PPIC unleashed their latest statewide survey late last night, and the numbers are showing improvement for the progressive positions on a number of issues. Prop 98 is going down 37-41, and 99 is up 53-27, and both Democratic nominees are beating McCain. But for this post, I'll focus on revenue:
Nearly all Californians (94%) see the state budget situation as at least somewhat of a problem today. With the reality of state spending cuts hitting home, concern about the effects has grown dramatically. Today, 56 percent of Californians say they are very concerned about the effects of spending reductions in the governor's budget plan, up 20 points since January (36%).
The upshot is that Californians are now apparently more willing to consider tax increases as part of a solution to the budget crisis. When asked how they would most prefer to deal with the state's budget gap, 42 percent of Californians choose a mix of spending cuts and tax increases, up from 36 percent in December. And fewer seem to view spending cuts alone as an option (down from 42% in December to 30% today). Democrats and Republicans remain wide apart on budget solutions-but they have edged closer. Most significantly, Republicans today are less likely than in December to support dealing with the budget gap mostly through spending cuts (down from 61% in December to 50% today) and are more likely to support a mix of spending cuts and tax increases (up from 25% to 35%). One thing all sides can agree on? Majorities of Democrats (66%), independents (67%), and Republicans (69%) believe major changes are needed in California's budget process.
I added the emphasis there. Just 30% percent of Californians think that we should deal with our budget deficit through cuts alone, and even half of Republicans think that we should be looking at revenue increases. Yet the Republicans continue to fight for the privileges of yacht owners, or oil companies, or other large corporate interests over what is best for Californians. These numbers bear out the fact that the GOP delegation in the legislature no longer represents their constituents. They represent the Club for Growth. They represent the corpse of Howard Jarvis, but they do not represent real, hard-working Californians.
The ABC affiliate in SF did a story about one of the mobile home parks in San Rafael tripling rates after San Rafael's rent control ordinance was overturned. You can view the story here. Unsurprisingly, the landowner, Sam Zell's Equity Lifestyle immediately almost tripled the rents at the Contempo mobile home park. The decision itself is probably bad law as other courts have found rent control to be a valid exercise of a city's power, but that doesn't change the consequences for many of Contempo's residents.
If we Prop 98 passes, the advocates say, the old tenants will be grandfathered in. That's true, but only so long as they stay in the house. In addition to permanent vacancy decontrol, Prop 98 eliminates much of the protections against evictions. So, landlords can just evict long-standing tenants and rent the unit at the higher market rents and poof there goes rent control for those renters. We can see how this traumatizes a community, just for the sake of a few landlords.
As I said Monday, June will be a low turnout election. We need to make sure the progressive voters turnout to save rent control and tenant protections.
UPDATE: I neglected to include information about the case. It is MHC Financing Limited Partnership v. City of San Rafael. Apparently MHC likes to challenge rent control in California, as they also challenged the City of Santee's rent control ordinance. The Court of Appeal for the fourth district overturned a trial court decision striking down Santee's rent control ordinance. But, MHC did not give up. Nope, they sued San Rafael too, and won in the trial court. Now let's see if they can get the federal circurit court to agree with them too. If so, it would be a disaster for tenant rights.
The Yes on Prop 98 released their financial data, and not a lot of shockers in there. Guess who is financing the campaign. Really, guess, because I'll bet you will get it right.
If you guessed landlords, you get a gold star! Good job! The Yes on 98 campaign loves to talk about how it's all 'bout eminent domain, and destroying tenants rights is just a happy coincidence. It's funny how the money never lies: Prop 98 is all about ending rent control and tenants rights. Of the approximately $2.7 million raised for Yes on 98, almost $2.2 comes from landlords. 83%! A quick breakdown of where that's coming from, and you can see that the apartment and mobile home park owners really, really want to see the end of rent control:
$1,009,918 from apartment owner interests, including $291,329 from the Apartment Owners Association PAC, $183,450 from individual apartment owners and managers, $124,164 from local apartment association organizations and PACs and $410,974 from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. The Jarvis Association has long historical ties to apartment owner interests, including three current board members with direct ties to the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles.
$1,252,852 from mobile home park owner interests, including $1,006,832 from individual mobile home park owners, $204,020 from the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Issues PAC, and $42,000 from the Manufactured Housing Education Trust.
These landlord interests are betting tenants and pro-tenant voters won't bother to show up at the June primary. Heck, Jon Coupal, head of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, aka the Prop 13 people, out and out says it at one of their meetings that I found a clip of online. We have to make sure that every progressive voter in SF, LA, and the rest of the tenant-heavy communities shows up and votes on June 3 (or before by using their VBM ballot). Check about 50 seconds into the clip where he talks about the "other good thing". Yup, for conservatives, low turnout is always a good thing. We simply cannot have Prop 98 passing for a litany of reasons, many of which have been spoken here before. But, just in case, here are some links here, here, here, and here.
Finally, if you are a video person, the No on 98 campaign has a video contest with a $1,000 reward. Videos are due on March 28 (this FRIDAY!) so get them in soon.
To learn about Proposition 98's agenda, look no further than Dan Faller, President and Founder of the American Owner's Association (AOA) - the largest landlord group in California. In a nine-page essay published in the association's magazine, Faller complains heatedly about rent control, calls pro-tenant elected officials "terrorists" and "suicide bombers," compares the effort to pass Prop 98 with World War II, says that renters "choose not to provide for themselves," and - with rhetoric that channels George Bush - tells landlords: "you are either for us or against us in this fight for your freedom and property rights." We cannot dismiss Faller as just another right-wing kook, for his organization has already contributed $325,000 to the "Yes on 98" cause - and the AOA has plans to raise even more money in the coming weeks. And with voter turnout in June expected to be very low, Faller's fringe beliefs might actually become public policy in California - if we don't act now.
So, this could be some serious good time fun. The No on 98 Campaign is planning on running a little video contest, with the winner getting $1,000! The object will be to make light of some of the nasty, nasty stuff that Prop 98 will do to the state of California (like eliminate rent control) or just highlight some of the crazy shenanigans going on in the Yes on 98 campaign. And if you choose the latter, well, let's just say I'd take a look at Capitol Weekly, the Save Rent Control blog or some of the other great news sites around the state.
The goal is for YouTube videos of about a minute in length. They'll be judged by the crack Yes on 98 Video Team (a lofty group I assure you) and some great videos will be highlighted on NoProp98.org. It will be a blast, I'm sure. For full details, check out the No 98 website here.
With no presidential primary on the statewide ballot, voter turnout in June is expected to be abysmal. Which means that Proposition 98 - the extreme right-wing measure to abolish rent control, basic tenant protections, environmental regulations and water laws - could actually pass. But with term limits forcing many state legislators out of office, there will also be a number of competitive June primaries - creating the potential to drive up voter turnout in the state's more progressive pockets. If Democratic candidates for Assembly and State Senate make the defeat of Prop 98 a central part of their campaign, they could help it go down in flames. Candidates who mobilize to defeat it would also benefit - as it will help them connect more strongly with the Democratic voters in their district.
Education funding has been one of THE defining political issues of modern California. The struggle to produce equitable educational funding for all Californians consumed the state's courts and eventually its politics in the 1970s. After Prop 13 was passed in 1978, it led to a series of battles in the 1980s to stop the crippling cuts that begin to hit the state's schools, once the best-supported in the nation. The outcome was mixed - Prop 98 gave some measure of protection to school funding, but the Mello-Roos system also enabled new suburbs access to resources urban schools were denied.
These temporary stopgaps seem to have run their course. As the state budget is collapsing, Arnold has focused his attention on education funding, and plans to balance the budget on the backs of students, instead of making wealthy Californians pay their fair share. But it's worse than misplaced priorities. At the core of Arnold's education funding reforms is a Nixonian effort to cut off funding for California's needy students. Arnold's goal is to reverse the hard-won victories of an earlier generation, all in the context of hitting education with massive funding cuts to balance the budget.
Both Angelides and Westly spoke at the state convention of Education Trust-West, a group which, according to its website, is “squarely and relentlessly focused on California’s most serious problem: the huge achievement gaps separating poor students and students of color from other young Californians.”
They both agreed we need to provide additional funding for our schools. Right now, it appears that there is some sort of consensus being built around additional funding for K-12. Well, at least among Democrats. This is a good thing. Now comes the point where disagreement arises, how the hell do we pay for the additional funding? Heck, how do we even pay to get to Prop 98 levels?
