Gary
Patton's Land Use Reports
|
| Past
Reports The following Land Use Reports have been presented on KUSP Radio by Gary A. Patton. Mr. Patton is “Of Counsel” to the Santa Cruz law firm of Wittwer & Parkin, LLP, which specializes in land use and environmental law. The opinions expressed by Mr. Patton are not necessarily those of Wittwer & Parkin, KUSP Radio, nor of any of its sponsors. Note: The Land Use Report utilizes links provided by other entities and cannot guarantee that they will remain available by those hosting organizations. For broken links, please search via the website of the organization mentioned. Monday, August 30, 2010 – Ballot Propositions Ahead! This week, I’m offering a quick tour of some of the important and interesting ballot propositions that will be on the November 2nd statewide ballot. Educating ourselves ahead of time can be like a “vaccination” against the toxic political advertising that is soon to come. Let me start by establishing the governmental framework in which we are going to be asked to vote on these state ballot measures. Government has what is generally called “plenary” power in matters related to the “public health, safety, and welfare.” That means pretty much everything. Government can do almost anything it decides to do, unless that action is directly prohibited by the Constitution. Note that normally it is our elected officials who are supposed to make these governmental decisions. We’ve delegated our power to them, though we do require our representatives to follow various “processes,” as they exercise this “plenary” governmental power. Those processes always permit public participation. That participation is supposed to result in our elected officials making good decisions. When public participation is either non-existent or ineffective (both frequent occurrences), the remedies provided include the initiative, referendum, and recall. When important policy issues continue to appear in public in that format, as on November 2nd, we can deduce that basic participatory democracy is falling short. More Information: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 – Down With The Majority: Proposition 26 All of the ballot measures on the November 2nd statewide ballot are initiative measures. The one measure that the Legislature had placed on the ballot, a proposed water bond, has now been removed. Proposition 26, sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce, would change the Constitution to require a two-thirds vote for virtually any governmental action to raise money. Currently, voters can raise “general” taxes by a majority vote. “Special taxes” require two-thirds. Proposition 26 would eliminate the difference. Various fees, which can be raised on a majority vote, would be redesignated as “taxes,” and they’d then require a two-thirds vote, too. Proposition 26, in other words, would amend the California Constitution to close what the sponsors see as a “loophole” in current law, and impose a blanket two‑thirds vote requirement for revenue raising measures. When the public believes that the government isn’t doing a very good job, there is a natural temptation to penalize the government, and to make it harder for the government to operate. Of course, once it is harder for the government to operate, it will be even harder for the government to accomplish what the people want, and people will like the government even less. If passed, Proposition 26 will make it more difficult for local governments to undertake planning actions that respond to public concerns. You can get arguments pro and con in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report. More Information: Wednesday, September 1, 2010 – The Opposite Approach: Proposition 25 Proposition 26, which I talked about yesterday, would change the California Constitution to provide a “minority veto” over virtually any effort by government to raise new revenues. Proposition 25, also on the November 2nd statewide ballot, takes on this issue of the “minority veto” from exactly the opposite direction. Currently, the State Legislature cannot enact the State budget, unless the budget receives a two-thirds vote. As a practical matter, this makes it extremely difficult for the Legislature to respond to what the majority of Californians want, since a minority of Legislators can prevent the majority not only from “raising” revenue, but also from “spending” it. If the public is dissatisfied with their government (and all indications are that they are massively unhappy with the State Legislature) one good reason may be that the State Legislature can’t ever seem to accomplish anything significant. This is true in the land use and planning area, as in other areas. Since anything significant usually does require spending some money, and since a minority can currently “veto” such expenditures, the “minority” can prevent the “majority” from taking effective action. Proposition 25 is called the “On-Time Budget Act of 2010.” Check out the arguments pro and con in the transcript for today’s Land Use Report. More Information: Thursday, September 2, 2010 – Speaking Of Revenues: Proposition 21 Proposition 25 and Proposition 26 advance different visions of how our state government should work. In a way, you can consider them aimed at governmental philosophy. Proposition 25 comes down on the side of “majority rule.” Proposition 26 comes down on the side of “minority veto.” Proposition 21 really isn’t about the philosophy of government. It’s about raising money. It’s a “no bones about it” appeal to the voters to authorize an increase in their annual contributions to the State of California. This would be accomplished by imposing a new $18 per year vehicle license surcharge. As a revenue-raising measure, Proposition 21 would increase state revenues by about $500 million per year, and increase funding for state parks and wildlife conservation by about $250 million dollars per year. I’ve put a description from the State Legislative Analyst in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report. He makes it clear that this is really a “fee for service” approach. Do the taxpayers want to increase their vehicle license fee by $18 per year, in return for a new funding source that can be used only for parks and wildlife conservation, and that will allow them to get into State Parks “free” (meaning at no additional charge) from now on? From the land use perspective, it seems like a bargain! More Information: Typically, most state parks charge a vehicle day-use fee that covers entry into the park and parking. Currently, this single fee is in the range of $5 to $15 per day depending on the park and the time of year. Under this measure, all California vehicles subject to the surcharge would have free vehicle admission, parking, and day-use at all units of the state parks Legislative Analyst’s Office system, including state parks currently operated by local entities, as well as to other specified state lands and wildlife areas. State parks would still be able to charge fees for camping, tours, and other activities. This measure allows up to 1 percent of the revenues deposited into the trust fund to be used for certain administrative and oversight activities, discussed further below. The remaining funds in the trust fund would be allocated each year, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to various park and wildlife conservation related programmatic purposes. Friday, September 3, 2010 – Where Our Dollars Go: Proposition 22 Land use and transportation are vitally connected, which means that transportation funding decisions can have major impacts on the future shape and character of our local communities. Proposition 22 on the November 2nd statewide ballot, addresses a key policy issue: where do our transportation dollars go, once they arrive in Sacramento? State finance is complex, and as the state’s fiscal crisis has deepened, monies that have traditionally been reserved for transportation-related purposes have been diverted to the state General Fund, to meet the basic needs of education, the prisons, state administration, local government support, and other state obligations. Proposition 22 is aimed at changing that. According to the State Legislative Analyst, Proposition 22 would reduce or eliminate the state’s authority (1) to use state fuel tax revenues to pay debt service on state transportation bonds; (2) to borrow or change the distribution of state fuel tax revenues; or (3) to use vehicle license fee revenues to reimburse local governments for state mandated costs. There is more information in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report. More Information: |