I'll be on KRXA 540 AM in Monterey at 8 AM Thursday morning to discuss this and other California-related topics
As you might remember from last fall, California conservatives tend to prefer low taxes to adequate fire protection. As Northern California is ablaze - with two huge fires burning out of control in the Big Sur mountains to the south of me - attention is again focused on providing adequate fire services. And as Democrats and Arnold Schwarzenegger debate the best way to fund it, conservative Republicans continue to fight the very concept. From the San Jose Mercury News:
Hoping to buy more fire engines and helicopters, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is proposing a statewide surcharge on property insurance of $6 to $12 a year. Another lawmaker, state Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, wants to charge a $50 yearly fee on the 900,000 homeowners living in rural areas to fund fire prevention....
The new engines were recommended by a state task force after massive wildfires in Southern California in 2003 killed 24 people and burned 3,600 homes.
The governor's proposal would add a surcharge on property insurance for all commercial and residential structures statewide. In ZIP codes designated as "high-hazard zones" for earthquakes, fires or floods, the fee would be 1.4 percent, about $12.60 a household per year. In "low-hazard zones," the surcharge would be 0.75 percent, or $6.75 a year.
The main debate between Kehoe's and Arnold's proposals is who should pay for the costs of fighting fires in the urban-wilderness interface. I like that Arnold's plan would have higher rates for those in higher risk areas, but would still require all property owners to pay something. The fact is that even the brush fires are not exclusively a threat to folks who chose to live in fire-prone areas. Much of California is a fire-prone area, even the urban areas.
Greg Pettis, in his 14th year as Cathedral City Councilman, former-Mayor Pro-Tem of Cathedral City, and Candidate for the CA 80th Assembly District, has now received the endorsements from every member of the California Legislative Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Caucus in Sacramento. Pettis has widespread support in the LGBT community Nationally, State-wide, and locally because of his progressive stands on issues important to the LGBT communities: Pettis fully supports the HIV/AIDS communities, universal healthcare, a strong local economy, good local schools and responsible academic oversight, a healthy environment, equality and justice for all Californians, and mentoring other members of the LGBT community.
Although there have been reports that the California LGBT Legislative Caucus is in danger of extinction the truth is that in January 2009 it is very likely that it will be as large as ever.
The only current members of the LGBT Caucus who are not termed out are State Senators Christine Kehoe and Carole Migden. However, Migden is facing a tough primary fight which she is very likely to lose.
Here is a table showing the members of the LGBT caucus for the current legislative sessiob and a projection of what the caucus will look like after being sworn in in January 2009.
January 2007January 2009Assembly
Mark Leno (AD-13) Tom Ammiano (AD-13)
John Laird (AD-27) John Perez (AD-46)
Chris Cabaldon (AD-8)
State Senate
Christine Kehoe (SD-39) Christine Kehoe (SD-39)
Carole Migden (SD-3) Mark Leno (SD-3)
Sheila Kuehl (SD-23)
In addition, there's the possibility that Laurette Healey may win her primary to replace
Assemblymember Lloyd Levine in the 40th Assembly District and it's possible that Greg Pettis will win his primary in the 80th district (but it's unlikely he will win the general election in this Republican-leaning district).
Lite Gov. Garamendi along with some Senators (Garamendi, Steinberg, & Kehoe) are distributing a letter (PDF) to US Commerce Secretary Guttierez regarding the proposed 241 Toll Road over San Onofre state beach. The toll road was rejected 8-2 by the Coastal Commission after a marathon public comment session.
John and the Gang want the Secretary to reject the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Authority's appeal of the Coastal Commission's decision. They had some backup plans in case the Bush administration is all predictable and takes the appeal: they want another lengty public comment session in SoCal. From the letter:
We believe that you should out of hand reject the TCA's appeal. However, should you take it up, we urge you to hold a public hearing in Southern California and to extend the public comment period accordingly to ensure full opportunity for public participation. We are certain that at such a public hearing you would quickly learn that Californians consider this coastal public park a treasure and that there is broad public opposition to the Toll Road.
But, this is the Bush administration, and they are way, super into building roads that can make a profit for companies instead of the public. This might be another situation where any and all delays are a good thing in the decision-making process. We desperately need a better administration in Washington that doesn't just impulsively privatize everything.
