Marinwood CSD approves Labor contract WITHOUT financial analysis

The Marinwood CSD rushed to approve this at the December 20, 2018 WITH NO DISCUSSION of the financial costs and long term financial affects to the district budget. It is yet another example of the feckless leadership on the Marinwood CSD board and the CSD Manager who lacks training in labor negotiation. Over 66% of all Marinwood FD emergency response is in the City of San Rafael. Marinwood taxpayers subsidize this because of the inept ability of Marinwood CSD to negotiate a fair agreement. This is why we need to consider alternatives to the current "shared services" agreement such as alignment with another agency or hiring fire services privately.

Marinwood CSD is certain to go bankrupt unless it adopts a responsible fiscal management plan. Simply doing "business as usual" will drive us irreversibly into bankruptcy without the ability to meet pension obligations.

Marinwood firefighters get 3-year contract after period of tension

Marinwood firefighters get 3-year contract after period of tension

Firefighters extinguish a vegetation fire last year near Johnstone Drive in Marinwood. The neighborhood has its own firefighters, but the top administrators are from the San Rafael Fire Department. (Robert Tong/Marin Independent Journal)

By GARY KLIEN | gklien@marinij.com | Marin Independent Journal
PUBLISHED: December 22, 2018 at 5:15 pm | UPDATED: December 22, 2018 at 5:18 pm


After several years without a contract, Marinwood’s firefighters have secured a three-year package of pay hikes.

The contract, approved Thursday night by the Marinwood Community Services District board, also includes a $2,000 one-time payment and other incentives. The vote was 4-0, with Jeff Naylor absent.

The increases range from 5.5 percent to 8.5 percent over the three years, depending on rank. By the end of the contract, the maximum pay scale will range from $6,913 a month for veteran firefighters to $8,121 for captains.

Union negotiator John Bagala, a former Marinwood fire captain, said the contract still leaves Marinwood’s pay as the lowest in the county, but the multiyear deal gives the firefighters and the district a respite from being at “loggerheads.”

“Much more needs to be done, but this contract is a good first step,” said Bagala, vice president of Marin Professional Firefighters, Local 1775 of the International Association of Firefighters. “The reason we strive for parity is in order to attract the most qualified people so we can provide the highest quality service to the public.”

The district also agreed to start an “advanced life support” program for its medics, bringing them up to the care level provided by other local departments. Bagala said the majority of the department’s 1,400 to 1,500 annual calls are medical.

The contract caps a prolonged period of tension over not just wages but also basic working conditions. The firehouse kitchen, largely demolished nearly two years ago during a mold abatement project, was only recently refurbished after repeated snags over funding and contractors.

“The district is grateful to have completed this process and looks forward to focusing on the future, while enhancing the high level of service our community has come to expect,” Leah Green, president of the district board, said of the contract resolution.

In this fiscal year, the contract calls for a 1.5 percent raise for firefighters and firefighter-paramedics; 2 percent for engineers; and 2.5 percent for captains. In the 2019-20 and 2020-21 fiscal years, those numbers rise to 2 percent, 2.5 percent and 3 percent.

Under the agreement, the department will have nine budgeted positions instead of 10. The nine positions cover three shifts that include a captain, an engineer and firefighter. Overtime shifts fill in the gaps. See the full story  HERE

Editor's Note:  The Marinwood CSD rushed to approve this at the December 20, 2018 WITH NO DISCUSSION of the financial costs and long term financial affects to the district budget.   It is yet another example of the feckless leadership on the Marinwood CSD board and the CSD Manager who lacks training in labor negotiation.  Over 66% of all Marinwood FD emergency response is in the City of San Rafael.   Marinwood taxpayers subsidize this because of the inept ability of Marinwood CSD to negotiate a fair agreement.  This is why we need to consider alternatives to the current "shared services" agreement such as alignment with another agency or hiring fire services privately.

Marinwood CSD is certain to go bankrupt unless it adopts a responsible fiscal management plan. Simply doing "business as usual" will drive us irreversibly into bankruptcy without the ability to meet pension obligations. 

"We are not throwing (Jeff Naylor) under the bus"

Jeff Naylor CSD Board member is passed over for consideration as Marinwood CSD board president.  Leah Green - “We are not throwing him under the bus.”  Naylor has served on the Marinwood Fire Commission for many years. In his new role on the Marinwood CSD, he has missed at least five meetings in 2018 yet still found time to meet privately with CSD Manager, Eric Dreikosen to discuss the Marinwood Maintenance Facility.  His regular violations of the Brown Act and lack of  transparency of Marinwood business practices is subject of citizen complaints and is under review.  Naylor famously dismissed 200 residents who called for a public meeting to discuss the Maintenance Facility as ignorant. 

This was not one of Jeff Naylor's finer moments in 2018

The Tragedy of Urban Renewal

Urban Renewal...Means Negro Removal. ~ James Baldwin (1963)

Urban development ("improving the neighborhood) most often means moving out existing residents in favor of new, wealthier ones.  Plan Bay Area has displaced tens of thousands of African Americans from around the Bay Area in the name of "environmentalism and social equity".  We think people should come first.

What a Wonderful World-Louis Armstrong

Smart Growth: Why It's Not Working in the Bay Area

Remember when free expression and "back to the land" were a popular movement?

New: Smart Growth: Why It's Not Working in the Bay Area (Public Comment)

James Shinn

Tuesday August 11, 2015 - 10:23:00 PM

Smart growth is simply not working in highly attractive urban settings such as San Francisco. The reason is that smart growth in these areas has a paradoxical effect. The reasons are as follows:

From a climatological and topographical standpoint, San Francisco has always been a desirable place to live. There has never been a time when people didn’t want to live there. On the other hand, something very strange has happened in the last 10-15 years. The city has vaulted dramatically to the top in our country to become the most expensive major urban city in the USA for rentals, and the second most gridlocked city in the nation. Why has this happened at the same time that smart growth policies became fully imbedded in local urban planning decisions!? We are getting the exact opposite of what smart growth policy promises should happen! High rise residential structures have exploded all over San Francisco, but the gridlock and prices just seem to be getting worse and worse.  

The reason is two-fold. The Bay Area happens to be the cradle for one of the greatest economic revolutions in human history—the high-tech revolution. But this revolution was born in the Santa Clara valley, which does not have the topographical and climatological assets that are characteristic of the North Bay. For a considerable period of time, this did not make much difference in habitation patterns. The techies involved in the industry remained in the valley close to their companies. Being well-paid, they bid up residential prices in the area to quite high levels. Then came the smart phone app application revolution, combined with the move of financial firms to San Francisco, and the concomitant decisions by city planners to start driving the city skyward. San Francisco suddenly became THE place to live if you wanted to show you had “made it”, and all these techies decided they wanted to live in this new “Manhattan”. High rise buildings are part of this “vibe”. As one Bay Area city planner told me when I objected to skyscrapers for Berkeley, “Americans love skyscrapers!”. For awhile, techies started moving to San Francisco and taking corporate buses back to the Valley for their jobs each day. This still goes on. But, increasingly, they now have such high salaries that they can actually buy a condo in the city—and that is the key variable driving the current price explosion.  

The other key variable is the fact that, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, about 20% of SF residential purchases are by foreign buyers, primarily from China, as investment vehicles for getting assets offshore. And, frequently, these foreign purchases are empty most of the year. Everybody wants to be part of the new “Gotham by the Bay”. This is why, the more you build, the more they will keep coming—with the disastrous environmental effects of gridlock that we are now seeing. The smart growth theory is that this high-rise density actually can be used to force people out of their cars. Some of the more cynical smart growth advocates actually say that, eventually, the gridlock will get so destructive that people will have no other choice but to virtually abandon the automobile. This mantra is particularly prevalent among young techies. But, sadly, this is the fallacy of hope over experience. It simply is not happening in any urban area that has very limited land availability(SF), high topological/climatological desirability(SF), and high disposable income among the professional class(once again, SF).  

To date, Berkeley has not yet become totally infected with this virus—but we are on the cusp. This drive by techies, and out of country buyers, to live in SF at all costs can not be realized by all. Some just don’t have quite enough money to realize the dream. What to do? Move across the bay to the next best alternative—Oakland and Berkeley, commute to our jobs in SF and hope that the “Manhattanization” of Berkeley(for example) moves ahead fast enough so that it can be seen as an “acceptable life-style” type of place to live. The sad fact is that, then,what has happened to SF is going to happen to Berkeley—and fast! We are already starting to see the first wave of this impact. Gridlock is growing, prices are going up steadily, lower income residents are being pushed out. And we are rapidly losing the particular aesthetic, architectural, and livable character of this low-rise city. And the city planners plan for even more of this by urging the construction of high rises because this, allegedly, will provide more housing, at more affordable rates, for all. Unfortunately, this won’t happen.  

What we will get instead is "Manhattan by the East Bay”, ever more unaffordable as it becomes a perhaps equally “acceptable" place to live as SF. The bottom line is that, for high desirability, land deficit, urban areas, the high rise codicil to smart growth philosophy simply doesn’t work. The problem is that urban planners simply are refusing to believe that “the emperor has no clothes”. In the face of reality staring them in the face they simply can’t admit what is happening before their very eyes—and ears and noses! When the Downtown Plan was passed several years ago, the people of Berkeley had not come to realize this either. But in the meantime, this revolution in urban development has exploded with exponential force. More and more of the public is beginning to come to terms with what urban planning, by “the best and the brightest” hath wrought—and they don’t like it. This is why Harold Way must be stopped at all costs, Once the people of Berkeley allow city development to cross this high-rise Rubicon, and set a true high-rise precedent in our fair city, there is no turning back. The die will have been cast. 

And finally, what happens if this current tech bubble bursts—as it has before—and many are predicting that it will soon—and real estate prices begin to tumble rapidly—as they did so recently. Then we will have a downtown stuck with high-rise structures that don’t appear to be such good investments, and tax reservoirs, after all. In fact, they will be white elephants. This is why true, “smart growth” for Berkeley is to proceed with mid-rise, 4-6 story infill development along the lines of what is presently going on. After all, this has been good enough for Paris, why should it not be good enough for us! There is plenty of opportunity for this to be done—despite what some city planners say. One can argue about the aesthetics and neighborhood impact of these structures, and this is the proper purview of the Design Review Committee, but this more cautious approach to downtown development provides far more protection against the inevitable real estate bust that is coming. 

A very Libertarian Christmas

How to Connect Ideas with People

REMY: Its beginning to look alot like Christmas

U.S. Cost of Living and Wage Stagnation, 1979-2015

U.S. Cost of Living and Wage Stagnation, 1979-2015

By Marian L. Tupy
|
@HumanProgress





The question of the cost of living in the United States is intimately connected to the issue of the so-called “wage stagnation,” which is typically blamed on economic liberalizationthat started under President Carter, gathered steam under President Reagan, and peaked under President Clinton.

According to a 2015 report issued by the Economic Policy Institute, a pro-labor think tank based in Washington, D.C., “ever since 1979, the vast majority of American workers have seen their hourly wages stagnate or decline. This is despite real GDP growth of 149 percent and net productivity growth of 64 percent over this period. In short, the potential has existed for ample, broad-based wage growth over the last three-and-a-half decades, but these economic gains have largely bypassed the vast majority.”

True, adjusted for inflation, average hourly earnings of production and nonsupervisory employees in the private sector (closest approximation for the quintessential blue-collar worker that I could find) have barely changed between 1979 and 2015. In October 1979, average hourly earnings stood at $6.51 or $21.20 in 2015 dollars. In October 2015, average hourly earnings stood at $21.18 – slightly below the inflation adjusted 1979 level.

Looking at the average hourly earnings, however, ignores at least three very important factors: expansion of non-wage benefits, fall in the price of consumer goods and rise in price of services, such as education and healthcare.



First, in recent decades, non-wage benefits expanded. Today they include relocation assistance, medical and prescription coverage, vision and dental coverage, health and dependent care flexible spending accounts, retirement benefit plans, group-term life and long term care insurance plans, legal and adoption assistance plans, child care and transportation benefits, vacation and sick paid time-off, and employee discount programs from a variety of vendors, etc.

It is not easy to put an exact figure on the value of those non-wage benefits, but they could amount to as much as 30 or even 40 percent of the workers’ earnings. The lion’s share of the non-wage benefits, as my Cato colleague Peter Van Doren wrote in 2011, is consumed by “the dramatic increase in health insurance costs.” “The fixed costs of health insurance,” Van Doren shows, “are a much larger percentage of the total compensation of lower-earnings workers.”

Second, many, perhaps most, big-ticket items used by a typical American family on a daily basis have decreased in price. Over at Human Progress, we have been comparing the prices of common household items as advertised in the 1979 Sears catalog and prices of common household items as sold by Walmart in 2015.

We have divided the 1979 nominal prices by 1979 average nominal hourly wages and 2015 nominal prices by 2015 average nominal hourly wages, to calculate the “time cost” of common household items in each year (i.e., the number of hours the average American would have to work to earn enough money to purchase various household items at the nominal prices). Thus, the “time cost” of a 13 Cu. Ft. refrigerator fell by 52 percent in terms of the hours of work required at the average hourly nominal wage, etc.

Needless to say, the above price reductions greatly underestimate the totality of welfare gains by an average American, by ignoring qualitative, aesthetic and environmental improvements on commonly used items. (To give just one example, a refrigerator today uses one-third of the electricity used by a refrigerator in the 1970s.)

From the above discussion it might be reasonable to conclude that Americans are much better off today than they were in the late 1970s, but that would be too simplistic. The cost of education, healthcare and housing has risen at a faster pace than total compensation. It is true that today’s houses are larger, healthcare better, and education more high-tech than in the past, but quality improvements do not seem to account for the entirety of price increases. For example, there appears to be a high degree of academic consensus that housing price inflation is driven, primarily, by zoning laws. (No such consensus, alas, exists for the rise in education and healthcare costs.)

The question of standard of living is a complex one. The accompanying infographic refers to merely one part of the debate, i.e., affordability of commonly used items. While we believe that the infographic tells an important story, it should be considered within a broader context, including non-wage compensation and offsetting increases in the cost of housing, education, and healthcare.

This first appeared in Reason

The accompanying infographic features 16 different household items have fallen by between 52 percent and 96 percent in terms of “time cost” since 1979.


Marian L. Tupy is a senior policy analyst at the Cato Institute and editor of HumanProgress.org.

Mid Century Home Life in the 1950s