Although they didn’t make the same headlines as President Obama, several members of California’s congressional delegation accompanied him on his historic visit to Cuba — underscoring the importance California officials and business put on the prospect of restored relations with the Communist country.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, was joined by House Democratic Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra, D-Los Angeles, along with Reps. Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles, Sam Farr, D-Carmel, Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, and Alan Lowenthal, D-Long Beach.

The president’s move to normalize relations has been controversial, especially among Republicans, who have counted Cubans among their reliable supporters after they began fleeing the Castro regime in large numbers and settling in the U.S. But Cuban-American opinion on mending relations has shifted over time, with a gap opening up between younger and older generations.

A new market

California businesses have set their sights on Cuba, which has been able to access goods and services from European firms, but has yet to be opened to American ones. In a sign of their influence on California officials, the state’s two U.S. senators have begun a push to ensure that Golden State airports receive priority as Cuban markets open up.

“Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein advocated establishing nonstop flights from California to Cuba in a letter to Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx,” the Sacramento Bee reported. “As part of the opening of diplomatic relations that has allowed Obama’s journey — the first by a sitting president in several decades — Cuba and the United States have agreed to begin allowing commercial air travel.”

In the letter, sent March 18, Feinstein and Boxer called it “crucial that all Americans have convenient access to Cuba, including the thousands of companies, businesses, and educational institutions that are clamoring for scheduled air service to Cuba. Direct service from California to Cuba will be an important step in ensuring this engagement.”

Which brings us to the affordable-housing policies of the majority faction of the San Diego City Council.

I have lived in San Diego for more than eight years and believe that during that time, it has been a relatively well-run city in that it’s dealt with a fiscal crisis in a responsible manner; done a good job in keeping crime low; and avoided the ingrained hostility to business seen in so many coastal Califoria cities.

The most constructive politicians haven’t just been Republicans such as firebrand reformer Carl DeMaio and mainstream, businesslike former Mayor Jerry Sanders. They’ve also been City Council Democrats like former council leader Tony Young and Todd Gloria, presently the interim mayor.

That’s why I’m so stunned at the absolutely nutty approach Gloria and council Democrats are taking on the affordable housing front. The great majority of people who study economics with an empirical bent — including practical liberals like Slate economics writer Matt Yglesias — have concluded that the government command-and-control model of trying to dictate housing outcomes through regulations, impact fees and project conditions is an abject failure. Here is a sample of Yglesias’ thinking from last year after he had digested a report from the National Low Income Housing Coalition:

Here’s the book Yglesias wrote on the topic.

Sacramento housing policies failing ‘by any measure’

That’s how the Golden State’s housing policies look from the outside. Here’s how they look to Sacramento lawyer and community activist Craig Powell:

“A discussion of what the city should do to increase the availability of affordable housing all too often turns into an argument between builders and low-income housing advocates. It’s the kind of discussion that opens up a gulf of ideologies and yields little common ground. But there is common ground on one point: The city’s existing low-income housing policies are, by any measure, failing.

“Look to North Natomas. It is one of several designated ‘growth areas’ where the city requires builders to set aside 15 percent of all new houses and apartments for low-income residents under the city’s inclusionary housing ordinance (also known as the mixed-income housing ordinance). The ordinance’s goals were idealistic: 15 percent of all new houses and 15 percent of all new apartments in North Natomas would be built for the subsidized poor who would live happily side by side with their unsubsidized neighbors, who would pay the full market rate for their houses and apartments.

“The reality turned out to be dramatically different. It turns out that it’s exceedingly difficult to make subsidized low-income single-family homes work in the real world. It’s hard for such folks to get financing, even at subsidized home prices. It’s very expensive for builders who must incur the same cost to build a subsidized house as one they sell at market prices. Once a subsidized home is bought by an eligible buyer, it turns out they can’t sell it in the future for a profit: They have to turn any profit over to the government and the home must be sold to another qualifying low-income buyer. Such a limitation on resale lasts for 45 or 50 years. How would you like to buy a home, take on all the risks of a mortgage, but never be able to benefit from the appreciation of your property?

“So North Natomas builders of large subdivisions, being rational actors, decide to meet their 15 percent low-income housing mandates by building less expensive low-income units in apartment houses with 200 units or more, where 80 percent to 100 percent of the residents would end up being low-income tenants—exactly the sort of environment that created no end of social pathologies in large-scale public-housing projects in cities built throughout the country over the past 60-plus years. … the city’s inclusionary housing ordinance has, in practice, led to precisely the sort of housing that everyone acknowledges is a major mistake.”

$31 million project yields 96 beds!

None of this history has sunk in with Todd Gloria and San Diego City Council Democrats Marti Emerald, David Alvarez (the Dem mayoral candidate in Tuesday’s special election), Sherri Lightner and Myrtle Cole. They want to sock commercial developers with a huge fee increase to provide more funding for traditional government command-and-control housing-creation polices. They say that the fee now up for a raise was cut in half in 1996, and that’s a prime reason housing is so expensive.

Oh, come on! Even if the fee is increased by the massive amount council Democrats want, it will only provide about 100 homes a year — in a city with tens of thousands of families on a waiting list for affordable housing.

Then there’s this: the insane way the city of San Diego has used the money it did have for affordable housing, most notably $31 million on 96 beds. I repeat, $31 million for 96 beds.

“The new permanent homeless shelter downtown, former World Trade Center, is costing more than $450,000 per room, according to news reports. 

“Demanding brand-new affordable housing in redevelopment areas costing more than $337,000 per unit is akin to demanding Mercedes-Benz to sell 20 percent of its new cars to people who can’t afford them.”

That’s from an essay written by former San Diego Councilman Fred Schnaubelt, an expert on land-use issues who once was invited to testify before a presidential housing commission. Schnaubelt makes more sense on this issue than anyone in San Diego — and he’s not just a critic. He offers what for California is out-of-the-box thinking:

“In 2010, 18,228 ‘used’ or previously occupied apartments sold countywide at a median price of $110,664. Just one of many reasons so many Americans think the government is on the wrong track. What’s wrong with a used car or used house for people with limited education, limited work experience and limited income? It is a question needing an answer.

“In 30 years, not a single person has been able to explain why poor people, many without a high school diploma and who self-report to the census they can’t speak English, are entitled to enjoy the most expensive consumer product in society — a brand-new home or apartment. Or why housing for the poor should cost more than triple the housing occupied by most self-supporting renters.

“According to a University of Michigan study, ‘New Homes and Poor People,’ the construction of 1,000 new dwelling units, both homes and apartments, makes it possible for 3,545 households to move to better accommodations. Of the 3,545 moves surveyed, 1,290 were by low- and moderate-income families. This is the essence of upward mobility. Anyone who didn’t move to a brand-new house when they left their parents’ home or graduated from college knows how the housing market works. Used housing is ‘affordable housing.’”

Unfortunately, Schnaubelt hasn’t been on the San Diego City Council since 1981, and his smarts have no influence on San Diego’s present loony policy, namely (my words) the following:

“Let’s throw millions of dollars at a problem with an approach that has a history of meager results. And let’s raise the money to throw at the problem by socking it to commercial developers with a huge fee increase at a time when competition for their projects is intense.”

No wonder business interests are trying to get the fee hike overturned at the ballot box.

The boilerplate paragraph that’s never found

But what’s also unfortunate is how rare it is to see basic context in any story about government command-and-control housing policies.

I have whined for 25 years that any stories on Cuba that are more than 500 words should have a paragraph like this:

“Although Cuba is a socialist state associated with progressive values, in a key way it resembles pre-1995 South Africa. Black and part-black Cubans make up more than 60 percent of the population but are rarely found in key positions, which are held almost entirely by Cubans of Spanish descent.”

The Economist agrees with me about Cuba’s ruling “white gerontacracy.”

I have whined for nearly as long that stories on affordable housing in California that are more than 500 words should have content like this:

“Affordable-housing programs in California that use fees from developers and project conditions have a weak track record of actually decreasing rents and home prices.”

 Sure, that content could be made even more thorough:

“Affordable-housing programs in California that use fees from developers and project conditions have a weak track record of actually decreasing rents and home prices. But advocates for the poor say alternatives have not been offered by Republicans and contend many conservatives simply don’t care about making housing affordable for the less affluent and the underprivileged.”

If that second part were included, that would be fine by me — because at the very least, we’d have every story of more than 500 words making the point that existing policies aren’t working. Then maybe it would dawn on politicians in San Diego and elsewhere that failed public policies shouldn’t be continued ad infinitum.

Dumb de dumb dumb.

The trip, which kicks off on Monday, is the second legislative junket to Cuba organized by Anderson this year. During the Legislature’s spring break, eight lawmakers participated in a similar trip that included a tour of a castle, afternoon salsa lessons and rooftop cocktails, among other activities, according to Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian, R-San Luis Obispo, the only legislator to speak publicly about the trip.

The legislative junket to Cuba has been criticized by ethics experts for conflict of interest issues as well as the questionable practice of setting up a nonprofit organization that is “a wholly owned subsidiary” of a lobbying firm.

Assemblywoman Campos confirmed as participant

It is unclear how many legislators or their staff are participating in this week’s trip. At least one legislator has been identified as a participant. The San Jose Mercury-News reports that Assemblywoman Nora Campos, D-San Jose, and her husband, Neil Struthers, are going.

“It’s an opportunity to develop economic and trade ties,” Campos spokesman Steve Harmon told the Mercury-News by email.

However, an ethics expert said this type of trip gives lobbyists an unfair level of influence.

“It absolutely raises ethical questions when lobbyists travel with elected officials,” Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor who specializes in ethics, told CalWatchdog.com in April. “We want elected officials to hear from all of us, not just those who are taking trips.”

The trip’s price tag, according to the invitation, is $4,175 per person with a $500 supplement for single occupancy. But legislators won’t be paying for it out of their own pockets. A spokesman for Campos told the Mercury-News that the San Jose Democrat would use campaign funds to pay for the trip.

Under the California Political Reform Act, legislators and their staffs cannot accept gifts worth more than $10 per month from a registered lobbyist. However, campaign accounts provide legislators with an easy vehicle for circumventing these strict limits on lobbyist gifts. Lobbyists can direct their clients to donate to a member’s campaign account. Then the member can use the campaign account to pay for personal expenses, including foreign travel.

Nonprofit has links to lobbying firm

In order to comply with the State Department’s ban on travel to Cuba, the trip was arranged by Californians Building Bridges, a shadowy nonprofit organization controlled by Anderson. The organization’s website was registered by an employee of Platinum Advisors in August 2010, who provided contact information for Platinum Advisors.

The nonprofit’s board of directors includes Anderson as well as Holly Fraumeni and Melinda McClain, both of whom are registered lobbyists with Platinum Advisors. Only two other individuals serve on the board of directors, Kevin Murray, a former state senator and lobbyist, and James Bruner, the director of Orrick’s Governmental Affairs Practice Group in Sacramento.

That information, Levinson previously suggested, raised the question of whether “the nonprofit is a wholly owned subsidiary of the lobbying firm.”

More evidence of lobbying firm directing trip

The latest trip provides even more evidence that Anderson has used the nonprofit organization as a subsidiary of his lobbying business. In June 2013, Anderson invited lawmakers on the trip on behalf of “Platinum Advisors” and signed the invitation on Platinum Advisors letterhead.

“On behalf of Platinum Advisors and in partnership with Californians Building Bridges, we are excited to invite you to join us on an upcoming trip to Havana, Cuba during December 2-7, 2013,” Anderson wrote on Platinum Advisors letterhead. “In 2010, I founded an exciting nonprofit organization, Californians Building Bridges (CBB), which gained independent approval from the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control in 2011 to travel to Cuba and coordinate educational exchanges.”

Nevertheless, despite overwhelming evidence that the nonprofit is a subsidiary of the lobbying firm, Californians Building Bridges denies that lobbying will occur on the trip.

Jason Kinney, a spokesman for the nonprofit, told the Los Angeles Times that no policy issues are discussed. “These are nongovernmental educational exchanges with the people of Cuba — which means that no policy issues are discussed and certainly none relating to anything going on in Sacramento,” Kinney said in interview with the newspaper earlier this year.

83% of nonprofit funds spent on travel

Federal tax documents, filed by the organization on May 28, 2013, for the 2012 tax year, claim that the group’s primary purpose is to support other charitable endeavors. In 2012, $541,363, or 83 percent of the organization’s overall expenses, was spent on travel.

“The organization’s primary purpose is to assist other charitable organizations in expediting projects, setting priorities, and achieving goals,” the group stated as its charitable mission on tax forms for the past two years. “Californians Building Bridges will develop humanitarian programs that help volunteers and corporate partners alike make a useful connection to a world in need.”

Despite its tax-exempt status, Californians Building Bridges has little to show in the way of charitable activities. Californians Building Bridges, according to its most recent tax return, provided no financial support to domestic or international charities.

In fact, Californians Building Bridges, which spent $652,200 last year, has never spent a penny in support of grants or contributions to other charities, according to the two tax returns that are publicly available. Yet the organization’s mission, according to its tax return, listed as a priority making “one-time financial grants and donations of supplies and materials to charitable organizations that lack their own resources or do not qualify for assistance through existing agencies and organizations in their region.”

Darius Anderson: Sacramento’s ‘best connected lobbyist’

According to state disclosure reports, Anderson’s firm is the lobbyist of record for 68 government organizations and special interest groups, including Anthem Blue Cross, AT&T, California Thoroughbred Breeders Association, Clear Channel Communications, Station Casinos, Sutter Health, United Food and Commercial Workers, UPS, and the counties of Alameda, Napa, Orange, San Bernardino and Ventura.

In 2009, Anderson was voted by state legislators as the “best connected lobbyist,” according to a survey of all 120 legislators conducted by Capitol Weekly.

In 2010, Anderson and Platinum Advisors “paid $500,000 to settle claims by New York Atty. Gen. Andrew Cuomo stemming from a yearlong investigation into so-called pay-to-play practices in city and state pension fund investment partnerships,” according to the Los Angeles Times.

As of Sept. 12, seven of the eight legislative members on the spring-break trip to Cuba have been identified. Attendees include: Achadjian, Assembly Majority Leader Toni Atkins, D-San Diego; Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, D-San Diego; Assemblywoman Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles; Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley; state Sen. Ron Calderon, D-Montebello; and state Sen. Cathleen Galgiani, D-Livingston.

Additional background information, past coverage

California Building Bridges 2012 tax return

Platinum Advisors 2013 Invitation Page 1

Platinum Advisor 2013 Invitation Page 2

CalWatchdog: Legislators take secret trip to Cuba with Sacramento lobbyist

CalWatchdog: FPPC shuns investigation of CA legislators’ Cuba trip

CalWatchdog: Two more legislators ID’d who went on lobbyist-organized Cuba junket

LA Times: Six California lawmakers took trip to Cuba with Capitol lobbyist

CalWatchdog: 7th legislator on Cuba junket identified

San Jose Mercury-News: Nora Campos’ junket to Cuba

A seventh state lawmaker that participated in a spring break trip to Cuba has been identified. The office of Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, D-San Diego, confirmed to CalWatchdog.com that the freshman legislator spent the spring break holiday in Cuba.

“Please be informed that Assembly Member Shirley Weber traveled to Cuba on vacation at her own expense,” Lisa Martin, Weber’s chief of staff, wrote in an email to CalWatchdog.com after multiple requests for comment.

However, Weber’s office refused to acknowledge that the trip to Cuba was in conjunction with the eight-member legislative delegation organized by Darius Anderson, the founder and president of the powerhouse lobbying firm Platinum Advisors. Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian, R-San Luis Obispo, the only legislator to speak publicly about the Cuba trip, told the San Luis Obispo Tribune that the trip included a tour of a castle, afternoon salsa lessons and rooftop cocktails, among other activities.

In refusing to acknowledge that she spent spring break cozying up to “Sacramento’s best-connected lobbyist,” Weber may have opened herself up to problems with the federal government. After all, Americans are banned from “traveling to Cuba on vacation,” as Weber claims.

Treasury Department bans American tourism in cuba

The U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control regulates all American travel to the Caribbean nation through the issuance of travel licenses, which are limited to 12 categories.

“OFAC does not authorize transactions related to activities that are primarily tourist-oriented, including self-directed educational activities that are intended only for personal enrichment,” according to the Comprehensive Guidelines for License Applications to Engage in Travel-Related Transactions Involving in Cuba, published by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control.

That could present some problems for Weber — unless she traveled in conjunction with the lobbyist-organized trip.

In order to comply with the U.S. State Department’s ban on travel to Cuba, Anderson arranged the trip through the nonprofit organization Californians Building Bridges. In 2011, the only year for which the organization filed a tax return, it spent $94,586, a majority of its revenue, on travel-related expenses.

The organization’s mission also listed as a priority, making “one-time financial grants and donations of supplies and materials to charitable organizations that lack their own resources or do not qualify for assistance through existing agencies and organizations in their region.” Yet, it paid out $0 in domestic and foreign grants, according to the group’s tax return.

Anderson’s clients donated to Weber’s campaign

In the past 18 months, Weber’s campaign committees  have collected $11,900 from Anderson’s past or current clients, including AT&T, DirectTV, Phillips 66 and the United Food and Commercial Workers. In 2010, Anderson and his firm agreed to pay out half a million dollars to settle pay-to-play allegations, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Campaign watchdog groups have criticized the practice of spending extended time with lobbyists, such as on travel junkets.

“It absolutely raises ethical questions when lobbyists travel with elected officials,” Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor who specializes in ethics, told CalWatchdog.com in April. “We want elected officials to hear from all of us, not just those who are taking trips.”

Levinson repeated those comments in August, when the Los Angeles Times reported on the trip.

7 of 8 legislators identified

Last month, with the release of semi-annual campaign reports, CalWatchdog.com first reported that state Senator Ron Calderon, D-Montebello, whose offices were raided by FBI agents in June, traveled to Cuba, along with Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley

Under the California Political Reform Act, legislators and their staffs cannot accept gifts worth more than $10 per month from a registered lobbyist. However, campaign accounts provide legislators with an easy vehicle for circumventing these strict limits on lobbyist gifts. Lobbyists can direct their clients to donate to a member’s campaign account. Then, the member can use the campaign account to pay for personal expenses, including foreign travel.

As of Sept. 11, CalWatchdog.com has identified seven of the eight-member legislative delegation to Cuba. Other attendees include: Achadjian, Assembly Majority Leader Toni Atkins, D-San Diego; Assemblywoman Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles; Skinner; and State Sen. Cathleen Galgiani, D-Livingston.

By John Hrabe and Katy Grimes

After Friday’s report on CalWatchdog.com that at least two state legislators traveled to Cuba with a powerful Sacramento lobbyist, you’d think the state’s political watchdog might be launching a formal investigation. After all, the trip was hosted by the same lobbyist that reached a $500,000 settlement in 2010 with then-New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo over allegations of pay-to-play practices in that state.

Lawmakers haven’t answered any questions, and won’t face any scrutiny from the state’s ethics watchdog, because they claim to have paid for their own expenses.

“We are not investigating the Cuba trip,” confirmed Gary Winuk, chief of the Enforcement Division at the Fair Political Practices Commission. “If someone violated the current laws and regulations, then we will pursue it.”

The FPPC’s failure to investigate the matter rests on legislators’ claim to have paid their own trip expenses. It’s perfectly legal for lobbyists to escort legislators on foreign junkets, away from any public scrutiny, or the ability to independently verify legislators’ claims.

New details

To date, it still isn’t clear which legislators were in Cuba, their purpose of traveling to a foreign country with a lobbyist, or why they’ve refused to release any information about the trip itinerary, which they claim wasn’t a secret. Only State Sen. Cathleen Galgiani, D-Livingston, and Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian, R-San Luis Obispo, have been willing to confirm to CalWatchdog.com that they spent the spring holiday in Cuba with lobbyist Darius Anderson, the president and founder of Platinum Advisors.

The state’s ethics commission might not be asking any questions, but new details are slowly emerging about the trip thanks to local media reports. The San Luis Obispo Tribune, in a follow up to CalWatchdog.com’s piece, confirmed that there were eight state lawmakers on the Cuba trip.

“It is also important to note that the delegation included seven other members of the Legislature, nonprofit staff, as well as other business leaders,” Achadjian told his hometown paper in defense of his trip to a foreign country with a registered lobbyist. “It was not a personal trip with a lobbyist as it was described in other news outlets, nor was it done in secret.”

That raises the question: if the trip wasn’t a secret, why do the identities of six legislators remain a mystery?

Not talking to CalWatchdog.com

A spokesman for Galgiani said the government office doesn’t have any information on the Cuba trip and that the senator isn’t willing to comment.

Achadjian’s office was even less forthcoming with us, only telling CalWatchdog.com to read other media reports. “Earlier today the assemblyman was happy to answer a series of questions regarding his participation in the delegation trip to Cuba,” said Craig Swaim, chief of staff to Achadjian. “You are free to use that as a reference for your reporting.”

He added: “As for [who] else participated in the delegation trip, you may wish to contact Californians Building Bridges or member offices directly, as I only speak on behalf of Assemblyman Achadjian and not for other members of the Legislature.”

Achadjian’s staff was referring to the Tribune’s report, which included Achadjian’s declaration that the trip wasn’t a secret.

It isn’t clear whether the legislators used campaign or personal funds to pay for trip expenses. Under state law, it wouldn’t make a difference.

Influence

One campaign watchdog group believes that lobbyists and legislators shouldn’t be traveling together, regardless of who pays the bill because it gives lobbyists more influence than average citizens.

“We are in an era where powerful lobbyists have more access to public officials than constituents. Look no further than these trips as proof,” said Phillip Ung, a policy advocate for California Common Cause, a non-profit, non-partisan citizens’ lobby organization. “These junkets must either end or voters should know who is on the trip and what is being discussed regardless of who pays for it.”

Ung said that California’s weak ethics regulations don’t meet the federal government’s disclosure requirements for members of Congress that engage in foreign travel.

“Congress banned travel junkets with lobbyists years ago and now requires strict disclosure before a privately funded trip can even take place,” Ung said.

Campaign funds

“From trips across the ocean, gifts to staff, and even cars, many elected officials feel there is no real restriction for what they can spend their campaign funds on,” said Ung. “Under current law this is legal because of the vague definitions that allow campaign funds to be spent on almost anything under the sun.”

Not everyone in Sacramento is critical of the lobbyist-legislator foreign travel issue. Dan Pellissier, the president of California Pension Reform, defended the trip to Cuba based on his own experiences on a similar trip organized by Anderson’s nonprofit, Californians Building Bridges.

“I do not know what happened on other CBB trips, but ours was an outstanding experience without a hint of secrecy or impropriety,” Pellissier told CalWatchdog.com.  “It was a wonderful personal experience for both of us and I cannot imagine a more meaningful cultural exchange. I tipped well, in U.S. dollars.” Pellissier also wrote similar comments after the first CalWatchdog.com article on the trip.

All of this means that entertainers Beyonce and Jay-Z, who also recently traveled to Cuba, have faced more scrutiny than state lawmakers traveling to the same place with the state’s “best-connected” lobbyist. Two members of the U.S. Congress from Florida, Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart, have demanded answers from the State Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control Department of Treasury about the superstars’ trip. No word yet on whether the Florida members of Congress will demand a similar investigation into Achadjian and Galgiani.

CalWatchdog.com is currently contacting every member of the State Assembly to confirm their whereabouts over the spring holiday.