Birds from around the world have called it home since it was built in 1926 outside Santa Paula in Steckel Park.
Now Ventura County officials plan to demolish the Steckel Park aviary, saying it is dilapidated and would cost too much to make it an acceptable shelter for the feathered creatures.
"The county just doesn't have that kind of money now," Ventura County Supervisor Kathy Long said.
Exactly when the bird sanctuary will be torn down is unknown, said Ron Van Dyck, deputy director of the Ventura County Parks Department, which takes care of Steckel Park.
County officials plan to first find homes for the 100-plus birds now at the shelter, which is next to Highway 150, about five miles north of downtown Santa Paula. The birds include ducks and doves, parrots and parakeets, lovebirds and turkeys, and conures and cockatiels...
Once the shelter is gone, the county expects to save about $11,000 a year, money that is now spent in feeding and caring for the birds, Long said...
Back then, in the pre-Prop. 13 days, the county and other public agencies had enough funding to support not only the aviary but many other amenities, including an amphitheater at Steckel Park, Slaughter said.
"The aviary was a popular place for many years with families and children," Slaughter.
"It was almost like a small zoo."
But many public facilities across California have deteriorated since the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, Slaughter said.
Grover Norquist be praised. The only question is when--or if--voters will wake up to why we can't have nice things anymore. The sad part is that many of the families who will be upset over the closure will have voted for anti-tax Republicans like Tony Strickland because of "family values."
As anyone who hasn't been living under a rock in this state probably knows by now, California politics are at an unsustainable impasse. Californians support extending taxes to balance the budget, and in particular support making the ultra-wealthy pay their fair share. On the other hand, when phrased generally, Californians prefer budget cuts to tax increases, but oppose any specific cuts to the budget that would make the slightest impact on the state's fiscal health. Additionally and more importantly, Californians don't support a repeal of Proposition 13, which creates the need for a 2/3 supermajority in both chambers of the Legislature to actually raise taxes.
The California Republican Party, meanwhile, has just over the 1/3 in the Legislature to not only prevent revenue increases, but also to stop commonsense efforts by the Governor to place commonsense budgeting that include a mix of cuts and tax extensions on the ballot. Nor does the CRP have any incentive, electoral or otherwise, to compromise even an inch on the issue without a offering ridiculous and ever-growing list of demands in exchange for the hostage. Democrats in both the Executive and Legislative branches, whom Californians voted into office overwhelmingly against the national 2010 tide, have little power but to attempt to minimize the damage caused by unnecessary and devastating cuts. And even if a combination of redistricting and GOP unpopularity were enough to deliver 2/3 of the Legislature to Democrats in both chambers, it is probable that just enough conservative Democrats afraid of Chamber of Commerce money could be found, to vote against their Party and continue the gridlocked status quo.
But another path of lesser resistance may lie open: one that takes the confirmed desires of Californians into account while providing a permanent and sustainable solution to the budget crisis.
The solution would involve keeping the 2/3 requirement for revenue increases on all households falling below a certain prescribed income level, while moving to a simple majority vote on revenues for corporate entities (with possible small business exemptions), and all households with incomes above that level. The level itself could be open to debate but due to high cost of living in California, should probably fall on the higher end (say, around $250,000 to $300,000 per annum.) Such an initiative should be free of significant legal challenge, as the California Court of Appeals already ruled the "Millionaire Tax" Proposition 63 to be constitutional, and not a violation of the equal protection rights of the ultra-wealthy.
Californians like the idea of raising taxes on the rich and on corporations, as a way not only to balance the budget but also mitigate the growing income inequality so damaging to the fabric of society. But they don't want to see taxes raised on themselves, as they already feel nickel-and-dimed in most aspects of their lives, even as basic cost of living continues to rise. Further, any politician seeking to implement regressive taxation in a state where the bottom quintiles already pay a greater share of their incomes than the top 1% as is should probably have their head (or heart) examined. The answer to both California's budget crisis and to feckless Democrats' political woes lies neither in regressive taxation nor in continual "compromise" with those who value the well-being of John Galt over those of the sick, the elderly, the destitute and the middle class, but rather in a sustainable economic system in which investments are made in the future with equitable contributions from all levels of society, particularly those who have been most fortunate and demand the most in externalized costs from society to support their lifestyles.
A ballot initiative specifically designed to leverage Californian's basic economic populist sentiments should have the power not only to be successful at the ballot box, but also to permanently end the legislative gridlock in Sacramento in a way that reflects the actual values of the people of California.
Political analysts in California have watched the fractious internal debate at the CA GOP Convention this weekend with no small doses of trepidation and amusement. According to conventional wisdom, the CA GOP is on its last legs. "Headed off a cliff", says Calbuzz in a post dripping with the satisfaction only schadenfreude can provide:
Like a herd of wooly mammoths at the end of the Pleistocene epoch, the California Republican Party is on the verge of extinction.
It may still recover. The CRP has come back from near death before. And redistricting, alongside the top-two primary system may yet revive it. But judging from the infighting, narrow thinking and rigid ideological positioning on display at the party's organizing convention last weekend in Sacramento, the signs are not good.
As former GOP Assembly leader Bob Naylor put it succinctly Sunday morning, "It's on life support."
Perhaps. Or perhaps analysts are looking at things from the wrong perspective: one that assumes that the purpose of the GOP, at least in California, is actually to win elections. That may be a mistake.
In reality, the GOP at a national and state level exists to 1) deliver money from the poor and middle class to the rich; and 2) feed enough red meat to their prejudiced and unthinking base to garner just enough votes to continue achieving objective #1. That's pretty much it.
Right now, the GOP doesn't actually need to win any of the statewide elections in order to accomplish those goals. Winning them would be helpful, but is ultimately unnecessary. Knowing that the chances of anyone overturning Prop 13 and the 2/3 requirement on revenues are slim to none, all they need is at least 1/3 of the members of just one of the statehouse chambers. To ram through all cuts budgets and destroy faith in government, they need do nothing more.
With that in mind, it doesn't matter if the GOP wins more elections. All that matters is that they get to that magic 1/3 number in either the Senate or the Assembly, and then that all of those 1/3 + members hold the line. If they do, they ensure an all cuts budget; they ensure that Democrats take the blame; and most importantly, that California gets held up to the world as a mockery and failure of supposedly "liberal" government. There's nothing that serves Republican interests at a state and national level more than to see California fiscally collapse. That means shock doctrine, a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich, an ability to end all state labor contracts in a way Governor Walker would only dream of, and ultimately the ability to crush the belief of the People in the power of their government to do good on their behalf.
More depressingly, they don't even need 1/3 of the legislators in either chamber, as long as there are enough squishy "moderate" Democrats afraid to vote for tax increases even if the Dems do technically gain control of 2/3 in both chambers--already an unlikely event, particularly after redistricting and the change to a top-two primary. There will be likely be at least one or two Democrats eager to play the Joe Lieberman in order to shore up their "independent" or "moderate" credentials to voters.
From this perspective, the CA GOP is crazy, all right. Crazy like a fox. They don't really need more elected officials. They just need to keep the ones they have in line, and they're in good shape. The worst thing that could happen to them is that enough of their members go off the GOP reservation that a responsible budget with a balance of cuts and appropriate revenue enhancements makes it before the voters--and it passes with a majority. That would actually do far more damage to the GOP than would losing several more elections.
So count on the California Republicans to demand more purity from their members, at the expense of winning elections. It is, after all, the savvy thing for them to do.
We've all heard the classic stories about the one-light towns out there that keep the books balanced by keeping the police busy writing tickets.
We don't usually think of these rural towns as models of a transparent and progressive administration. That's why we shouldn't adopt these kinds of "gotcha" revenue-generating tactics here in San Francisco by turning our entire city into a parking trap.
Unfortunately, just this past week the San Francisco's Municipal Transit Authority announced its plans to instruct our already hard-working traffic officers to increase the number of parking tickets they issue. The revenue from parking tickets - which MTA had projected to be right around $99 million - has fallen short. So now they are setting higher quotas to raise additional revenue.
We certainly do need more revenue in San Francisco. And one of the city agencies that needs additional funding the most is the Municipal Railway. But we need to make sure this new revenue is generated in a way that is fair to all and in a fashion that takes into account a person's ability to pay.
What's wrong with the new MTA parking ticket quotas is that they are the exact opposite - they are essentially a tax lottery, with the unlucky paying more than the lucky. They are unfair, with taxpayers fortunate enough to own garages (usually the wealthier homeowners) less affected than those who do not (usually the less-wealthy renters). And at their core, they are regressive, with the very poor paying just as much as the very rich.
As Assessor-Recorder in San Francisco, my job is to make sure we have a fair property tax system. And I have not been shy about taking on some powerful players - like big banks and other politically connected institutions when I thought they were not paying what they owed. Along with a number of others I have also helped form Close the Loophole - a statewide organization dedicated to reforming Proposition 13 so that commercial property owners start to pay their fair share.
These new revenue sources have several important things in common - they take into account the ability to pay and they are assessed in a predictable fashion. Property taxes, assessed fairly, are progressive in the truest sense because the more expensive the property the higher the revenue generated. And when a person buys or transfers property, they can predict what taxes they owe.
San Francisco has been seeing a healthy debate recently about progressive values. Let's extend this debate to discussing the many problems with regressive and random revenue generation.
We already have some of the nation's most expensive tickets. And pity to the person who has his or her car towed - the fees can quickly soar to $500 and above. I have been deeply involved in the movement to fight unfair foreclosures, and I know that $500 for many families is the difference between staying in their homes and eviction.
What has crept into this debate is some sense that people are to "blame" for driving and if they get tickets, then they simply should give up their cars or be more careful.
Certainly, we do not want to tolerate violations of our parking laws. And we do want to continue to pursue a city policy that draws people out of their cars with better public transit, smarter planning and walkable and bikeable streets. But enforcement should be based on safety - not new revenue. And, we need to understand that given the state of our Municipal Railway right now, some people simply must drive.
The parent with two kids at two different schools is going to have trouble on a bicycle. People with mobility issues sometimes need to drive. And most of us know others who have no other real choice - like the janitor who reports to work at 7:00PM. These San Franciscans deserve a tax system that is fair and progressive - not a random lottery that targets them to raise revenue.
Let's certainly raise more revenue. But let's do it in a way that reflects our progressive values - with a progressive tax system.
You can make the difference in two clicks. First, sign my petition to tell City Hall to tear up the unfair ticket plan. And second, join the movement I have been leading for nearly two years called Close the Loophole and let's fix what's broken in Proposition 13 and bring real solutions to San Francisco.
(If you're in LA, check out this event! - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
Our grassroots campaign to close California’s corporate property tax loopholes and reform Prop. 13 is going strong and building incredible momentum.
We now have over 3,000 supporters from all over the state on our Facebook page, thousands of Californians have already signed our petition at www.ClosetheLoophole.com (please sign the petition if you haven’t already) and we (finally) launched our Close the Loophole Twitter page. Organizations and individuals from all over the state are lining up to join our effort.
Edit by Brian: More information on an LA event over the flip...
(I want to welcome SF Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting. In addition to being pretty good at his job, he's also an all-around good guy. Welcome to Calitics! - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
It’s time to acknowledge that the “Third Rail” culture in Sacramento has sent California seriously off track.
Most of us know that Proposition 13 – specifically the vast corporate tax loopholes it contains – is the cause for much of California’s fiscal mess. As the elected Assessor-Recorder in San Francisco, I have a vantage point that allows me to see the tremendous inequity in a law that makes many struggling homeowners pay disproportionately more in property taxes than corporations with downtown office buildings.
Many of our leaders in Sacramento privately acknowledge the flaws in Proposition 13. A small few are brave enough to step forward and call for reform.
But too many others say that this “Third Rail” of politics needs to remain untouched, so instead they offer half solutions and political smokescreen as a substitute for real reforms. Edit by Brian for space, see the flip...
The 30th anniversary of Prop 13 has brought out a raft of commentary in the state media. This commentary tends to split on whether Prop 13 benefited or hurt the state - as if there is still any doubt that it was a disaster - but it rarely examines some of the underlying assumptions of Prop 13, and even more rarely does it explore the deep inequality it has enshrined into our state.
Much of this stems from a fundamental misunderstanding about what Prop 13 was and what it did. Voters convinced themselves it was a populist revolt against rising property taxes. They believe this so fervently that they act as if they willed it into existence.
In fact Prop 13 was an extremist attack on the very practice of state government by a group of far-right activists, with property taxes used as a convenient cover. Those who voted for - and who say they would vote for it again - still seem to believe its primary purpose was to protect homeowners, when its true goal was to destroy public services by starving government of revenue - otherwise why include the 2/3 rule? Why give commercial property the same protection as homeowners?
Further, there seems to be widespread misunderstanding about the level of taxation - especially property taxation - in California. California ranks 38th in property taxes. Somehow homeowners in the 37 states ahead of us haven't been losing their homes to taxes. One consequence of Prop 13 was a shifting of taxation to sales and income taxes - sales taxes are regressive and income taxes can be volatile. Prop 13 is therefore directly responsible for California's regressive and unstable budgeting. No Prop 13, no structural revenue shortfall.
California's per pupil school spending, which was among the top 10 states in the 1960s, is now among the bottom 10. Proposition 13 alone is not responsible, but along with two major court decisions that preceded it, it helped decouple school funding from the local tax base and thus undercut voter incentives to fund education generously, as it had been in the generation after World War II. Our roads, once a national model, are an embarrassment. ...
California once had a communitarian ethic. That's been turned into a market ethic. It once did serious planning for the future. For now, that's a nearly forgotten hope.
Prop 13 helped create a "homeowner aristocracy" - where those who bought their homes before 1976 are given preferential treatment and tax shelters while everyone else has to pay market rates. Some argue that those on fixed incomes deserve protection from rising tax bills, but it is difficult to have sympathy for this when the method of protecting them - Prop 13 - has produced a generation of inequality that leaves most folks under 35 unable to ever own a home in California.
Why should some homeowners get government subsidies and others do not? Why is it that under Prop 13 we protect some homeowners at the expense of future generations? If we are to right the state's finances, provide economic security for all Californians, deal with the energy price and global warming crisis, and have a competitive 21st century economy, we need to reexamine our priorities, and be willing to move past obsolete 1970s faux populism.
It is a popular misconception that taxes add to the squeeze on the middle class. But it isn't tax increases that have squeezed the middle class, it's tax cuts. It may be hard to believe (after so many years of constant anti-tax rhetoric) but here is why.
Conventional wisdom considers it political suicide for a candidate to talk about the need to raise taxes so the state can pay its bills -- especially if it involves reforming Proposition 13.
Much of the public thinks that government "spends too much" and that much of the state's budget goes to "waste, fraud and abuse."
Last month I took the LA Times to task for framing the current budget deficit as a spending problem, and wondered why nobody at the paper seemed interested in focusing on the fact that what California has had for decades is a structural, deliberate revenue shortage.
It's pretty simple, though. Either we spend less money or we raise revenue, or both.
All things considered, our friends in Sacramento aren't going to suddenly discover the value of frugality -- unless packed schoolrooms, broken bridges and crumbling levees are your idea of satisfactory quality of life.
So that means we need to get our hands on some extra cash. And like it or not, that means taxes. That's a bad word, I know. But it's how things work in the real world.
Proposition 13 is as good a place as any to start if we want to raise some serious coin and we want to do it soon.
"It's terrible economics," said Lenny Goldberg, executive director of the California Tax Reform Assn. "We have the heaviest tax on new investment and no tax on windfall."
What he means is that Proposition 13 allows the state to reach deep into the pockets of people and businesses that buy property at market value. But it does precious little to get a piece of the action from those with long-held properties that have soared in value over the years.
I lived and worked in Santa Clara County for years, so I have a soft spot for its politics. For the last month or so, I've been following the attempt by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to levy a half-cent sales tax in order to finance new public transit . . . though that's not and can't be the official reason. The strictures of California tax law imposed by Proposition 13 and its progeny require a particularly ridiculous form of kabuki.
In which we investigate what various folks think happened to the bond measure last week.
Political Tactics
R's Rant says in part, the Republican demand that work performed under the bond be more easily contracted out, away from the union workers of the state.
Gropinator points out Schwarzenegger's failures in tactics, largely revolving around Schwarzenegger's own Republican party. (I should give credit where credit is due: much of Gropinator's analysis is based on Daniel Weintraub's analysis, without the Weintraub "Dems are cynical politicos" snark.)
Here at Calitics, Brian and our learned commenters point out that California's supermajority requirement for bonds and budgets and the Proposition 13 revenue handcuffs actually cause most of the gridlock. Schwarzenegger is not much of a leader, but Sacramento is hard to lead.
Last, Frank Russo of California Progress Report points out that the question before the legislature wasn't whether to approve the bond measure, but to let the voters approve it. The Republican's refusal to do so was essentially a minority veto.
My take on it is pretty simple. The Republicans in California want to be the party of "tear it all down" just like the national Republicans. But since they can't get a majority in the legislature, all they can be is the party of "no more progress, ever" by means of the supermajority requirements. Schwarzenegger is only a very little bit different. He's a one-man party of "no progress except through Schwarzenegger".
Last week, the Republicans in the legislature exercised their minority veto on the "except through Schwarzenegger" clause. No progress, ever. It's that simple. And honestly, though California needs the infrastructure work badly, I can't feel sorry for Schwarzenegger that his own party shot him down. After last year's abusive and expensive failed hard-right Schwarzenegger power grab, this has the scent of poetic justice for Arnold.
