Last night’s Planning Commission hearing on the College Avenue Safeway went well overall. Sure, the neighbors showed up in force to try to stop the project or at least to greatly reduce the scale of the project. But it was just a scoping session so staff and commissioners repeatedly reminded them to stick to scoping issues and that the merits of the project would be discussed later.

As I listened to speaker after speaker talk about their grave concerns about an expanded Safeway, I realized that they seemed to believe that the cost of doing nothing is nothing – that if we leave Safeway the way it is, there would be no cost to the neighborhood, environment, or the economy. I’d like to borrow a concept that Robert at the California High Speed Rail blog came up with about HSR – the cost of doing nothing is not nothing. Robert argued that not building HSR would end up costing the state much more in the long run, with increased air and car traffic, needs to upgrade airports and highways, pollution, etc.

In the same vein, we need to ask the question: what is the cost of leaving the Safeway as it is now? John Gatewood from ULTRA came up with these questions, about the environmental impacts of leaving the store as is:

• How efficient are the existing HVAC systems in the present store?
• How efficient are the existing refrigeration and freezer units?
• How efficient is the energy usage?
• How efficient is the existing loading dock? Do trucks need to idle longer because of lack of space, etc?
• How efficient is the existing parking lot configuration? Do drivers spend too much time looking for a space?
• What is the “embodied energy” of the existing structure, the energy that went into producing the materials used in the existing structures?
• What are the energy and carbon footprint coasts of demo’ing the existing structures and can these be recouped in the energy efficiencies and more environmentally sound new construction?

Beyond environmental impacts, the current store has real negative impacts on the neighborhood that effect quality of life and local business. In my comments to the Planning Commission last night, I told my story of being a pedestrian that frequently goes to that Safeway, as it’s a short walk from my home. Getting to the Safeway on foot is a nightmare – there are multiple opportunities to get hit by cars, and there are multiple times when both car driver’s and pedestrian’s views are obstructed. Part of the reason for this is that there are so many driveways – 9 in total on College and Claremont. Just the fact that the new Safeway will reduce the curb cuts from 9 to 4 will be a huge benefit to pedestrians, bicyclists, and to safety.

I’ve mentioned this before, but the current Safeway and its huge surface parking lot is a blight on the neighborhood that’s quite creepy at night. It is also entirely uninviting – unless I’m going to Safeway I avoid that side of the street entirely and often just go to a different part of Rockridge that’s more inviting to do my shopping.

The cost of doing nothing looks like this:

While doing something looks like this:

To me, the decision is obvious. I’m tired of this dangerous, ugly, and uninviting store being the center of the Alcatraz/College/Claremont shopping district. The cost of doing nothing is high, especially when we have the potential for a beautiful designed Safeway with hidden parking and more small, street level stories to keep the neighborhood dynamic.

If you’re interested in the details of the last night’s meeting, you can see coverage on Twitter #oakmtg. I just joined Twitter this week and will be using it primarily to cover Oakland meetings. You can find me @oaklandbecks.

Previous posts on College & Claremont Safeway:

• 11/12/09: John Gatewood: Safeway at College @ Claremont – Opportunity to Enhance an Urban Village
• 5/7/09: Safeway submits application, but “concerned neighbors” are not so happy about it
• 4/30/09: Safeway unveils new design plans for College Avenue store
• 2/15/09: College Safeway Update
• 12/8/08: Safeway stakeholders meeting canceled (or postponed?)
• 11/12/08: Safeway on College might be stuck with a “patch and paint” job
• 6/22/08: Safeway Community Meeting Turns into Public Venting Session

UPDATE: The budget workshop just ended, but you can follow the City Council meeting on Twitter #oakmtg. I finally gave in and joined Twitter, after months of being harassed, just so I could get in on the discussion there. You can find me @oaklandbecks

Tonight there will be not one but two Council meetings, and plenty will be covered. From 4-6pm, the Council will hold a special budget workshop, and from 7pm until late in the night, they’ll have a regular Council meeting. Here’s an explanation of some of the items that will be discussed.

Special Meeting: Budget Workshop

You probably know by now that Oakland is again facing a huge deficit – this time we’re $19 million in the hole. And for the past few weeks I’ve been extremely concerned about what would be cut, considering we’ve already cut services to below reasonable levels and I’m not sure how the city could function after further serious cuts. Well, somehow staff has come up with one-time gimmicks to avoid major cuts:

The City can come up with $6.62 million in one-time money by pillaging some funds that happen to have available balances, including money from an insurance settlement after the earthquake ($3.2 million), the telecommunications land use fund ($0.5 million) that can be used for park maintenance, the Parks and Recreation self-sustaining fund ($0.5 million), and Measure Q ($1.5 million), which can be used to maintain library services while reducing the Library’s General Fund appropriation to $9.06 million, the minimum permitted by Measure Q.

So that still leaves us with what, $12.5 million to come up with? Staff proposes raising another $11.6 million by selling off City property, like the Kaiser Convention Center and the Scotlan Convention Center. If, of course, they can find anyone to buy them.

The remaining deficit would be closed by forcing towing companies to start collecting our existing 18.5% parking tax on towed cars and leasing as yet unspecified City property to cell phone companies for them to put cell phone towers on.

Read the rest of V Smoothe’s post for further details on the proposal. It’s clear that this kind of budgeting isn’t sustainable and the Council does not have easy decisions to make tomorrow night. I don’t think they’ll love the staff proposal, but I’m not sure they’ll have any better ideas for budgeting.

Item 15: Clear Channel Outdoor – Billboard Agreement

This item was supposed to come to Council two weeks ago, but it was delayed, and I wrote about it then:

[The proposed billboard at the Bay Bridge entrance] doesn’t bring the City of Oakland any revenue. But it does bring revenue to the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), and it doesn’t hurt Oakland financially. In exchange for approving this agreement, Clear Channel will remove 16 billboards throughout the city (the full list can be found in the staff report). Apparently, it is fairly common for Clear Channel to get new billboard space in exchange for getting rid of other billboards, as this was done in 2003 and 2007, though the City did receive revenue out of both of those agreements.

UPDATE: The new proposal includes a one-time $400,00 payment from Clear Channel to the City and an ongoing annual payment of a yet to be determined percentage of revenue from the lease, which is probably why Kaplan held this over until this week’s meeting. Otherwise, the proposal appears to be the same as the one that was initially headed for Council two weeks ago.

Item 22: Oakland Fund For Children And Youth 2010-2013 Strategic Plan

The Oakland Fund for Children and Youth Planning and Oversight Committee is responsible for distributing funds to various youth programs, based on the funding from Kids First! (Measure K, Measure OO, and Measure D). Tonight, OFCY will be presenting its strategic plan for 2010-2013.

This item came before the Life Enrichment Committee last week and the most contentious part of the plan was the restriction on which school-based programs OFCY funds could be directed to. The request for proposals states, “High percentage of students (and/or # of students) on Free and Reduced lunch- students with a FRL at 49% or below are not eligible to apply.” This means that schools where less than 50% of students receive free or reduced lunches will be ineligible for OFCY funds for after-school programs.

Jean Quan really didn’t like this because she quickly realized that several schools in her district just barely missed the mark, and she argued that the difference between a school with 48% FRL and 50% FRL is not so great. She argued, quite reasonably, that this threshold was arbitrary and didn’t take into account the many children, especially from immigrant families, that could qualify for free lunches but didn’t apply. Staff responded that they needed to create some threshold because otherwise the money would be spread too thin. So Quan recommended changing the cut-off to 45%, and staff said they could do that.

But then Jane Brunner looked more closely at her chart and realized that a few schools in her district would still be left out (it seemed that she had little understanding of the situation going into the meeting). So she argued for the cut-off to be 40%. Staff again explained that this would stretch resources more and impact all of the programs, but the committee voted unanimously to move the item to Council with the change. Of course, that’s not reflected in the OFCY packet for tonight, but I’m sure it will come up.

The Rest of the Agenda…

I had hoped to have some time to write about the obesity and tobacco preventions program grant because this item was discussed in length at the Life Enrichment Committee and I’m guessing there will be lengthy discussions tonight. Unfortunately, I’m having some serious mouse issues and am unable to copy and paste and do lots of other things so it’s not going to be possible. Watch the Council meeting tonight to see what happens.

Monday, November 16th – Oakland Local Community Meetup

Via the Facebook event: “Oakland Local is one month old! Come join us at our first community meetup in downtown Oakland–community partners, OL bloggers & reporters, people interested in being involved with OL and anyone else who wants to support us are invited to our first meetup at TechLiminal. We’ll have beer, wine, snacks, schwag–and a chance to meet–and join–the Oakland Local team. If you’d like to do blogging or community reporting for this site, this is a chance to sign up and get hands-on instruction–or just hang out and build community.” The meetup takes place from 6:35-8:40 at Tech/Liminal, 268 14th Street, Oakland, CA 94612.

Tuesday, November 17th – Oakland City Council Budget Workshop

Before the regular Council meeting, there will be a special budget workshop to discuss plans for closing the $19 million budget gap. This will be an important meeting, and V Smoothe has given an overview of the staff proposals. See the full staff report and check out my post about how to watch and understand City Council meetings if you need some guidance on how or where to view the meeting. The budget workshop is scheduled to run from 4-6pm in the Council Chambers in City Hall, 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza.

Tuesday, November 17th – League of Women Voters Forum on State Governance Reform Efforts

If you’re at City Hall, stop by this event in between the budget workshop and the Council meeting. Years of legislative stalemates, budget deficits, and declining service levels have led many to the conclusion that decision making in California government has become largely dysfunctional. The League has been closely following the growing number of proposals for reform, from changes in the budget processes to a constitutional convention. Several are in initiatives being readied for the 2010 ballots. A representative from the State League will outline these proposals and discuss the League’s positions. This event will take place from 6:00PM-7:30PM at Oakland City Hall, 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Hearing Room 3 (just inside the 14th St. entrance).

Tuesday, November 17th – Oakland City Council Meeting

After two hours of budget discussion, the City Council still will have to conduct their regular meeting, and there is plenty to discuss. Among other items, they will be discussing Rebecca Kaplan’s billboard proposal, Oakland’s federal legislative agenda, participating in Alameda County’s obesity and tobacco prevention programs grant, a stimulus grant update, and the Oakland Fundy for Children and Youth (OFCY) 2010-2013 strategic plan.  See the full meeting agenda and check out my post about how to watch and understand City Council meetings if you need some guidance on how or where to view the meeting. The non-ceremonial parts of the meeting start at 7pm in the Council Chambers in City Hall, 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza.

Wednesday, November 18th – Planning Commission Scoping Session on College Ave Safeway

As John Gatewood wrote about last week, the Planning Commission will be holding an EIR scoping session on the College and Claremont Safeway project (not to be confused with the Pleasant Valley Safeway, which already had its scoping session). This scoping session will help determine what the EIR will study, and though public comments should stick to those issues, the neighbors who oppose this project will be out in force in an effort to try to stop the project. Whether you love the current project or not, if you’d like to see the current monstrous parking lot and ugly store updated, please come to this meeting and help balance the statements made by those who oppose it. The Planning Commission meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 15th at 6:00 pm in Hearing Room 1, City Hall, 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza and the full agenda can be read here.

Wednesday, November 18th – AC Transit Meeting: Vote on Accepting MTC’s Conditions for Fund Swap

The AC Transit Board will be voting on the acceptance of conditions from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in order to swap BRT capital funds to operating funds, in order to stave off some of the planned service cuts. If you haven’t been following this issue, check out V Smoothe’s two thorough posts about it. The Board will also be discussing the creation of a funding task force, communication between the Board and the BRT Policy Steering Committee, and an employment agreement with the interim general manager, Mary King. This meeting will take place at 6pm in the 2nd floor board room, 1600 Franklin Street. You can read the agenda and see the relevant memos here.

Wednesday, November 18th – Community Convergence for Climate Action

Join the Oakland Climate Action Coalition in celebrating and supporting the community-based solutions we hope to see in Oakland’s Energy & Action Plan. Don’t miss this inspiring evening of live performances, free food, and community as we showcase the solutions that will make Oakland a model green city. Convened by the Ella Baker Center, the Oakland Climate Action Coalition is a cross-sector coalition of community-based social justice organizations, environmental experts and advocates, labor unions, and green businesses working for an equitable and just Energy & Climate Action Plan for the City of Oakland. This event takes place from 6-8pm at Laney College Theater, 900 Fallon St @ 9th Street. Find more info and RSVP at the Ella Baker website.

Thursday, November 19th – Oakland Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Meeting

Oakland’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) meets monthly to discusses bicycle and pedestrian issues. This month’s agenda covers the Kaiser Hospital—MacArthur Blvd Median Crossing Design, the Alameda County Union Pacific Railroad Oakland Subdivision Corridor Improvement Study, and Safe Routes to Schools Projects designs. The BPAC is extremely inclusive – any Oakland resident who attends three consecutive meetings becomes a voting member of the committee – so if you’re interested in bike and ped issues, you should consider attending. The BPAC will be meeting from 5:30-7:30pm in Hearing Room 4 of City Hall, 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza.

Thursday, November 19th – Walk Oakland Bike Oakland Meeting

Come to WOBO’s Nov. 19th volunteer meeting for an “advocate training session.” Have you ever wondered how to get your elected official’s attention and raise awareness about the importance bicycle and pedestrian improvements in Oakland? At this month’s volunteer meeting we will have a representative from the Oakland Heritage Alliance (OHA) speaking about effectively lobbying city hall. Some of the topics Naomi Schiff will cover include how to give effective public testimony, and how to work behind the scenes to persuade elected officials to champion a cause. Participants will leave with ideas for effective advocacy. The meeting will be followed by a pub crawl – not to be missed! This meeting will be held from 6:30-8:30 pm at Bay Area Wilderness Training, 2301 Broadway, Suite B – enter on 23rd Street. For more info, visit WOBO’s website.

Monday, November 9th – Town Hall with Mayor Dellums and Police Chief Batts

Come hear Mayor Dellums and Chief Batts share their vision of public safety. Topics include:

• Mayor Dellums — public safety strategy: PIES (Prevention, Intervention, Enforcement, Sustainability)
• Chief Batts — vision for the Oakland Police Department
• Crime statistics: crime is down double digits citywide,but more must be done
• Community policing: how can OPD work with the community to enhance public safety?

The meeting will be held from 6:30-8 pm at Cesar Chavez Educational Center, 2825 International Blvd. An additional meeting is set for  Wednesday, November 18, 6:30-8 pm, Tassafaronga Recreation Center, 975 85th Avenue. For details, call the Oaklanders Assistance Center at 444-CITY (2489) or OAC@oaklandnet.com. You can read a review of last week’s town hall at A Better Oakland.

Monday, November 9th – Citywide Zoning Update Meeting for Historic Preservation Issues

As part of the Citywide Zoning Update Staff will be giving a presentation at the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board (LPAB) meeting. Staff will present some background on existing issues of zoning and historic preservation and how the Citywide Zoning Update will work towards implementing the Historic Preservation Element of the General Plan. Staff invites you to attend to gain knowledge about historic preservation methods being considered for incorporation in the Citywide Zoning Update.  Your feedback will be incorporated into the overall Citywide Zoning Update process. The meeting takes place at 6pm at Oakland City Hall, 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Hearing Room One. You can also watch it on KTOP. For more information, read the staff report on this item.

Tuesday, November 10th – East Bay Democracy for America Meetup

At their November meeting, Democracy for America will be focusing the marijuana taxation ballot initiative and higher education. The two featured speakers are both East Bay Young Democrats and good friends of mine. Abraham Kniesley from Oaksterdam University will give the status on what the next steps will be to make The Control, Regulate and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 a reality and what we can do to help out. Edie Irons is the communications director for the Institute for College Access and Success. She’ll be talking about funding for higher education here in California and what impact California’s decisions are having on students. There will be an action item that will give you a chance to walk out after the meeting feeling like you’ve done more than just get some information on education funding, you’ll know that you’ve done something to help frame that debate. The meeting will be held at 7:00 at St. John’s Presbyterian Church, 2727 College Ave, Berkeley. RSVP here.

Thursday, November 12th – State Legislature Joint Select Committee on Government Reform Hearing

This year’s state budget set the record for being the latest, and probably the worst, in California’s history. This disastrous process has demonstrated loudly and clearly that the current system is not working and that major change is needed to make the Legislature more responsive to the needs of Californians. Because of this, Assembly Speaker Karen Bass and Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg recently established a new special legislative committee – the Joint Select Committee on Government Reform – which our State Senator Loni Hancock been appointed to as a member. This fall, the Committee, comprised of 10 Senators and 10 Assemblymembers, is hosting a series of hearings throughout the state and is expected to deliver a legislative reform package by January 15, 2010. The next scheduled Joint Select Committee hearing will focus on the topic of ballot box budgeting and initiative reform. They will be hearing from experts about the problems created by our current initiative process and finding real solutions to these obstacles to create better governance in California, as well as a more educated and informed electorate. The hearing will be held from 2:00pm – 7:00 pm, at the Elihu Harris State Building, 1515 Clay Street, in Oakland.

Thursday, November 12th – Community Workshops (Round 3): Zoning Draft Proposals

Are you an Oakland Resident, Property Owner, Business Owner, or Developer? Learn about and discuss proposed zoning changes for Oakland’s residential neighborhoods and commercial corridors! Planning staff will be hosting its third round of Community Workshops. This workshop will be held from 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. at the Fruitvale-San Antonio Senior Center, 3301 E. 12 St., Suite 2001 (Meeting room is on the 2nd floor). For more info, read John Gatewood’s guest post on the zoning update.

Thursday, November 12th – 2nd Annual Wellstone Club Award Reception Honoring Debra Bowen

The Wellstone Club is excited to present its second “Wellstone Award” to California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, our state leader in the fight to ensure that every citizen gets to vote, and every voter’s ballot is counted. She has set a national standard in the battle against voter suppression and illegal efforts to manipulate our democratic process. Paul and Sheila Wellstone’s oldest son, David Wellstone, will present this year’s award. Event co-hosts include Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Senator Loni Hancock, Assemblymembers Sandre Swanson and Nancy Skinner, Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates and Alameda County Supervisor Keith Carson. This reception will take place from 5:30-7:30 PM at the Silver Dragon Restaurant, 835 Webster Street. Tickets are $50. Find more info at the Wellstone Club’s website.

Thursday, November 12th – Mix It Up East Bay

Join us for a monthly happy hour bringing together young activists, organizers and leaders in the East Bay. California voting is an art and a science, but we’re here to help! Come out and hear (brief) presentations on proposed ballot measure initiatives by:

• Abraham Kneisley, Tax Cannabis 2010
• Courage Campaign [invited]
• Repair California [invited]

Mix It Up East Bay is held every 2nd Thursday of the month from 6-9pm at Shashamane at 2507 Broadway. It’s accessible by 19th Street BART station or by AC Transit lines 1/1R, 51, 59.

Saturday, November 14th - Central Estuary Plan Community Workshop #6

The sixth public workshop will focus on identifying a preferred alternative for the Plan Area.  At this workshop, you will be asked to consider which alternative, or pieces of various alternatives speak to your vision for the Central Estuary Area.  Please familiarize yourself with the draft alternatives and come to the next community workshop to participate in hands-on mapping exercises in the very important task of developing a preferred alternative! Three draft alternatives for the Plan Area were presented at Workshop #5.  Information about these alternatives and all meeting materials can be found on the CEDA website in the Schedule+Meeting section. This workshop will be held from 9:00 am-12:00 pm at Beacon Day School, 2101 Livingston Street, 2nd Floor Auditorium.

For anyone who commutes between Oakland and San Francisco, I’m guessing this has been a bit of a chaotic week. And at some point, if not every day during the closure, you probably took BART across the Bay. And I have no doubt that it was beyond crowded in the stations and on the trains. I heard from several people who had to let a couple trains pass by before finding a train that had room, during the morning and evening commute.

But this was an emergency. The Bay Bridge had to be repaired immediately, and though it was probably very stressful to deal with the chaos at BART, there was probably a comforting thought at the back of your head during this experience – “It will soon be over.” You figured that once the bridge was fixed, BART would go back to a “normal” level of ridership – morning transbay ridership would go back to 50,000 instead of nearly 80,000. You’d be able to relax at the station and hop on the first train that arrived. If you were lucky, you might even find somewhere to sit.

For the next few years, these assumptions will hold, but during these record-breaking ridership days, it’s a good opportunity to remember what BART ridership was like before the economy tanked (or even as the economy started tanking) and what it will likely be like as again as the economy recovers.

So try to think back to 2008. BART was crowded everyday during the commute hours. I remember this time well – at one point I stopped taking BART if I could avoid it at all during commute hours because of how uncomfortable it was. I started taking a bus if that was at all an option. It started to become such a problem that BART held special meetings on the issue and talked about possible ways to deal with the capacity problem. As recently as September 2008, they started floating the idea of congestion pricing – charging more at peak hours to encourage riders to change work schedules and to ease congestion during commute hours.

But then the economy tanked, and BART’s ridership dropped along with it. Without jobs to get to, people weren’t flooding the BART system during commute hours. And it seems that most people forgot the capacity crisis that was only narrowly averted by the onset of the recession.

This crisis has not been averted entirely though. As Daniel at 21st Century Urban Solutions explains:

The overcrowding this week is not a freak occurrence; rather, it is a preview for what Bart will regularly face 10 years (or less?) down the road.  Population growth, climate change, peak oil, and traffic congestion are not simply going to go away, and until Bart/MTC can find the $10 billion that it’s going to take to build a second tube (probably in the next 50 years), Bart needs to invest in ways to maximize the efficiency of its current system through better station design, vehicle layout, parking management, transit and bicycle access, and train control.  We need to reinvest in Bart for a sustainable future.

Daniel is exactly right. The problem is that the BART Board has been so focused on geographical expansion of the system, that it has neglected the most urgent capital need – expanding transbay capacity. And these extensions, particularly BART to San Jose, are only going to exacerbate the problem. As new riders from the San Jose corridor put increasing pressure on the transbay tube and as the economy recovers, the tube and trains will reach capacity.

And who is this going to effect most? Oakland riders.

You might have noticed this week that news articles talked about riders at West Oakland having to wait for an uncrowded train, but you probably never read that about an Orinda or Pleasanton rider. Suburban riders will be able to catch a train (and probably a seat) every morning, while Oaklanders will barely squeeze in or have to pass up trains all together.

The good news is that something can be done. Ideally, BART would scrap some of its extensions and build another transbay tube. But that’s probably not going to happen, until we replace nearly every current BART Board member.

The other option to increase capacity is to get a new train set and to focus on increased train capacity. BART has been working on this – the problem is that the project is not fully funded and hasn’t seemed to be a funding priority of BART.

Well it sure sounds like Oakland’s screwed then (maybe dto510 was right after all), but there’s another hope, which might be our best one. Besides BART, there’s another excellent way to cross the Bay via transit – AC Transit’s transbay buses. I must admit that I’ve never ridden the commuter transbay buses, but I’ve heard they’re very comfortable, and they even have wi-fi. So as BART reaches capacity, AC Transit will increasingly be a place to turn to get across the Bay, unless of course you’ve enjoyed the Manhattan like conditions this week on BART.

Luckily, the BART strike has been averted and commuters can relax a bit, but unfortunately, BART’s financial crisis is unlikely to end this year. Probably as soon as next year, they’ll have to make more service cuts or raise fares again to balance the agency’s budget.

The BART board and BART spokespeople have done a great job scapegoating the unions for the financial woes of the agency. I won’t dispute the reality that government employee unions across the state have been renegotiating contracts and giving back, in the form of salaries or benefits. And I won’t dispute the likelihood that BART did need the unions to renegotiate in order to save some money.

But I’d like to examine the figure BART has been using throughout contract negotiations – the “need” to save $100 million in labor costs over four years. BART has consistently made it seem that the only place for these savings were to be found were via labor, but that is not the case.

Let’s take a look at the 2009 BART budget. It’s true that labor costs are a huge portion of this budget, at $388 million. But there are other substantial numbers that could be or could have been reduced if the BART board had made better decisions:

• $70 million in debt service
• $17.5 million to SFO reserves
• $107 million for system expansion

(I can’t find detailed breakdowns of these numbers so I’m going to extrapolate based on what I know. If anyone can point me to BART’s more detailed budget, I’ll write a follow up post with more information.)

The debt service and funding to the SFO reserves are costs that could have been avoided if BART had make better decisions in the past. Debt service comes from taking out loans for capital expenditures, much of which has been system expansion. The SFO funding is similar – BART predicted extremely high ridership on the SFO extension and it didn’t pan out. So now the core BART system is paying for these poor past decisions.

The $107 million for system expansion is different because a lot of that money comes from outside grants so it’s not being drawn from core system funding. However, BART does contribute some of this funding, as is stated in the budget, “The capital budget is funding primarily through capital grants; however District-allocated funds are also needed for a portion of the required local match and for expenditures which do not qualify for grants.”

So when BART says that they need to find $100 million in labor savings over the next four years and that service cuts and fare increases can’t be avoided, what they really mean is that they value system expansion over core service and labor. That means they’re choosing the Oakland Airport Connector and the extension to San Jose over running trains at least every 15 minutes at all hours.

Since there’s no sign that the BART board is going to change course and halt their wasteful expansions that endanger the core system, BART riders and BART unions should expect to be targeted during budgeting year after year. The $150 million dollar loan the BART board plans to take out to fund the Oakland Airport Connector will alone suck significant funds from the core system. Debt will grow and as ridership on the extensions does not pan out, the core system will continue to crumble.

The long term solution cannot just be about labor negotiations but must also include a change of course and prioritization. And for that, it might be time to get some new BART directors in office who, like Tom Radulovich, understand the need to protect the core system over expensive and wasteful extensions. Until the next election though, the best thing we can do is to stop the Oakland Airport Connector, which you can help do by signing the petition opposing the project and demanding a better connector.

On Tuesday night, the Oakland City Council passed what I think is a pretty good budget amendment, considering the huge gap they had to fill. They averted the worst cuts, and overall, the community seemed pretty happy. By the time they reached public comment on the budget, most speakers thanked them for the changes before speaking.

But not everyone was happy with the budget. Yesterday, City Auditor Courtney Ruby sent an email to her supporters in which she got got fired up and took aim at the City Council. There’s so much hyperbole and misplaced anger in this email that I thought I’d dissect most of it piece by piece.

Your City Hall “watchdog” is being maimed and only your actions can stop it.

On Tuesday, 15 minutes before the City Council meeting, I was informed by a legislative aide that the Council would be cutting the City Auditor’s budget – to date the cuts by Council to my budget equal 10%. Yesterday, I sent this letter to the editor and today The Oakland Tribune covered the story – you can read it by clicking here.

Sounds pretty bad, huh? What Ruby fails to mention here is that every city department has faced at least 10% cuts. The fire union negotiated with the Council, making significant concessions, and even the police department came to an agreement with the City, freezing their salaries until January 2013. The City Council even cut their own budgets by 20% and Public Works has cut park maintenance staff in half! Oakland is in tough times, and unlike with the state budget, the Council is attempting to truly spread the pain.

As far as the timing goes, well, that wasn’t ideal, but the Council didn’t have much of a choice. After finding out that we weren’t going to get as much from the COPS grant as we had applied for and after a few other items blew holes in the budget, the Council rushed to set up a special Council meeting this week to close the $18.74 million gap. City staff created a budget proposal, released late last week, and the Council understandably didn’t like all of it. So Jane Brunner, Ignacio De La Fuente, Pat Kernighan, and Jean Quan had just a few days to craft something better. So it’s not like they were plotting to hide the cuts from Ruby – they just hadn’t finalized anything until Tuesday.

Also, this 10% cut isn’t entirely new so it shouldn’t have been so surprising. Nearly half of the cut was made on June 30th, when the Council approved cutting $66,630 from the Auditor’s budget by combining the receptionist with the receptionist for the Public Ethics Commission. So this week’s new cut of $70,000 is only a bit more than a 5% cut.

It’s ironic, at a time when oversight is needed to protect every penny from potential fraud, waste and misuse, the City Council, elected by you, chooses to undermine our ability to monitor taxpayer dollars. The fact that they hid their intention to cut this office and then uniformly voted in favor of the cut with the justification that it was simply procedural is a travesty. With a city of our size – the City Auditor’s office should be twice the size it is. Today we are working with less than 50% of the required staffing, a 10% cut is painfully significant and threatens the capacity of your independently elected watchdog.

Hmm, did Ruby pause to think that maybe if the Council “uniformly voted in favor of the cut,” then it might be the right thing to do? Did she bother to take a look at what the Council was not cutting that city staff had recommended cutting? Let’s see, they could have shut the main library down for two days a week so that it would only be open five days. Or they could have entirely closed the San Antonio Recreation Center. Or they could have eliminated the neighborhood service coordinators.

If Ruby had bothered to listen to public comment Tuesday night, she would have heard that those are the issues that citizens of Oakland care about. I think Ruby would be hard pressed to find any citizen who thought a 10% cut to the Auditor’s office was more detrimental than shutting the main library down for two days a week.

It is unfortunate that given all we have had to do in these tough economic times, we need to continually spend time reminding the Council that the citizens of Oakland demand oversight as dictated by the City Charter. The City Auditor’s office is not another “department” of the city – we are the people’s eyes and ears inside City Hall.

Look, I understand that a 10% cut is difficult, but it’s not impossible. These are difficult economic times, and if other departments can make 10-20% cuts (on top of furloughs and reduced salaries), her office should be able to make these cuts too. Also, in 2008, the Auditor’s office was essentially the only department that evaded cuts entirely.

And regardless of what she claims, the City Auditor’s office is a city department. Thank you very much, but my eyes and ears inside City Hall are my own, or maybe sometimes V Smoothe’s or dto510’s or my other politically involved colleagues.

Oakland has not earned the reputation of providing impeccable oversight of public money. Given the City’s difficult budget situation, there is a heightened importance for the City Auditor’s Charter-mandated roles and responsibilities of assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of City programs and services, and ferreting out fraud, waste, and abuse. The first audit we completed on payroll revealed glaring problems with the City’s internal controls and the gross abuse of power by the former city administrator.

Please Ruby, do tell us what you have done to help with the budget situation. If there was any evidence that the Auditor’s work was saving us money, I’d be more sympathetic to these claims, but there’s simply no evidence of this.

And what about this payroll audit she mentions? It’s true that the audit found huge amounts of money wasted. But much of the data and conclusions of this report were later found to be entirely wrong by city staff.

Let us not forget that it was only a few years ago when the Oakland Unified School District failed to invest in an audit function which ultimately landed the District in state receivership –the City and school system paid dearly as a result, and continues to pay as we work to rebuild our school district.

Just last week, I joined Laura Chick, Inspector General for the Oversight of California’s Federal Stimulus Funds, to be part of a workshop for municipalities and non-profits applying for stimulus money. The panel warned potential applicants about the many pitfalls of poor fiscal management and explicitly what should and shouldn’t be done when receiving and using the billions of dollars in federal funds. What the City Council did on Tuesday, in cutting back on oversight, is exactly what shouldn’t be done. It’s a classic example of being penny wise and pound foolish.

OK, now Ruby’s gone too far, basically suggesting that with this 10% cut, Oakland is going to fall into the same mess as OUSD, even though there’s no evidence of the same lack of fiscal management that occurred at OUSD. And if you notice the phrases in bold , she’s accusing the City of “fraud, waste and abuse,” “poor fiscal management,” and doing “exactly what shouldn’t be done.” Please Ruby, tell us why in your two and half years you’ve never presented strong evidence of this, if this is truly the case?

Many of you have expressed your concern and outrage to the City Council and for that I am grateful. For those of you who have not yet called or written, I need you to call and write today demanding the Ctiy Auditor’s Office is FULLY FUNDED-that is 100% (not the current less then 50%)

I encourage you to contact the editors at The Oakland Tribune and The San Francisco Chronicle with letters letting your voice be heard. It shouldn’t be a struggle to ensure our tax dollars are spent wisely. As citizens of Oakland, we deserve the best!

Now here, I’m going to have to agree with her. Let’s contact the City Council, but to thank them for not shutting the main library or cutting the neighborhood services coordinators. Let’s write to the local papers and explain that every department is facing cuts and that Ruby is not being targeted.

Please know that despite efforts by the City Council to “muzzle” this office, we will continue to work hard. While their actions might only make us the equivalent of half a watchdog, luckily for Oakland we’re the ‘half’ with the teeth.

Committed to serving you with the utmost integrity,

Courtney Ruby, CPA
Oakland City Auditor

Half a watchdog? Because of a 10% cut? Her claim that the Auditor’s office was already cut in half is just not true! It’s been at 10 FTEs (full time employees) since 1998-99! (Since her receptionist is now shared, she’s down to 9.5 FTEs.)

Ruby, if you really are committed to serving us with the “utmost integrity,” please reflect on this hyperbolic message you sent. Reflect on how poorly it reflects on our city government. And if you’d really like to serve us, give up this self-serving campaign, figure out how to implement the cuts, and get back to auditing.

Though a ton has been happening in Oakland this week, I’ve unfortunately been mostly unable to write about it, since I flew to LA after the MTC meeting and have been absurdly busy ever since. Luckily, others have covered the important stuff, so I thought I’d take a few moments to highlight what’s been going on.

Oakland passes all four election measures: Unless you’ve been out of the country for the past week, you know by now that all four measures passed overwhelmingly. I’m not going bother linking to any newspaper stories, but you should check out Brian Leubitz’s blog post about how Oakland’s election and other municipal elections show that Californian’s are ready to embrace new taxes when they make sense.

But state budget means there will be deep cuts to services Oaklanders depend on: During the City Council meeting on Tuesday, Jean Quan announced the election results and the Council seemed please. Unfortunately, they’re going to be back to the drawing board because the state legislature approved “borrowing” money from municipalities. V Smoothe has a good round up of state budget coverage, but I have to warn you that it’s depressing.

The OAC saga drags on: After hearing dozens of speakers explain why the Oakland Airport Connector makes no sense and urging the MTC to hold off on voting until after the Oakland City Council had weighed in, the MTC approved the $140 million in funding anyway. The most maddening part was that several of the commissioners who voted in favor of the funding explained that this project is terrible, but that it’s too late to change it, and anyways, it’s BART’s responsibility, not the MTC. The fight is still not over though. The OAC will be going before the Public Works Committee as an action item on September 15th so mark that on your calendar and see if you can go into work a bit late to attend the meeting. I’ll have more details and info about how to get involved next week.

And now we have the parking saga to keep us busy too: If you drive, you’ve probably noticed that meter rates have been raised to $2 an hour and the meters run until 8pm. I love this new policy, and not just as a transit user, but also as a driver. Last Saturday night I went out to dinner in Rockridge, and it was easier than ever before to find metered parking. Fragmentary Evidence wrote a very compelling piece about why it makes sense to raise parking rates. If you’re going to read anything today, read that. (Which reminds me, I don’t think I’ve ever mentioned here how much I love Fragmentary Evidence. If it’s not on your regular reading list, it really should be.) For a different perspective on the parking rates, take a look at the Grand Lake Theater owner’s commentary in the Berkeley Daily Planet, which argues that the raise in rates is a “death sentence for Oakland businesses.” The Oakland City Council discussed this issue in depth on Tuesday (I’ll have a post up about that next week), and something tells me that we’re going to hear much more about this in the days to come.

Ride ACT shares two videos: Another excellent blog is Ride ACT, and in the past couple weeks they’ve shared a couple of YouTube videos that area worth watching. The first is a beautiful piece about the 54 line:

The second is a promotional video about AC Transit that I must admit is a bit cheesy, but still enjoyable:

This guest post is written by, Zac Unger, a lifelong Oakland resident. He has been an Oakland firefighter for 11 years and serves as a member of the executive board of Local 55.

As some of you may have heard, the firefighter’s union has just approved a new contract by an 80-20 margin. Granted, I’m an Oakland Firefighter and a member of the union’s executive board, but I do think that our concessions represent a major show of good will in these bad economic times. Here are the details:

The bottom line is that we are increasing our workweek from 52 to 56 hours, while also taking an 8% hourly pay cut. This has the effect of leaving our overall yearly salary largely unchanged: decrease the pay, increase the hours. Essentially we’re all working four hours a week for free; it’s like a furlough, but we don’t get to take the time off. This saves the city money, since under Measure Y and other agreements, we have minimum staffing levels. Those four hours per week used to be covered by overtime, at time and a half, and they will now be covered by straight time, a significant savings for the city. In addition to reducing the amount of overtime used, this contract will also reduce the cost of overtime when we do use it, since overtime is based on an hourly wage, and that number has been reduced by 8%.

This is a four year contract; since we’ve been working without a contract for one year, there are three years remaining on this contract. We’re taking zero raise in the first year, zero in the second year, zero in the third year. We will be able to reopen the contract for the last year, but only in regards to the issue of money. So basically: three years of nothing, with a re-opener in the last year, and no guarantee of raises at any point during this four year contract.

Next, we agreed to a change in the way the city covers our medical benefits. It will result in the union membership contributing about $300,000 more per annum, another good savings for the city. In total, the Union has made about $6 million worth of concessions while not reducing the level of service we provide to the citizens. In fact, due to a complicated provision we’ll be able to field an additional 41 paramedics at no increase in cost.

And finally, it’s always important to remember that Oakland Firefighters contribute 13% of our salary to our pensions. The Tribune misstated this; they said that we pay for thirteen percent of our pension, which would imply that the city pays for 87% of our pension. That’s quite incorrect. We pay an amount equal to 13% of our SALARY towards our pension; in some years the city pays nothing, and in some years they pay more than we do. For every $100 I earn, $13 goes directly to CALPERS without ever going into my pocket. This is important as a point of comparison to OPD. They contribute zero to their pension, so every $100 they earn is $100 in their pocket. It’s entirely fair to say that the city is 100% responsible for funding the retirement of the police. They do good work under tough conditions and I don’t begrudge them anything they get, but our situations are not the same. “Policeandfire” is not a monolith and can’t be viewed as having the same deal.

In past budget crises, the city has closed the gap by shuttering stations and reducing fire protection. We’re proud of the fact that we’ve come to an agreement that does not reduce service or increase the risks faced by the people of Oakland. We appreciate all of the support we’ve gotten over the years from everyone in Oakland, and we look forward to many more years of high level service.

This guest post was written by Oakland City Council Member At-Large, Rebecca Kaplan.

Friends, Neighbors, Oaklanders….

This week, vote-by-mail ballots will be sent out to all Oakland voters, for the special election taking place this July.  I am voting Yes on all four measures, and ask you to join me. Like most cities, Oakland is struggling to balance our budget and fund what matters.  The four measures on the July 21st 2009 ballot will help fix Oakland’s economy, support our vital public services, provide jobs, and strengthen our future.  All four measures are endorsed by a diverse coalition, including the Labor Council, the Oakland Builders Alliance, the California Nurses Association, and the Democratic Party.

Measure C provides funding for the Oakland Museum, Chabot Space & Science Center, the Zoo, and community events and festivals. It includes funding to help strengthen and market our hotel and hospitality industry, to create jobs. Measure C is paid for by a small increase in the hotel fee. Although only hotels pay this fee, even hotel leaders are supporting Measure C.

Measure D adjusts Oakland’s budget to redirect several million dollars towards police, fire, library, and seniors services. It reallocates funding without raising taxes, and changes the formula for the “Kids First” initiative, to protect vital public services and provide fair and reliable funding.  It’s supported by the League of Women Voters.

Measure F creates a new business tax category with an increased rate for Oakland’s cannabis dispensaries. It is supported by Oakland’s medical cannabis dispensaries and patient advocates, along with doctors and nurses, and provides vital funding to fill Oakland’s budget gap, and help fund essential services, while allowing for reasonable control and regulation of cannabis dispensaries.

Measure H fixes a loophole in City law to make sure properties in corporate mergers pay the same Property Transfer Tax as residential homeowners and local businesses do. It helps fund essential public services and does not raise the transfer tax. Measure H guarantees fairness by ensuring all transfers pay the existing rate.

All four measures have widespread support.

I am voting Yes on all 4 Measures because all of them will help solve our financial crisis, not only now, but also in coming years.  They are projected to help with about $8 million to $10 million in the first year, and by an even larger amount in future years.  There is no borrowing involved — so these efforts will not only strengthen our situation in the present, they will also help improve financial stability for the long-term.  I know that these Measures are part of the solution — but not the whole picture — and I am continuing to work on other efforts (which are not on the ballot) to strengthen Oakland’s economy and budget.  Measures C, D, F, and H are the parts of the solution which are required to, by State law, be approved by voters.  I am asking for your support, please vote Yes on C, D, F, and H.

You can get involved or learn more at www.Yes4Oakland.org

All voters should also be aware that this is a vote by mail only election. You should receive your ballot in the mail around June 25. It must be received by the Registrar of Voters no later than July 21, so mail your ballot back by July 15. For ballot questions, call (510) 272-6933.

Last week, Don Perata joined the effort to stop the wasteful overhead Oakland Airport Connector (OAC) by sending a hard-hitting letter to Metropolitian Transportation Commissioner and Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty. On July 8, the MTC will be voting on providing even more funding to the OAC from Regional Measure 2 funds, and Perata is not pleased about this:

As the author of SB 916 – which placed regional Measure 2 on the ballot-, I must oppose the Oakland Airport Connector project. In short, the proposal is too much money for too little transit and economic value.

While the connector was included in the menu of RM2 transportation projects, that election was in 2004. The world has since changed dramatically. And so has the project. In 2003 when the project was proposed, only $30M was needed to complete funding for the $230M connector. In fact, we told the voters (in the ballot pamphlet) that this was “the final portion of funds needed for direct BART service” to the airport. Project costs have now increased by over $300M and the RM2 dollars needed have quadrupled. Even more damning, the ridership predicted in 2003 has fallen substantially from 13,540 to fewer than 4500 by 2020. This fails any cost-benefit analysis on its face.

Advocates have been making these arguments for months, to the MTC, BART, and the Port Commision, and most of our pleas for reason have fallen on deaf ears. But I’m hopeful that these elected officials will find it more difficult to ignore the former State Senate Democratic leader and the likely future mayor of Oakland.

Perata continues:

Elected representatives everywhere act as consistent with today’s realities; we cannot conduct public affairs as if the weak economy is simply a market correction. There is less tax dollars available and more competition than our generation has ever known. This requires strong fiscal discipline and hard choices. Whether the money comes from taxes, tolls or fees, it’s the same pair of pants, only different pockets!

I am unconvinced an Oakland Airport Connector is the highest and best use of available transit money – even assuming potential millions from the federal government stimulus program. Washington bureaucrats don’t know any better; we should.

In the coming weeks, the Port Commission, MTC, the Oakland City Council, and ultimately BART will all have opportunities to prove that they do know better.

Today, the full Port Commission will vote on taking the first step on funding the OAC to the tune of $44 million. (Two weeks ago, the Aviation Committee of the Port Commission voted to move move the OAC funding issue onto the full committee, and then for some reason the full commission delayed the hearing.) Just as BART has gone back to MTC again and again for increasingly larger amounts of RM2 funding, they have asked the Port for more and more. The Port has the opportunity to leverage its contribution to require BART to study a rapid bus alternative that would save hundreds of million of dollars.

Then, on Thursday, the Rules Committee of the Oakland City Council will vote on a request from Councilmember Nancy Nadel to bring the OAC project before the Public Works Committee and ultimately the full Council. There are a multitude of reasons that the City Council should review the project again, as dto510 explains:

A lot is at stake for Oakland. On one hand, project supporters claim that it will improve the Oakland Airport area, attracting more airline passengers and perhaps more businesses to Airport and surrounding area. For the reality-based community, however, there are enormous costs to the City of Oakland to moving ahead with the project. ACTIA funds that would otherwise go to East Oakland bike/ped/transit improvements, such as a mooted transit village at the Coliseum BART station, would be lost. The Port of Oakland will have to use funds that would otherwise go to airport renovation and expansion. Regional stimulus funds would go to this instead of to shoring up AC Transit and BART service. And the City of Oakland will lose the opportunity to improve transit service that would serve the workers and businesses in the Hegenberger Corridor, since the RFP for the Airport Connector does not include any intermediate stops. Many of these problems are a result of changes to the project, and many former supporters are now opponents.

Unfortunately, it is possible that OAC proponent and Oakland Councilmember Larry Reid will urge the Rules Committee not to agendize this item because he fears that when the City Council finds out how drastically this project has changed, they will no longer support it. So if you’re an Oakland resident, please contact Rules Committee members to ask them to support a public Council hearing on the OAC:

Council President Jane Brunner, District 1
JBrunner@oaklandnet.com or 510-238-7001

Jean Quan, District 4
JQuan@oaklandnet.com or 510-238-7004

Ignacio De La Fuente, District 5
IDeLaFuente@oaklandnet.com or 510-238-7005

A half billion dollars, affordable access to the Oakland Airport, and so much more are at stake in the OAC project. In the coming weeks, let’s hope that our elected officials show as much leadership and reasoned skepticism as Don Perata and save our region from this boondoggle.

Previous posts on the Oakland Airport Connector:

• 5/29/09: Oakland Airport Connector now in the hands of the Port Commission
• 5/13/09: BART staff coordinate Oakland Airport Connector astroturf campaign
• 5/8/09: Take Action: Turn Oakland Airport Connector into RapidBART
• 4/27/09: Advocates secure temporary win on the Oakland Airport Connector
• 4/22/09: BART’s brilliant plant for financing the Oakland Airport Connector
• 2/23/09: Protect Bay Area Transit: Stop MTC from Wasting Stimulus Funds

Last week, I wrote about Assemblymember Noreen Evans’ awesome budget blog, and if you’ve been following the budget process you know that things are looking just as grim for the state as they are for Oakland. Governor Schwarzenegger is proposing cuts, cuts, and more cuts (oh, and one fee), just as he did during the last budget crisis. But you might be thinking that those cuts won’t get made because the Democrats are going to stand up against them and hold out until a better deal is reached, right?

Wrong.

As the Calitics team has been so thoroughly documenting, Darrell Steinberg and Karen Bass, who are supposed to be leading the Democrats in Sacramento, have given in to Arnold’s rhetoric. David Dayen wrote a brilliant post about this earlier this week, claiming that Sacramento Democrats have the “Sacramento Syndrome”:

Here’s the problem, in a nutshell.  In 1978 California passed Prop. 13, and Democrats have run for cover ever since.  They should have put up a fight immediately.  But instead, Democrats cowered in fear of losing power, despite the demographic shifts in the state since the mid-1990s, so they lay low and never advocate for the necessary reforms, and buy completely into the myth that the 70’s-era tax revolt remains alive and well, and they take public opinion polls like this as static and unchangeable through anything resembling leadership.  Obviously Republicans are insane in this state, but they can barely manage 1/3 of the legislature (and if we had a half-decent campaign apparatus among California Democrats they’d lose that too) and shouldn’t be feared in any respect.  Yet our Democratic leadership exists in a post-1978 fog, a kind of “Sacramento Syndrome,” where they’ve come to love their captors on the right, and have bought into their claims.

Fortunately though, not all Democratic legislators have fallen under the spell of this syndrome. Noreen Evans continues to speak out against a cuts only solution. And Oakland’s assemblymembers are speaking out as well.

After the Governor’s speech yesterday, they both issued strong statements. Assemblymember Sandre Swanson said:

Our budget must reflect our priorities. It must reflect what kind of state we want to be.  I believe our state should be one that gives priority to children, seniors, and support for working families, all of which requires us to invest in our state.  I hope we will look at revenue solutions that are realistic, that help the state support its safety net programs, and that provide Californians with the services they require and demand as they work to bring our state through this economic crisis.

Assemblymember Nancy Skinner echoed similar concerns, backing up her position with polling that shows that Californians support some taxes and don’t want to see deep cuts:

Two recent polls (Binder, www.docstoc.com/docs/6220193/Reasons-Prop-1A-Failed-memo, and the California Field Poll, www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2306.pdf ) reveal that Californians support some revenue increases and do not favor drastic cuts to education, health care and other essential services.

We have choices. For instance, restoring the top income tax rate on high wealth incomes of $250,000 and above in place under Republican Governors Pete Wilson and Ronald Reagan would allow us to avoid $4 billion of these cuts.  Enacting an oil severance fee on oil drilled in California, revenue collected by every state and country in the world that produces significant amounts of oil, could avoid another $1 billion in cuts.

Oaklanders should be proud that our Assemblymembers not only have a solid grasp on the real issues here but are brave enough to speak out for their principals, when many of their colleagues are not.

Here are the full press releases from Swanson and Skinner:

Swanson Responds To Governor’s Budget Proposal

(Sacramento) – In response to Governor Schwarzenegger’s address to the joint session of the State Legislature, Assemblymember Swanson (D-Alameda), made the following statement:

“The Governor’s proposal to balance the $24 billion budget shortfall without the use of additional revenues is neither a fair nor realistic solution to the budget crisis.  I find it morally objectionable for the Governor’s proposals to specifically cut Cal-Works, Healthy Families, Cal-Grants, In-home service care for the elderly, and even access to State parks.  The Governor’s proposal also fails at its intended goals: it fails to address our deficit and it fails to reflect our priorities.

In this budget year alone, we have instituted $23 billion of cuts, over 20% of our $105 billion budget. These cuts represent a tremendous amount of pain for California, a serious reduction in services to our constituencies, and a reduction in the prosperity of our state.

Our budget must reflect our priorities. It must reflect what kind of state we want to be.  I believe our state should be one that gives priority to children, seniors, and support for working families, all of which requires us to invest in our state.  I hope we will look at revenue solutions that are realistic, that help the state support its safety net programs, and that provide Californians with the services they require and demand as they work to bring our state through this economic crisis.”

Assemblymember Nancy Skinner Says We Have Choices

SACRAMENTO, CA – California Assemblymember Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) issued a statement today responding to Governor Schwarzenegger’s budget address:

The Governor’s opening statement that the voters in rejecting the special election measures said, “don’t ask us to solve complex budget issues, that’s your job,” is right.

He was wrong however in his assertion that Californians want an all cuts solution.

Two recent polls (Binder, www.docstoc.com/docs/6220193/Reasons-Prop-1A-Failed-memo, and the California Field Poll, www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2306.pdf ) reveal that Californians support some revenue increases and do not favor drastic cuts to education, health care and other essential services.

We have choices. For instance, restoring the top income tax rate on high wealth incomes of $250,000 and above in place under Republican Governors Pete Wilson and Ronald Reagan would allow us to avoid $4 billion of these cuts.  Enacting an oil severance fee on oil drilled in California, revenue collected by every state and country in the world that produces significant amounts of oil, could avoid another $1 billion in cuts.

The Governor talked of us acting courageously. Acting courageously is looking at all alternatives and making smart, rational choices that lessen the cuts with some sensible new revenues.