Now, rarely enough, we’re seeing a second unified front among some dissimilar editorial boards at large state newspapers. The issue: lightly disguised attempts to manipulate the regulatory process to kill or severely damage Uber, Lyft and other innovative companies that use smart phones and individual drivers to create transportation networks that often are cheaper and easier to use than taxis, limos or other alternatives.

Here are excerpts from three editorials in the last week.

L.A. Times: Driving away innovation

Just as Silicon Valley is a hotbed for innovation, Sacramento is a hotbed for regulation. Those two impulses are clashing now over a new generation of tech companies that uses smartphone apps to connect ride-seekers with drivers. If lawmakers aren’t careful, the regulations they’re poised to impose could snuff innovation across the sharing economy.

At issue is whether the Legislature will impose a second layer of rules on companies such as Uber, Lyft and Sidecar in addition to the ones the state Public Utilities Commission has been setting over the past year. To its credit, the commission recognized that these “transportation network companies” are fundamentally different from taxi companies, despite similarities in the services offered. The commission’s rules for driver and vehicle safety recognized the risks to passengers, but also that the drivers were freelancers using their own vehicles on a part-time basis, not full-time employees using cars dedicated to carrying passengers.

Nevertheless, some lawmakers allied with the taxi industry are now arguing that what’s sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. With little or no evidence to show that the ride-sharing services are as risky as traditional taxis, they nevertheless are pushing to make the former comply with several of the regulations that apply to the latter — or even more stringent ones.

The current version of one bill, AB 2293, proposes that ride-sharing companies carry more coverage when their drivers have no passengers than cab companies in L.A. are required to carry when their taxis are full.

Read the online version here.

The O.C. Register: Saddling rideshare services with uber-insurance

Cheering the bill is a coalition of special interests. Taxi drivers and companies, who are rapidly losing business to ridesharing companies, welcome the chance to impose higher costs on their competitors. The industry complains about regulatory disparities, yet it seeks to raise protectionist regulations on others, rather than lower its own regulations, which would open taxis up to more competition. …

There was a time when Microsoft and other tech companies were loath to stoop to lobbying the government. They were naïve enough to think that they should invest their hard-earned revenue in developing new technologies and finding better ways to serve their customers and stay ahead of their competition, rather than courting politicians. Then reality hit when the government cracked down with costly regulations and bogus antitrust charges. Now the ridesharing companies are learning this lesson.

Read the online version here.

U-T San Diego: Ridesharing bill: The stench in Sacramento

Under the bill, ridesharing companies wouldn’t just have to meet the state edict that they have $1 million commercial insurance coverage while a passenger is in their cars; they would have to have such coverage “from the moment a driver logs on to the application” linking them with a ridesharing network.

This mandate has no nexus with passenger or driver safety. Hitting a button on a smartphone and glancing at a screen while driving is an extremely common thing for drivers to do. If it were truly dangerous, our morgues would be overflowing.

That’s why it’s not the American Automobile Association or public-health lobbyists pushing AB 2293. It’s taxi and limousine companies that don’t want competition — with a huge assist from insurance companies, which love the idea of costlier coverage mandates, and trial lawyers, who expect to win bigger settlements from those required to have more expansive coverage.

I wrote the U-T editorial. Read the full thing, with the show-offy “Jungle” reference, here.

Harkey and Wyland are both running for the Orange County/San Diego County/Inland Empire Board of Equalization seat now held by Michelle Steel that is a good bet to remain in GOP hands. It has a slight Republican registration edge. Also expected to run are three Orange County pols: Democratic state Sen. Lou Correa and former GOP state lawmakers Tom Harman and Van Tran.

But the key to understanding Harkey's suit isn't her pending political fight with Wyland. It's her thin-skinnedness, if that's a word. Let's look at some of her dealings with the media that reflect her perception of a world in which she is an unjustly put-upon heroine:

'Totally unfair and extremely biased'

This is from O.C. Register political reporter Martin Wisckol's blog of Oct. 19, 2007:…

“Diane Harkey left me a phone message today (that was Oct. 17), saying the blog was singling her out and posting unflattering photos. You can see the two photos I’ve used of her here.

“I’m not that unphotogenic,” she said. “I think it’s totally unfair and extremely biased.”

Then came Martin's story of March 17, 2009, which showed Harkey had been misleading and inconsistent in describing her involvement with her husband's troubled financial firm.

Victim of 'slander'? Or trapped in denial?

At that time, I interviewed Harkey, who at that point represented a big chunk of northwest San Diego County, for a Union-Tribune editorial that was published March 22, 2009. Here's part of the editorial; the image is from an extensive website on the Harkey scandal:

 “… Her husband, Dan Harkey, runs Point Center Financial, an Aliso Viejo company that lends investors' money to land developers. It is the target of a Securities and Exchange Commission probe. It is also facing a lawsuit from 53 investors who say Dan Harkey used their money for dubious loans – and to fund his wife's rapid rise in Orange County politics. Campaign disclosure firms show Diane Harkey has spent $2.1 million in personal funds since 2004.

“However, the suit presents no evidence for the alleged diversion of money. An aide to Diane Harkey told The Orange County Register last month that the campaign funds came entirely from the wealth she had accumulated in a 30-year banking career. Both Harkeys said she had never worked for Point Center. …

“But a follow-up Register report said Diane Harkey had been listed as a Point Center official in state documents and in campaign disclosure forms for two political donations to other GOP candidates. Harkey's own 'statement of economic interests' said she received more than $100,000 in annual income from a rental property that happens to be Point Center's headquarters. She also appears to be backing away from her claim that she didn't use her husband's money for political purposes.

professional writing service

“Plainly, this matter deserves coverage. Yet in a phone interview, Harkey told us our questions amounted to 'slander'; that news accounts of the mess were all 'libel' written by journalists determined to 'massacre' her family; and that she was the victim of a sexist double-standard.

“Given the holes in her initial story, this is a startling approach for Harkey to take. … If she wants to clear her name, step one is to get out of the denial stage of her grief.”

Routine budget questions an 'unbelievable grilling'

I wrote more about Harkey in a March 23, 2009, blog item for the Union-Tribune:

“How is it possible Harkey managed to get elected to any job, much less the Assembly? She has no conception of her role; of the proper role of the media; or of her responsibilities to the media. I have another example to offer.

“Last fall, the U-T editorial board met with nearly two dozen candidates for state Assembly and Senate seats. I asked every last one how they would balance the state budget and was ready with follow-up questions seeking specifics if they offered vague answers or it's-that-simple Ross Perot-style sophistry. Guess who thought that amounted to unfair treatment? You got it.

“Last week, after I had an unproductive phone interview with her, I wrote Harkey to say I needed to get fuller answers so I could understand her position. Part of her response was to harken back to the candidate interviews: '… you have a personal bias in my case. I recall the unbelievable grilling you gave me when I interviewed with your editorial board.'

“I asked the same questions of everyone, with the same follow-ups to all the evaders. To Diane Harkey, it was an 'unbelievable grilling.'

“Here's the kicker: The U-T ended up endorsing her, and I wrote the editorial! Despite my 'bias'!

“South O.C. and Oceanside, you have my condolences. There doesn't seem to be much of a learning curve on display with your Assembly rep.”

Incumbent Steel probably regrets Harkey endorsement

Four years later, that still seems true. It's just strange for Harkey to think her scandal isn't fair game for her political rivals; that the amazingly personal details in her lawsuit against Wyland will play well; and not to realize that her lawsuit has put a vast spotlight on Wyland's remarks that might otherwise have been largely ignored.

Michelle Steel, the incumbent, also may be regretting endorsing Harkey on Sept. 5.

By Steven Greenhut

SACRAMENTO — After Tom Tait was sworn in as mayor of Anaheim in November 2010, he issued a statement announcing the city’s commitment to “kindness and freedom.” One reader — knowing this to be the type of governmental hubris that’s almost too easy to lampoon — urged me to reach for the poison pen. I declined. Although the statement struck me as naïve, I cut Tait some slack because of his apparent sincerity.

Two years later, as Anaheim makes national news because of riots sparked by police shootings, Tait is in an unexpected situation of having to put his well-intentioned rhetoric into practice. How he and his city resolve the conflict — whether officials can maintain civic order and dispel violent, chaotic images that seem out of place in the home of the “Happiest Place on Earth” — might offer lessons for cities throughout the country.

As Tait told me in an interview Wednesday, his original intent was to spark a cultural change within city government that encouraged employees to help residents navigate the bureaucracy. He sees kindness and freedom as closely related — i.e., a government that kindly serves the people also is one that creates the broadest latitude for its citizens to live their lives as they choose.

He offered examples of where the two concepts intersect. Shortly after taking over as mayor, Tait learned of a plan by residents in the Colony District to host a Fourth of July parade that included not just the wealthier historic neighborhoods but also a nearby apartment complex. It was a nice idea to bring people together even though they are divided by economic and ethnic differences.

“Someone calls the city, and the official there said they needed a permit, and that’s a fee and a certificate of insurance and approvals,” Tait said. “The parade didn’t happen. … On the other end of the phone, there’s a guy who works for the city, and he has a check list. He goes into government probably to help people, but he has a tight fence put around him.”

Tait also told of how a city security guard gave an elderly man a ride home from City Hall after seeing him struggling in the heat. Tait learned about it because the employee’s supervisor wrote him up — the guard was being punished for doing something outside of procedure. Tait was appalled and was thankful that a department head recognized that the guard should be praised, not punished.

Bureaucratic culture

Changing a bureaucratic culture sounds naïve, perhaps, but, beginning in 2002, Anaheim had gained national attention for putting into place some unusually kind and freedom-friendly public policies that no other major U.S. city had embraced.

Like many older cities, Anaheim wanted to encourage new tax-generating developments. Most cities adopted the government-driven redevelopment approach, in which politically favored businesses are subsidized, and others are driven off their property by eminent domain.

Instead of taking the heavy-handed “hatched in City Hall” redevelopment approach, Anaheim officials banned the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes and then “upzoned” targeted areas, meaning zoning rules were relaxed so that owners had more latitude on what they could do with their land. As a result, the Platinum Triangle area near Angel Stadium boomed as property owners found great value in selling their low-rise warehouses to condo and office developers. It was a market-friendly approach that did not violate anybody’s property rights.

The city also reduced regulations on businesses, issued a business-tax holiday, stopped prosecuting minor code violations as crimes, reduced some misdemeanors to infractions and worked on fostering a more helpful attitude among city workers. Tait, then a councilman, helped build a bipartisan council agenda to advance the reforms.

2000s Motels

In the early 2000s, I wrote for the Orange County Register about Anaheim’s nonsensical rules that forced people who lived in low-cost motels to move out every 30 days.

Officials didn’t like that these old motels were turning into low-income apartments and were making life difficult for some of the city’s poorest residents, even forcing some of them into homelessness. The then-new freedom-friendly city administration took a different approach by working with the motels to assure safe and sanitary conditions and bringing in the Rescue Mission to administer services.

That’s an example of how a changed governmental approach can expand freedom and kindness, Mayor Tait argues.

“I don’t think people are free to be kind in the city because of all the rules, because of the culture and the bureaucracy,” he said. “It’s not about changing the rules, but about changing the culture.” He wants to allow city employees to “use their brains” and not just follow the rules.

Unfortunately, in my view, the city’s Police Department has embraced the wrong kind of policing methods — ones that are unkind and tend to undermine people’s freedom. I don’t see police officials there using their brains to handle a situation resulting, in part, from overly aggressive policing tactics and insufficient police accountability and transparency.

Clearly, the cultural changes the mayor is trying to implement in the city bureaucracy need to filter into the police department — a point Tait also makes. Cops need to get out of their cars and get to know members of the communities where they patrol. They need to put down the riot gear and recognize that, in a free society, police are supposed to protect and serve the public — and must respect the inherent rights of all residents.

I never thought that Tait’s seemingly naïve statement upon becoming mayor would have taken on such significance, but life is funny that way. Despite my cynicism, I agree that reforming a rigid governmental and policing culture is exactly what’s needed in Anaheim, and elsewhere. Fortunately, I can’t think of a more sincere mayor to advance those ideas.

Steven Greenhut is vice president of journalism at the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity; write to him at: steven.greenhut@franklincenterhq.org

Gov. Jerry Brown and the other anti-business fanatics in the Legislature and government unions just don’t get it: If you attack businesses, they leave California.

A recent departure was Pixel2Canvas, which split Lake Forest for North Las Vegas. It’s noteworthy that the company left Orange County, which has a much better business climate than the rest of California because the locals are more libertarian. But Orange County still is in Taxifornia. Reported the Orange County Register:

You coulda seen this coming. A year ago, Curt Benton moved his company, Pixel2Canvas and its 14 jobs, from Lake Forest to North Las Vegas.

The company is a fine art printer that puts digital art onto canvas, a process called gliclee.

Initially, Benton planned to keep his family in Orange County and commute. But now they have moved to Nevada too.

What happened? “Nov. 4,” Benton said.

That was the date of the last election in which Democrat Jerry Brown won the governorship, the Democrats increased their majority in the state legislature.

“It’s clear there’s not going to be any pro-business turn in the politics of California,” Benton said in a phone interview from North Las Vegas.

He sat down with his accountant and found out he would save $60,000 in business and personal taxes and workers comp insurance by moving everything to Nevada.

Got that, Gov. Jerry? You are at fault. Your election. Your anti-business attacks. Your assaults on taxpayers. Your subservience to the greedy government-worker unions.

Booming in Nevada

The Register story continues:

Nevada’s welcoming business climate has allowed Benton to expand, creating even more jobs — in Vegas, not California:

While I was barely hanging on in Lake Forest, my business is now flourishing in sunny Las Vegas, 42% increase over the previous year’s numbers,” he said.

“All the non-entrepreneurial folks say that I’m being greedy by not paying the taxes I should be paying in California but let me tell you what I’ve done. I’ve turned (the money I saved) back into my company with $100,000 in new equipment purchases and started two other ventures to employ additional people currently looking for work. That’s how greedy I am.”

Benton started a consumer side, CanvasRox.com that puts photos on jewelry, purses and more, and a motor sports company called CB Motorsports LLC. He’s considering a third venture to distribute a unique product from China.

But California is so anti-business that Benton couldn’t expand here. Benton:

“I could not have done what I am doing now in California,” he added. “I have run the numbers. Growth that I’ve enjoyed here in Vegas would have increased my tax burden significantly [in California] and I would have decided to just sell the company or stay small.”

The message is clear: California is the state most hostile to business, especially small business. The governor, supposedly a bright guy, is totally beholden to the tax-devouring government-worker unions.

There will be no reform for years, if ever. The state should put signs on the roads leading into California: “Beware: Severe anti-business climate ahead.”

July 18, 2011

Our great friend Alan Bock is remembered today in The Orange County Register’s commentary section. Many friends wrote heartfelt short article about this good man’s kindness, wisdom and contributions to liberty.

Two of the pieces are by my colleague Steven Greenhut and myself. The three of us wrote the editorials at the Register for many years.

Read the tributes here.

May 29, 2011

Our wonderful friend Jocelyne Leger produced a beautiful video on Alan Bock, who died two weeks ago. Alan was a great fighter for liberty and the colleague of Steven Greenhut, Jocelyn and me at The Orange County Register.

Rest in Peace, Alan.

Click here for the short video.

May 27, 2011

Our great colleague Alan Bock died last week. Scott Horton conducted three interviews about him that now are online, with Steven Greenhut, Riverside bookstore owner and libertarian Gene Berkman, and myself.

Alan was a principled and charitable person and a great defender of liberty. All of us in California enjoy more freedom because he wrote editorials at the Orange County Register for 30 years.

Listen to the interviews here.

May 22, 2011