Fable: The Ox who Envied the Pig. ( A lesson for Politicians/Planners/Activists seeking OBAG grants.)

THE OX WHO ENVIED THE PIG

ONCE upon a time there was an Ox named Big Red. He had a younger brother named Little Red. These two brothers did all the carting on a large farm.

Now the farmer had an only daughter and she was soon to be married. Her mother gave orders that the Pig should be fattened for the wedding feast.

Little Red noticed that the Pig was fed on choice food. He said to his brother, "How is it, Big Red, that you and I are given only straw and grass to eat, while we do all the hard work on the farm? That lazy Pig does nothing but eat the choice food the farmer gives him."

Little Red noticed that the Pig was fed on choice food.

Said his brother, "My dear Little Red, envy him not. That little Pig is eating the food of death! He is being fattened for the wedding feast. Eat your straw and grass and be content and live long."

Not long afterwards the fattened Pig was killed and cooked for the wedding feast.

The fattened Pig was killed and cooked for the wedding feast.

Then Big Red said, "Did you see, Little Red, what became of the Pig after all his fine feeding?"

"Yes," said the little brother, "we can go on eating plain food for years, but the poor little Pig ate the food of death and now he is dead. His feed was good while it lasted, but it did not last long." 

Who is the “Freeloader” now Governor?

California Gov. Jerry Brown Called Gas Tax Opponents 'Freeloaders.' Now He's Spending Billions of Their Money to Fund Transit They Don't Use.

$2.4 billion of new gas tax revenue will go to light rail and electric bus networks.

Christian Britschgi|Apr. 27, 2018 4:55 pm

Take Your Spring Fashion To New Heights

Shop Perry Ellis now and save on pants, shirting, accessories, suits and more in the season’s most sought-after styles.

Ad By Perry Ellis 

article continues below

Xinhua/Sipa USA/NewscomWhen California Gov. Jerry Brown was defending SB 1—last year's transportation funding package, which included $5.4 billion in annual gas tax and vehicle registration fee increases—he had an uncharitable term for his opponents: freeloaders.

"The freeloaders—I've had enough of them," he said at an Orange County event. "Roads require money to fix." The state was strapped for cash, he argued; drivers needed to pay up, lest the roads and highways devolve into gravel paths.

That argument didn't carry much water then, given that Golden State motorists were already paying some of the highest gas taxes in the nation. It certainly doesn't carry much water now that we have a firmer picture of where this new money is going.

On Thursday, the state's Transportation Agency announced grant recipients for some $2.6 billion of the transit funding raised by SB 1. The awards include $28.6 million for 40 zero-emission buses in Anaheim and $40.5 million for light-rail vehicles in Sacramento. Los Angeles snagged $330 million to build out its rail transit network in preparation for the 2028 Olympics.

A total of 28 projectswere awarded SB 1 money. None of them involves road upkeep at all.

The grants were supposed to be announced on April 30. Carl DeMaio, a former San Diego city councilman (and former contractor for the Reason Foundation, which publishes this website), thinks the announcement was bumped up for a political reason: The governor knew that on Friday activists looking to overturn SB 1 and all its tax and fee increases would start submitting signatures to place a repeal initiative on the November ballot.

"The governor is using the entirety of the government infrastructure to go out and hold press conferences to say everything but vote no on the gas tax [repeal]," says DeMaio, who is leading the repeal effort.

He has a point. The Transportation Agency's list of awards comes with a prominent SB 1 logo right at the top. The state government also runs a website rebuildingca.ca.gov, which describes SB1 in such neutral terms as "landmark transportation investment" and "job creator."

Democrats in the state legislature have been happy to play up this angle as well. At a press conference yesterday, Sen. Jim Beall (D–San Jose) summed up SB 1 repeal's effects on transit projects in his district: "Poof! It all goes away."

Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Paramount) dismissed critics of SB 1 as fringe loonies yesterday, telling the Los Angeles Timesthat "local Republican leaders around the state were an important part of the SB 1 coalition, so I'm not sure how the more radical members of the party will be reconciling that in their attacks."

"This gas tax is not about fixing roads," DeMaio counters. "It about the ongoing assault against the car."

The hostility of California's climate-conscious, transit-obsessed politicians to traditional automobile travel is no secret. Gov. Jerry Brown has suggested banning all gas-powered cars. Los Angeles' explicit policy is to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled.

SB 1's spending priorities reflect this. $100 million of the state's road funding is dedicated to "active transportation"—i.e., bike lanes, sidewalks, and recreational trails. Bike lanes built with these funds often come paired with the destruction of existing car lanes, which merely adds to the California drivers' woes. Meanwhile, about 1 percent of the state's trip takers use bikes.

Another $200 million in annual road funding is allotted in "self-help" funds to counties that have increased sales taxes to fund transportation. That would make Los Angeles County eligible, as its voters passed a sales tax hike for that purpose in 2016. The county's spending plan adopts a "multi-modal" approach, meaning those sales tax dollars and "self-help" funds can easily work their way into mass transit projects.

A $250 million congested corridor relief program is similarly prohibited from being spent on adding traditional highway lane miles.

Meanwhile, taxpayers have little reason to believe that the $2.8 billion in SB1 money that is specifically earmarked for highway and local road maintenance will be spent wisely. According to a report by the Reason Foundation, California spends $84,005 per mile to maintain its highways, compared to a national average of $28,020—while ranking 46th in the quality of its urban highways.

A basic principle of transportation funding is that users should pay for the infrastructure they use. A gas tax in theory fits the bill by collecting money from the motorists, truck drivers, and transit buses to pay for the roads they drive on. California apparently prefers to spending its gas tax dollars and vehicle registration fees to pay for modes of transportation the motorists don't use

Atkins pushes bill so 30% of your neighbors can redevelop you ! UPDATE

 

See the Article in the San Diego Reader
Atkins pushes bill so 30% of your neighbors can redevelop you 

Marco Li Mandri wants to change city law to make it easier to form assessment districts. He’s helped start 61 such districts around the country.

Marco LiMandri weeps elephant tears over end of assessment districts.

By Dorian Hargrove, April 1, 2014

 
Assembly Speaker-elect Toni Atkins [Editor's Note: That's right folks, she is now Speaker of the Assembly with the power to force bills through the Assembly!  This Bill was withdrawn but it is still disturbing that it was even so tried.  See the updated article HERE. Governor Brown wants his own redevelopment bill passed called JEDI] wants to make it easier for property owners to levy assessments on their neighbors property tax bills to pay for community improvements.

Last month, on February 21, Atkins introduced legislation aimed at tweaking California's Property and Business Improvement District Law by introducing Community Benefit Districts.

Community Benefit Districts are nearly identical to Property and Business Improvement Districts except for three major changes: The bill would reduce the number of property owners needed to establish an improvement district from 50 percent to 30 percent, as well as extend the life of the district from ten years to twenty years. Lastly, if passed the legislation would turn San Diego County into a testing ground for the Community Benefit Districts, meaning the law would not apply to any other county in California.Atkins' proposal is not a new idea. In fact, former-assemblymember Juan Vargas introduced similar bills in 2002 and 2005 and an identical bill which Vargas later pulled from consideration in 2012.

None have gone over so well.

In 2002, then-governor Gray Davis vetoed Vargas's first attempt, saying the "bill offers no compelling reason why the assessment period should be extended so significantly, or for why the percentage of property owners signing a petition in support of such a [Business Improvement District] is reduced from 50 [percent] to 30 [percent]. I am committed to the principles of smart growth and urban revitalization, but I do not believe that this bill provides the proper balance between these principles and those of fair and just taxation.”Ten years later Vargas still had trouble finding support for the law. In 2012 he pulled the bill amid complaints from lobbyist groups and labor unions who believed the law was unneeded and could potentially tarnish California's Property and Business Improvement Law.

The bill’s unreasonably low petition threshold of just 30 percent (as opposed to the 50 percent required for PBID formation) would allow a small number of property owners to initiate the district proceedings without obtaining consensus support from even a bare majority of impacted businesses," read a letter opposing Community Benefit Districts from a number of lobbyist groups including the California Business Properties Association, the California Building Industries Association, the California Retailers Association and others.Opposition to Vargas's law even came from nonprofit organizations which represent assessment districts. "The concern is that if you lower the petition threshold to 30 percent, you could foster a situation where a few large parcel owners could band together and force a district through the process without support of many small owners," wrote Kerry Morrison, executive director for Hollywood's property-based improvement district, in an April 2012 letter to Vargas.

"What the proponents do not reveal, however, is that the number of ballots typically returned is relatively small; hence the initial petition threshold is actually the more challenging hurdle in [business improvement district] formation."But the legislation, once thought dead, has risen again.

Maintenance assessment district-guru Marco Li Mandri came up with the concept of Community Benefit Districts and served as an adviser to Vargas and Atkins in writing the legislation.

Li Mandri says the legislation will correct flaws in the property and business improvement district law.

First and foremost, he says, the name is wrong. "It implies only 'business improvement' when in fact, all of our downtown and commercial areas are becoming mixed use and the majority of new development is not business oriented."

Other flaws says Li Mandri: "The five-year term, particularly in light of the end of redevelopment is far too short. Districts should last as long as property owners received tangible benefit. It should be their choice instead of a full employment act for formation consultants."

"Finally, the 50 percent petition threshold is unreasonably high and only favors districts with high concentration of property ownership. The petition doesn’t create the district, the balloting does. But many areas never get to balloting because they could not reach the petition threshold. The argument that it builds 'community support' is a farce. The high petition threshold forces districts into smaller boundaries and lower budgets because the threshold is so high. It makes no sense to require 50 percent of the weighted property owners to trigger a balloting when only 55 to 65 percent of property owners will even return their mail ballots."

Assemblywoman Toni Atkins' office did not reply in time for publication. The bill, since the amendment, is now headed back to the local government committee of the State Assembly.

----------------------
Atkins elected Assembly speaker

UTSanDiego

· 22 days ago

Summary SACRAMENTO San Diego Democrat Toni Atkins was elected Assembly Speaker Monday afternoon. She will be the first San Diegan and only the third woman to hold the post. "She has impressed me as someone with a true servant's heart - willing to take on the causes she believes in, fighting for the poor, the disenfranchised and the marginalized."

11 Things You Need to Know About the Dangers of the New Redevelopment Agencies for Marin.

11 Things You Need to Know About...

Redevelopment and the California Jobs and Education Development Initiative (JEDI) Act

---

Download the report: Return of the Empire: How California's J.E.D.I. Act Would Bring Back Destructive Redevelopment Agencies

1. BRINGING BACK REDEVELOPMENT:
   Governor Jerry Brown and the California legislature abolished redevelopment agencies in 2011. The agencies were infamous for abusing eminent domain, engaging in corruption and steering vital public funds away from schools and fire departments. The JEDI Act seeks to revive redevelopment agencies.
    
2. EXPANDS AGENCIES’ POWERS:
   If passed, the JEDI Act would be one of the most significant expansions of government power in decades. Not only would it resurrect redevelopment agencies, it would grant them more power than they previously had.
    
3. ONE OF THE WORST FOR ABUSE:
   Redevelopment made California one of the worst states in the nation for eminent domain abuse. It enabled the government to replace existing property owners with wealthier ones.
    
4. EXPANDING BLIGHT:
   The JEDI Act would create an even more expansive definition of “blight” to condemn private property and give it to politically-connected developers and corporations. For instance, an area would show signs of blight if unemployment rates in the area exceed the national average. Under this definition, the entire state shows signs of “blight.”
    
5. UNELECTED AND UNACCOUNTABLE:
   Redevelopment agencies are unelected and unaccountable governmental bodies that have very few restrictions on their power.
    
6. HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF ACRES:
   By 2011, there were 425 redevelopment agencies in California administering 750 project areas, 34 of which were over 6,000 acres. In one example, the entire city of Westminster, south of Los Angeles, was declared a redevelopment zone.
    
7. REDEVELOPMENT HURT LOW INCOME AREAS:
   Those displaced by redevelopment were often low-income minorities or the elderly, whose property was bulldozed to make way for big box retailers, professional sports teams and auto retailers.
    
8. JOBS? WHAT JOBS?:
   Redevelopment did nothing to increase the overall number of jobs in California. In 2011, the California Legislative Analyst’s Office actually found that “there is no reliable evidence that [redevelopment] attracts business to the state or increases overall regional economic development.”
    
9. DEBT —LOADS OF IT:
   A redevelopment agency can only receive property tax revenue from its redevelopment area if it goes into debt. By 2011, the long-term debt of the agencies stood at $29.8 billion and their share of total statewide property taxes grew to 12 percent.
    
10. BLIGHTED FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE:
    The JEDI Act allows redevelopment plans to last forty years into the future and removes a time limit on when redevelopment agencies have to repay their debt.
     
11. REDEVELOPMENT OFTEN DIDN’T REDEVELOP:
    Redevelopment agencies spent just 13 percent of their funds on project improvements and construction costs, while most of their funds went to debt repayments or paying municipal bills in towns where elected city officials often doubled as redevelopment agency personnel.

Marin IJ: New Threat for Marin

All single family homes within 1/2 mile of the 101 Highway are part of the Urbanized 101 Priority Development Area and may be subject to Eminent Domain seizure for redevelopment under SB-1

from Marin IJ: Plan Bay Area opponents see new legislative threat on horizon

By Richard Halstead

Marin Independent Journal

Posted:   02/02/2014 04:00:00 PM PST

Marin residents who fought tooth and nail against approval of Plan Bay Area have identified a new bete noire: proposed state legislation that would replace redevelopment agencies with "Sustainable Communities Investment Authorities."

Senate Bill 1, introduced by Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, would allow cities, counties and special districts to designate Sustainable Communities Investment areas in locations near transit corridors and to create Sustainable Communities Investment authorities to support development there.

"If you thought Plan Bay Area was bad, Senate Bill 1 is much more extreme," said Richard Hall, who led the fight to prevent his Civic Center neighborhood in San Rafael from participating in the Plan Bay Area scheme to reduce greenhouse gases by encouraging the building of denser housing close to transportation corridors.

In a recent column published on the Patch website, Hall wrote, "Senate Bill 1, if enacted, could send us back to Dickensian London — dark days where those with lower incomes were relegated to living in crowded conditions in inner city high rises."

Steve Shea, a policy consultant for Steinberg, said, "I read that article. It was humorous. I couldn't tell if it was tongue in cheek. The alarmist tone does not accurately reflect what is in the bill and what the bill would do."

Other local Plan Bay Area antagonists, however, share Hall's foreboding.
Peter Singleton of Larkspur, who co-founded Bay Area Citizens to oppose Plan Bay Area, said, "It's a really chilling, frightening piece of legislation. It has all the deficiencies of redevelopment agencies."

Susan Kirsch of Mill Valley, a co-founder of Citizen Marin, said, "SB 1 takes the inefficiencies of the dissolved redevelopment agencies and opens the doors to make the situation worse."

Under pressure to reduce the state budget deficit in 2011, Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature dissolved California's nearly 400 redevelopment agencies, giving the state access to $1.7 billion earmarked for projects to eradicate urban blight.

SB 1 would define blight in a new way: as inefficient land use patterns that result in increased greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, energy consumption, reduced farmland, habitat destruction and a lack of affordable housing.

Shea said, "The bill is attempting to build on the body of community redevelopment law. The redevelopment agencies have been eliminated but the community redevelopment law still exists."

SB 1 would harness the old financing model employed by redevelopment agencies to help finance the infrastructure needed for infill development and affordable housing. This model, often referred to as tax increment financing, involves the issuance of debt, usually in the form of bonds, to pay for new development. Increased property values result from the new development, which generates additional property tax revenue, and this incremental property tax revenue is then used to repay the initial debt.

The authority boards would be appointed by the city, county or special district that creates the Sustainable Communities Investment area. Hall sees this as an ominous trend.
"Unelected bodies are starting to control development, overriding local control," Hall said. "Cities and counties no longer have the ability to manage their own destiny."

But Rhys Williams, a spokesman for Steinberg, said, "The authorities will be managed by independent, citizen governing boards and will be required to comply with all state ethics and open government laws. No tax revenues would be diverted from the schools and the state general fund would be protected."

Like the old redevelopment agencies, the new authorities would have the power of eminent domain. And critics of the bill say under SB 1 the new authorities' eminent domain powers would be even greater. That is because the authorities would be allowed to rely on a legislative determination of blight and would not be required to conduct a survey of blight within the project area.

Shea, however, said that notwithstanding some of the rhetoric over the past issue of eminent domain, "There is not a lot of evidence it was abused on any widespread basis or even used very often.

"There are a lot of legal restrictions developed in case law that require a legitimate public use for any takings," Shea said. "So people can't necessarily come in and clear out residences and put in high-rise tenements as has been suggested."

One more vote by the state Senate is required before the bill can be sent to Gov. Brown for his signature. It is unclear, however, whether Brown will sign it.

Contact Richard Halstead via e-mail at rhalstead@marinij.com. Follow him at twitter.com/halsteadrichard

"Corde Mazilla" is 180 unit building next to the 101 Highway in Corte Madera.
Soon the entire 101 Corridor may be lined with these behemoths.  We will Save Marin again.