on the system we have without having to repeal Proposition 13," he said.
Derek Cressman, western states director for the good-government group Common Cause, said a convention would be an opportunity to fix system problems in a "package deal" with fair tradeoffs rather than a piecemeal approach.
Several argued that Proposition 13 and the two-thirds requirement to pass a budget are essential protections against politicians who lack long-term fiscal discipline.
The state's budget catastrophe was self-inflicted by legislators who seized on 1990s surpluses to bind the state to unsustainable payouts, said Bob Hines of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group.
Today's "structural deficit" is driven by cost-of-living adjustments in entitlement programs and pension contributions, Hines said.
Supervisor Liz Kniss, president of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, said the initiative process has tied the hands of legislators by creating state obligations without identifying how they will be paid for.
"You can put any initiative on the ballot you want and it doesn't have to have any indication of where the money will come from," Kniss said. "Initiatives have shaped the entire state budget to the point now where (legislators) have very little control over a very small amount of money."
San Mateo County Supervisor Rich Gordon said Proposition 13 led to an unintended shift in the relationship between state and local government, creating a process in which locally raised taxes are immediately sent to Sacramento to be distributed back to the local level.
"The aggregation of power in Sacramento means local governments have less ability to do their jobs," Gordon said. "We must realign the revenue and responsibility at the local level, which is the most accessible level and the one people trust the most."
Lawyer Andrew Giacomini of the San Francisco firm Hanson Bridgett outlined the "nuts and bolts" of calling a convention in 2011, including a Sept. 25 deadline for submitting language to state Attorney General Jerry Brown before collecting 2 million signatures.
Repair California, an organization started by Wunderman, is holding "town hall" meetings similar to Friday's gathering up and down the state.
Palo Alto resident Russell Hancock, President and CEO of Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Network, hosted Friday's meeting.
"Any objective observer would have to say that what characterizes Sacramento right now is massive dysfunction," Hancock said. "Our prisons are overflowing, our education system -- once the best in the nation -- is now judged to be one of the worst. Our water supply and infrastructure are creaking and crumbling. We have a state government that doesn't have a spending plan and is issuing IOUs.
"We've sorted ourselves into highly partisan districts. You've got the loony left and the rabid right in districts that have been carefully gerrymandered to create that. So it gives us a legislature that's representing the extremes when in fact the bulk of Californians are centrist, in the middle.
"So we have a system that systemically doesn't provide true representation."
Hancock went on to describe California's initiative process as "reducing very complex subjects to bumper sticker slogans and 30-second soundbites."
"There's a way out," he concluded. "We can fix these things. The way is perfectly clear. We can write a document that serves us."
A constitutional convention proposal by State Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, has gained little traction in the legislature.
Wunderman said the legislature likely would be spurred to action if Repair California's efforts are successful.Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by Michael Seebeck, a resident of another community, on Aug 3, 2009 at 5:06 pm The problem with the Repair California movement is that the town halls they are holding are all loaded with left-leaning folks who seem either unable or unwilling to hear other viewpoints. They assume the solutions are roll back 2/3 and Prop 13 without really looking at the source of the problems (which isn't either of those).
I would encourage Repair California to offer real diversity of *views* in these meetings, not diversity of personal demographics like ethnicity. If a con-con is to happen then the best way is to have competent people on board based on how well they understand republican government and basic government operations, not based on their skin color, orientation, or other meaningless criteria which have been part of the problem in the first place.
I have offered to be one of those views. No response yet.
What say you, Common Cause and Bay Area Council? Will you truly strive to represent all Californians in this by including conservatives and libertarians, or will you only cater to the left? Your street credibility will be enhanced by the former and not the latter.
Michael Seebeck
Libertarian Party of California, At-Large
|
|
Posted by Doug Pearson, a resident of the Blossom Valley neighborhood, on Aug 3, 2009 at 5:37 pm I agree with Michael Seebeck that a successful constitutional convention must hear and understand the views of all Californians. However, in a state where about 2/3 of the people are on the liberal side of the political spectrum, I would be very disappointed if the result represented the views of the conservative/libertarian minority.
Unfortunately, as election outcomes have shown time and time again, the power of the conservative/libertarian minority far outweighs their number: They have the money and are masters of advertising.
I fear the constitutional convention but, as Jim Wunderman said, "if you really want to be scared about something you should be scared of the status quo."
|
|
Posted by curious, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Aug 3, 2009 at 5:47 pm ""The money chase is perverting our democracy," Stone said.
That's the best laugh I had all day. So Stone just wants to tell the taxpayers how much he wants for his government bureaucracy and our only choice is to say "Yes, sir. Here it is. Do you want more, master?"
These clowns have driven California into the ground even with the 'overly restrictive' rules they want to change. This state has the worst business climate in the country. It is hemorrhaging jobs and taxpayers at huge rates. Now they want to set up the system so there are no checks and balances on the big spenders in the government.
Like Margaret Thatcher said, "Socialism is a lot of fun until you run out of other people's money."
|
|
Posted by USA, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Aug 3, 2009 at 5:51 pm
USA is a member (registered user) of Mountain View Online Well put, Michael. Thank you. I welcome the input from the Libertarian party as well as those of Republican and other parties.
Diversity has been a problem in a number of areas. Liberals talk big about race and ethnicity but have defined diversity in terms of skin color. The problems are particularly acute in the Bay Area which has a large variety of skin colors but a very limited diversity of ideas.
If you ever want to watch a liberal wrap himself into a logical mobius, ask him this question -- If you have a white liberal, a black liberal, a yellow liberal, a brown liberal, and a red liberal, do you have diversity?
|
|
Posted by duh, a resident of the North Whisman neighborhood, on Aug 3, 2009 at 7:01 pm His answer would be that you have racial diversity, but not ideological diversity. Not very complicated.
It wasn't long ago -- maybe it's still the case -- that race was such a barrier for so many that "diversity" became a kind of mantra used against this social unfairness. Pretty much everybody still uses the term that way. Does USA not know this?
Here's my theory: USA does know this, but he's willing to set that aside so as to slyly lodge a personal gripe. Specifically: not enough people in the Bay Area are conservative like me. Boo hoo.
|
|
Posted by Michael Seebeck, a resident of another community, on Aug 3, 2009 at 10:14 pm The answer to USA is the more you have, diverse it gets. :)
All we're asking for is a seat at the table and a chance to be heard by the people. The true sign of intellectual honesty is to seek out opposing points of view, and the true sign of respect is have the dialogue even in disagreement. I hope these folks can live up to that standard.
|
|
Posted by Michael Seebeck, a resident of another community, on Aug 3, 2009 at 10:21 pm Doug, just because 2/3 claim to be leftist(not necessarily true, look at the voter registration demographics) doesn't mean the other 1/3 should be ignored.
And if the 2/3 truly are leftist, then ask yourself how culpable they are the mess the state is in since they're the majority? Far, far more than the other 1/3.
Yet the call is to turn solely to the ideology of that 2/3 to solve the mess they helped cause in the first place? What's the sound of banging one's head against the wall repeatedly? What's the definition of insanity?
It's clear that trying to implement the leftist vision of Utopifornia has failed. It's time to try something new, something that used to work fine, both in California and elsewhere--fiscal prudence.
Greasing the skids to get more revenue won't do the job, because there is no money left, and throwing more money at a problem of government mismanagement only makes the mismanagement worse. Big government spenders on both sides have never figured that out.
|
|
Posted by Smart Growther, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2009 at 12:00 am So we are led to believe that politicians that created this mess can fix it with a state constitutional convention that will be loaded with the special interest groups that also helped create this mess. I agree with Michael. I doubt the left leaning groups will listen. The whole thing is a waste of time and energy.
|
|
Posted by phm, a resident of the The Crossings neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2009 at 10:06 am The Bay Area Council and Leadership Silicon Valley are hardly "left-leaning." They are business groups. All the factors cited in the story, 2/3rds to pass a budget, initiatives requiring spending money with no revenue source attached, gerrymandered districts, cost-of-living adjustments to entitlements, and "the money chase" by which I believe Larry Stone means the need to constantly raise campaign funds, as well as bureaucratic inefficiencies and counterproductive tax loopholes, together led to the mess California is in. It's time to put aside ideology and past battles and look at what works.
|
|
Posted by Patio Bear, a resident of the Blossom Valley neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2009 at 11:20 am This discussion tells me that our disfunctional Legislature is merely a reflection of the populace that they represent.
|
|
Posted by USA, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2009 at 11:24 am
USA is a member (registered user) of Mountain View Online duh -- Nice try, but no. I came to the Bay Area 30 years ago, zipped through Stanford in three years, and have lived here ever since except for a few years when I went back East for graduate school in the early 90s. If I had trouble with the liberals in the area, I would have left, but I am still here. What I do have trouble with are all the people who firmly believe that they are open minded and well informed but are neither. Even worse, they are openly hostile to ideas outside of their narrow world as evidenced by your argumentum ad hominem.
|
|
Posted by USA, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2009 at 11:27 am
USA is a member (registered user) of Mountain View Online Patio Bear -- Ah, so true. While the idea of throwing it all out and starting over appears to the base emotions, I fear that such conventions would quickly dissolve into irreducible ideological arguments.
|
|
Posted by ho ho, a resident of the North Whisman neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2009 at 11:44 am USA,
I'm beginning to see your problem. Since any remark directed to you is perceived to be an ad hominem attack, your world appears to be full of people "openly hostile to ideas outside of their narrow world" -- i.e. people who disagree with you.
For everyone who disagrees with you, there's someone else nearby who agrees. Big deal.
Oh and congratulations on "zipping" through Stanford.
|
|
Posted by USA, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2009 at 1:39 pm
USA is a member (registered user) of Mountain View Online ho ho (AKA duh) - Again, it's not about me. Whatever. Hope you feel good about yourself now. Moving on.
|
|
Posted by Smart Growther, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2009 at 2:20 pm While the general tone of most business groups is pro-market, the BAC and SVLG are left leaning groups that pay little attention to small/medium business interests. Most of these leaders represent large companies and support govt regulation to reduce competition.
Take a look at the current MV chamber. Most of the leaders work for non-profits and have little experience running a business. They spend a lot of time supporting social/civic issues and little time opposing policies that make operating a business more expensive.
|
|
Posted by Jeff, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2009 at 3:34 pm Not to bring some, you know, facts, to this discussion about the leftie liberals have brought high taxes and ruination to Gullyvornia, which has driven away all the business and jobs, but California actually ranks 18th taxes as a percentage of income, and that percentage is pretty close to the average for the entire country.
Web Link
Okay, now feel free to resume the food fight.
|
|
Posted by Think Again, a resident of the North Whisman neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2009 at 5:47 pm Article 1: Give all the money to the rich.
|
|
Posted by Mike Laursen, a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2009 at 10:25 pm re: "San Mateo County Supervisor Rich Gordon said Proposition 13 led to an unintended shift in the relationship between state and local government, creating a process in which locally raised taxes are immediately sent to Sacramento to be distributed back to the local level."
That's quite an oversimplification. He's leaving out the significant role of Proposition 98 and the Serrano court decisions on school finance equality.
|
|
Posted by eric, a resident of another community, on Aug 5, 2009 at 5:30 pm USA--
I dont think that ideological diversity for diversity's sake alone in this context is useful. Quickly would boil down to a 'crossfire' style polarized debate between extreme left and right, which serves nobody. Stakeholders with different interests should be at the table, of course. Business interests with different needs and viewpoints must be represented, but the libertarian party does not (since they have never actually run anything, they have nothing to add-- I also frankly have little use for political parties in general). Tapping experts in relevant fields will provide a variety of useful viewpoints on darn near anything.
Experts not ideologues.
|
|
Posted by Mike Laursen, a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood, on Aug 6, 2009 at 11:46 am re: "Quickly would boil down to a 'crossfire' style polarized debate between extreme left and right, which serves nobody. Stakeholders with different interests should be at the table, of course. Business interests with different needs and viewpoints must be represented, but the libertarian party does not (since they have never actually run anything, they have nothing to add..."
Just want to clear up some misconceptions.
Often, libertarians get painted as being as some kind of extreme right group. I can understand how people who don't know much about libertarianism would make that mistake, but it is a mistaken impression. We're neither left nor right, although we are actually another branch of the same family tree as modern American liberalism.
I'm a small-l libertarian, and not involved in the Libertarian Party anymore. There are a lot of us non-Libertarian libertarians.
|
|
Posted by eric, a resident of another community, on Aug 6, 2009 at 8:23 pm You need to reread what I wrote- I didnt cite libertarians or Libertarians in the Crossfire reference. I said that since Libertarians have never actually run anything, they dont need a seat at the table.
'small-l libertarians' are usually Republicans in denial
|
|
Posted by Mike Laursen, a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood, on Aug 7, 2009 at 1:08 pm re: "'small-l libertarians' are usually Republicans in denial"
OK, well, you're determined to misunderstand and marginalize people like me, so, hey, have a great day.
|
|
Posted by Steve Nelson, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 10:53 am Mike Laursen is obviously a man who knows his California government. How many on this forum know the giant significance of Serrano? It is based on the CA Const. requirement of equal protection applied to kids who get public education in our state. All are suppose to get access to an equally funded education (although at $12K each (PAUSD), some are "more equal"). And the Const. amendments implemented by Prop 98 said education was enshrined by the people of CA as one of the most important state expenses (and Legislative cuts be damned).
The 1% property tax limit of Prop 13 Const. amendment, ESPECIALLY applied to residences, is broadly supported after many decades. But, is limit on reassessment of COMMERCIAL property as well supported? (it gets most benefit of the limits).
A convention to change districting, budget process, and taxation strategies is overdue. I also would favor, even as a progressive, a limitation on the "progressive" Const. initiative process H.J. and the old progressives brought to CA and the nation. 50% to change a Constitution! RIDICULOUS!!! That is surely a place where a 2/3 or even 3/4 majority is needed.
|
|
|
| |
|
Send this story
Print this story
