Vote yes on Measure I.
by Don Blubaugh

For weeks, I have contemplated how best to write about the Walnut Creek flap over Neiman Marcus coming to town. I have a vested interest. I live here and worked hard during my tenure as city manager to help shape the future of Walnut Creek.

There are many avenues to discuss but the bottom line is that this project is good for Walnut Creek, produces sorely needed revenue in difficult times, and, contrary to the utterances of the naysayers publicly leading the opposition, will not produce horrendous traffic and parking problems as alleged.

I have voted yes on Measure I and hope you do also.

Let’s look first at the roots of the battle. It is not uncommon for some to wonder about whether this project is good for Walnut Creek. It is appropriate to question and challenge. Often this makes projects better. The opposition leadership in this case, however, comes from a small core group of people who have repeatedly never said yes to anything about Walnut Creek, have never worked toward solutions “… always just opposed, nor have they done anything to help shape this community into what it is today.

It is easy to be against something but hard to have a vision for the future and work to create it. There will be a few followers of this negative line of thinking, but mostly the community is happy with its city and its elected leadership.

It is almost criminal to see that over $1 million will be spent on this campaign.

Most of this money comes from two sources, both outside the community. Flashy and slick advertising, political polling, extra ordinary public outreach beyond the norm, paid petition-signers and other campaign efforts have been funded by the Taubman Realty Group, who wants Neiman Marcus somewhere in its holdings outside but near Walnut Creek.Macerich, the owners of Broadway Plaza finds it necessary to defend its proposal. Walnut Creek voters have become pawns in these competitors’ game. Each is attempting to outdo the other. Absent the bankrolls of these two retail giants, it is not likely we would face this election. If only that $1 million could have been spent on something worthwhile.

There are bogus arguments in this campaign. Those opposed suggest there is no guarantee that Neiman Marcus will come. Why would Neiman Marcus not come to Walnut Creek? The demographics of the area and the Plaza’s retail mix are compatible. The company has said it wants to be here and signed a lease to do so.

Opponents also suggest the company is getting a free ride on parking. This is not the case. In addition to the $1 million in transportation improvements Macerich will fund as part of this project approval, Macerich has pioneered the use of valet parking to entice customers, and the stacked parking arrangement for employees that will be employed is tried and true and will work.

Why would Macerich plunder the community and its own interests with inadequate parking when the essence of retail is location and provision of adequate parking? My experience is that retailers want more parking than government requires, not less. Besides, outside the peak Christmas season look at the many, many vacant parking spaces at the Broadway Plaza.

Opponents also allege Neiman Marcus will generate more traffic, parking nightmares, downtown gridlock. I have heard these arguments over and over again. Traffic generated by Neiman Marcus pales compared to other major retailers. Don’t believe these absurd claims. There will be no gridlock and no parking problems. These are old, worn out arguments used by the opposition over and over again.

Opponents also suggest the language of the ballot measure is flawed. It is not. But no ballot measure was needed at all. The naysayers in this campaign and their sugar daddy financiers have twice paid petitioner gatherers to launch a ballot measure opposing this project. Out of self-defense Macerich has countered with its ballot measure. So, the opponents started this mess and now cry foul over language used in the measure.

Measure I should not be on the ballot at all! But it is for reasons noted. A yes vote is needed to support the long-term integrity of land use planning for Walnut Creek; planning that has studied and factually supported projects like this; planning that has produced this great community.

Neiman Marcus fits with the higher-caliber stores so prevalent in this major regional shopping center, creates new jobs, pays its way and generates revenue in support of the excellent city services we all receive.

###

Blubaugh is former Walnut Creek city manager and member of the citizen editorial board.

Share This

Before the progressive movement swept through California in the early 20th century, there was a growing sense throughout the state that Sacramento had ceased working for regular Californians.

Shackled by special interests and rife with corruption, the capitol had become a playground for corporate lobbyists who exerted unfettered control over the legislative agenda.

Over time, public displeasure with the system became public disgust. Reformers of every stripe began to speak out against the corruption and graft in Sacramento.

Once relegated to the political periphery, suffragists, environmentalists, labor activists and good government groups began to coalesce under the banner of “progressivism,” which aimed to take back the state from the party bosses and corporations that were perceived to be running it into the ground.

What a difference 100 years makes.

Today, Californians are similarly disgusted with the state of affairs in Sacramento. Last week’s Field Poll on voter attitudes painted a comically bad picture for the state legislature, with only 13 percent of those polled registering approval. And although he doubled the legislature’s score, Governor Schwarzenegger can hardly brag about his own 27 percent approval rating.

A second poll released by Field indicated significant voter support to overhaul state government from the ground up. Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo stressed the importance of the numbers, noting that “a majority sees the need for making fundamental changes to the state constitution and would support calling a constitutional convention to develop the reform proposals.”

In short, people are fed up.

Former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown likes to say that the system is not the problem; the problem is the people who run the system.

Of course, Brown just meant to say that when he was Speaker, the system worked. And while that may be true to some degree, just about everybody in California and around the globe believes that the Golden State’s problems run deeper than personnel.

There is a growing feeling that California has reached a tipping point. Most agree that we need both – new leadership and a reformed, renewed system – to effectively right the ship. If history is any indication, a new age of reform may be around the corner.

In 1910, California progressives were led by gubernatorial candidate Hiram Johnson. Johnson was a reluctant candidate but he embodied the progressives’ overwhelming desire to give Sacramento back to the people. His candidacy was infused with a spirit of renewal that helped galvanize the disparate agendas within the progressive bloc. Upon taking office, the fiery reformer began to deliver on his promises.

Johnson’s governorship represented a sea change in Sacramento politics.

In addition to rooting out corruption and graft, he also built a civil service system based on merit rather than political patronage. He broke the backs of the party bosses and special interests by building innovative direct democracy tools into the constitution such as the recall, the referendum and the public initiative.

Ironically, California State Supreme Court Chief Justice Ron George recently gave a speech in which he assailed the initiative process for “rendering our state government dysfunctional,” proving again that 20th century reforms may themselves need to be reformed for the 21st century.

Just like 100 years ago, reform fever is breaking out across California.

Labor groups, corporations, non profits, city and county governments, newspaper editorial boards and a host of reformers on both the right and the left seem to recognize that California now teeters on the edge of its own destruction.

Regardless of ideology or agenda, the new reformers are united in their determination to make California work again, to wrest the levers of power from the special interests and to eliminate the structural failures that have rendered the state dysfunctional.

One hundred years ago, Hiram Johnson led a citizens’ revolt. Will a new reformer emerge to galvanize today’s movement?

Memo to Democrats: Hiram Johnson was a moderate Republican.

Before the progressive movement swept through California in the early 20th century, there was a growing sense throughout the state that Sacramento had ceased working for regular Californians.

Shackled by special interests and rife with corruption, the capitol had become a playground for corporate lobbyists who exerted unfettered control over the legislative agenda.

Over time, public displeasure with the system became public disgust. Reformers of every stripe began to speak out against the corruption and graft in Sacramento.

Once relegated to the political periphery, suffragists, environmentalists, labor activists and good government groups began to coalesce under the banner of “progressivism,” which aimed to take back the state from the party bosses and corporations that were perceived to be running it into the ground.

What a difference 100 years makes.

Today, Californians are similarly disgusted with the state of affairs in Sacramento. Last week’s Field Poll on voter attitudes painted a comically bad picture for the state legislature, with only 13 percent of those polled registering approval. And although he doubled the legislature’s score, Governor Schwarzenegger can hardly brag about his own 27 percent approval rating.

A second poll released by Field indicated significant voter support to overhaul state government from the ground up. Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo stressed the importance of the numbers, noting that “a majority sees the need for making fundamental changes to the state constitution and would support calling a constitutional convention to develop the reform proposals.”

In short, people are fed up.

Former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown likes to say that the system is not the problem; the problem is the people who run the system.

Of course, Brown just meant to say that when he was Speaker, the system worked. And while that may be true to some degree, just about everybody in California and around the globe believes that the Golden State’s problems run deeper than personnel.

There is a growing feeling that California has reached a tipping point. Most agree that we need both – new leadership and a reformed, renewed system – to effectively right the ship. If history is any indication, a new age of reform may be around the corner.

In 1910, California progressives were led by gubernatorial candidate Hiram Johnson. Johnson was a reluctant candidate but he embodied the progressives’ overwhelming desire to give Sacramento back to the people. His candidacy was infused with a spirit of renewal that helped galvanize the disparate agendas within the progressive bloc. Upon taking office, the fiery reformer began to deliver on his promises.

Johnson’s governorship represented a sea change in Sacramento politics.

In addition to rooting out corruption and graft, he also built a civil service system based on merit rather than political patronage. He broke the backs of the party bosses and special interests by building innovative direct democracy tools into the constitution such as the recall, the referendum and the public initiative.

Ironically, California State Supreme Court Chief Justice Ron George recently gave a speech in which he assailed the initiative process for “rendering our state government dysfunctional,” proving again that 20th century reforms may themselves need to be reformed for the 21st century.

Just like 100 years ago, reform fever is breaking out across California.

Labor groups, corporations, non profits, city and county governments, newspaper editorial boards and a host of reformers on both the right and the left seem to recognize that California now teeters on the edge of its own destruction.

Regardless of ideology or agenda, the new reformers are united in their determination to make California work again, to wrest the levers of power from the special interests and to eliminate the structural failures that have rendered the state dysfunctional.

One hundred years ago, Hiram Johnson led a citizens’ revolt. Will a new reformer emerge to galvanize today’s movement?

Memo to Democrats: Hiram Johnson was a moderate Republican.

Share This

I was riveted to the television recently watching the events of Ted Kennedy’s death and all that followed leading to his burial at Arlington National Cemetery.

Three things struck me about the events. First was the outpouring of love from his family members. It is easy in the world of politics and fame to leave behind those that are close to you. Kennedy had his priorities in order.

Second, his life was congruent but not perfect. His belief in support of those less fortunate, for middle-class American and for seniors was real and not a political front. He spoke what he believed. His views were not shaped by a zeal for re-election. For those who shared his views and respected the man, there was much public outpouring.

Third, and most important, was the respect shown for him by two political adversaries — Orrin Hatch and John McCain. While Kennedy was honored as a Lion of the Senate, these two adversaries, lions in their own right, were among his close friends. They could set aside their philosophical views on politics and fashion compromise, as they did numerous times, in the best interests of the American people.

They did this without compromising principle but by realizing in a world of differing views, it is best to find common ground rather than victory. By doing so, politicians serve the public and not themselves.

There is something nostalgic about what I saw. Because we see so little of it today. I yearn to see more of this in our legislators in Sacramento and Washington.

Civility and collaboration have eroded, brought on by the extremists of both political parties gaining control of their candidates. To these there is little tolerance of any point of view other than the one they hold, and they turn against even their own if the line is not toed.

Add to this term limits here in California and it is virtually impossible to achieve any bipartisan accord because there is no legislative history and no opportunity to develop trust, camaraderie and respect among our legislators so that they might act for the common good.

What is left are partisan bickering and inaction, and a public that views politicians with diminishing favor.

We must demand more of those whom we elect to office; we must reject extremist’s views and be more tolerant of each other. We need to lessen the invective and study issues for ourselves.

When we do not, we allow an environment that fosters calling the president a Nazi, questions the motives of the president speaking to our kids about the need to stay in school and work hard, or misleads people to believe death panels are included (not true) in proposed health care legislation.

We need to study more and not listen to the rhetoric that flows from extremists among us. We could begin by reading and listening to advocates of both sides of an issue. If you are tuned only to the Fox News Channel or MS-NBC, you are limiting your input on issues. Public policy is more than a sound bite or name calling. It requires some work to sort out the facts from rhetoric, but that’s what we must do.

Until we do that, the likes of Kennedy, Hatch and McCain will be few and far between. They could be the last of an era, and we will suffer for it.

###

Blubaugh is a member of the Times citizen editorial board and a former city manager of Walnut Creek, Fremont and Martinez.

Share This

Rome is burning. But this time, the reformers aren’t fiddling.The CCC – California Constitutional Convention – can’t happen soon enough.

The alarming spectacle of our state capitol going up in smoke has moved the Bay Area Council – a Northern California group of business leaders led by its savvy executive, Jim Wunderman – to call for a constitutional convention to repair California state government.

I have known Wunderman since he was a young star in the office of then-San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein. Over 20 years, he has evolved into one of the state’s true leaders. Fed up with the dysfunction in Sacramento, Wunderman hatched the idea of a constitutional convention to set things straight.

The proposal has caught on.

In an unusual turn of events, California citizens are listening to a business group. By a 59% majority, state voters favor a convention to rewrite California’s constitution.

The Los Angeles Times, San Jose Mercury News and Sacramento Bee have backed the convention with editorials. Longtime Capitol observers such as the Bee’s Dan Walters and George Skelton of the Times have given up on the legislature’s ability to self-correct and strongly endorsed the idea.

Widespread support from local governments and citizens signals that a constitutional convention may really occur.

The proposal on the drawing board calls for a 2010 initiative to empower the citizens to call a convention, a reform convention in 2011, and a set of proposals on the 2012 ballot alongside President Barack Obama.

But the voters patience may not last that long. Experts predict another budget crisis lurking around the corner that will fire voter disgust and ignite the kind of popular explosion that produced Proposition 13 in 1978.

We may see the citizens marching on Sacramento as early as 2010. It would be good for our state if they did.

I think a new beginning – symbolized by a remaking and renewing of our system of governance – is exactly what a constitutional convention would bring.

I’m not surprised by the growing firestorm of protest. When I first started running campaigns, I got a rush every time I went to Sacramento to fraternize with legislators, meet with staffers and strategize with the Senate Pro-Tem. But as time wore on, the corrupt culture of Sacramento became profoundly debilitating.

Otherwise honest leaders maneuvered within a corrupt system in which special interests legally controlled legislators with campaign contributions instead of bribes.

Small-time politicos acted like they were big-time power brokers. Big-time interests acted like small-time thugs to protect their turf.

Matters have only gotten worse since 2000. Term limits have turned legislators into lobbyists’ puppets. The 2/3 requirement to approve budgets and new taxes has ushered in minority rule. Our reliance on the income tax has robbed the state of a stable, predictable revenue stream to finance government. Special interests have contributed more than $1 billion to state campaigns since 2001. They have blocked vital reforms in our prisons and schools.

Budgeting the biggest state in America and the globe’s sixth largest economy has become an embarrassing exercise in gerrymandered accounting and month-to-month robbery of cities to pay the state’s bills.

Reform candidates for the legislature face an amoral avalanche of smears and character assassination via special interest-financed television commercials and mailings. I speak from personal experience: In 2006 when my wife, Janet, ran for the Assembly, she was targeted with a $3 million smear campaign by Sacramento interests.

Still, a constitutional convention can succeed.

Reform initiatives must have three elements to win. First, they must save taxpayers money. Second, they must reduce bureaucracy and decrease the size of government.
Third, they must benefit the many, not the few – the public interest, not the special interests. A constitutional convention will accomplish all three objectives.

Nevertheless, reform proposals all face the same special interest assault. Somewhere in the fine print, opponents will find fodder for a red herring attack. A massive media campaign will then manufacture the bogeyman.

But today there is no greater bogeyman than the decades of decadence and dysfunction in Sacramento. The Capitol’s last hurrah may be upon us.

Share This

For the past few years, bloggers, TV reporters, industry analysts and even some newspaper people themselves have argued that daily newspapers are dead.

There are several reasons why this is not the case.

Those that predict newspapers’ demise cite dwindling subscription rates, dramatic cuts to editorial staff and coverage, and investors’ demands to increase profits at publicly held papers.

Others note a more fundamental problem, that by the time they are printed, the stories and classified advertisements are literally old news. In today’s age of social media, sites like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube deliver instant information. Many people now get breaking news on their cell phones. When they want to advertise a service or product, most do so for free on sites like Craigslist.

The traditional “paperboy” system of disseminating news and ads has been replaced by online content.

But are the early eulogies really warranted?

Technology has changed the medium for delivering news and the expectations of a new generation of consumers have changed accordingly.

Generation Y, the Net Gen, or the “Millennials,” have grown up with computers, the Internet and the emergence of social media. They communicate differently than previous generations and have a shorter attention span.

Many newspapers are responding to their demands, but their financial model has lagged behind.

The news delivery method has been in a state of constant evolution since the first Roman newspaper in 84 BC. Yet, newspapers have survived for more than 2,000 years.

Whether news is printed on paper or delivered electronically does not change the essential purpose of news organizations — to deliver timely facts about events and act as a guide to what is important in our society.

In many ways, the information age has caused a major shift in how news agencies cover local, national and international news.

Large dailies that once focused more on local news are now relying more on syndicated services and standard lifestyle features to fill their pages. Prep sports, in-depth investigative reporting and other staples are shrinking.

Local news is often covered in greater depth by alternative sources online. But relying on bloggers and online feeds for news has its perils. What about quality and veracity? Even as new information sources sprout up, we still look to professionals for reliable, accurate information.

Yes, a free press is a constitutionally protected right. But news is also a business dependent on securing advertisers and attracting subscribers. To survive and thrive, news organizations must change their business model. Newspapers can no longer afford to give news away.

The solution may include a subscription model, registration model, advertising model (banners, videos, pay-per-click) or some novel mechanism yet to be invented. At the end of the day, media companies will have to develop an innovative approach to delivering the news in a way that generates cash.

There are plenty of organizations that still see a successful business in the production and distribution of news to hungry information consumers.

For example, nuAlerts, a Pleasanton-based startup company, allows residents to receive real-time alerts from their favorite organizations for local news, promotions, events, jobs and special offers within their community through 40-plus social networking/media sites, including Facebook, Twitter, and iGoogle via the Tri-Valley nuAlerts digital billboard.

Newspapers and news organizations are not going anywhere. But how we receive the news — via phone, e-book reader, laptop or digital billboards — has already changed and will continue to evolve at a dramatic pace.

###

Brink is the president and CEO of the Tri-Valley Business Council. He serves as the Tri-Valley’s citizen editorial board member. For more information and a full bio, visit www.baypress.org.

Share This

Sacramento is not just a big small town or the capital of America’s biggest state. It is also a symbol of governmental gridlock and dysfunction, the political version of General Motors or Lehman Brothers.

But unlike GM or Lehman, California won’t go bankrupt – not while taxpayers are guarantors of last resort. So, the blunders continue.

Sacramento isn’t just a place; it’s a culture. Let’s call it a culture of “Capitol-ism.” Legislators are now “Capitolists” who commandeer billions of tax dollars and special interest contributions to re-elect themselves rather than govern California. The Capitol is no longer the seat of government – it is the home office of a massive 24/7 public relations company.

I first noticed this distorted reality when I began managing campaigns in the 1970s.

Incumbent Assembly members had access to a large pool of consultants on the state payroll whose primary job was to legally orchestrate year-round campaigns. The entity was called “Majority Consultants,” and the staffers really worked for the Speaker of the Assembly.

These political operatives manufactured press releases and cranked out expensive newsletters to constituents – paid for by the taxpayers. At election time, they exited the state payroll and seamlessly appeared on the campaign payrolls of members involved in tough races.

A crack team of in-house consultants hand- picked by the Speaker orchestrated centralized direct mail campaigns, designed and written in Sacramento. Sometimes the brochures would be exactly the same. Only the candidate’s name and geographic area was changed.

Major unions like the Operating Engineers owned presses that printed millions of brochures every election cycle for the Speaker’s chosen candidates. As time passed, television spots created by the same experts also began to flow out of Sacramento.

Special interests dominated campaign giving – even decades ago. Millions were raised from lobbyists, corporations, business groups and unions at watering holes like Frank Fat’s (a restaurant owned by a real life Frank Fat).

The Speaker and the Pro Tem of the State Senate both ran full-time fundraising campaigns, doling out cash selectively. In this system, elected members became dependent on the leadership to provide the money and political expertise for their election and re-election.

Power, therefore, resided in the hands of leaders who controlled committee assignments, staff allocations and perks such as office and parking spaces. But the leadership leaned heavily on special interests to put up the money that kept the machine humming.

By the end of the 1990s, the cost of campaigns had exploded, leveraging the role of special interests in Sacramento. Since November of 2001, Sacramento politicians have raised more than $1 billion for their campaigns, and independent committees have spent $88 million more to promote candidates.

Consequently, a massive parallel political consulting arm of the legislature has been deliberately created over generations – funded by taxpayers most of the year and by special interests during campaigns.

This monster manufactures bills that are nothing more than press releases driven by the latest polling data, which are never intended to actually become law. Major policy issues requiring solutions have become an opportunity to squeeze both sides for campaign funds at the price of legislative neutrality or inaction.

The government itself is now a subsidiary of this self-perpetuating campaign machine permanently disconnected from the core responsibility of good governance. California declines further.

Mediocre legislators cannot be defeated by reformers who lack the funds and connections in Sacramento to mount credible challenges. Needed change is blocked and delayed.

Experts say that a languishing company cannot be revived just by changing executives. Nor will we change Sacramento by electing a new governor, as the sagas of Gray Davis and Arnold Schwarzenegger have demonstrated. In order to transform a dying institution, the old, corrupt culture must be rooted out and eliminated.

Sacramento will never reform itself. The culture must be transformed fundamentally. Voting for new faces to play within the same broken system won’t accomplish that task. Only a Constitutional Convention that accomplishes true structural reform will break the back of the monster we’ve created.

We might then take our government back from the “Capitolists” and foster a new generation of leaders who are free to do the right thing, competent enough to know the right course, and tough enough to follow it.

Share This

Much has been written over the past several months of the governor and state Legislature’s inability to adopt a state budget. Their low approval ratings continue to decline. California is hard to govern because of the state’s diversity.

Finding a consensus choice of action on the budget and fixing what’s broke in this state will not be easy.

The most recent sign of the hard work ahead of us is found in two places. First, the Governor’s Commission on the 21st Century Economy is having difficulty reaching consensus on a tax program for the future.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders, who appointed the panel on tax reform, had hoped this blue-ribbon group would produce a product that could be presented to the Legislature for a yes-or-no vote and ease the burden of balancing this and future budgets.

The principle charge was to recommend a taxing system that is far less volatile than that currently in place.

The reform group was to have completed its work in April, but delayed its final report until July 31. It appears now there will not be a consensus report. Gerald Parsky, a Southern California businessman, leads a group on the panel advocating broadening the tax base and creating a less volatile tax structure. His proposal would create a flat rate tax on income, replace the sales tax with a net receipts or value-added tax much like that which is found in European countries. He also proposes eliminating the corporate income tax.

There are commission members, however, who among other matters, want to preserve the graduated-scale state income tax, institute a “carbon” tax to encourage less use of fossil fuels and reform Proposition 13. This group on the panel is led by former Assemblyman Fred Keeley, who is now Santa Cruz County treasurer.

A commission presenting alternative packages of tax reform to the Legislature will only exacerbate the challenge facing state budget makers.

The second sign of difficulty rests with reforming the state constitution. The Bay Area Council proposes to create a constitutional convention to address comprehensive reforms necessary to end gridlock in Sacramento and set us on a course for the future.

There is little disagreement about the need for reform, but there are those who want to see change done incrementally while others want comprehensive reform but declaring off limits some parts of the existing constitution such as Proposition 13. There is also concern about whether special interests will dominate the convention deliberations much as special interests now dominate the state Legislature.

These two examples point to the difficulty in making change because of the state’s diversity. The Legislature is the embodiment of this diversity. In the meantime, many Californians shake their heads and wonder why problems cannot be solved. The road to change is full of potholes. But we must keep plowing ahead with the hope of reaching consensus. The alternative is not acceptable. Be patient, but be vigilant demanding our system be fixed and be open to ideas from others.

If you want to join the effort leading to a constitutional convention visit the following Web site: www.repaircalifornia.org. Here, you will have an opportunity to provide input and to provide support. For more on incremental change, see the following web site: www.caforward.com.

###

Blubaugh in former city manager of Hayward, Walnut Creek, Martinez and is a member of the Bay Area News Group’s citizen editorial board.  This column was originally published in the July 18, 2009 BANG-EB newspapers.

Share This

John F. Kennedy once said that the strength and durability of a society can be judged by how it treats its elderly.

Proving his point more than four decades later, the careening state of California is considering cutting off vital in-home services to thousands of dependent seniors.

Of course, with the Golden State staring down the barrel of a $24 billion deficit that swells with each passing nanosecond, we must expect our elected officials to make difficult spending decisions.

But the proposal to dramatically slash In-Home Supportive Services is best described with one word: “stupid.”

Or perhaps two: “astonishingly stupid.”

IHSS is one of a select breed of programs that serve thousands and actually save the state money.

The program helps pay for in-home caregivers for more than 400,000 elderly and disabled Californians.

These home-care providers are often responsible for the most intimate self-care tasks that most people take for granted, like feeding, bathing and dressing. They also do day-to-day chores, provide transportation to and from medical appointments and administer various other medical and domestic services.

It’s a big job, but it doesn’t exactly equate to big bucks. The statewide average hourly wage for an IHSS provider is less than $10. In many rural California counties, home-care providers are making minimum wage for their efforts.

So, yes; IHSS costs the state money. But consider the alternative.

According to the AARP Public Policy Institute, family caregivers provide unpaid health care services valued at $48 billion.

Without IHSS assistance, the overwhelming majority of recipients would be shunted unceremoniously into far more expensive skilled nursing facilities.

California’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office puts the annual cost of keeping a disabled or elderly person in a nursing home at more than $55,000 per year.

By comparison, the LAO estimates that providing in-home care costs less than $10,000. Not only is it vastly cheaper, but it also allows the elderly and the disabled to remain in their own homes, which greatly enhances their quality of life.

Critics argue that IHSS deserves to be cut because of waste, failing to see the irony in their flawed logic. Budget hawks have intimated that relatives will just have to pick up the slack.

But families already stretched to the breaking point by unemployment, plummeting home values, dwindling savings and shredded retirement accounts will be forced into a difficult predicament. If they stay home to “pick up the slack,” many won’t be able to pay the mortgage or put food on the table.

Obviously, the moral imperative to preserve and protect IHSS is strong, but the economic rationale is even more compelling given our dire fiscal situation.

Then again, this is California. Why would we want to retain a program that actually saves the state millions every year when we’re busy negotiating a fiscal tsunami of epic proportion?

Some pundits speculate that this is just another of the governor’s maneuvers in a game of budgetary chicken with his recalcitrant partners in the legislature.

They argue that Schwarzenegger’s early proposals to close state parks, end the state’s SCHIP program for uninsured kids and pare down IHSS are just there to establish an initial negotiating position.

This could be true. Politics is a game of smoke and mirrors and the vast majority of deals are cut behind the scenes, the details of which rarely make it into a reporter’s notebook.

Nevertheless, we’re past the point of scare tactics and political gambits. The stakes are too high this time.

If legislators are serious about cutting a program like IHSS, they need to check their math.

Share This

When I look at the some of the tragic events of this past month, I am struck by the increasing level of violence and depravity that we are witnessing in the East Bay.

On May 11, Iva Rene Lett, a 97-year-old resident of Oakland’s normally tranquil Adams Point neighborhood, was found beaten to death.

On May 25, Josue Lopez-Gil, a sixth-grader at Roots International Academy in East Oakland, was shot to death. Police arrested a 13 year-old suspect.

A litany of other violent episodes — many involving children — marked other parts of the East Bay. But the event that affected me most profoundly was the shooting of Charles “CJ” Davis on May 16.

CJ’s murder set off a chase through Berkeley and North Oakland that ended in even greater tragedy when the fleeing suspects’ vehicle crashed into another car, which then struck a pedestrian, killing them both. The suspects fled the scene.

When CJ was younger, he was an altar boy at my parish, St. Columba Catholic Church in North Oakland. I had known him since he was a teenager. He was a neat kid then, and yes, he had remained a good guy ever since.

CJ had returned home from Central State University in Ohio to care for his grandmother, Corinne Carroll, an active member of St. Columba. CJ was a responsible young man, and he was indeed an innocent victim of the violent turf and gang struggle currently plaguing South Berkeley and North Oakland.

I presided at CJ’s funeral mass at St. Columba on May 27. At his funeral, Rev. Gregory Payton, pastor of Greater St. John Missionary Baptist Church in West Oakland, delivered the eulogy.

Speaking to a packed church comprised mostly of African-American youth, Pastor Payton was blunt and direct: “It’s us! Quit blaming Dellums! Quit blaming OPD! It’s us! We tear our boys’ dreams away with the tip of a needle or a dirty spoon!” He went on to list statistics that described the abysmal dropout and homicide rates for Oakland’s African-American males.

After the service, I headed to Rolling Hills Cemetery at Hilltop in Richmond, where I met up with Todd Walker, who happens to be one of my heroes. A coach with the Berkeley Cougars Youth Football and Cheerleading Association, Todd observed that several former players were victims of homicide. He started a program “to scare kids straight” by showing them what happens to victims of fatal gunshot or stab wounds. Working with an Oakland funeral home, he takes youngsters to mortuaries and cemeteries to see the stark realities of violence. The New York Times ran an article on his work a couple of years ago.

Todd lamented that kids have no idea of the implications of pulling the trigger. The first two questions he said he hears from loved ones when their children are murdered is, “Why did this happen?” and “How am I going to pay for this?”

The second question may seem cold, but it’s just another example of the distorted reality playing out in many parts of Oakland.

A recent article by Katy Murphy, the Oakland Tribune’s education reporter, painted an even more shocking picture of that reality: “Some learn as young as kindergarten to hit the ground when they hear gunshots, or to run home when they step off the bus,” wrote Murphy.

It’s time we take a stand.

We can start with small things. Insist on neighborhood meetings with police. Be proactive with crime prevention. Go to your neighborhood “National Night Out” in August. Keep the porch light on at night. Be part of a neighborhood phone tree. And perhaps most important, get to know your neighbors.

The most dangerous challenge we face is resignation. When we begin to assume that nothing will change, we doom ourselves to that fate. Without a cohesive, unified effort to alter the status quo, we’re just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

As the city of Oakland ramps up its search for a new police chief, we are presented with a golden opportunity to reshape Oakland’s dreadful public safety record. But we can’t leave the heavy lifting to others. We must demand extensive public input on the selection process. One public hearing is not enough.

City leaders need to hear Oaklanders’ expectations for the new police chief. They need to be aware of specific concerns, not just the general malaise that has gripped the city in recent years. Change begins with us.

Have you had enough yet?

###

Jayson Landeza is a Roman Catholic priest and a member of the Bay Area News Group’s citizen editorial board.

Share This

It is said that a hard-core drug addict needs to hit “rock bottom” before recovery is possible.

Life must become so hellish and circumstances so dire that they have no choice but to accept reality and begin to change.

For the sake of all Californians, I hope that the state has finally reached its own rock bottom moment.

“Our wallet is empty. Our bank is closed. Our credit is dried up,” Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently told a joint session of the state legislature.

But even with the state tumbling toward fiscal oblivion, Californians continue to look for easy answers. Everyone wants to maintain crucial public services but no one wants to pay for them.

In many respects, the state of California today resembles an addict desperate for a fix. We are addicted to expediency and unrealistic expectations, and to prosperity without sacrifice.

After years of rampant borrowing, budgetary sleights of hand and collective finger crossing, it’s time to pay the piper.

Never mind the piper; we can’t even pay the teacher, the nurse, the policeman or the firefighter. The only way out of our $24 billion predicament, we’re told, is by taking a chainsaw to vital state services.

In short, this isn’t a good time to be in California if you’re young. Or old. Or poor. Or sick.

As the Golden State unravels beneath our feet, we should be doing more than blaming the legislature and the governor. There is plenty of blame to go around.

Instead, every Californian should be rallying for the fundamental structural reforms that this state so desperately needs.

But for this to happen, we need to wake up.
First, we have to decide what kind of society we wish to live in. If we decide that we want our children to be educated, our elderly to live with dignity, our sick cared for and our environment protected, then we must be willing to pay for it.

Whether we like it or not, this will require an honest reassessment of Prop 13, which contributes heavily to our boom-and-bust cycles by increasing the state’s dependence on wildly fluctuating income taxes.

We’ll also have to ask ourselves what the world’s seventh largest economy has in common with Rhode Island and Arkansas, the only two other states that require a super majority legislative vote to pass a budget.

As unappealing as it might be to do something nice for our state politicians, we need to reconsider the distorting effects of term limits on the legislative process as well.

We want our legislators to craft policies with long-term vision, but it’s difficult to take the long view when you’re working a short-term temp job, not to mention when you have no expertise and hardly know your colleagues.

Our initiative process should come under the microscope as well. Before our elected leaders even sit down to discuss the budget, the overwhelming majority of general fund spending is already set in stone thanks to the public initiative process.

Households and companies don’t operate this way because it’s insane. Why should the state of California?

These are just a handful of crucial reforms that we should consider if we are serious about putting the state back on solid ground. There are many more.

It is no longer useful or even rational for conservatives to scream about “big government” and for liberals to wring their hands about “draconian cuts.” Of course, our government could be more efficient. And obviously, service cuts inflict severe pain upon real people.

But unless we put the histrionics aside and agree that far reaching structural reforms are in everyone’s best interest, California will keep sliding backward, our most vulnerable citizens will experience untold misery, and our elected officials will continue to find new and creative ways to disappoint us.

Until we begin to demand more from ourselves, we will continue to receive less.

Share This