In a classic game of political chicken this morning, Governor Schwarzenegger repeated his intention to veto most of the 700+ bills sent to him in the final days of the 2009-2010 legislative session unless the legislative leaders address California’s water crisis. The Governor has until 11:59 PM on Sunday, October 11, 2009 to sign or veto bills on his desk.
This isn't a surprise move by the the Governor. He issued his first threat in August to veto bills sent to him if there was no agreement on legislation addressing the water crisis. As usual, the Democratic leaders, including our own Senator Oropeza, chose to ignore the Governor's plea on behalf of the citizens of California, especially our Central Coast friends struggling to grow crops.
The issue, as most of you know, deals with the Delta Smelt fish that enviro-activists have decided are more worthy of survival than 24 million Californians and the state economy that depend on the waters of the San Joaquin Valley. Our pandering legislators are visited daily by lobbyists of these groups, including the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Friends of the River, California Trout, the Bay Institute and Baykeeper that have all decided that the California economy is an acceptable price to pay for the survival of a fish. And because our legislators are always in Sacramento and rarely down here in their districts, the lobbyists always seem to win the upper hand.
It appears that Governor Schwarzenegger is not ready to accept this scenario, and -is not including the fate of the Democratic-run Legislature Agenda in that price to pay. Of course, the whining by Democratic State leaders, including Assembly Speaker and State Senate President Darryl Steinberg, has begun, claiming that the Governor has a "moral obligation" to address each of the 700+ bills on his desk "on their merits".
I agree with this statement, with one caveat - the merits of each bill needs to be weighed against the priority to have it signed over dealing with the Central Valley Water Crisis. If the bill does not deal with an issue more important than the 24 million Californians affected by the water crisis, it should be vetoed.
The Governor did not say that he would veto all of the 700 plus bills sent to him, saying this morning in San Francisco that “I made it very clear to the legislators and to the leaders that if this does not get done then I will veto a lot of their legislation, a lot of their bills, so that should inspire them to go and get the job done.”
Democratic legislative leaders delayed until late in September to actually send most of the bills to the Governor that the Legislature passed earlier in the month in the final days of session, worried that he would veto many or all of them. With the October 11th deadline approaching, legislative leaders late in September finally had to send all the bills they held to the Governor, expressing optimism that the Governor would not veto those bills because of the lack of a water deal.
Last Year, the Governor threatened not to sign any bills until a budget was passed. The Governor didn’t take action on bills until the final week in September after the budget was signed. He came through on that threat, which makes it even more insane to think why the Democrats did not take him seriously this year.
But what do you think? Is the use of the veto power to get an urgent priority addressed an abuse of power, as many Democratic leaders claim?
Or is this a good example of a Governor asserting the power of the office to get a crisis addressed despite the lack of caring and attention given to it by an enviro-activist friendly legislature?
You can't please all the lobbyists all the time, I guess!
Friday, October 9, 2009
Friday, October 2, 2009
San Pedro Waterfront finally moving forward
When I attended an earlier meeting regarding the San Pedro Waterfront about 2 years ago, the attendees were a near-even mixture of supporters and opposers to the Port of LA's proposed project. Leading the charge to move the project forward, as he has been for over 10 years, was John Papadakis, co-owner of the nearby Greek restaurant Papadakis Taverna with his brother Tom that has been one of the few draws for non-locals to come to San Pedro since its opening in 1973. (Note: Papadakis Taverna & Ports o'Call were the only reasons for a former Redondo Beach kid like me to come to San Pedro. Because of these, I later learned what a fantastic place to live San Pedro truly is.)
The opposition groups were fully engaged back then, and had already convinced the meeting's panel that the speaker cards should alternate between those-for & those-against the Waterfront project. This allowed more of the opposition coalition, many who had come in late due to arriving from out-of-town, to get their comments in before locals like me and others who had made it on time.
I remember John speaking passionately & enthusiastically about the vision of the Waterfront Promenade, and as a neighborhood council member at the time, I vowed to do what I could to assist in that vision. What I soon discovered after the meeting, after both a glass of Greek beer with John and through many generational Pedrans who have welcomed my family and shared their families' legacies, was that the Waterfront Project has the support of the "true" locals, and that the moment would soon come when this project would be released from its enviro-activist chains.
That moment came on Tuesday, when over 500 local supporters filled the large gymnasium at the Boys & Girls Club to show the Harbor Board of Commissioners that San Pedro was not going to wait any longer. No more delays while another study was conducted; no more dead-end negotiations with enviro-activists who only had their alternative as acceptable; and no more fence-sitting for local politicians.
Prior to the public comment portion of the commission's consideration of the project, the Port staff presented a list of nearby every state and local politician, including Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, State Senator Lowenthal, State Senator Wright, and even State Senator Oropeza, to her credit. Councilmember Janice hahn opened the comment portion of this meeting with her support, with a caveat that Downtown San pedro be addressed first in the list of sub-projects within the overall project. Staffers from some of the supporting politicians gave representative remarks, and then former (and potentially future) City Councilmember Rudy Svorinich gave his comments about how long San Pedro has been waiting for this project. Then he asked the supporters in the room to stand....
Over 90% of the crowded audience rose to their feets and applauded each other for attending this momentious event to get this project started. John Papadakis soon followed, and I could tell he was finally starting to feel the tide shifting. He was right back then, and he was right on Tuesday. San pedro deserves this waterfront, and the community was going to accept nothing less.
Dr. Geraldine Knatz, Executive Director of the Port of Los Angeles, and her tireless staff deserve huge appreciation for their repeated late nights to address issues by local activists on all sides of proposed improvements, and for vetting every possible concern in their Proposed Project Summary that every attendee and local redicent received. Dr. Knatz and her team researched hard, objectively and passionately to help create the vision presented on Tuesday night. I can honestly say that the Port staff understand what the overwhelming majority of the San Pedro community wants to see on its waterfront.
I wish them godspeed and success in making the vision a reality, and renew my commitment to helping in any small or large way I can to keeping this project moving forward.
But what do you think? Despite the nearly 10 years it's taken to get this project past the initial EIR stage, do you think move time should have been taken? Any sound offs about how long it takes to get projects like these moving, especially in more left-leaning regions of the district?
Thoughts?
Examiner Article
The opposition groups were fully engaged back then, and had already convinced the meeting's panel that the speaker cards should alternate between those-for & those-against the Waterfront project. This allowed more of the opposition coalition, many who had come in late due to arriving from out-of-town, to get their comments in before locals like me and others who had made it on time.
I remember John speaking passionately & enthusiastically about the vision of the Waterfront Promenade, and as a neighborhood council member at the time, I vowed to do what I could to assist in that vision. What I soon discovered after the meeting, after both a glass of Greek beer with John and through many generational Pedrans who have welcomed my family and shared their families' legacies, was that the Waterfront Project has the support of the "true" locals, and that the moment would soon come when this project would be released from its enviro-activist chains.
That moment came on Tuesday, when over 500 local supporters filled the large gymnasium at the Boys & Girls Club to show the Harbor Board of Commissioners that San Pedro was not going to wait any longer. No more delays while another study was conducted; no more dead-end negotiations with enviro-activists who only had their alternative as acceptable; and no more fence-sitting for local politicians.
Prior to the public comment portion of the commission's consideration of the project, the Port staff presented a list of nearby every state and local politician, including Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, State Senator Lowenthal, State Senator Wright, and even State Senator Oropeza, to her credit. Councilmember Janice hahn opened the comment portion of this meeting with her support, with a caveat that Downtown San pedro be addressed first in the list of sub-projects within the overall project. Staffers from some of the supporting politicians gave representative remarks, and then former (and potentially future) City Councilmember Rudy Svorinich gave his comments about how long San Pedro has been waiting for this project. Then he asked the supporters in the room to stand....
Over 90% of the crowded audience rose to their feets and applauded each other for attending this momentious event to get this project started. John Papadakis soon followed, and I could tell he was finally starting to feel the tide shifting. He was right back then, and he was right on Tuesday. San pedro deserves this waterfront, and the community was going to accept nothing less.
Dr. Geraldine Knatz, Executive Director of the Port of Los Angeles, and her tireless staff deserve huge appreciation for their repeated late nights to address issues by local activists on all sides of proposed improvements, and for vetting every possible concern in their Proposed Project Summary that every attendee and local redicent received. Dr. Knatz and her team researched hard, objectively and passionately to help create the vision presented on Tuesday night. I can honestly say that the Port staff understand what the overwhelming majority of the San Pedro community wants to see on its waterfront.
I wish them godspeed and success in making the vision a reality, and renew my commitment to helping in any small or large way I can to keeping this project moving forward.
But what do you think? Despite the nearly 10 years it's taken to get this project past the initial EIR stage, do you think move time should have been taken? Any sound offs about how long it takes to get projects like these moving, especially in more left-leaning regions of the district?
Thoughts?
Examiner Article
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Legislative Update: Job-Killer Bill SB 104 goes to the Governor
Senator Oropeza continues to validate her title as one of our states worst job-killers by ramming her own Senate Bill 104 through the State Senate that would "regulate" nitrogen trifluoride, or NF3, as contributor to global warming.It has now passed the Assembly on a pure "special interest" / "party line" vote and is now on the governor's desk.
NF3 is an essential gas used to manufacture TVs, solar panels, microprocessors and other high-tech products, which are critical manufacturing jobs in both the Silicon Valley and the South Bay. But because a 2008 UC Irvine study found it far more harmful for the environment than carbon dioxide (you know, that harmful gas that all plant life on earth rely on), several environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, have been pushing for Oropeza's bill.
Even with significant special interest bullying, two Democratic senators (Correa & Wright) broke away from the Oropeza-led Democratic Caucus and voted against this harmful bill. The bill still squeaked by with the bare minimum 21 votes it needed to pass in the State Senate, and now sits on the Governor's desk. Governor Schwarzeneggar has 30 days to sign the bill or veto it.
For the benefit of the many employers of California high-tech industry, I pray the Governor will veto this bill and realize that this is exactly the kind of legislation that is sending our well-paying high-tech jobs to Texas and Colorado.
Personally, I'm surprised that the Green Jobs lobbying groups are not recognizing the blow this will be to the solar panel manufacturing industry. We can only have so many windmill jobs to go around!
NF3 is an essential gas used to manufacture TVs, solar panels, microprocessors and other high-tech products, which are critical manufacturing jobs in both the Silicon Valley and the South Bay. But because a 2008 UC Irvine study found it far more harmful for the environment than carbon dioxide (you know, that harmful gas that all plant life on earth rely on), several environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, have been pushing for Oropeza's bill.
Even with significant special interest bullying, two Democratic senators (Correa & Wright) broke away from the Oropeza-led Democratic Caucus and voted against this harmful bill. The bill still squeaked by with the bare minimum 21 votes it needed to pass in the State Senate, and now sits on the Governor's desk. Governor Schwarzeneggar has 30 days to sign the bill or veto it.
For the benefit of the many employers of California high-tech industry, I pray the Governor will veto this bill and realize that this is exactly the kind of legislation that is sending our well-paying high-tech jobs to Texas and Colorado.
Personally, I'm surprised that the Green Jobs lobbying groups are not recognizing the blow this will be to the solar panel manufacturing industry. We can only have so many windmill jobs to go around!
Rocky Point: Will choking Redondo Beach really help a fish?
It appears that the California Central Valley is not the only part of the state where the well-being of a fish species threatens to choke a local (and a portion of the state) economy. Much news has come to light regarding the Delta Smelt issue and its impact on farmers throughout our state. The issue pits environmentalists concerned about the prosperity of a fish species against the state’s agriculture economy and the survival of hundreds of California farmers & produce workers.
But did you know that the South Bay of Southern California has its own “Delta Smelt” issue?
For the South Bay, the issue is the Calico Bass in the portion of the coast known as “Rocky Point”. Rocky Point is roughly located west of Lunada Bay along the Palos Verdes Peninsula, and is heavily relied upon by Redondo Beach, as well as San Pedro (Cabrillo) and Marina Del Rey somewhat, for the viability of the South Bay’s sportfishing industry.
A “Blue Ribbon Task Force” was set up under the California Fish and Game Commission to make specific recommendations to demarcate a network of marine protected areas – underwater parks, essentially, where fishing will be either restricted or outright banned – up and down the coast of the state. It is being drawn under the dictates of a state law called the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) that was enacted a decade ago but is only now being implemented.
According to the local press, Easy Reader, on September 3rd, the task force is looking long and hard at Rocky Point, and the local fishermen, Redondo Beach business owners, local elected officials, and environmental activists have made Rocky Point one of the hardest-fought battlegrounds in the MLPA process.
I personally discussed this issue with John DeVore, owner of Redondo Sportfishing, and Leslie Page, Property Manager of the Redondo Beach Marina. Both have stated in no uncertain terms that the loss of Rocky Point as a fishery would economically decimate Redondo Beach’s King Harbor, which is one of the few remaining “small-boat” harbors. Though the other South Bay marina’s listed earlier would feel a significant impact with the closure of Rocky Point, no South Bay city stands to lose more of its hard-earned economic viability than my birth-town of Redondo Beach.
According to the local press, Easy Reader, on September 3rd, the task force is looking long and hard at Rocky Point, and the local fishermen, Redondo Beach business owners, local elected officials, and environmental activists have made Rocky Point one of the hardest-fought battlegrounds in the MLPA process.
I personally discussed this issue with John DeVore, owner of Redondo Sportfishing, and Leslie Page, Property Manager of the Redondo Beach Marina. Both have stated in no uncertain terms that the loss of Rocky Point as a fishery would economically decimate Redondo Beach’s King Harbor, which is one of the few remaining “small-boat” harbors. Though the other South Bay marina’s listed earlier would feel a significant impact with the closure of Rocky Point, no South Bay city stands to lose more of its hard-earned economic viability than my birth-town of Redondo Beach.
Tom Ford, executive director of Santa Monica Baykeeper, has compared Rocky Point to Yosemite. “It’s of that caliber, absolutely,” Ford said. “And for folks that recreate or hunt underwater, they have seen the splendor that exists under the surface in that location. It is dramatic. It is striking, and equivalent to the experience a hiker has walking around inside Yosemite Valley.” What Mr. Ford does not point out is the economic differences between preserving Yosemite, which has actually boosted the tourism in neighboring towns like Oakhurst and Maricopa, and literally closing Yosemite to every visitor.
How well would the California towns surrounding Yosemite fair if the national park was totally closed to ALL visitors?
I believe this is the more appropriate analogy to closing Rocky Point to sportfishing. Yosemite is an attraction that does much more for both the nation and the state economically by practicing conservation & preservation, as well as limiting hunting in its boundaries as a safety measure for tourists and in the tourists seeing more wildlife during their drive or hike through it. The primary benefit of Rocky Point is the sportfishing attraction, and no single group has a more vested interest in the continued reproductive success of the Calico Bass than the sportfishing industry. The local sportfishing businesses practice a strict tradition of catch-and-releasing larger fish that tend to be the breeder fish. They keep a vigilant watch on the area to report any commercial fishermen violating the area (commercial fishing is illegal in the Rocky Point area). Most importantly, generations of young area students have learned about the importance of the ocean and its need to be clean & free of toxic dumping and litter through excursions with the Redondo Beach sportfishing businesses.
The complete article from the Easy Reader on this issue can be found at this link.
I encourage every South Bay resident and others throughout Los Angeles County, to read the article and weigh in with their opinions about Rocky Point. As the next South Bay State Senator, I will listen to my local residents and businesses, like Leslie Page, John Devore and the Redondo Beach local elected about issues like these and fight special interest groups that are willing to strangle the economic survivability of the South Bay cities that I will have the honor of representing.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Flexible Work Schedule AB 2127 Rejected in 2008
Even though this was part of last year's agenda, this topic is a good start for this forum because many corporations throughout the South Bay, including just recently Northrop Grumman, have instituted flexible work schedules such as telecommuting opportunities and "9 / 80" work plans. Many large corporations have not only seen a reduction in sick days and an increase in employee morale, but significant savings in energy costs as facilities are able to reduce their electrical loads on days with fewer employees on site.
In 2008, the California Chamber of Commerce-sponsored legislation to allow individual employees flexibility in work schedules that could help accommodate diverse family obligations, as well as commuting issues and other personal needs. Even with the overwhelming support of employers, employees and sponsorship from 43 local chambers of commerce, including many in the South Bay, the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee rejected AB 2127 (Benoit; R-Bermuda Dunes) on a party line vote of 2-6.
AB 2127 would have allowed a small employer (25 or fewer employees) to agree to an employee’s request to work an alternative work schedule. The bill applied specifically to small businesses that are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement. According to small businesses, employees and local chambers of commerce, the Small Business Family Scheduling Option would have added a much-needed boost for employers struggling to recruit and maintain qualified employees in a shrinking pool of candidates.
“California needs a law that will permit four-day workweeks for individual workers,” said Marc Burgat, CalChamber vice president of government relations. “AB 2127 is good for workers, good for the environment and good public policy. Permitting individual scheduling flexibility is one way small businesses owners can help employees strike a balance between work and personal responsibilities. This bill has the added benefit of helping our environment by eliminating one commute trip per week for each employee who is working the compressed schedule.”
Current law prevents small businesses from offering this option. In addition to benefits for the employers, employees looking to pursue higher education or spend more time with families would see instant opportunity under this type of legislation.
I am not only an adamant believer in this practice; I am a beneficiary of it myself. My current employer offers both the opportunity to telecommute and the opportunity to select a 9 / 80 work schedule, meaning that in exchange for working 9 hours per day instead of 8 hours per day, I am able to reach my 80th hour one day faster and take the 10th day (the "9/80 Friday") off. This summer, I used this alternate Friday every two weeks to join my wife & daughters at the South Coast Botanical Gardens for their children's program. I was so blessed to have that time with my kids, and believe we can build stronger families by giving working parents more time like this with their children.
AB 2127 would have provided an added incentive to offer employees as a way of improving productivity and reducing absenteeism. It's a benefit other states, including Nevada & Texas, permit their small businesses to offer. So why not allow California businesses to offer it?
One interesting fact we should point out in this discussion is the furloughing of state employees on three of four Fridays every month; how does this relate? Ask yourself whether you have noticed any reduction in service at the DMV or other state service offices? Despite the loss in pay, I would be interested to learn from state employees, who are willing to speak independent of the SEIU's talking points, whether they have benefited from more family time and time to run errands they could not during regualar work hours.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts about Flexible Work Schedules and whether I should work to make these a reality for small businesses when I become your next State Senator.
I currently believe so. Let's hear your thoughts.
In 2008, the California Chamber of Commerce-sponsored legislation to allow individual employees flexibility in work schedules that could help accommodate diverse family obligations, as well as commuting issues and other personal needs. Even with the overwhelming support of employers, employees and sponsorship from 43 local chambers of commerce, including many in the South Bay, the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee rejected AB 2127 (Benoit; R-Bermuda Dunes) on a party line vote of 2-6.
AB 2127 would have allowed a small employer (25 or fewer employees) to agree to an employee’s request to work an alternative work schedule. The bill applied specifically to small businesses that are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement. According to small businesses, employees and local chambers of commerce, the Small Business Family Scheduling Option would have added a much-needed boost for employers struggling to recruit and maintain qualified employees in a shrinking pool of candidates.
“California needs a law that will permit four-day workweeks for individual workers,” said Marc Burgat, CalChamber vice president of government relations. “AB 2127 is good for workers, good for the environment and good public policy. Permitting individual scheduling flexibility is one way small businesses owners can help employees strike a balance between work and personal responsibilities. This bill has the added benefit of helping our environment by eliminating one commute trip per week for each employee who is working the compressed schedule.”
Current law prevents small businesses from offering this option. In addition to benefits for the employers, employees looking to pursue higher education or spend more time with families would see instant opportunity under this type of legislation.
I am not only an adamant believer in this practice; I am a beneficiary of it myself. My current employer offers both the opportunity to telecommute and the opportunity to select a 9 / 80 work schedule, meaning that in exchange for working 9 hours per day instead of 8 hours per day, I am able to reach my 80th hour one day faster and take the 10th day (the "9/80 Friday") off. This summer, I used this alternate Friday every two weeks to join my wife & daughters at the South Coast Botanical Gardens for their children's program. I was so blessed to have that time with my kids, and believe we can build stronger families by giving working parents more time like this with their children.
AB 2127 would have provided an added incentive to offer employees as a way of improving productivity and reducing absenteeism. It's a benefit other states, including Nevada & Texas, permit their small businesses to offer. So why not allow California businesses to offer it?
One interesting fact we should point out in this discussion is the furloughing of state employees on three of four Fridays every month; how does this relate? Ask yourself whether you have noticed any reduction in service at the DMV or other state service offices? Despite the loss in pay, I would be interested to learn from state employees, who are willing to speak independent of the SEIU's talking points, whether they have benefited from more family time and time to run errands they could not during regualar work hours.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts about Flexible Work Schedules and whether I should work to make these a reality for small businesses when I become your next State Senator.
I currently believe so. Let's hear your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
