But in Long Beach, they’re going in a different direction that could spawn copycats around Golden State and maybe the world: letting the taxi industry be much more like Uber rather than requiring it to operate under the normal, heavily regulated model. Forbes has details:

Throughout Long Beach’s county of Los Angeles, locals say that ride sharing is transforming the local travel culture at lightning speed.

So working together with Yellow Cab, the city council of Long Beach (population: 469,000) this week approved a pilot program that removes taxis’ fare floor, allowing Yellow Cab to discount fares as conditions warrant, comparable to ride sharing services’ less expensive fares. The company will also get an ordering app, be allowed to increase its fleet size from 175 to 199 cars, and be permitted to add additional capacity at peak times.

Introducing ‘Yellow of Long Beach’

Taxi executives don’t just worry about competing with cheaper ride providers. They realize there’s a “cool” factor to Uber that hasn’t faded even as the company’s novelty has disappeared:

Yellow Cab will also get a new branding identity, Yellow of Long Beach (note the missing word “cab”).

“Our hope is that this competition will provide more options for residents while allowing each of the companies to thrive,” [Mayor Robert] Garcia says. Both the city council and taxi company say they’re behind this program “100 percent.” …

Long Beach appears to be the first city in the nation to take this novel approach, but, Garcia says, “We believe our approach, if successful, could be a national model.”

What Bloomberg Business News calls “Big Taxi” is still targeting Uber in the big picture, using contributions from 1,000 taxi and limo service companies worldwide. But in California, Uber has become an entrenched part of life to the point where Long Beach taxi companies would rather switch business models than fight.

Yet as Forbes notes, they still like their protected turf:

Protests by taxi drivers, meanwhile, continue to sweep the globe, most recently in Toronto and across Europe and Australia. The state legislature in Kansas effectively shut down Uber there earlier this month, although there are news reports of a compromise in the works that could bring it back.

In Long Beach, one big difference remains between taxis and ride shares: only taxis can pick up at Long Beach’s airport.

The early conventional wisdom was that the clear favorite was Republican Kevin Faulconer, 47, the longest-serving council member and a community figure since his election as president of San Diego State University’s student body a quarter-century ago. Not only was Faulconer like the congenial moderate Republicans who have led San Diego for much of the last four decades, his opponent was a neophyte.

Democratic Councilman David Alvarez, 33, only became a public figure in 2010 when he beat out scions of two local political dynasties to win a seat representing a largely Latino district south of Interstate 8 — the dividing line in city politics between blue-collar communities nearer the Mexican border and the affluent neighborhoods from La Jolla to inland Rancho Bernardo.

That conventional wisdom has given way to a new assumption: Faulconer may win, but it will be very close — and he may be the last Republican that San Diego elects as mayor.

Given the Democrats’ hold on nearly all of California’s 10 largest cities, Faulconer might be the last big-city GOP mayor to be elected in the Golden State — barring a change in our political dynamics or demographics.

GOP held sway in San Diego not long ago

Although Democrats had long enjoyed a voter-registration edge in California’s second-largest city, Republicans did surprisingly well until 2012. It was that year that Filner, an abrasive 20-year paleoliberal congressman, edged out GOP Councilman Carl DeMaio, a small-government crusader who helped win huge changes in city compensation practices in his one term in office.

Many observers credited Filner’s 51 percent to 47 percent win to the strong turnout triggered by President Obama’s re-election campaign among Latinos and African Americans — 29 percent and 7 percent of the city’s population, respectively — and young people of all races. Also seen as a factor was DeMaio’s combative manner; the gay libertarian, the theory held, turned off the independent voters that Jerry Sanders attracted in his successful mayoral campaigns of 2005 and 2008.

So when Filner resigned in August, Republicans were confident after DeMaio decided instead to run for Congress and the well-liked Faulconer emerged as the sole credible GOP mayoral candidate. In the first special election, in November, Faulconer led with 42 percent, with Alvarez second with 27 percent, and Republican-turned-independent-turned-Democrat former Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher third with 24 percent. In this week’s runoff special election — runoffs typically have light turnout — the assumption was that reliably Republican absentee voters would carry the day.

Instead, the last published poll showed Faulconer only ahead 47 percent to 46 percent, within the margin of error. Millions of dollars in campaign spending by the national chapters of local unions — most of it for negative ads trashing the GOP candidate — had taken their toll.

But Republican insiders — and scores of business executives — are worried about much more than just this election.

The “Los Angelization” of America’s Finest City

It’s not just the usual concerns of GOP operatives in California: that the party’s hot-button social issues turn off young voters and that Latino voter turnout is steadily increasing. It’s that San Diego’s politics are undergoing what might be called a “Los Angelization.”

The city’s school board was taken over by the local affiliate of the California Teachers Association in 2008, when union muscle elected a new board majority that instituted policies that drove away an acclaimed reformer superintendent and yielded an operating budget in which an astonishing 92 percent of funds goes to employee compensation. The CTA control of the school board only increased with the 2010 and 2012 elections.

Now the same thing is happening with the City Council. Union-favored Democratic candidates — such as Alvarez — are increasingly likely to beat Democrats with independent streaks. As recently as 2011, there were Democrats on the council who occasionally would take on unions — politicians with backgrounds in engineering and small business, as well as party members who appeared eager to hear out business interests’ concerns.

But now the union muscle-flexing not only has Alvarez near an improbable mayoral victory, it has prompted hard-left decisions by the City Council in the months since Filner quit — decisions supported by formerly semi-independent Democrats who see the writing on the wall.

Last fall, on a party-line 5-4 vote, City Council Democrats approved increasing fees on commercial development by at least 377 percent to provide more funds for affordable-housing programs — even though the programs have a horrible record of actually getting people in homes.

And on another party-line 5-4 vote, council Democrats approved a restrictive new master plan for a job-rich shipyard industrial area adjacent to the Barrio Logan neighborhood in Alvarez’s district. They did so despite dire warnings from many CEOs and business owners that it would give leverage to environmentalists and community activists to shut them down.

No more independent Democratic voices

The contrast between the current council Democratic majority and past Democratic majorities was striking. In 2007, an effort to punish Wal-Mart for the sin of being anti-union died when then-Councilwoman Donna Frye — the most popular Democrat in San Diego — changed her mind and opposed an anti-“big box” ordinance. Frye candidly admitted that her constituents liked Wal-Mart and didn’t want it punished.

Present council Democrats appear incapable of such candor. In voting for the massive fee increase on commercial development, Council President Todd Gloria — the interim mayor since Filner’s resignation — repeatedly insisted that not only would there be no negative economic fallout from the hike, it would help the local economy.

The same Gloria once stood up to unions by backing a “managed competition” process in which groups of city workers vied against private businesses for the right to provide city services — a reform strongly endorsed by voters.

Alvarez has made clear he plans to nullify voter-backed reforms. Will Gloria stand up to him? Maybe he would have a year or two ago. But now that San Diego politics are becoming as union-dominated and doctrinaire as those of Los Angeles or the California Legislature, probably not.

A Faulconer victory in Tuesday’s mayoral election may quiet GOP worries about the radicalization of San Diego City Hall — but not for long.

The company will begin laying off workers in 2014. The plant, which employs around 2,000 workers, will be shut by 2015. Boeing delivered its final C-17, a four-engine cargo jet designed to carry massive loads throughout the world, to the U.S. Air Force just one week before the announcement.

The closure of the plant, the last remaining major airplane assembly unit in Southern California, marks the end of an era for the region, which was once the center of the booming aerospace economy.

An August 2012 report from the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation laid out just how important the aerospace economy was to Southern California:

“At the height of the Cold War, 15 of the 25 largest aerospace companies in the United States were based in Southern California. Today, all but a handful of the largest of those original firms have closed their doors, have moved elsewhere, or have been absorbed through a wave of mergers and consolidations that swept through the industry in the 1990s. The industry is considerably more concentrated today than in past decades, especially for companies whose primary customer is the U.S. Government.

“In 1987, California accounted for one in four aerospace jobs nationally, and in Los Angeles County, the share was one in ten. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the Department of Defense (DOD) sharply curtailed procurement spending. In 1995, DOD spending fell below $50 billion for the first time since 1982. Nowhere in the country were the changes in Pentagon outlays more apparent than in Southern California.

“With the end of the Cold War came defense budget cuts and military base closures. Aerospace companies in the region met the challenge by merging with one another and consolidating operations. Many smaller contractors were forced to close their doors or look for business outside the industry. Already in a recession, Southern California’s economy went into a tailspin. The severe contraction of the aerospace industry added a structural component to the downturn. As the business cycle turned up again elsewhere in the country, the permanent loss of thousands of aerospace jobs in the region led to a longer and deeper recession in Southern California.”

Shocked

Although the plant’s closure had long been expected, several workers were shocked, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Vince Breen, a structural mechanic, told the Times, “It’s like a mortuary in there. We were stunned.”

According to the Times, the plant was once bustling enough that workers placed flags on their cars so that they could find them in the massive parking lot.

Boeing has announced that it does not plan to move production for any other planes to the shuttered 1.1 million-square-foot facility. What will happen to the closing plant remains unclear.

Fifteen days. That’s how long it took developer Broad Sustainable Building to complete construction of a 30-story hotel.

The near-miraculous feat has been attributed to a couple timesavers: The hotel’s foundation was laid out ahead of its actual construction. And 93 percent of the building was pre-fabricated in an off-site factory.

But the biggest factor, no doubt, is that the hotel, called T-30, was built on the outskirts of Changsha, the capital of China’s Hunan province. The developer didn’t have to go through the lengthy, labyrinthine building process all too familiar to developers here in California.

Of course, there’s absolutely no way a one-story — much less 30-story — hotel will ever get built in a mere two weeks here in the Golden State.

Not with the plethora of government approvals required before a developer can even think about breaking ground. Not with the reflexive opposition of NIMBY community groups to almost any proposed development.

Not with the pressure on builders, applied by unions, to accede to costly Project Labor Agreement. Not with the near certainty that a developer will face a project-delaying lawsuit.

California is as hostile a place to build a hotel — or any other structure for that matter — as China is accommodating.

Last August, for example, Barry Swenson Builder, a Bay Area developer, finally gave up on its $28 million La Bahia hotel project after the California Coastal Commission refused to approve a minor change in the city of Santa Cruz’s coastal plan that would have permitted the proposed 125-room hotel to be built up to 5-1/2 floors (rather than 4 floors).

The infill project had been previously approved by the Santa Cruz City Council, after the developer endured more than 10 years and $2.2 million of study and redesign. The hotel was expected to contribute $700,000 a year to the city’s treasury in lodging and sales taxes, while creating 100 permanent jobs for Santa Cruz workers.

Meanwhile, last December, the Long Beach City Council rejected a proposed $320 million project that would have included a 100-room boutique hotel, as well as residential units and retail space. The complex was to be built on the underutilized site currently occupied by Long Beach’s rundown Sea Port Marina Hotel.

The lead developer, RCLCO, spent eight years trying to get the project approved, appearing at more than 75 public hearings along the way. Its economic impact report estimated that the proposed mixed-use complex, Seaside Village, would yield the city of Long Beach $2.8 million a year in taxes and fees, while adding 930 full-time jobs to the city’s economy.

Red Tape

California developers don’t expect to build hotels in a mere matter of weeks, as Broad was able to do in China. But they also don’t think that they should spend the better part of 10 years just trying to get a project approved.

No, China’s building standards aren’t as stringent as those here in the Golden State. Chinese law isn’t as protective of the environment as California law. And Chinese employers are able to demand more of workers than employers in this state would even consider.

But Broad notes that its 30-story hotel tower has been certified as earthquake resistant, up to a level 9 tembler. Its just completed building is “sustainable,” with such features as energy-efficient lighting, low-flush toilets and elevators the generate electricity as they descend. And its 900 employees earn above-average pay, even though theirs is a non-unionized workplace.

Anyone who watched the video of T-30’s construction — which was so amazing it went viral — will notice that the actual construction of the hotel wasn’t very different from what might be witnessed at a California construction site. (See the YouTube below.)

The takeaway from that is, while we will never see hotels built in a mere matter of weeks here in California, it is possible that hotels could go from the drawing board to completion in the mere matter of a couple years.

That is, if the state was less hostile to development; if the process for getting a project approved wasn’t rigged to obstruct developers as long as possible.

— Joseph Perkins

by WAYNE LUSVARDI

To California redevelopment advocates, the policy brings the Midas touch to cities, turning everything into gold for the Golden State. Redevelopment fans point to all the beautiful new malls, restored Old Town business districts, industrial parks and mixed-use developments with trendy condos and apartments as self-evident proof that King Midas has visited them.

To cash-strapped cities, redevelopment has been a purported savior.  Taking it away, as proposed by Gov. Jerry Brown and the state legislature, is perceived as stabbing King Midas’ hand.

But why would so many liberal, Democratic legislators vote to end redevelopment if it truly gave cities the power of the Midas touch?  Because it robs public schools and public services of about $1.7 billion in revenues each year that have to be backfilled with other funds.  Redevelopment is like the lyrics to the Hollies British pop and rock group song “King Midas In Reverse”:

“I’m not the guy to run with ‘cause,
“I’ll throw you off the line
“I’ll break you and destroy you given time”

He’s King Midas with a curse,
He’s King Midas in reverse

All he touches turns to dust
All he touches turns to dust

Reversing Prop. 13

But there is another underside to redevelopment that is rarely, if ever, discussed. Not only does redevelopment rob schools and first-responder services of revenues, it subverts California’s Proposition 13, the tax-limitation measure passed in 1978.  Behind the more than 400 glossy redevelopment agency websites in California marketing the advantages of redevelopment with photos of beautiful new real estate developments is the reality that redevelopment neutralizes Prop 13.  Redevelopment condemns properties with low tax revenues, then up-zones them to achieve a higher property and sales tax base.

Redevelopment proponents say that Prop. 13 is the cause of the expansion of redevelopment in California and the cause of the lack of revenue to balance the state budget. No. It isn’t Prop. 13 itself, but the irrefutable reaction to Prop 13 — the expansion of redevelopment — that has caused a $1.7 billion hole in the state budget.  Otherwise, why would state officials vote to repeal redevelopment?

Banking on Blight

According to a 1999 report, “Banking on Blight,” the City of Long Beach had 54 percent of its land area within designated redevelopment project areas.  The City of Lancaster had 49 percent, Compton 40 percent and Burbank 17 percent.

The percentage of the property value of redevelopment areas of all city properties was 46 percent for Lancaster, 32 percent for Compton, 19 percent for Burbank and 17 percent for Long Beach.  The City of Lancaster had a whopping 27,702 acres — more than 43 square miles — under redevelopment. In the City of Long Beach, 17,153 acres — more than 26 square miles — was so designated.

.

As of June 30, 2010, the net “assets” of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lancaster were a whopping $218,101,533 in the red! That’s what they owed. (Inside the link, download the June 30, 2010 document. The number is on page 6.) That happened even as the The Lancaster School District was closing old school facilities amid declining attendance and trying to plug a $12 million budget deficit as of March 2010.  As the song says, “All he touches turns to dust.”

The City of Compton has a $25 million general-fund budget deficit out of a total $58 billion budget and no reserves, as of 2011. The Compton School District has been facing budget shortfalls since the 1990’s, despite forming its redevelopment agency in 1967. Again, “All he touches turns to dust.”

The City of Burbank has a balanced budget as of 2011, but this is mainly due to an economic base in the entertainment and media industry, a regional airport and lack of reliance on new auto sales, which fluctuate. “All he touches turns to dust.”

The City of Long Beach is facing an $18.5 million budget deficit and rotating fire station closures.  The Long Beach School District is facing $60 million in budget cuts.  “All he touches turns to dust.”

It’s clear that the latent or covert function of redevelopment in California is to undo the property tax reassessment protections of Prop 13.

The remainder of the lyrics to “King Midas in Reverse” put it well:

It’s plain to see it’s hopeless
Going on the way we are
So even though I’d lose you
You’d be better off by far

He’s not the man to hold your trust
Everything he touches turns to dust
In his hands
Nothing he can do is right
He’d even like to sleep at night
But he can’t

All he touches turns to dust
All he touches turns to dust
All he touches turns to dust
All he touches turns to dust

I wish someone would find me
And help me gain control
Before I lose my reason
And my soul

Here’s a YouTube of the song: