Five years ago, when state courts

But Brown never really made clear if he shared this critique — or if he just thought that during a budget crisis, the $1.7 billion he could take could be put to better use. He had used redevelopment while mayor of Oakland, but he also had to be aware of redevelopment abuses involving dubious blight declarations and the diversion of 12 percent of all state property taxes to various redevelopment projects. 

Now it is clear that Brown was driven by fiscal pressures. Last year, he signed Assembly Bill 2, which allows local governments to expand and better fund entities called a “Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities.” Last week, he signed AB2492, a companion bill that defines circumstances in which local taxes can be diverted for which projects — and it appears to encourage the same sort of mischievous declarations of blight that drove critics mad in redevelopment’s previous California incarnation. Both were authored by Assemblyman Luis A. Alejo, D-Salinas.

Successful businesses could be declared blighted

Under the latter measure, blight can be declared — and land seized for economic development purposes — if median income in a defined area is lower than 80 percent of the median income either “statewide, countywide or citywide.” Critics such as Marko Mlikotin of the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights say this would give developers and their political allies a tool to declare many thriving businesses, churches or public offices as blighted so their land could be conveyed to the developers for projects that are pitched as helping the local economy. Such diversions were allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 on a 5-4 vote in the Kelo v. New London case.

Chris Norby, a former state assemblyman, Orange County supervisor and Fullerton mayor, chronicled the misuses of redevelopment in California in his 44-page 2007 analysis, “Redevelopment: The Unknown Government.” Here’s a short excerpt:

Redevelopment subsidies are not distributed evenly. Major developers, NFL team owners, giant discount stores, hotels and auto dealers receive most of the money. Small business owners now must face giant new competitors funded by their own taxes. …

Costco [received] over $30 million in subsidies in Orange County alone, extrapolated to $300 million statewide. Wal-Mart has gotten over $1 billion in public handout nationwide, with an estimated $100 million in California. Pro sports also profit from lavish subsidies. The Raiders got $7 million from Irwindale just for opening negotiations on a new stadium site (never built). In 1995, the Raiders returned to Oakland, lured by $94 million in public subsidies. The Chargers have gotten $134 million in seat guarantee pay offs courtesy of San Diego taxpayers.

While redevelopment apologists claim to be “rebuilding” our cities, barely 19 percent went for actual real estate development, and another 5 percent for land acquisition, much of it still vacant.

Significantly, $580 million — 11 percent — was spent on administration, most of it for redevelopment staff salaries. This provides a lucrative bureaucratic base that redevelopment staffers seek to preserve and expand.

Poor families evicted at developers’ behest

Norby’s research showed that many cities targeted areas with inexpensive housing for redevelopment, forcing evictions and reducing housing stock.

When Anaheim “improved” its working class Jeffrey-Lynne neighborhood, it forced existing apartment owners to sell to Southern California Housing Corp. Half of the units were demolished, over 400 tenants evicted and those that remained saw their rents doubled. Public subsidy: $54 million.

The Brea Redevelopment Agency demolished its entire downtown residential area, using eminent domain to force out hundreds of lower-income residents. Much of its housing money has since been spent on mixed-use projects that are really more commercial than residential. The agency gave $649,000 in housing funds to a largely retail development that will include only eight loft apartments.

Some of Norby’s criticisms were confirmed by a 2011 Legislative Analyst’s Office report.

Defenders of redevelopment counter that bad projects shouldn’t be held against good projects.

The redevelopment of San Diego’s Gaslamp area downtown is often held up as the crown jewel of California redevelopment. In the 1970s, the area was crime-ridden and seedy. Now it is a haven for towering hotels, trendy restaurants and bars, and the Petco Park baseball stadium.

Many cities which rely heavily on sales taxes for revenues also tout their use of redevelopment to open up “Mile of Cars”-style areas full of lucrative vehicle dealerships.

By John Hrabe

Jim Brulte was elected chairman of the California Republican Party in a landslide vote on Sunday. But despite winning support from 90 percent of convention delegates, the former state senator kept campaigning until the end.

“Leaders lead by example,” Brulte, who served as Republican leader in both houses of the California Legislature, told reporters shortly after the party closed its 2013 spring convention. “That’s why I campaigned right up until the votes started to be cast.”

Brulte’s chief adviser, Michael Schroeder, himself a former state party chair, told CalWatchdog.com that Brulte spent the weekend “campaigning around the clock.” At a Sacramento Hyatt that was blanketed with hundreds of “Brulte for Chairman” signs and stickers, he spoke to 10 Republican groups on Friday, followed by 11 more speeches on Saturday, before hosting a 15th-floor hospitality suite late Saturday night.

Leadership, candidates, fundraising all faulted

If he’s to orchestrate a Republican renaissance, Brulte needs his take-nothing-for-granted leadership style to rub off on legislative leaders.

“There were three Assembly seats that were lost because we got lazy,” the state’s new Republican chairman said. “Leaders lead by example, and we have to be in the precincts working, standing shoulder to shoulder with our volunteers.”

Brulte did not specify which districts he believed Republicans should have won in November. However, state Republicans have been heavily criticized for being caught off-guard with lackluster campaigning and poor fundraising in several Assembly seats during the 2012 cycle.

Perhaps the most egregious case: the 36th Assembly District in the High Desert. Republican candidate Ron Smith reportedly stopped campaigning after the primary and ultimately lost by 145 votes.

“Smith’s loss is typical of the self-inflicted wounds that have destroyed the Republican Party in California, leaving it with fewer legislators than any time in the state’s history,” wrote Tony Quinn, a political commentator and former Republican legislative staffer, in a scathing election post-mortem on Fox and Hounds. “Once he was the only Republican in the runoff, he coasted, assured of election in this ‘safe’ Republican district.”

Smith was too busy hiring staff and hanging pictures, according to the Sacramento Bee.

“I had most of my staff getting ready to be hired, my picture was up on the wall, I had my office that was assigned to me, and I already had two pieces of legislation that were going to be introduced Monday,” a perplexed Smith said in December.

In Orange County, a lack of mother’s milk of politics

If Smith’s loss epitomized lazy legislative campaigning, GOP incumbent Chris Norby’s surprising defeat in the 65th Assembly District in Orange County symbolized the party’s fundraising problems in the lower house. In a span of 18 days, late in the campaign, six Democratic county central committees contributed $292,200 to the Assembly campaign of Sharon Quirk-Silva.

Allan Hoffenblum, publisher of the California Target Book, told CalWatchdog.com that legislative Republicans struggled in 2012 due to a lack of funding.

“The caucus’ problem with the last cycle was the lack of money,” Hoffenblum said. “The one who influences the targeting is the one who raises the money.”

Hoffenblum believes that Brulte’s coronation as chairman will change the party’s fundraising and targeting.

Brulte was less critical of Republicans’ poor showing in state Senate and congressional races.

“We lost some congressional and Senate seats and frankly I’m not sure in a plus-23 election we could have won those,” he said, referring to President Obama’s 60 percent to 37 percent pasting of GOP nominee Mitt Romney in California.

More than 1,300 people attended the state party’s convention. In October, delegates will reconvene in Anaheim.

By Dave Roberts

Seventy-two percent of Californians who are eligible to vote are registered to vote. That’s up 2 percentage points from four years ago, but down from the three-quarters of eligible Californians who were registered in 1996. That 72 percent might remain a high water mark for decades if an undemocratic Democratic bill that slipped through the Legislature last week is signed by Gov. Jerry Brown.

AB 145 by Assemblyman Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, bans the practice of paying people for each voter that they register (or re-register to another party). Pan believes this will reduce the incentive for registration fraud.

“Sacramento County Registrar Jill LaVine stated 25 percent of the 31,000 cards submitted by Momentum Political Services had been rejected for inaccuracies,” said Pan on the Assembly floor on Aug. 30. “Ms. LaVine has also reported that her office has also found numerous examples of voters having their political party affiliations switched against their wishes.”

Reducing voter registration fraud not only restores integrity to the voter registration process, he said, but it also reduces staff time for county registrars in investigating and invalidating fraudulent affidavits. “Decreasing this backlog and strain on county registrars can save significant resources when county governments are struggling in a difficult budget climate,” Pan said.

The switched party affiliations in Sacramento County were “voters having their political party affiliation switched to ‘Republican’ against their wishes,” stated Pan in his written support for the bill.

GOP criticism

But several Assembly Republicans criticized the bill, one of them calling it an attack on Republican registration.

“This is just a bad idea,” said Tim Donnelly, R-Twin Peaks. “This is going to make it harder to register people to vote. Yet I hear on this floor all the time … that we want to expand access to vote, we want to improve voter participation. But when it happens to help the Republican side of the aisle because it’s free market, let’s shut it down. This is a bill in search of a problem.”

Donnelly also criticized the bill for having bypassed the committee review process. AB 145 started out dealing with high-speed rail before being gutted and amended.

“So the very people who claim that they want more participation, [in effect are saying,] ‘We want to hear from the people, we want you to weigh in, we want you to be part of the process — but we’re not going to abide by any of the rules, we’re not going to actually give you three-day notice. We’re just going to cram this through at the last second,’” said Donnelly. “It is just fundamentally wrong. It is a stupid idea. Why are we pushing so many stupid ideas into legislation?”

Brian Jones, R-Santee, pointed out that last year Brown vetoed a similar bill, SB 205, issuing the following veto message: “I understand the author’s desire to stop fraudulent voter registration. But I don’t believe this bill — which makes it a crime to pay people for registering voters based on the number of registrations they secure — will help. Voting is at the heart of our democracy. Efforts to register voters should be encouraged, not criminalized.”

Jones added, “I ask the governor to put the same exact message on the veto message for this bill as well.”

Chris Norby, R-Fullerton, voted against AB 145, but said he is sympathetic to the intent of the bill.

“I think that paying people to re-register people by party is a waste of money for either party,” he said. “If you have somebody who says, ‘Look, I can increase your registration edge for Democrats or Republicans by 2 percent if you give me all this money.’ And a guy goes out and re-registers these people, in some cases fraudulently, some cases he may say, ‘Re-register with me and I’ll make 10 bucks, do it because you’re sympathetic with me, and then you can always re-register back to your original party in another month.’ And that guy can make 10 bucks. It’s a waste of a candidates’ money, and it’s a waste of the party’s money.”

It’s likely that AB 145 also will be a waste of the Assembly’s time when this Son of SB 205 faces a Brown veto.

By John Seiler

BEAUTIFUL DOWNTOWN BURBANK — My drive up from Huntington Beach to Burbank to attend the California Republican Convention displayed much of what is wrong with the state. A 51-mile trip took two hours.

Beach Boulevard, HB’s main thoroughfare, is crumbling, even though median home values are around $500,000. Either the lights aren’t coordinated, as they ought to be, or the coordination doesn’t work. So it was stop-and-go traffic on Saturday morning.

The 405 freeway was clogged, but the traffic flowed at about 40 mph. The road was mildly crumbling. North on the 605 was a breeze. Then I took the 5 “freeway,” and it was bumper-to-bumper until a few miles from Burbank. The 5, the main freeway running North to South in California, is falling apart. In some places, it’s only two lanes.

The Burbank Marriott is only a few miles from the freeway. The drive was easy across decaying roads.

The whole trip reminded me of visiting Tijuana back around 1990, the last time I was there. California has become a Third World country, regardless of Gov. Jerry Brown’s claims that it’s “silly” to compare us to Greece, which used to be a First World country but also has collapsed into Third World status due to excessive power by government-worker unions, wild government spending and ruinous debt.

Despite the rough roads, traffic snarls and shredding 104-degree humid weather, the trip was comfortable inside my air-conditioned 2010 Camry, which is designed in Japan and built in Kentucky. Toyota used to make cars here, most recently the Matrix, but pulled out in 2010 due to the state’s anti-business climate.

The roads are crumbling because, back in the 1970s during his first stint as governor, Brown proclaimed that as an “era of limits.” It wasn’t. California boomed as it always had. But he sharply cut back on road construction for a population he thought never would be here.

Today we really do live in an “era of limits.” Yet Brown still can’t get it right, attacking as “declinists” those who criticize his empire-building boondoggles, such as the high-speed choo-choo and the tunnel under the Delta. Meanwhile, the state keeps falling apart.

Republicans dismayed

Twenty years ago, Republican state conventions were tumultuous, sometimes involving shoving matches and expulsions. Conservatives had a lot of beefs with “moderates” like then-Gov. Pete Wilson, especially on such “social issues” as abortion.

Those wars seem to be over with, perhaps because the party’s last two nominees for governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Meg Whitman, were pro-abortion. That battle is long over with. But also gone, perhaps, is the passion that makes parties live.

At the convention, Republicans generally were dismayed at the condition of their party in California, where they have had a lot of problems. The pall of the Schwarzenegger disaster still hangs over the party. I talked with numerous convention delegates. There’s a split within the party between the party bigshots who want to keep courting rich candidates, such as Meg Whitman and Schwarzenegger; and the party regulars who either are Tea Party members, or look to grassroots organizing as the way to bring the GOP back into competition statewide.

History is on the side of the grassroots. In America, political movements begin from the bottom up, not the other way. The Goldwater Movement in the 1960s was led by grassroots Republicans and conservatives across the country. It nominated Barry Goldwater for president in 1964. Even though he lost, the Goldwater Movement kept growing, and became the Reagan Movement of the 1970s and 1980s.

In 1980, the party bigshots favored the patrician George H.W. Bush for president. The Republican grassroots favored Reagan, who won and remains the touchstone for the party. I heard his name mentioned often at the convention. But contrast, both Bushes, George H.W. and his son, George W.,  were non-persons. I never heard their names mentioned, even though just four years ago W. still was president.

GOP enthused about Paul Ryan

The bright note for the GOPers was Paul Ryan, who earlier that Saturday morning had been named Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential running mate. People liked his enthusiasm, and his insistence on budget cuts.

Actually, Ryan’s plan doesn’t go near far enough. But at least Republicans are talking about making cuts, and about the immense burden the $16 trillion debt imposes on the country. Democrats hardly talk about this at all. And when they do, it’s in the context of raising taxes on “the rich” — that is, those making more than $250,000 a year, which in expensive, high-tax California makes you well off, but not “rich.”

And President John F. Kennedy 50 years ago seems to be the last Democrat who understood that the way to “get the economy moving again,” as he put it, is to cut taxes, not raise them. Here’s JFK:

It took another year, until 1964, to pass the tax cuts under President Johnson. But when it was enacted, it boomed the economy throughout the 1960s. Unfortunately, Johnson then started spending wildly on his Great Society giveaway programs and the Vietnam War, far exceeding even the massive extra revenues from the growing economy, and the country quickly went bankrupt.

Anyway, Republicans at least have a little understanding on what’s going on.

The delegates at the convention also were handily against Proposition 30, Gov. Jerry Brown’s $8.5 billion tax increase to fund his high-speed choo-choo and the gigantic pensions for retired government workers.

John Fund on strategy

John Fund, a FoxNews commentator and senior editor at The American Spectator, talked about California Republican strategy. In the picture above, he’s speaking at the party’s evening dinner.

A California native, he said two things are imperative to get the party rolling again. First, pass Proposition 32, which would prevent unions from automatically deducting dues for political agitation from worker paychecks. If it passes, it would loosen the unions’ death-grip on the state.

Second, he said, in the future a Voter ID initiative should be passed to prevent voter fraud. Such laws are controversial around the country, sparking charges of racism against minorities. But Fund pointed out that polls show Voter ID is supported by all groups, including minorities. Almost everybody wants honest elections. Only politicians who benefit from crooked elections don’t want people checked to make sure, on election day, they are who they say they are.

Fund just published a new book, “Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk.” It details instances of massive voter fraud around the country.

By coincidence, I just finished the recent fourth volume of Robert Caro’s magisterial biography of Lyndon Johnson, “The Passage of Power: The Years of Lyndon Johnson.” It details the voter fraud LBJ used to get elected in Texas. And it has the goods on how he rigged the 1960 presidential election vote count in Texas so the Kennedy-Johnson ticket won. Caro also writes how the Kennedy machine and the Daley machine in Chicago rigged Illinois for JFK-LBJ. So the evidence is in: Republican Richard Nixon, a Californian, actually won the 1960 election.

And Caro describes the Kennedy-Johnson tax cut and the politics behind it. It’s worth reading in the context of today’s debate, almost 50 years later. Caro himself is a liberal Democrat.

CA GOP 2014

The fall convention before a general election usually is not well attended. I counted only about 160 at the Saturday evening dinner. Many Republicans are looking instead to the national convention at the end of the month.

Although dismayed and their number frayed, California Republicans could have a place in state politics for one reason: the state still is falling apart. If they’re smart, they’ll position themselves as the party that is ready to pick up the pieces when the state budget effectively goes bankrupt.

Instead of nominating a Schwarzenegger or a Whitman, rich people with no experience in elective office, they need to nominate more “nuts and bolts” candidates at the state level. Again, I don’t think  Paul Ryan wants to cut near enough to make a difference with the federal budget. But at least he’s familiar with the problem, and the numbers.

At the state level, the party needs to look to guys like Tom McClintock, the former state legislator now exiled to the U.S. House of Representatives as a congressman; or Assemblyman Chris Norby, R-Fullerton, a former history teacher who also understands budgets.

As with George Deukmejian in 1992, running for governor after Jerry Brown’s first bout of wrecking the state, a party that’s ready could win office.

Spitzer is one of the least fiscally conservative Republicans around. He practically tripped all over himself as he retroactively increased pensions for deputy sheriffs. Spitzer only seems to take the pro-taxpayer argument, or the pro-civil liberties argument for that matter, after he stuck his finger in the wind and saw that his newfound position is blowing in the right direction. Even worse, he is a shameless demagogue.

Spitzer has functioned in the Assembly and previously on the board as the cat’s paw for the public sector unions, especially for police and fire unions. He has been a dedicated foe of the taxpayer where it really counts (pensions, light rail, prison spending, etc.) and an enemy of personal liberty, as one would expect from a full-on advocate of law enforcement unions. He in fact stands athwart most of the principles that Norby seems to have advocated in his career.

What’s up with that? I’ll try to find out.

FEB. 16, 2012

California legislators never have enough time, and always lack the vision, to deal appropriately with the state’s pressing budget and infrastructure problems. But they are great at self-aggrandizement and at catering to the special-interest groups that help assure their re-election.

One would think, for instance, the Assembly Transportation Committee would be deeply concerned with the predicted sky-high cost overruns for the proposed High-Speed Rail system, or with planning cost-effective ways to meet the transportation needs of a growing population. Yet the committee spends nearly a third of its time on a task that few readers would consider of vital importance: naming highways.

California highways already have real names. We know that the 55, also known as the Costa Mesa Freeway, goes from the Pacific Coast Highway in Newport Beach to the intersection of the 91, or Riverside Freeway, in Anaheim. It’s clear that 99 — central and Northern Californians don’t use “the” before referring to their freeways — cuts through the urbanized regions of the Central Valley.

But you can’t drive far on any freeway in California without seeing signs referring to, for example, the “Joe Colla Interchange” or the “Eric W. Rood Memorial Expressway.” Such freeway namings, which only confuse drivers because the routes aren’t really referred to by those names in atlases and GPS systems, have become so profligate that I’ve seen memorial-highway signage with multiple names on each sign.

The signs are paid for with private donations, but the Assembly estimates that it costs $15,000 to $30,000 in Caltrans staff time for every member highway resolution that is approved.

Moratorium

“It’s gone crazy,” said Assemblyman Chris Norby, R-Fullerton, who introduced Assembly Bill 595, which would have placed a two-year moratorium “on any naming of highways or posting signs by act of the Legislature.” Local governments would still be free to name roadways.

“I don’t think it’s the best way to honor any Californian,” Norby said in an interview. “No one knows who it is.”

I did some Internet searching and learned that Eric W. Rood was a Nevada County supervisor. I learned from a Facebook site that former San Jose Councilman Joe Colla in 1976 “hoisted a car to the top of [an] incomplete [interchange] ramp to symbolize the folly of it all. … He then had a helicopter drop him on top to take a picture … which was flashed around the country and brought attention to California’s budget problems and unfinished freeways.”

That actually seems like one of the more appropriate road namings, given that Colla helped get that interchange funded. In most cases, however, roads are named after living and deceased politicians and police officers killed in the line of duty, which is why a police lobbyist opposed Norby’s proposed moratorium.

But, as Norby said, this is no way to honor people. One doesn’t drive onto a freeway to observe a memorial. It shouldn’t take an Internet search to learn something about these honorees. In his home city, private citizens created an actual memorial for one officer killed years ago, which is a more meaningful honor.

NOW Objects

Almost all of the namings are for men, which prompted the National Organization for Women to testify in favor of Norby’s bill. It’s odd that the naming honors go overwhelmingly to government officials, almost as if no other Californians are worthy of honor. This is just a way for legislators to curry favor. It’s a cheap way — for the politician, although not for the taxpayer — to score points. It’s a great excuse to give a speech. Until this proposed bill, there was nary a peep of opposition from anyone. Who isn’t going to vote “yes” to create the “Greatest Generation Memorial Highway,” although it’s hard to understand how that does any justice to any member of that generation.

Practically speaking, the plethora of signs creates a distraction. The Sacramento Bee reported that there are 246 pages on the Caltrans website listing named infrastructure projects. There are more than 1,000 such signs, and the number keeps doubling every 10 years. It’s basically a meaningless gesture, and one that takes legitimate time away from more important business.

Caltrans Policy

Furthermore, the way naming honors are bestowed now violates a clear Caltrans policy established in 1963. According to Caltrans, freeway naming should be done solely by the Highway Commission and “naming should be provided on the basis of motorists’ needs.” That’s a crucial point, but how often are the needs of taxpayers or mere citizens the basis for doing anything in the Legislature? If anything, this process works against the clear driving needs of California drivers.

Caltrans also suggests the use of historical or geographic names, the use of a single name for an entire span of freeway and argues that “memorial names should be avoided.” But Caltrans notes accurately: “Of course, the Legislature being the Legislature ignored the recommendation.” And it will continue to ignore the recommendation.

The moratorium bill needed eight votes to move it out of committee but could only get five. This isn’t a big deal, I suppose. In the scheme of things, the costs imposed mean nothing in comparison to, say, the amount of money California squanders on its duplicative commissions, excessive pensions and massive welfare programs. But sometimes the little things offer deep insight into bigger problems.

The bigger problem is that the Legislature continues to conduct business as usual, nearly oblivious to the looming budget, regulatory and economic problems that grow each day. The bigger issue is that the Legislature is so beholden to interest groups that it cannot even approve the most modest reforms of its behavior. The bigger deal is that there is no hope that any of this — or any of the Legislature’s far more significant dysfunctional behavior — will ever change.

Maybe we should just rename I-5, the Road to Fiscal Ruin and be done with it.

— Steven Greenhut

Our old friend Art Pedroza has started a great new blog, OCPoliticsBlog.com. I’ve known Art for something like 15-20 years. Back when I was at the Orange County Register in the 1990s, he wrote great letters to the editor on the shenanigans in Santa Ana city and school politics.

When blogs came around in 2003, he started the Orange Juice blog, which quickly became the top local blog in Orange County. He gave that to others about two years ago. He then started the New Santa Ana blog about the city where he lives.

Like yours truly, Art has wandered among the political parties, and currently is back with the Libertarians. America’s constricted political system doesn’t provide enough choice of where to roost politically. The two major parties have erected numerous legal barriers to competition.

Republicans, despite their small-government rhetoric, too much want to run our lives and invade foreign countries (while making hefty profits on their investments with military contractors). It’s too bad more Republicans aren’t like Ron Paul or Assemblyman Chris Norby of Fullerton. But that’s the fact.

Democrats, who interested Art for a while, believe everything would be great if we just gave the government 100 percent of our money to pay for government-worker pensions.

Art’s now back in the Libertarian Party. He wrote in an email, “That may seem nuts since the new open primary system will shut third parties out of our general elections, but I am hoping the courts will overturn the open primary.  If not, oh well.”

That’s about my attitude on American politics as the country, and California, sink into the slough of despond: Oh, well.

Art wrote, “Have I learned a few lessons over the past couple of years?  You bet. My new blog will be informative and I am sure my sense of humor will pop up, but I am going to try to present OC politics in an informed and entertaining way — and we’ll steer clear of the nuttiness that was the old OJ blog.”

Even if you’re not in Orange County, its politics affect all of California, and America.

So check out OCPoliticsBlog.com.

— Jan. 3, 2012

State Sen. Joe Simitian is attempting to pass SB 514, a bill that would prohibit the sale of dextromethorphan (DXM), a cough suppressant, to minors.  Proponents of the bill warn that DXM is a harmful drug to minors and the instances of abuse have been increasing.  Opponents say it’s difficult to know which products contain DXM since there is no authoritative list, making it difficult for clerks and businesses to regulate these transactions.

DXM’s side effects  include “dissociative out of body sensations, nausea, vomiting, rapid heart rate, dilated pupils, paranoia, lethargy, numbness of fingers and toes, seizures, brain damage, heart attacks and deaths,” said Sen. Simitian.

“Since 2003, Dextromethophan has been the most commonly abused substance by teenagers as reported to the poison center accounting for about 20 percentof all teenage abuse calls and about 80 percent of them involve a teenager being reared in a hospital for significant adverse effects,” said Dr. Eileen Anderson, the senior toxicologist at California’s Poison Control Center.  “The poison center has seen a 15-fold rise in teenage DXM abuse in the last decade.  This is a serious problem in CA with significant associated healthcare costs.”

Even the manufacturers of DXM are backing SB 514.  “There still continues to be a big problem with kids abusing this particular product and so we now feel it is the time to agree to this effort,” said Terry Thomas of the Consumer Healthcare Products Association. “The analysis has correctly pointed out that there will be some minor loss of revenue from sales tax but we think that is definitely offset by the savings in healthcare costs.”

Slippery Slope

Opponents think this bill leads to a slippery slope.  “Now our 17 year old college kids who have a terrible cold and have to study all night before the final can’t go to the drugstore and buy something that will relieve them of their cold because of this abuse,” said state Sen. Chris Norby. “I don’t doubt that there is abuse but there’s abuse for virtually every kind of thing you can buy in a drugstore.  And if we continue to ratchet up the requirements for clerks and they are constantly carding people, I think thats an issue.  I can see a day where there will be an entire list of substances that a retail clerk will have to ask ID for, or have keys too.  There’s no end to it.”

Instead of relying on government regulation, Norby focused on individual responsibility.  “If you look at the biggest substance kids are abusing, it’s food.  My kids are addicted to Flamin’ Hot Cheetos.  They buy them all the time.they’ve got lots of salt. They’ve got lots of fat. They stain their fingers and the school is thinking about banning them because these kids love the Cheetos and it stains all the papers at school.  If the schools want to ban it, fine, we may have a law ultimately doing that.  That’s my responsibility as a parent.  Yes, it will give them hypertension.  Yes, it will make them fat.  Most things in the supermarket will do that.  But I’m concerned about a slippery slope and will definitely not go down that path.”

The retailers have room to be concerned.  “A major issue is the absence of a state-generated, authoritative list of products containing DXM,” said the California Grocers Association. “Grocers would be forced to make an independent determination regarding which products are covered.  The employing business would be subject to potential legal action and opportunistic litigation despite earnest efforts to train employees and require them to follow the law.”

SB 514 will next go to the Assembly floor for roll call.

By STEVEN GREENHUT

Hours before the midnight Wednesday deadline for passing a state budget, legislative Democrats rammed through a ridiculous, gimmick-laden, majority-vote spending plan that failed to reform anything and failed to impress Gov. Jerry Brown, who wisely vetoed it less than a day later. The budget succeeded mainly in one area: ensuring the legislators would continue getting their paychecks, given that an initiative passed by voters last year, Proposition 25, would have permanently denied them their pay for every day after a missed budget deadline.

Brown might do another good thing that would give California property owners reason to celebrate: sign the budget trailer bills that would eliminate the state’s noxious redevelopment agencies. There’s been debate in the Capitol about whether his budget veto affects the redevelopment trailer bills, but the latest information from Assembly Republicans is that the trailer bills can be signed or vetoed separately.

An earlier effort this year to kill these local central-planning fiefdoms — which run up debt, divert existing tax dollars from traditional public services such as schools and public safety, abuse government’s power to seize private property and dole out subsidies to politically savvy developers — failed when Republicans rallied to save the agencies, their free-market rhetoric notwithstanding. But Wednesday, the Legislature voted to end their reign of terror, with a handful of Republicans joining Democrats in doing the right thing.

The previous bid to kill redevelopment failed because the bill required a two-thirds majority vote, but Wednesday a version stripped of its appropriations provisions came before both houses of the Legislature for a simple majority vote. AB 26x would “dissolve all redevelopment agencies and community development agencies in existence and designate successor agencies.”

Zombie Agencies?

A companion bill, AB 27x, was a sop to weak-in-the-knees Democrats afraid to kill these agencies outright. It allows the agencies to rise like zombies, provided they pay a large portion of the revenue they collect to schools, fire protection agencies and other agencies from which they divert funds. That’s problematic, but as news reports suggest, city officials don’t think they have the cash to revive their agencies.

San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed complained in published reports that such a payback provision is “an impossible demand to meet.” Given the abusive and wasteful actions of redevelopment in that city and elsewhere, California property owners should be relieved that Reed and other redevelopment advocates are upset.

“The Senate and the Assembly just voted to kill redevelopment, plain and simple,” the California Redevelopment Association’s John Shirey told the media. The governor has yet to sign (or even receive) the bills, and the agencies’ fate could end up in court, but Shirey is not crying wolf.

The redevelopment industry suffered an enormous defeat, despite its phalanx of lobbyists. Prior to the vote, Republican U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock of Rocklin, and one of the state’s conservative icons, released a short video urging Republicans to join with Democrats to kill the agencies.

Yet, even though any serious conservative should agree with McClintock and be eager to kill redevelopment agencies, which epitomize crony capitalism and central planning, Republicans were the biggest obstacle to their elimination. They found various reasons to support them, ranging from the desire not to give Brown any sort of budget victory to the oft-stated claim that redevelopment at least keeps the money in the hands of cities rather than in Sacramento.

In reality, many Republican legislators are more interested in being pro-business than pro-freedom, and they have become addicted to the redevelopment cash and the political support from developers who benefit from the process.

On the Assembly floor Wednesday, Assemblyman Don Wagner, R-Irvine, rightly compared redevelopment tactics to the Mafia — thus sparking a schoolyard-like scuffle on the floor with an Italian-American assemblyman who demanded an apology on behalf of his fellow Italians. But Wagner then opposed the legislation because AB 27x provided a way to revive RDAs.

I’ve never heard a Republican refuse to support a tax cut on the grounds that the Legislature could raise taxes in the future. When it comes to redevelopment, Wagner and other Republicans contorted logic to defend these agencies.

Obviously, Democrats didn’t vote to shut down redevelopment agencies for the right reasons. They don’t mind central planning and subsidies.

Budget Cash

If they didn’t like those things, they wouldn’t be Democrats. They are looking for cash to close the budget hole. But who cares why they did it? Principled politicians find allies wherever they can find them, even if such alliances are fleeting.

There were some genuine heroes. Ted Gaines of Roseville was the only Senate Republican to vote to end the agencies, providing the swing vote. His wife, Beth Gaines, a newly elected assemblywoman, joined Chris Norby of Fullerton, Allan Mansoor of Costa Mesa, Jim Nielsen of Gerber and Dan Logue of Linda in voting to kill redevelopment.

I loved what Beth Gaines said in her floor speech: “Redevelopment agencies were first created to clean up blight and improve infrastructure, and while some have completed very successful projects in their communities, unfortunately today, many use these state-subsidies as slush funds to seize private property through eminent domain and supplement other general fund expenditures, with little accountability to taxpayers.”

This redevelopment vote separated real Republicans — note how few there were — from the Republicans In Rhetoric Only.

Good for Gov. Brown for quickly rejecting the Democrats’ scam budget, even though he is sticking to his playbook calling for tax extensions as the only solution to the state’s deficit. Still, whatever emerges from this budget drama will have a short-term effect on the state. The budget won’t be fixed until Californians elect politicians willing to exert some fiscal discipline.

But the death of redevelopment — and I believe Shirey that these votes really would have meant their death — would be a great advance for fiscal responsibility and property rights and could give Brown a serious legacy.

However this plays out, redevelopment is on the ropes. That is a reason to celebrate.

By JOHN SEILER

The lines on the maps just released by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission could force a fierce dogfight for a new congressional district in Northern Orange County.  Assuming the map’s final contours remain much as that of the preliminary First Draft, this is a solid Republican seat. So the battle will be among GOP candidates. One potential candidate, incumbent Rep. Ed Royce of the current 40th District, reportedly will seek a new district to the southeast.

That means a possible race between Rep. Gary Miller, the incumbent congressman from the current 42nd District, and Orange County Supervisor Shawn Nelson. Miller told the Los Angeles Times that he and his staff still are reviewing the maps. I called his office for an update, but haven’t heard from him yet.

Allan Bartlett, a member of the Orange County Republican Party’s Central Committee, is predicting that Miller will run in this new district. That would mean Miller would have to establish some kind of residence in the Buena Park-La Habra-Fullerton-Yorba Linda area that makes up the proposed new district.

According to Miller’s Web site, “Mr. Miller currently resides in the city of Diamond Bar,” which is at the top of the current 42nd District:

But Diamond Bar would not even be near the new District, as currently proposed:

Nelson Challenge

Nelson won his supervisor’s seat last year when he beat Harry Sidhu, an Anaheim councilman who did not have his primary residence in the district. Nelson’s charge of “carpetbagger” range true with voters. In that race, Miller supported Sidhu.

Nelson told me he’s definitely running for the congressional seat. He made the decision after Assemblyman Chris Norby decided not to seek the seat. “I would never run against my good friend Chris Norby,” he said.

He charged that “Gary Miller is a scandal-ridden congressman.” According to Wikipedia, “In December 2006, the Los Angeles Times reported that Miller had used ‘congressional muscle’ for ‘personal business matters’.” And, “In May 2010, the FOX affiliate MyFOXLA interviewed Miller over claims led by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) that he ‘directed millions of dollars in government money to non-profits headed by one of his campaign contributor[s], developer Jeffrey Burum’.”

“I grew up in Buena Park and was mayor of Fullerton,” Nelson said. “Now I’m a supervisor representing this area. Miller is from Diamond Bar and should stay there.”

Nelson also contrasted his policy views to those of Miller. Miller long has supported the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War. Nelson takes a Tea Party position opposing these wars and their great cost.

“It’s outrageous,” he charged. “Why are we paying for all this? Saddam’s gone.” He said he opposed the U.S. policy of “nation building,” in which the United States, instead of just vanquishing enemies, tries to establishing function democracies and civil societies. “I don’t think it’s possible,” he said.

Fullerton businessman and political activist Tony Bushala promised a strong campaign against Miller should he run in the Fullerton area. Bushala, a Fullerton native with strong family roots there, ran independent anti-carpetbagging campaigns against Sidhu last year; and against Linda Ackerman, an Irvine resident, when she ran against Norby in 2009. He also owns and edits the popular blog, Friends for Fullerton’s Future.

Carpetbagging Charges

“Gary Miller would be definitely carpetbagging,” Bushala told me. “He does live in Diamond Bar.” Bushala promised an independent campaign that would “hammer” Miller on the carpetbagging issue should Miller run in the new district.

Of course, other candidates than these two will run in the district, including other Republicans, Democrats and members of third parties.

Another unknown factor is how the new Top Two election method, imposed by Proposition 14 last year, will operate. According to Ballotpedia: “Proposition 14 requires that candidates run in a single primary open to all registered voters, with the top two vote-getters meeting in a runoff.”

Potentially, a Democrat could face a Republican in the runoff.

Or, two Republicans could face one another — possibly Nelson vs. Miller. That would be a real dogfight.