Assembly Bill 2, authored by Assemblyman Luis Alejo, D-Salinas, would give local governments the power to create new entities that would have the same legal authority as redevelopment agencies. These new Community Revitalization Investment Authorities would have the power to issue bonds, award sweetheart deals to businesses and “acquire and transfer property subject to eminent domain,” according to the legislative analysis of the bill.

Property rights advocates warn that the bill’s language contains no restrictions on eminent domain and could resurrect the abuses made possible by the Supreme Court’s controversial Kelo decision.

“It brings back the right of governments to exercise eminent domain against some private parties in order to resell their property to other private parties,” cautioned Howard Ahmanson, Jr., a property rights advocate and founder of Fieldstead and Company. “Only new and wealthy suburbs would be potentially spared from ‘redevelopment,’ the lower middle class and poor would not.”

12 Assembly Republicans back redevelopment, unrestricted eminent domain

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v. New London that government agencies have the power to seize property for economic development. The decision was widely criticized across the political spectrum and inspired states to pass tougher laws limiting governments’ eminent domain powers. Here in California, the momentum for property rights reached its zenith in 2011, when Gov. Jerry Brown pushed through a plan to end redevelopment as part of his plan to balance the state budget.

Now a decade since Kelo, the horror stories of small businesses being seized to make way for strip malls and condo complexes have faded from public memory. During the state Assembly’s floor debate on the bill, not a single member – Republican or Democrat – spoke in opposition to the bill, which passed by a 63-13 vote.

Surprisingly, a dozen Assembly Republican lawmakers, including Assembly GOP leader Kristin Olsen, joined the Democratic majority in backing the bill. Olsen’s office refused to comment on the bill or explain how the bill fit with the Republican Caucus’ position on property rights. One GOP lawmaker defended her vote by arguing that redevelopment agencies are an important tool for economic development.

“I ran for Assembly to help create jobs,” said Assemblywoman Young Kim, R-Fullerton. “RDAs give us another tool to do just that while turning around poor and disadvantaged areas.”

Redevelopment focused in areas with high unemployment, crime

Under the bill, a Community Revitalization Investment Authority could be created by a city, county or special district if certain conditions are met. The first requirement is that the area have an annual median household income that is less than 80 percent of the statewide median. Additionally, three of the following four conditions must be met:

• Unemployment that is at least 3 percent higher than the statewide median unemployment rate;
• A crime rate that is 5 percet higher than the statewide median crime rate;
• Deteriorated or inadequate infrastructure such as streets, sidewalks, water supply, sewer treatment or processing, and parks;
• Deteriorated commercial or residential structures.

“It’s redevelopment with a kinder, gentler twist,” explains Steven Greenhut, the state’s foremost expert on eminent domain and author of the book, Abuse of Power: How the Government Misuses Eminent Domain. “If AB2 passes, agencies will take property by eminent domain and use public dollars to fund private projects. Localities will run up debt without a vote of the public. As always, the plans of residents will give way to the edicts of the planners.”

There’s overwhelming evidence that redevelopment agencies harm small businesses, while failing in their mission to stimulate economies. That’s most evident in the landmark Kelo case, where a Connecticut town offered a corporate welfare package to the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, Inc.

“While Ms. Kelo and her neighbors lost their homes, the city and the state spent some $78 million to bulldoze private property for high-end condos and other ‘desirable’ elements,” the Wall Street Journal observed in 2009. “Instead, the wrecked and condemned neighborhood still stands vacant, without any of the touted tax benefits or job creation.”

Those abuses extended to California’s application of redevelopment, property rights advocates say.

“California has rightly earned the reputation as one of the nation’s largest abusers of eminent domain, given that Redevelopment Agencies routinely abused their power of eminent domain to seize homes, small businesses and places of worship for private development,” wrote the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights, the state’s leading property rights group. “Time and time again, these obscure agencies diverted taxpayer dollars from core government programs to finance professional sports arenas, luxury hotels, golf courses and strip malls.”

Alejo: Bill needed to help disadvantaged communities

Nevertheless, supporters of AB2 say that blighted areas are a problem that demand government action.

“There are many areas in the state where the streets are broken and old water and sewer pipes lurk below,” Alejo said of his legislation. “In these areas, businesses do not open up shop. This leads to high unemployment, high crime rates and a hopeless community. This bill will work to tackle issues facing our state’s most disadvantaged communities.”

Several GOP lawmakers that opposed the bill dispute Alejo’s arguments.

“Private property rights are a foundational principle declared by our founding fathers,” said Asm. Scott Wilk, R-Santa Clarita, who opposed the bill. “Eminent domain is used by the government to trample on private property rights and as an individual property owner, there are legal protections in place to prevent government encroachment.”

Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez, R-Lake Elsinore, one of only 13 members to oppose the bill, said that she understands her colleagues interest in redevelopment, but can’t back legislation that undermines property rights.

“Stripping away property rights in the name of economic development isn’t the answer,” said Melendez, a former member of the Lake Elsinore City Council. “I think it has become more fashionable to allow the government to take over instead of allowing the free market to do so.”

AB 60 by Assemblyman Luis Alejo, D-Salinas, will grant drivers licenses to everyone who can pass the tests required by the Department of Motor Vehicles, regardless of their immigration status.

The DMV-issued driver's license will have an identifying mark on the card so it cannot be used for voter identification.

And that identifying mark is the sticking point.

Many immigrant groups and labor unions opposed AB 60, but there was nothing in the media about this opposition.

“AB 60 will have a recognizable mark on the front of the license, and the back will read: 'this card in not acceptable for federal purposes; it is acceptable for driving purposes only,” a joint memo from 10 labor unions said. The California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, SEIU, Asian Americans For Civil Rights and Equality, ACLU, California Nurses Association, Mexican American Legal Defense and Legal Fund,  California Teamsters Public Affairs Council, California Professional Firefighters, and The United Farm Workers signed the opposition memo.

The labor unions objected to the identifying mark on the ID, because it would “single out undocumented members of the community.”

The unions are right.

The identification card will also end up requiring drivers to carry auto insurance, in a de-facto way.

Once this information gets out, I don't think there will be any great rush by undocumented immigrants to get a card which clearly identifies them as in the country illegally.

Advocates for immigrant groups have pushed for the driver's license and insisted it is necessary so immigrants in the country illegally can drive without the constant fear of being pulled over for a traffic violation, and end up getting deported.

This may be, but the insurance requirement could be a problem when immigrants are pulled over for a traffic violation.

Alejo released this statement:

“I am proud to have authored a historic measure for the state of California. I want to commend the Governor for understanding the reality faced by 1.4 million unlicensed drivers who have waited for nearly two decades to have an opportunity to drive to work without fear,” Alejo said. “With AB 60 we are recognizing the needs of many hard-working immigrants living here and contributing so much to our great state. Immigrants who drive legally are more likely to work, spend and contribute to the economy. And those with driver's licenses will have more job opportunities available to them, which will boost businesses in the state.”

During committee hearings on AB 60, Alejo testified how so many illegal immigrants are forced to drive cheap cars because of the constant threat of being impounded by the police.

“This bill will enable millions of people to get to work safely and legally,” Gov. Brown said in a statement in September, after the Legislature passed AB 60. “Hopefully, it will send a message to Washington that immigration reform is long past due.”

This is an issue in which Gov. Brown and I can agree, but we may not agree on how.

By Katy Grimes

SACRAMENTO — If a labor union-friendly bill currently working through the California Legislature is signed into law, the United Farm Workers labor union stands to triple in size.

According to peach and wine grape grower Dan Gerawan of Gerawan Farms, SB 25, by Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, would forcibly unionize his 5,000 employees along with other farm employees. And it would make the workers surrender 3 percent of their paycheck as dues to the UFW — or the workers would be fired.

Steinberg’s bill was heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee Tuesday. Sponsored by the UFW, SB 25 is an attempt by the UFW to force the Agricultural Labor Relations Board to put its decisions into immediate effect, rather than allow an employer the right to an appeal in order to stay the decision.

According to Steinberg, SB 25 is needed because some farm employers are exploiting loopholes in the farm labor law to delay enacting contracts with unionized farm workers.

But SB 25 appears to be a direct assault on large farming operations in California. Of the 86,000 farms in the state, Steinberg said, SB 25 “will impact only about a half dozen.” And small farms of less than 25 employees would be exempted altogether.

This explains how the UFW stands to triple in size.

According to many of the state’s agriculture employers, Steinberg’s bill would allow unions to bypass the bargaining process, and  move immediately to mandatory mediation, where a state arbitrator would make all decisions.

“Not all employers are bad,” Steinberg said at the hearing.

Mandatory binding mediation

By Katy Grimes

Without SB 25, the United Farm Workers union is going to need to make tough reforms to survive. By state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, the bill would grant the UFW advantages that no other union in California has, such as forcing employers into repeated mediation. And this is a very union-friendly state.

Opponents say California’s 1975 Agricultural Labor Relations Act, signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown during his first stint as governor, remains adequate. It granted broad new rights to laborers and has stood the test of time.

In a way, the UFW is a victim of its own success. The years of suffering and protesting under legendary founder Cesar Chavez, who now has a state holiday honoring him on March 31, paid off with the ALRA. It provides many of the worker protections that previously needed to be negotiated in union contracts.

To succeed, Chavez needed only the ALRA, not SB 25.

Chavez died in 1993. And as often happens after a charismatic leader departs, the organization he animated struggles to remain relevant. According to the UFW’s Form LM-2 Labor Organization Annual Report filed with the U.S. Department of Labor on April 10, 2013, as of Dec. 31, 2012 the union had only 4,443 members.

According to a January 2012 article in The Nation magazine, “Cesar Chavez and the Farmworkers: What Went Wrong?,” the union boasted “50,000 members at the end of the 1970s.” So it has declined by more than 90 percent. By contrast, today the California Teachers Association lists 325,000 members. 

The article in The Nation, a liberal magazine, quoted Frank Bardacke, the author of a recent book on Chavez and the UFW. “The UFW had no locals,” he said of the union’s problems. “That was a tremendous mistake. There’s no substitute for face to face debate, people having direct control over their local union affairs. That’s the way you build strength.”

SB 25 detailss

Sponsored by the UAW itself, SB 25 would let the union continue its complacency while artificially boosting its numbers. It passed the state Senate on May 6. But last week the bill was killed by the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee because it could not get enough votes to pass.

Committee Chairman Assemblyman Roger Hernandez, D-West Covina, allowed reconsideration of the bill. It will be heard Wednesday, June 26, in that committee.

SB 25 proposes to make dramatic changes to the mandatory mediation process added in 2002 as amendments to the ALRA. Among other things, it would:

* Force privately owned and family farms to fire farm workers who fail or refuse to pay union dues for jobs they’ve held for years.

* Remove the one-time limit on mandatory mediation when there is a labor dispute. Doing so would allow unlimited demands for mediation that would have to be met. Here’s the specific wording in SB 25, “Deletes the requirement of existing law that, for labor organizations certified after January 1, 2003, the mandatory mediation process would only apply for an initial request to bargain.” (Underline in original.)

“This bill would close legal loopholes and stop cynical games growers play to deny their farm workers the life-changing protections of union contract [sic],” said the UFW on its Website.

Opponents of SB 25 say the perpetual mediation would be a weapon so powerful that there would no longer be a need to negotiate with the UFW, only capitulate.

Democratic doubts

Many Democrats from agricultural districts are beginning to have doubts about a bill that likely would kill jobs in there areas. Unlike prosperous Sacramento and Silicon Valley, California’s farm belt only now is beginning to recover from the Great Recession.

These Democratic doubts have alarmed the UFW. “Democratic members of that committee—Assemblymembers Chris Holden and Luis Alejo—chose not to vote for SB 25!” the UFW exclaimed on its Website. “Assemblymember Holden has said he will vote for it next week when the bill will be heard again on June 26, but Assemblymember Alejo still has not responded.” Holden represents Pasadena.

Alejo did not vote on the bill, which caused quite an uproar in Salinas, his home turf. And as I reported Monday, Alejo has clashed with the union over attempts by its own workers to negotiate better labor contracts.

Alejo told the Salinas Californian he had concerns about SB 25 and had reached out to the union prior to the hearing. “We had a meeting set up for Tuesday [June 18, prior to the bill vote] and [the UFW] canceled,” Alejo said. Shortly after the vote, the UFW was protesting at Alejo’s Capitol office.

Affect on farmers

“Once a contract is imposed on our workers, it will double or even triple the size of the UFW’s current membership,” Dan Gerawan told me; he’s the president of Gerawan Farming, a family-owned business in Reedley which employs more than 5,000 farm workers. “So, more than half of the UFW’s membership will never have been given the opportunity to express whether they even want the UFW to represent them.”

He said the timing of SB 25 is not a coincidence. If his workers are forcibly organized under SB 25, the union’s current membership of 4,443 would more than double, to more than 9,443.

“And with perpetual mediation being a possibility under SB 25, my employees may never have that opportunity to vote, yet will have to pay 3 percent of their wages [as dues] or lose their jobs.”

Gerawan said the UFW tried to organize his workers 23 years ago. After only one bargaining session, the UFW abandoned the workers and the process.

Gerawan said that recent amendments to SB 25 have not changed the essential part that the UFW never has to bargain in good faith, or even bargain at all, before it makes the demand to negotiate. “The amendment does nothing to make it so workers have an opportunity to ratify or reject a contract, despite the fact the contracts will require them to pay dues or lose their jobs,” Gerawan said.

“This is just plain wrong,” he testified recently before the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee. “We aren’t talking about a few dozen workers. We’re talking about thousands of the industry’s highest paid, happiest employees having a union forced on them without ever getting the chance to vote.”

Gerawan said his farming company pays high wages and benefits, including retirement, vacation pay and even the tuition for the workers’ children at the local Catholic St. La Salle School. (YouTube of Sr. Lucy, the principal, below.)