Close to Home: Reject Voting Pledges in Local Elections

in ,

A former state Assembly member once said that the biggest problem in state politics is the serious decline of independent thought by elected officials. Sacramento politicians usually toe the party line — whether Republican or Democrat — or suffer the consequences, which often includes their party finding a new candidate who will follow voting orders.

There is a similar trend in politics in the North Bay that is equally troubling. It is the growth of voting pledges or similar commitments that some special interest groups require candidates for local office to sign in order to get that group’s endorsement and funding.

Increasingly during campaigns, candidates are being asked for more than just their general views on broad topics such as education, transportation, health care, affordable housing, taxation, environmental quality or economic development.

We agree that on important issues like these, learning a candidate’s beliefs and positions is the public’s right and is an important part of the election process. How else can voters determine which candidate would best represent their own interests?

But that is not what is happening. Instead, candidates are being asked to make a firm pledge in writing or verbally as to exactly how they will vote on very specific issues if they are elected. In effect, they are being made to pre-commit their vote.

Some of the voting pledges or commitments we’ve seen insist on a candidate agreeing when elected to oppose any form of tax increase, impose so-called living wage Ordinances, walk picket lines, create district elections in cities, support labor agreements on public works projects that benefit one employer over another and make mandatory the public financing of local political campaigns. Sadly, these are only a few examples.

This is wrong. A candidate has a right to express his or her view on important issues like these and an obligation to voters to do so. But it is not right for any group or individual to demand that a candidate give a guarantee how they will vote on a specific issue in order to get a group’s funding and endorsement.

If every candidate pre-committed their vote on an issue, why would a city council or board of supervisors bother to conduct extensive studies or hold public hearings to get input on an issue? In essence, the vote by some candidates who become elected officials has already been determined before all the facts are presented — or worse yet, their vote has been promised to a special interest group. Their mind is made up or their mind has been made up for them.

Because we believe so strongly in the detrimental effects on the public when candidates sign voting pledges during campaigns, the North Coast Builders Exchange and the North Bay Leadership Council have both agreed that their organizations will not endorse or provide funding to any candidate — even ones with whom we may agree on many issues — who has signed or committed to such pledges.

We encourage local voters to take their own action. When candidates knock on your front door, ask them the following question: “Have you signed any kind of voting pledge on behalf of any group — be it business organizations, environmental groups, neighborhood associations, unions, or other special interest groups — or will you remain independent-minded if elected?”

If a candidate has signed a pledge of any kind, politely thank them for dropping by and slowly close the door. This damaging political practice must come to an end.

Greg Hurd is chairman of the North Coast Builders Exchange Political Action Committee. Cynthia Murray is CEO and president of the North Bay Leadership Council.

College and Career Readiness is Key

in

For many employers and employees, 2013 has been their best year ever.  And yet, we have others still struggling to get out of the hole of the Great Recession.  Unemployment is down but far too many cannot find work due to the mismatch of their skills and the job requirements.  The acceleration of automation and technology replacing human capital is clear.  If it is possible for a machine to do a job, then those doing that job will lose it to a machine.  And this applies to jobs beyond manufacturing, such as management, retail, services, etc.  The future of work relies on being well-trained and educated with skills matching those of the jobs being generated.  In the North Bay, attracting and retaining skilled employees is the order of the day since we are at risk.  Why?  Because companies now go where the talent is.  All of us need to ensure that the talent is here at home so we can be economically competitive, foster innovation and sustain our economic growth.  As more Baby Boomers retire, the talent shortage will increase.  NBLC is partnering on improving college and career readiness and using collective impact to achieve our goals.  We look forward to working together to develop homegrown talent in the North Bay.  Our future depends on it!

NBLC Calls for Lucas Cultural Arts Museum to be Selected by the Presidio Trust

in

NBLC supports the Lucas Cultural Arts Museum, proposed by George Lucas, to be the choice of the Presidio Trust.  The Museum is one of the three finalists for the former commissary site at the Presidio.  Mr. Lucas’ proposal includes building a $250 million Beaux-Arts-style museum that would house his $1 billion personal collection of artworks.  The proposed 93,000 square foot museum, designed by the Urban Design Group, would have five galleries filled with Lucas’ collection, including a permanent collection, traveling exhibitions from around the world and one room dedicated to cutting edge digital arts.  The building would house a theater, lecture hall, café and gift shop.  The proposal comes with a pledge of $700 million of Mr. Lucas’ own money and has been endorsed by Mayor Ed Lee.

The two competitors offer no funding nor do they have anywhere near the same level of public adoration as does Mr. Lucas and his films, notably the Star Wars Triology.  The second proposal, according to the San Francisco Business Times, is “The Bridge/Sustainability Institute from WRNS Studio and the Chora group, they would build an interactive research center for sustainable practices that would resemble a sort of modern science fair.  The last proposal is by the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy to build a ‘cultural center’ that offers cooking classes, film festivals, interactive art installations, as well as educational workshops and youth summits.”

The Lucas Cultural Arts Museum will be one of the most beautiful buildings in San Francisco and the building and the art it contains will create a magnet for visitors from around the world.  As George Lucas has graced the Bay Area with his presence and creativity for decades, bucking the trend to locate his company in southern California, it would be a travesty for his museum to not be located in San Francisco.

The decision by the Presidio Trust about which proposal to select is drawing near. Please join NBLC and other supporters in endorsing the project and advocating on its behalf to the Presidio Trust.  The Trust is taking public comments now on their website and will hold a public hearing on October 24 with the goal of selecting the final bidder by November.

It’s Time to Support Small Business Growth

in

The backbone of the California economy is small business.  In the North Bay the majority of companies are small, with six or less employees. These are the companies that start here, grow here and usually stay here.  Our Secretary of State, in charge of processing business filings is woefully behind in doing her job.  It currently takes the Secretary of State’s office over 60 calendar days and 43 business days to process the paperwork required for a business to open.  The state’s inability to process the filings in a timely manner, which has been going on for years, sends all the wrong messages to business.

The Legislature, awakening to the need for action, has rightfully passed a bill to add $2 million to the Secretary of State’s budget to cut down the length of delay.  And Assemblymember Tom Daly, has introduced a bill to set a new standard so that by November 2013, business filings must be processed in no more than 5 business days.  Let’s hope that the new Democratic super-majority continues, as Speaker John Perez says, “to take other actions to make California a more attractive place for businesses to invest and expand.”  If the Legislature can work with business more productively, we will all benefit.

The Time is Right to Modernize the California Environmental Quality Act

in

Most people would agree that if a school, hospital or road project had done extensive environmental review and met all state and local environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Air Act, that the project should be allowed to go forward without being sued for purported environmental reasons. Unfortunately, today in California, these types of projects are being delayed and facing increased costs – many times to taxpayers – or killed altogether because of abusive litigation that frequently has nothing to do with the environment.

For the past 40 years, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has served as a vital tool to protect our environment by ensuring that all proposed local development projects undergo a rigorous environmental review process and that the impacts of new projects on the environment are adequately mitigated.

However, like most tools that are 40-years old, today’s CEQA needs to be modernized to ensure that this policy is working in tandem with the myriad of other environmental laws and regulations that have been added since its inception.

North Bay Leadership Council (NBLC) is part of a broad coalition representing business, labor, schools, hospitals, clean tech, transit, affordable housing and other organizations that are pushing for moderate reforms to CEQA that will preserve its original intent – environmental protection and public disclosure – while eliminating some of the misuses of CEQA that hurt job creation, community renewal and our environment.

In the 40 years since CEQA was passed, Congress and the Legislature have adopted more than 120 laws to protect the environment including air quality, water quality, species protection, greenhouse gas reduction, responsible land-use planning and more.  However, CEQA has not received a major update in that time to take these new laws into account. As a result, many environmentally desirable projects are being held-up by abusive CEQA lawsuits – even when a project complies with all of California’s other toughest-in-the-nation environmental laws and standards.

Compliance with California’s stringent environmental standards should mean something, but instead, today in California, CEQA is being abused to stop projects that “play by the rules” and comply with all applicable standards—many times causing delays and increased taxpayer costs and sometimes even killing good projects altogether.

In fact, according to a recent analysis by the Thomas Law Group, even when a project undergoes an extensive and costly full-blown Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the project is rejected 50% of the time when a court challenge is brought under CEQA.  No public or private business can adequately plan with 50/50 chance of being stopped by a lawsuit – an effective coin toss when millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars and jobs are on the line.

Too often, CEQA lawsuits and the mere threat of litigation harm the type of local community renewal and environmentally desirable economic growth we need. For instance, Lucasfilm’s Grady Ranch project, was pulled by the proponent due to the threat of a CEQA challenge, costing Marin County hundreds of well-paying jobs and other economic benefits.

To stop this misuse, our coalition is pushing for an update of CEQA that will modernize CEQA.

Under this reform:

  • CEQA would continue to serve as the principle environmental policy to ensure that all projects are meeting federal, state, and local environmental laws, regulations and zoning and planning.
  • CEQA would continue to mandate comprehensive environmental review, disclosure and informed public debate for all environmental impacts of any proposed development.
  • State agencies, local governments and other lead agencies would continue to retain their existing authority to reject projects, or to condition project approvals and impose mitigation measures that go above and beyond the law.
  • When a project has met all required state, federal and local environmental laws, regulations, and planning, zoning and land-use requirements, a CEQA lawsuit cannot be brought to force additional requirements through the courts that go above and beyond what’s been required by the law.
  • Project opponents could still sue or challenge whether lead agencies complied with the procedural requirements of CEQA, and opponents could also sue to ensure projects mitigate significant adverse environmental impacts not subject to local, state or federal laws and regulations.

Stakeholders on all sides agree that, after 40 years, there are important improvements that can be made to CEQA. These reforms must retain the foundation of the law – public disclosure and environmental protection – while limiting misuses of the statute for reasons that have nothing to do with the environment and jeopardize economic growth and environmental leadership.

Preserve the Full Deductibility of State and Local Taxes

in ,

Russell Goldsmith’s writes “For the 141 million Americans who live and work in the nine states with the highest state and local taxes, the debate in the fiscal cliff negotiations whether to raise revenue for the federal government by raising tax rates versus limiting tax deductions is an important issue – especially regarding deductions for state and local taxes.

The way to generate more federal tax dollars should not be by limiting the deductibility of state and local taxes.

2012 The Year Of The Big Lie

in ,

2012 was a banner year for campaigns of misinformation, which is striking as many say we are living in the Age of Information.  How can people lie so boldly when there are so many ways to check the facts?  Why do so many refuse to believe the truth regardless of the science and evidence presented?

Whether it be political, health-related, science-related (global warming) or a disaster, we have experienced lies that would not quit no matter how often refuted or proven untrue.  There are reasons why people lie from narcissism, self-delusion, egomania, trying to spare others from the “hurt” of the truth, etc.  Politicians are prone to lying says Jim Taylor, Ph.D. in “Six Reasons Why Politicians Believe They Can Lie,” (Psychology Today, September 24, 2012), because, “Ultimately, politicians lie because … the cost/benefit ratio for lying is in their favor.  Politicians run this calculation when they create or shift a damaging narrative, attack an opponent, or respond to indefensible claims against them.  So politicians lie when they believe that dishonesty is the best policy for getting elected.”

In awarding Mitt Romney the award for the “2012 Lie of the Year,” Politifact pointed out in this case, the lie told about Jeep moving jobs to China, may have backfired on Romney.  Politifact said, “A flood of negative press coverage rained down on the Romney campaign, and he failed to turn the tide in Ohio, the most important state in the presidential election.”  The organization also points out how even though Jeep refuted the lie, the lie continued to pick up steam by being turned into a TV ad, which increased the outcry.  The more the pushback, however, the more Romney’s supporters held fast to the lie as it reinforced their world view.

Understanding how the mind works can be helpful in why lying works more often than not, even with the ability to easily check facts.  In “Diss Information:  Is There a Way to Stop Popular Falsehoods from Morphing into ‘Facts’?” by Carrie Arnold (Scientific American, October 4, 2012), she says, “Psychologists call this reaction belief perseverance:  maintaining your original opinions in the face of overwhelming data that contradicts your beliefs.”  Another form of this is known as confirmation bias, where people tend to screen out information that conflicts with their beliefs and believe information that is consistent with their beliefs.  Says Arnold, “Accepting a statement also requires less cognitive effort than rejecting it.  Misinformation is a human problem, not a liberal or conservative one.”

Given the decline in critical thinking coupled with the inundation of data, it is easy to see how discerning the truth is difficult for some.  Throw in the speed at which “news” travels and we can see how minds can be made up before the real facts are known.  If information is currency, let’s hope that people decide in 2013 to try to be more open-minded, not form opinions until the facts are known and embrace that in a fast-paced world, new information is continually developed that might require a different mindset.  Here’s to all of us focusing on building our critical thinking skills so we can be better citizens and community members.

BAY AREA’S ECONOMIC HOMOGENEITY SUGGESTS NEED FOR REGIONAL STRATEGY

in ,

While economic development planning done at local levels within the Bay Area is important, it may not be as productive or effective in maximizing growth and job creation as approaching the region as a single economic unit, according to a first-of-its-kind study released this week by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute, on which Cynthia Murray, NBLC’s President/CEO, serves on the Executive Committee.

Chief Economist Jon Haveman presented the study at a meeting of the regional Joint Policy Committee. The study, which was funded through a public private partnership that includes North Bay Leadership Council, finds that the Bay Area is highly interconnected economically, with a highly mobile workforce whose decisions about where to live and work may not be at all related to local economic development strategies designed to create jobs or provide housing in a particular community. Indeed, those individual strategies may be at odds with each other. According to the report, “a cooperative and coordinated approach to job creation would take into consideration the benefits to the region as a whole of job creation in a specific location, likely increasing the returns from economic development efforts throughout the entire region.”

The study also addressed the notion that Bay Area job creation has much of anything to do with companies coming here or leaving. What the study finds is that start-up companies are the biggest driver of job growth, accounting for 55 percent of job creation. Expansion by existing companies accounts for 42.6 percent of job creation, while just 2.3 percent of new jobs come from businesses moving into the area. Similarly, companies leaving the Bay Area account for just 3.7 percent of job losses, while the death of existing businesses accounts for 66 percent of job losses. This could be a lesson for those outside the region or California who think there’s much to gain from trying to recruit or lure businesses away.

The study identified high housing costs, a cacophony of state, local and regional business regulations and a shortage of qualified workers as among the biggest obstacles to job growth.

And contrary to some perceptions of growth in the Bay Area, the study finds that the rate of new home construction has slowed to a relative trickle over the past 30 years, a trend that may be the biggest culprit for the region’s high housing costs.

It’s a fascinating examination of the region’s economic dynamics, and concludes with several recommendations that a public private partnership between the business community and regional planning agencies could provide a strong platform for the development of a regional economic strategy. To read the study, visit A Regional Economic Assessment of the San Francisco Bay Area.

NBLC is pleased to have played a leadership role in getting the California Community College Student Success Act of 2012 signed into law!

in

The California Community College Student Success Act of 2012  has been signed by Governor Brown into law. The Governor’s signature puts student success at community colleges front and center and makes students, the colleges and the state all accountable for that success. This major victory for students, similar to the passage of legislation in 2010, gives us hope that despite this fiscally constrained environment, students can effectively and efficiently get through community college and be ready for the workforce.

SB 1456, the Student Success Act authored by Senator Alan Lowenthal, contains common sense reforms. Under the bill, ALL students will receive the guidance they need to be successful through required orientation and education plans. In a historic move toward equity, colleges will be required to publicly report progress of all students broken down by race and socio-economic status. And, finally, students will have to maintain satisfactory academic performance in order to be eligible for fee waivers.

NBLC looks forward to monitoring the ongoing implementation to help ensure that the process is equitable, meaningful, and prompt.

Business Coalition is Being Heard on SCS at MTC, ABAG

in ,
An Article by Bob Glover, Executive Director, BIA Bay Area
The Sustainable Communities Strategy being crafted by regional regulators to align Bay Area land-use and transportation plans with the region’s state-mandated climate protection targets was in need of a reality check.But two important developments in recent weeks signal the concerns of the region’s broad business community are being heard.On July 19, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments, the agencies responsible for the Sustainable Communities Strategy, or SCS, voted to adopt a Business Coalition-backed alternative to be studied along with the proposed SCS during California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of the proposal.

Then, on August 17, MTC announced that it would hire a private sector real estate consultant to independently assess the economic feasibility of the proposed SCS—specifically, its principle policy prescription that 80 percent of all future residential construction should be confined to Priority Development Areas, or PDAs. The PDAs, numbering about 200 across the region, are infill and other urbanized sites that have been deemed by local governments as potentially suitable for transit-oriented development. Combined, they account for approximately four percent of the region’s buildable land.

An independent assessment of the practicality and feasibility of directing 80 percent of all future investment into these areas has been a priority of the Business Coalition and was first requested back in May.

To read the rest of the story …