LET’S REDRAW ALL CONGRESSIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT’S BOUNDARIES

There is no argument, except from some of California’s elected Congressional and Legislative members, refuting that California is in desperate need of a complete change to the procedure used to redraw political districts for Congressional and Statewide offices after each 10-year census. During the Special Election last November Ted Costa’s People’s Advocate Proposition 77 proposed redistricting of political districts for these offices be performed by three retired judges, rather than by the Legislature and the Governor. This was what was done after the 1990 election when newly elected Republican Governor Wilson refused to approve the Democrat controlled Legislator’s attempt to gerrymander the state’s political districts in their favor. The task was assigned to three retired judges who did the job, and for 10 years the state had a number of competitive elections. Unfortunately, Proposition 77 was swept up with the other Propositions on the ballot, and was defeated, along with all the rest. As a result, the gerrymandered redistricting that was performed in year 2001, wherein the Democrat and Republican legislators together carefully drew their districts such that they were safe for incumbents, was summarily approved by Governor Davis. The success of this method of assuring safe seats was demonstrated in the 2004 November election when, in 155 elective races, not a single incumbent Congressman or Legislator lost his or her seat. In August, The Sacramento Bee’s reporter Dan Walters wrote that, “Redrawing their own districts to fix elections and insulate themselves from voters whims is generally and accurately regarded to be the most cynically self-serving act that state legislators can perform.”

After the defeat of Proposition 77, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, knowing voters have a low opinion of the Legislature, stated they would like to put a redistricting measure on the November 2006 ballot. It didn’t happen. Senate Congressional Amendment SCA 3, the redistricting legislation, was devised to put the redistricting in the hands of an 11-member commission, selected by a panel of retired judges. However, during the processing of the measure the Legislators started talking about another measure to increase the length of term limits be added to the redistricting reform, and the redistricting reformed became garbled. On August 8, 2006 The Bee’s Dan Walters wrote, “Last week, Don Perata, president pro tem of the state Senate, said he wanted to delay action on redistricting, saying it would be a ‘huge mistake’ to attempt to place it on the 2006 ballot.” “Term limits, if it is done by the Legislature, will be tremendously scrutinized, so I am not looking for the fusion of the two issues at all.” And though the Senate passed a reform measure, it never got to the Assembly, nor does any other redistricting measure appear on the November 2006 ballot.

But don’t give up hope. Ted Costa, and his People’s Advocate, Inc. is alive and well. He has formed a new Coalition of 37 organizations and influential people that have signed a letter calling for redistricting reform. Ted needs help to develop another redistricting reform package, and to raise the money to qualify the measure in time for the 2008 ballot. Visit his website www.peoplesadvocate.org and www.fairdistricts.com to discover how you can help. Remember, it was Ted’s People’s Advocate that created the initiatives, raised the money, and ran the campaigns that remove former Governor Davis from office, and that put the fair redistricting initiative Proposition 77 on last year’s Special Election ballot. Ted, and his people know how to get the job done. Send help.

FLOOD RISK REDUCTION PROGRAM
Joe Sullivan

The Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) was formed in 1989 to work with the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the California State Reclamation Board to address weaknesses in Sacramento’s flood control system exposed during the dangerous flood of 1986 that nearly topped our levees. The Corps declared our flood control system was inadequate to meet the minimum requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. New maps were prepared that indicated all of the Natomas Basin and portions of Sacramento had less than a 100-year level of flood protection. The maps made flood insurance mandatory for all property owners with Federally backed mortgages in areas with less than 100-year protection.

SAFCA adopted a flood risk reduction program to provide at least 100-year level of flood protection in the Sacramento area as quickly as possible (making flood insurance optional and more affordable); to provide 200-year protection over time, decreed by all local elected officials as minimum; to ensure regular inspection of levees; and to encourage good flood plain management. The funds for the program calls for cost sharing of about 65% from the Federal government, 25% from the state, and 10% from SAFCA. The American River Flood Control District and Reclamation District 1000 are responsible for long-term care and maintenance of the levees. SAFCA’s funding is derived from assessment districts within the affected areas.

Over the 17 years since its formation, SAFCA has been instrumental in working with the Corps and the State Reclamation Board on levee upgrades and repairs, and in negotiations with the Bureau of Reclamations on the re-operation of the Folsom Dam, and its reservoir, to provide more storage space for flood control. However, they have also been bedeviled by new technical requirements dictated by the Corps that induced further changes in levee repair; and by wildly escalating construction costs, including a forced change in the design of the Folsom Dam to reduce modification costs, while enhancing its flood water handling capability. Besides these technical problems, they had been saddled for 17 years with parts of the SAFCA Act that created them. Primarily involved are Water Code requirements on bonding authority, financial statutes, and the issuing of notes to finance projects. They are endeavoring to change the associated Water Code Appendixes for clarification. And this is where the Taxpayers League comes in. In their documentation to those that are responsible for Code they were asked “Which groups follow this topic and will be interested in your request?” The answer was, “SAFCA intends to consult with Jonathan Coupal, President, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and Joe Sullivan, Executive Director, Sacramento County Taxpayers League.” I was briefed by SAFCA on October 20th, and Jon Coupal will be briefed in early November. The result of the meetings will be reported in the December Perspective.

SNEAKY ATTACKS ON PROPOSITION 218

In 1996 voters in California passed Proposition 218, the “Right to Vote on Taxes Act”, written and implemented by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. It added guidelines and voting requirements for new or increased local taxes, fees, and assessments to the state Constitution, and provides protection of the initiative process used by voters to control local taxes. Since approval, numerous attempts have been made to ignore or circumvent its legal requirements. The local attempt by the City and County to build a new arena for the Kings being the latest. In all cases involving circumvention of Proposition 218, the Jarvis organization has either been the plaintiff for, or supporter of, those opposed to the scofflaws trying to make the end-runs. In some of these cases the Taxpayers League has either filed an amicus brief in support, or has been listed on a “friend of the court” brief.

Should the City and County voters actually pass the circumvention of Proposition 218's requirement for a two-thirds vote for approval of the arena as a special tax, by the City and County’s fanciful combination of Measure R defined as a general tax, requiring only a simple majority vote to pass, backed by Measure Q, to spend half Measure R’s income for the arena, you can count on the League being a plaintiff in a challenging lawsuit, or a friend of the court supporting a Jarvis lawsuit against the City and County.

But it appears that neither organization needs to get excited. Polls indicate that this dog of an effort to circumvent Proposition 218 is going to be killed by the voters.

WATCHING THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO BLOW THE TAXPAYERS MONEY, BIG TIME !

The Taxpayers League has always been opposed to city and county elected officials acting like bankers, using Sacramento Taxpayers as guarantors of loans made to private investors, and as providers of selective tax subsidies to commercial enterprises. The examples are more than can be listed here. However, the most egregious of methods used to divert taxpayer money into questionable areas are formation of Redevelopment Agencies.

The California Community Redevelopment Act was created in 1945 to give cities and counties the authority to establish Redevelopment Agencies to address urban decay and to apply for federal funding. The Community Development Act was added to the Health and Safety code in 1951, and renamed the Community Redevelopment Law. “Redevelopment” was defined as the planning, development, re-planning, redesign, clearance, reconstruction, or rehabilitation, or any combination of these, or all or part of a survey area, and the provision of those residential, commercial, industrial, public, or other structures or spaces as may be appropriate or necessary in the interest of general welfare, including recreational and other facilities incidental or appurtenant to them. The funding for such Agencies is called “tax increment financing.” When an Agency adopts a Redevelopment Plan within its jurisdiction, it establishes a “base year” of assessed value of all property included, and all property tax increases from then on above the “base year” can be diverted to be used to accomplish the Agency Redevelopment Plan.

This Act’s Agencies have been termed “The Unknown Governments” as they are created without a vote of the citizens affected, can incur bond indebtedness without voter’s approval, and can condemn public and private property. Statewide, they have developed a massive public debt with little public awareness or oversight. The Agencies are governed by appointees of cities and counties governing members , who often appoint themselves as the Agencies Board Members. Such is the case in the County and City of Sacramento. Such Agencies are entirely separate government entities, with their own agenda, revenue, and staff.

Examples of possible misuse of redevelopment money abound. Among the latest, the City Council helped Arden Fair Mall pay for a $30 million expansion, supposedly using redevelopment money, in an area that is not blighted. Also, they absorbed a 24% increase, some $3.8 million, for renovation of the Crossroads Shopping Center into the City's public safety administrative building. Very recently, the City Council approved a yearly subsidization payment of $75,000 in redevelopment money, for five years, under an Owner Participation Agreement with new owners of the Esquire Plaza building, to preserve the yearly $275,000 paid in rent by the IMAX theater in the building. The agreement is intended to protect $6 million of redevelopment money the city gave to the Esquire Plaza’s original owners in 1998, to include the 450-seat IMAX theater and related office space in their building. Unfortunately, the IMAX has never made money, so the city stepped in to salvage the IMAX. The League believes the subsidy is illegal, as the Redevelopment Act did not appear to envision use of redevelopment money for operating expenses.

With the debacle of the Kings arena vote about to collapse on November 7th, and the City and County already trying to create a follow-on scheme to get an arena built, what odds will you give that they’ll be sniffing in every pot they own, including the redevelopment pot.

VOLUNTEERS NEEDED

The Taxpayers League has been contacted by the Galt Joint Union High School District and the North Sacramento School District for League representatives on their Bond Measure Oversight Committees. In the case of Galt, they believe a League member would be useful, based on our experiences with such Committees. A little known fact is that statewide standards now used requiring such Committees evolved from an agreement former League Director Sandy Kozlen forged during negotiations with San Juan Unified School District’s Superintendent, who sought and got our help to get their bond Measure passed. In the case North Sacramento, their Bond issue agreement had an additional requirement added, i.e., that one member must be from a taxpayer organization. Let’s help both. If any of our Members are willing to serve, please call the League office at (916) 921-5991.

LETTERS TO THE LEAGUE

We seek “Letters to the League” from Members concerning projects and issues on which we are working, along with recommendations on those we should look at. Letters may be edited and republished in any format, primarily in the interest of available space. Send letters, faxes, or e-mail to the Sacramento County Taxpayers League. Our e-mail is sactaxleague@prodigy.net; our telephone number is (916) 921-5991. Our fax number is (916) 567-1279. And our address is:
Sacramento County Taxpayers League
1804 Tribute Road, Suite 207
Sacramento, CA 95815.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS MESSAGE

Newspapers nationwide are having trouble. Readership is falling off, as are advertising revenues, and many of best known newspapers are cutting costs, reducing staffs, and changing presentation of information and features. Sometime ago we watched the demise of The Sacramento Union, and are now witnessing attempts by The Sacramento Bee to make itself more attractive. There are many reasons for these failures and changes, but in the end it is sad to watch the slow demise of newspapers.

In our business of protecting taxpayers, information is essential. For me, first and foremost have always been newspapers, as they have research and analysis capabilities far beyond the reach of we activists. Notwithstanding that the public gets virtually all its news from talking heads on TV, it’s a lazy way to find out what happened each day, without having to give the content much, if any, thought.

Daily, weekly, and monthly newspapers are different. I have always marveled that of all the products we buy, only a daily newspaper is created from scratch and marketed anew each day. And I wonder at the writers and editors tasks of covering stories during the day, preparing the text, getting it reviewed, assembling the paper's content in the evening, printing it at night, and having it bundled and distributed for delivery in the morning. I will always admire that capability. And the paper is there every morning, without appreciation for the reoccurring miracle every day.

What gains detailed knowledge is best absorbed by reading what is written., as it requires one-on-one concentration, involving only the reader and the writer of the printed word. To gain local knowledge, every morning I begin by reading The Sacramento Bee. There I depend on roughly 15 of its reporters and editorial staff, about 30 eyes, to describe local and statewide events. I miss The Sacramento Union as The Bee pulls to the left and the Union gave me about the same number of eyes pulling to the right. I compensate for loss of the Union by reading as many local weeklies and monthlies as I can. The Community News pulls hard right for me, and Inside The City holds close to center. The Rio Linda - Eleverta News serves as my eyes in the north county, and the Elk Grove Citizen are my eyes in the south. The Folsom Telegraph gives me insight into what seems to be an island in east Sacramento, and the Sacramento News and Review spills all over the county. And when it comes to the business aspects of Sacramento, I depend on The Business Journal. Taken together, they give me about 100 eyes to watch closely the myriad of things that goes on in our county, and its cities. Without them, I’d be helpless.

Joe Sullivan

<< Back to Index

Officers