Category: California Blog

California dreamin’ of EVs

Often, when reading news from California, one wonders whether the state is at the forefront of innovation or delusion. California’s fixation with climate change and electric vehicles serves as example.

Often, when reading news from California, one wonders whether the state is at the forefront of innovation or delusion. California’s fixation with climate change and electric vehicles serves as example.

Here is a quote from one of the more progressive members of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors, Rafael Mandelman.

“We have to take action to expand our public EV-charging infrastructure and make EV ownership more accessible and practical for all San Franciscans.” … “Our curbside EV charging program is not just about installing charging stations. It’s about creating a more equitable and sustainable transportation ecosystem.” The City wants to add thousands of EV chargers by 2030, San Francisco Examiner, March 19, 2024.

San Francisco, as California, does have ambitious climate mandates, including plans for EVs for everyone and a ban on the sale of new gas-powered cars after 2035.

Given the real world, such climate ambitions border on delusional.

Supervisor Mandelman must be aware that San Francisco is projecting a deficit of $245 million in 2025 and a deficit of $554 million in 2026. He must also be aware that about 10% of the City’s residents live below San Francisco’s poverty rate, necessitating substantial subsidies if this population segment is to switch from gas-powered cars to EVs.

It is unknown whether Supervisor Mandelman wants to include the City’s 7,700 plus homeless population in his “equitable and sustainable transportation ecosystem.”

The high cost directly associated with EVs is not the only issue. Well-known shortcomings of current EVs include unreliable performance in extreme weather, need for more frequent charging than gasoline fill-ups, and electric grids that limit EV charging to specific times.

Beyond immediate inconveniences, EVs pose environmental challenges of their own.

Industry boasts that 95% of battery components can be recycled; extraordinarily expensively, but it can be done. However, industry seldom mentions that EV battery recycling is in its infancy, placing in question whether EV mandates are getting ahead of recycling capacity. As we all know, EV batteries are the last thing one would want in a landfill.

Although extraction of minerals necessary to produce EV batteries – mainly lithium and cobalt –is increasing, only a few countries extract these minerals in significant quantities. Australia, Chile and China extract the most lithium, while the Democratic Republic of the Congo extracts 70% of the world supply of cobalt. If EV mandates continue at the present rate, how long until environmentalists jump on the environmental challenges posed by widespread mining?

Despite mandates and incentives, drivers in the U.S. are not entirely sold on electric vehicles, according to an April 2023 Gallup poll. Current ownership is of EVs in the U.S. is only 4%. Gallup summarizes as follows.

“While ownership of electric vehicles is on the rise in the U.S., the percentage of Americans who say they own one remains limited at 4%. Though they are often promoted as a key way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and address the effects of climate change, the public remains largely unconvinced that the use of EVs accomplishes this aim.”

As with all consumer goods, electric vehicles respond to price competitiveness and consumer needs. Without those two essentials, adoption of EVs at present can significantly increase only through government intervention. And here is where leaders like the aforementioned member of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors, Rafael Mandelman, comes in.

Money to subsidize projects is never really a problem for governments, since taxpayers willing to fork over their hard-earned cash are always available. Consumer concerns with EVs are easily overcome by removing the alternative of purchasing gas-powered vehicles. Uneasiness with widespread mining is minimized by exporting environmental degradation.

Leaders have created a delusional world where petroleum disappears without credible supplies of products to replace petroleum and its thousands of derivatives. They have created an unnatural market where people buy what they don’t really want.

In the real world and the real market place innovators step in with new products that reliably and competitively replace products that no longer satisfy consumers. When whale bone became too costly due to overkilling of whales, plastics were invented. The decline of silkworms brought on the invention of nylon.

But, what can today reliably fly the thousands of airplanes in our skies except petroleum? What can credibly replace the hundreds of plastic products in our homes, especially our less affluent homes? Nothing. Because oil is efficient, and kept cheap relative to alternatives in large part as a result of government subsidies.

“The oil and gas industry is expected to reap $1.7 billion in 2025 from the intangible drilling tax break, and $9.7 billion over the next 10 years, according to the White House. It is expected to realize $880 million in benefits from the depletion allowance tax break in 2025, and $15.6 billion by 2034.” The Zombies of the U.S. Tax Code: Why Fossil Fuels Subsidies Seem Impossible to Kill, The New York Times, March 20, 2024.

As long as oil is efficient and relatively cheap, it will take either gargantuan innovation to make EVs competitive or massive taxpayer-funded subsidies to make EVs affordable.

The real, non-delusional world, seldom allows us to have our cake and eat it too.

Pictured: Henry Ford’s electric vehicle prototype. The dream of electric vehicles is not new. Henry Ford worked with Thomas Edison for several years on an EV project before abandoning it. Some say the project did not work because of battery shortcomings, and some say the oil companies conspired to deep-six the project. Good article on the subject on Wired Magazine, Ford, Edison and the Cheap EV That Almost Was, June 18, 2010.

Views from a happy California expat

California boasts of being an economic powerhouse and a compassionate sanctuary. So, why are so many Californians moving to other states?

Thank you to Richard Eber, frequent contributor to California Political News & Views, for his article on reasons people are leaving California, and for including the Just Vote No Blog editor’s views. Actually, the article wonders why anyone would choose to stay in the once Golden State.

Certainly, there are reasons not to join the California exodus — family ties, a good job, balmy weather, lovely scenery, world-class art and music venues, health constraints, dependence on California’s generous welfare, or reliance on bountiful flow of drugs. However, as Richard Eber’s article points out, the reasons to leave are mounting.

Although Californians are leaving mainly because of exorbitant taxes, housing prices, and living costs, many are rejecting the principal underlying cause of those costs – the all-enveloping far-left one-party rule.

The resulting inefficiencies of the one-party rule make California less desirable than, say, North Carolina, one of the destination states mentioned in Eber’s article. Sure, there are Republicans, Greens, and Libertarians in California. But they have descended into near irrelevance given the power of the Democrat machine. Power of such magnitude, regardless of what party or faction holds it, empowers, and inspires extremes.

Richard Eber’s article is reproduced below:

__________________________________

Leaving California, by Richard Eber, published September 22, 2022, in California Political News & Views

It’s no secret families of all economic classes from the poor to the super rich are leaving California in droves. From illegal aliens to billionaire Elon Musk folks of all backgrounds are quickly putting the former “Golden State” in their rear view mirrors

Libertarian types like me would like to attribute the migration of about half a million people each year to Texas to be politically motivated. In reality this is not the case. Spurred by the socialistic government headed by Governor Gavin Newsom, high taxes, housing costs, energy costs, crime, and poor schools, are more important than politics.

Migrating businesses are following as well. Texas has been the main beneficiary of what amounts to a wealth transfer of billions of GNP each year welcoming 500,000 new residents. It is no coincidence Austin is quickly gaining the reputation of becoming the Silicon Valley of the South.

Typical is the family of my daughter’s best friend and her family who packed their life and moved to Texas after Lexi graduated from high school. Despite both of her parents having decent jobs, they could not afford to purchase a house in the Bay Area.

This soon changed in Texas when they bought a 2500 square foot home for less than half of what it might cost in California. If Lexi’s family would have stayed, it is doubtful they could even have purchased sardine like dwelling in a Priority Development Area (PDA) Sacramento believes people prefer to single family homes.

Prospering with an upper middle class standard of living, my daughter’s friends have never regretted bolting California. They are pretty much apolitical believing their standard of living and lifestyle is more important than living under expensive Progressive social values.

The truth of the matter is Bill Clinton’s campaign advisor James Carville’s remark in the 1992 Presidential election “It’s the economy stupid” is in the forefront of the exodus of folks departing for greener pastures. While this phenomenon has been partially balanced by immigrants settling in California from South of the border, there is major disparity in tax revenue being taken in.

Last week it was reported government revenues declined 11% in the last quarter. While Sacramento might sugar coat these statistics blaming Covid-19 for the drop, many economists believe this will be a preview of coming attractions as the land of Hollywood is fast losing its luster.

Apparently, Gavin Newsom with his fixation with promoting the use of electric vehicles doesn’t care if it costs up to $35.00 dollars more to fill up ones tank compared with several other states. This is but a tip of the iceberg families pay to live in a so called sunny paradise.

If those departing California were really interested in staying rather than being fitted for PF Fliers, they would try to change the Progressive agenda which dominates politics in all but a few rural communities. What then prevents voters from supporting more rational policies that would lower their cost of living?

There is no clear answer for middle of the road and conservative individuals who might want to change the current system. There doesn’t seem to be a clear path for those who wish to slow down going all in on climate change, Sanctuary Cities, defunding the police, reducing the influence of public employee labor unions and paying for costly social programs.

Apparently, this growing group of disenfranchised citizens doesn’t feel the Republican Party of California has the ability to elect candidates to carry out their wishes.

In contrast we have my friend Marcy Berry who recently departed San Francisco to live near her daughter’s family who relocated to North Carolina. As a Libertarian, she has been delighted with the political environment there. After a few months, here is her report from the land of Tar Heels and Blue Devils:

Hello from a transplanted Californian in North Carolina. Why are y’all still in California? Family ties, great job? Legitimate reasons. Barring that, anyone who stays must love California’s all-enveloping progressive reign. Just sayin’. And here are some more unsolicited opinions:

California’s all-enveloping progressive reign is the state’s most salient characteristic, and is what makes California so politically different from North Carolina, a swing state. Folks in a swing state just behave differently than those in a dominant regime.

North Carolina has a Democrat governor, and a majority-Republican but not veto-proof state legislature. Governor Roy Cooper navigates a peaceful balance, without the histrionics that Governor Gavin Newsom can perpetrate in his all-Democrat dominion.

Voter profile in North Carolina is currently 34.6% Democrat, 30.3% Republican, 1% Libertarian, and a whopping 34.5% unaffiliated. The unaffiliated contingent could account for the majority-Democrat voters and majority-Republican legislature. Let’s see what happens in the 2022 midterm elections, with unaffiliated voters residing mostly in the most populous counties.

North Carolina, not having (yet?) a dominant political party, is awash in both right and left-leaning voices. The local newspaper in my county leans left, my neighbors lean right, I am told that transplants arriving daily from California due to North Carolina’s rapidly expanding technology sector lean semi-left (they are aware of the mess they left behind but are not sure how else to think).

Unlike Republicans in California, Republicans in North Carolina are vocal and determined. Current and aspiring political candidates know they matter. They know they have a shot at making the state legislature veto proof and of turning the U.S. Senate majority-Republican.

Is there still hope to bring the two-party system back to California? Will the domination of the three quarters Democratic legislature and all State office holders continue indefinitely? The answer to this question is unequivocally “yes”. My only regret is wondering if such a change might occur in my lifetime.

I would suppose GOP State Chairwoman Jessica Patterson and her inept followers will eventually be replaced (if there is still a Republican Party). In a similar vein it is likely if Gavin Newsom and his successors continue to run the State into ground with their Marxist-Lite policies, needed changes will eventually occur.

There are so many “could have should of” scenarios to contend with in predicting California’s future. All we can do is hope.

__________________________________

Picture: Meme from Babylon Bee, a publication that never tires of having fun at California’s cost.

CA AB 257 vs Fast Food Industry

A more sustainable way to guarantee good wages and benefits is to encourage workers to obtain marketable skills, rather than engage in a never-ending battle with the realities of the market.

The California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 257, the Fast Food Accountability and Standards Recovery Act, on August 29, 2022. If Governor Gavin Newsom approves AB 257, California will be the first state in the nation to broadly regulate wages and working conditions for an entire industry. Fight for $15 and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) California sponsored AB 257. Their hope is the bill will lead to European-style industry-wide unionization, and end company-by-company efforts. The fast-food industry predictably opposes the bill.

Although states, as well as the federal government, regulate several industries, like banking and petroleum, these regulations do not set minimum wage and labor standards. They do not attempt to regulate social inequities. That is why the bill is being touted by the media as “first in the nation.”

A Super Agency in the Making

AB 257 creates a council comprised of government officials appointed by the Governor, business leaders, and worker representatives. The council will draw regulation to apply to all fast food restaurants with 100 or more establishments nationally that share a common brand. The bill has broad powers to repeal or amend existing regulation to accomplish its mission of establishing wage and labor standards.

AB 257 claims its intent is not to usurp legislative powers by creating or amending statutes. However, sections of the bill seem to send a contradictory message.

Section 4 (d) (1) (B) Nothing herein restrains the Legislature from enacting legislation that prevents a standard, repeal, or amendment from taking effect.

This wording seems to say elected representatives of the people do not have the power to simply veto regulations presented by the council, but instead can if they choose create legislation that would amend or repeal the regulation.

The council created by AB 257 seems in reality to be a super-agency, whose unelected members have de facto power to make and enforce law. As such, voters have no say in rules and regulations this super-agency implements. The only recourse of unhappy voters is appeal to their California legislators to try to enact more legislation that modifies or repeals the “law” created by the council – a council they themselves created.

The council will succeed where no agency has before?

California already has numerous laws, rules and regulations regarding wages and working conditions. However, AB 257 correctly states that enforcement is ineffective and problems in the workplace abound.

Section 2 (j) Furthermore, because existing enforcement and regulatory mechanisms have proved inadequate in ensuring fast food restaurant worker health, safety, and welfare, the Legislature concludes that sectorwide minimum health, safety, and employment standards, including standards concerning wages and other working conditions, identified by an expert body with subject matter expertise and experience in the fast food sector and which can represent the demographic diversity of the state’s fast food restaurant operators and employees, are necessary to protect, maintain, and ensure the health, safety, and welfare of, and to supply the necessary cost of proper living to, fast food restaurant employees.

So, AB 257 creates a super-agency (without discontinuing any of the ineffective agencies) and claims it will do the job none of the other numerous agencies have succeeded in doing. Seems this endeavor could only be accomplished either by amazing efficiency, for which government agencies are not well known, or tyrannical power over the fast food industry, approaching a takeover.

Interesting background of AB 257

AB 257 was originally authored by then Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez, who resigned from office in January 2022 to take the position of chief officer of the California Labor Federation. Ms. Gonzalez is also the author of Assembly Bill 5, signed into law September 2019, which reclassified numerous California workers from independent contractors to employees.

AB 5 caused enormous upheaval, like upending supply chains by curbing the work of hundreds of independent truckers. AB 5 has also spawned numerous high-profile lawsuits, the most prominent of which are those initiated by ride-sharing company Uber, the California Trucking Association, and the International Franchise Association.

It would not be unreasonable to expect the same upheaval from AB 257, given the bill’s unusually broad powers.

After Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez’s resignation from office, Assemblymember Chris Holden reintroduced the bill in January 2022.

There is a better way

Government micromanagement of industries, promising “living wages” and a plethora of “benefits” might seem to low-wage workers like a dream come true.

Unfortunately, they do not realize that life will find a way. The marketplace is a living thing that survives the harshest conditions – ask any underground entrepreneur thriving in the world’s tyrannies. Another quote is “money goes to where it is treated best.” Ask the many major companies that have left California for more business-friendly states. The cure promised by AB 257 might be worse than the ailments.

Another way to view low-wage workers, like those in the fast food industry, is that there are too many of them. Although sometimes denied by today’s progressives, supply and demand do determine prices. If companies see too many people with non-marketable skills (like graduates of California’s low-rated school system or graduates from Stanford with degrees in philosophy) then companies can pay their workers low wages without fear of exhausting the worker supply.

A more sustainable way to guarantee worker respect, good wages, and benefits is to encourage workers to obtain marketable skills. Never-ending battles with the realities of the market only serve to grow government power, increase taxation necessary to maintain bureaucracies, and divert resources from helping the populace obtain good skills.

Mayor: “Sometimes accountability means community service”

It might be tempting for law-and-order advocates to think that DA Chesa Boudin’s recall marks a shift towards more meaningful crime prevention. A broader view of San Francisco realities does not support such hopes at this time.

On June 7, 2022, San Francisco voters recalled their District Attorney, Chesa Boudin. It might be tempting for law-and-order supporters to think that Boudin’s ouster marks a shift towards more meaningful crime prevention. However, a broader view of San Francisco residents’ sentiments seems to augur crime as usual.

The visibility of crime

Crime is a visible blight in San Francisco. Shop lifters walk out of stores with bags full of stolen merchandise, public drug use is everywhere, sidewalks serve as sleeping quarters and toilets. Cars are not safe from break-ins for long. The scenario is not surprising since candidate for DA Chesa Boudin made clear during his candidacy that he would not prosecute low-level and quality-of-life crimes.

Voters grew weary of this scenario. They tired of the stories daily in the media about the revolving door the DA’s office had become – criminals arrested, released, committing more crime, arrested again, released again.

On June 7, what San Francisco residents saw and experienced took precedence over the arguments made by Boudin and his supporters: Reform is necessary to root out racial bias that fills American prisons with people of color. Reform takes time, and results are not as visible as crime. There are other alternatives to holding people accountable besides incarceration.

This comment summarizes the outcome of the recall election:

People are happy to be progressive and happy to be anti-racist as long as their bike doesn’t get stolen, or they don’t watch a viral video of a theft at Walgreens. Once that happens, or they feel vulnerable in some way, they throw out the high-minded ideals that made them vote for a reformer. Lara Bazelon, University of San Francisco law professor, as quoted in The Atlantic, “Why California Wants to Recall Its Most Progressive Prosecutors”, April 28, 2022.

The fleeting nature of recalls

As Professor Bazelon indicates in the quote above, in a recall, voters can vote to oust officials for whom they voted in the first place. It’s like buyer’s remorse. Unfortunately, buyers’ remorse is often instantly forgotten when another well-advertised impractical item appears in the store window. On the same ballot that San Francisco voters voted to recall Chesa Boudin, they also helped elect another criminal justice reformer, Rob Bonta, for state Attorney General.

Criminal justice reform as embraced by Boudin and his compatriots is very much still on the table in San Francisco. Here are some quotes uttered soon after the DA’s recall.

This election does not mean that San Francisco has drifted to the far right on our approach to criminal justice. In fact, San Francisco has been a national beacon for progressive criminal justice reform for decades and will continue to do so with new leadership. Mary Jung, recall campaign chair, as quoted in The Crime Report, “California Remains National Beacon for Justice Reform”, June 8, 2022.

We insist that the next San Francisco district attorney pursue reform, reduce incarceration, hold police accountable when they break the law, and root out racial bias in the criminal justice system. ACLU of Northern California, Press Release, June 8, 2022.

…to be clear, sometimes accountability means rehab. Sometimes accountability means community service. It is not just about law and order and tough on crime and locking people up and throwing away the key … It’s about accountability when those lines are crossed and coming to a reasonable conclusion around justice and what that really means for, in some cases, not just the perpetrator but the people who fall victim to those crimes. Mayor London Breed, as quoted in S.F. Standard, “Mayor Breed Weighs In on DA Recall”, June 8, 2022

Let’s let that sink in: “… coming to a reasonable conclusion around justice and what that really means for, in some cases, not just the perpetrator but the people who fall victim to those crimes.”

Whose job is it anyway?

Reformers are correct that the American criminal justice system needs a good deal of improvement. It makes no sense that, according to what is known, American prisons house more people than any other country in the world. It does make sense that root causes of crime must figure in crime prevention.

However, reform is not the job of district attorneys (or judges). The job of DA’s is to protect residents from falling victims of crime using tools provided by law.

The job of criminal justice reform belongs to legislators. As long as legislators continue to pass counter-productive laws riddled with consequences detrimental to the very communities they are purportedly attempting to help, the causes of crime will remain. Think American job losses due to minimum wage, offshoring, automation, climate change regulation, formation of monopolies and conglomerates enabled by fiat money. Think legislation with embedded disincentives to throw off the shackles of dependence, to reject coddling in schools and jobs in the name of “equity,” to learn job skills in school instead of rhetoric.

The best thing district attorneys can do is keep to their knitting under the law. That does not mean they cannot, like every citizen can, encourage legislators to quit passing counter-productive legislation.

Whether that could possibly happen in San Francisco will become more clear once Mayor London Breed appoints the City’s interim DA.

California Emptyin’

Thank you to Steve Frank, publisher of the California Political News and Views for publishing my adieu to California. Our family has joined the exodus out of a state we once loved.

Thank you to Steve Frank, publisher of California Political News & Views, for publishing my adieu to California. In October 2021, my family and I joined the exodus out of a state we once loved and once offered so many opportunities for work and growth. A misguided political class that rose to power in the early 1990s has chased away the middle class, invited in the billionaires, and blanketed the streets with the homeless.

Those of us who bailed out are not looking back. Those who chose to stay behind have one more choice to make: fight for a return to sanity or slowly descend into irrelevance.

Marcy Berry
Just Vote No Editor

________________________________

California Emptyin’

Some of us are old enough to remember the Mamas and the Papas’ iconic hit California Dreamin’.

All the leaves are brown
And the sky is gray
I’ve been for a walk
On a winter’s day
I’d be safe and warm
If I was in L.A.
California dreamin’
On such a winter’s day

There was a time when people did dream of coming to California. There was a time when L.A. was safe. But today, California is experiencing it’s own kind of winter’s day. There is less of California dreamin’ and more of California emptyin’.

Today the middle class – the backbone of America’s economy – is choosing brown leaves and wintry days over California’s nightmare of inordinate living costs, back-breaking taxes, endless restrictions, miserable schools, homelessness, and unsightly streets.

As I look out of the window of my new home in North Carolina, I see loads of brown leaves. I have already felt a couple of days of bone-chilling breezes, and I have been advised to purchase some heavy winter clothes. And I have met several California ex-pats who are happy to be here and are not looking back. We are the middle class. We are the workers on the ground. And we are leaving California.

The California political class is either amazingly brilliant or abysmally dull on the head. If their aim is to grow and cement inordinate power by methodically obliterating their constituents’ individual rights, they are doing a magnificent job. If they are hoping to maintain California’s stature as having an impressive production of goods and services, they are, as the saying goes, not all there.

Either way, though, the picture is not pretty. Either way, the state will disintegrate as other jurisdictions from Rome to Detroit have in the past.

This is the time to choose: bail out, roll up your sleeves and fight, or quietly descend into irrelevance.

Our family chose to bail out of California. But we have not chosen to stop fighting for the survival of the Republic our Founding Fathers envisioned.

We send you best wishes.

Yoga Moms United for Slow Streets

Thank you to Steve Frank of California Political News and Views for publishing my article on “slow streets.” These streets, closed to vehicular traffic, at present affect only some neighborhoods. How long until they affect all neighborhoods? Marcy Berry JVN Website Editor.

Today’s urban streets that feature barricades prohibiting thru traffic sport different names depending on target population – slow streets, car-free streets, safe streets, and open streets are the most popular titles.  Bikers, joggers, and central planners love these streets.  Central planners especially have been dreaming about the extinction of automobiles for decades.

The COVID-19 pandemic was the brass ring, the golden ticket for car-free-streets implementation in cities throughout the U.S.  Sheltered-in-place folks in urban areas needed safe outdoor spaces for fresh air and exercise, and car-free streets stepped in as a solution.

The City of Oakland was the first in California to implement a slow-streets program back in April 2020.  The cities of Emeryville, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Berkeley, Alameda, and others soon followed.   

However now as the pandemic wanes, so does the temporary nature of car-free streets.  Local legislation is popping up to make these streets permanent.  Cities are rebranding the streets’ existence as good for health, recreation and pedestrian protection regardless of pandemics. 

California assembly member Adrin Nazarian (D-LA) introduced AB 773 (at present awaiting referral) to facilitate the “closing of a portion of any street to through vehicular traffic if local authorities deem such action necessary for the safety and protection of people using that portion of the street.”

All the enthusiasm for car-free streets comes with a measure of cynicism. 

Car-free streets are best suited for yoga moms, cycling dads and others in the higher-income brackets.  They fit right in with the lifestyles of work-from-home professionals that like to go out for a stroll between Zoom meetings.  They are fantastic for bike messengers and able-bodied non-workers. 

Generally, they are impediments for workers that need to drop off their kids in daycare and/or school and be at work by 8:00 am.  Closed areas that provide direct access to destinations, such as the Great Highway in San Francisco, represent scarce time spent on meandering.  Car-free streets do not serve residents of neighborhoods plagued with crime, where taking a stroll down a street might not be the wise thing to do. 

In spite of talk of aiming for racial equity in car-free streets initiatives, neighborhoods with majority black and brown residents often reject them. 

Ah, but slow streets help small businesses that often employ those of lower income, no?  – picture of happy people sitting outside in a “shared space” on a sunny day enjoying their margaritas.  Feels more like advertising than truthful reporting. 

But slow streets reduce pollution and traffic fatalities! – no picture of the irate motorist barreling through a slow street barricade, or another just clogging up the parallel street.

San Francisco Supervisor Shamann Walton made pretty clear what he thinks of slow-street equity.  Of the proposed permanent closure of the eastern half of Golden Gate Park’s JFK Drive, Supervisor Walton said like “1950s in the South.”  Walton’s supervisorial district contains large populations of lower-income residents that live in less than safe areas, without efficient public transit.  Thus car ownership and usage is high compared to the rest of the City.  Where do they park if they want to visit the north-eastern part of GGP?  No parking along the closed portion of JFK, and the park’s underground garage is expensive.

In the city of Oakland, initial surveys on car-free streets showed the program was popular.  Problem was, two thirds of survey respondents were white and 40% had household incomes of $150,000 or more (Oakland’s population is over 70% non-white, and the median household income is $76,000).  So, Oakland’s Essential Places program, designed for lower-income neighborhoods, chucked the strolling/biking narrative, strengthened barricades so cars would not plow through them, and rebranded objectives as helping pedestrians move around safely in reaching essential destinations.  Maybe lower-income Oaklanders view slow streets as suspiciously as does San Francisco Supervisor Walton? 

Government programs are immortal by nature.  Like government bureaus, they are also “the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.”   Especially so are programs such as car-free streets that help implement agendas like climate change, smart cities, or transit-oriented development.  For example, Smart Growth America, advocates for smart cities, contributed to the funding for Oakland’s slow-street initiative. 

The elites can comfortably ignore or embrace these agendas. The less affluent cannot.  Urban housing developments have contributed to gentrification and increased cost of housing for families.  Divestment from petroleum has increased the cost of energy and transportation.  Slow streets, coupled with a “transit first” policy that lacks reliable transit, only serve to inconvenience the working poor. 

Politicians and the public need to stop the cynicism.  Streets are for transit and responsible drivers that need to get where they need to go.  Bike lanes, street crossings, sidewalks, playgrounds and parks are the domain of folks not driving at the time. 

This article, written by JVN website editor, was first published on California Political News and Views

Guaranteed Income: California’s Next Horizon

Guaranteed income pilot programs, emerging throughout California, are being promoted as remedy for the state’s significant income gap. Taxpayers need to read the fine print.

Guaranteed income pilot programs are emerging throughout the state of California. The programs differ in who is selected and how much recipients get. None have strings attached.

The concept of a guaranteed income gained publicity during the 2020 elections, when presidential contender Andrew Yang made it a central part of his campaign. In California, additional exposure came from Michael Tubbs, who founded Mayors for a Guaranteed Income in June 2020, a coalition that advocates implementation of guaranteed income trials.

Three Sample Guaranteed Income Programs

Michael Tubbs, when mayor of the City of Stockton implemented one of the first guaranteed income pilot programs in the state, with great fanfare and a lot of private donations. The program gave $500 a month to 125 selected low-income residents and ran for two years (February 2019 to January 2021).

Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaff launched her pilot guaranteed income program in March 2021. The privately-funded program will give low-income families $500 per month, for 18 months. Families selected are of color, in an effort to close the racial wealth gap.

On April 19, 2021, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, proposed a $24 million tax-payer funded one-year guaranteed income pilot program. The program will give $1,000 per month to 2,000 low-income families adversely affected by Covid-19.

The Selling Points

A guaranteed income, with no strings attached, given in addition to established public assistance programs takes aggressive selling in some communities. In Stockton, for example, Mayor Tubbs was not re-elected in spite of accomplishments. His defeat was in part (there were other adverse circumstances) because some of his constituents were not ready for agendas as progressive as a guaranteed income.

The promotional efforts are convincing, but debatable in some regards. Here is a sample of the press California’s guaranteed income programs have received, followed by clarifications that might be helpful.

  • “The idea of the government providing poor residents with some basic level of income has been floated by a number of prominent people over the years, including civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., libertarian economist Milton Friedman and Republican President Richard Nixon.” L.A. could soon become the largest city in the U.S. to offer guaranteed income for poor residents.” L.A. could soon become the largest city in the U.S. to offer guaranteed income for poor residents, Fortune, April 19, 2021.

Martin Luther King criticized the existing welfare system as fragmented and designed to affect root causes of poverty, not mitigate poverty itself. He did propose a guaranteed income as remedy. However, his plan came with strings attached. Government needed to create “social good” jobs for individuals who the market economy left behind. Dr. King’s plan, therefore, differs from the current “no strings” proposals.

Milton Friedman proposed a negative income tax, not a guaranteed basic income. Under Friedman’s plan, people file their tax returns, and depending on their income level, they either pay taxes or receive cash from the government. Also, Friedman’s plan was intended to replace existing welfare programs not supplement them. Today’s guaranteed income plans require nothing of recipients and supporters intend to avoid cannibalizing other public assistance programs.

Richard Nixon introduced in 1969 The Family Assistance Program (FAP), which aimed to implement a negative income tax that would benefit working parents with household incomes under a certain level. Unlike today’s guaranteed income proposals, FAP had a work requirement that applied to most recipients (there were exceptions to mothers with small children at home). The proposal passed the House of Representatives, but failed in the Senate.

  • “There’s a number of ways to pay for guaranteed income, from a sovereign wealth fund in which citizens benefit from shared national resources like the Alaska Permanent Fund, to bringing tax rates on the wealthiest Americans to their 20th century historical averages.” Mayors for a Guaranteed Income

Alaska’s principal source of revenue is crude oil. Residents receive an “oil dividend” from a natural resource that theoretically belongs to all residents. It might be difficult for California to come up with a comparable natural resource dividend.

California already has one of the highest tax rates in the nation. Several large employers have recently left California citing high taxes and high costs, among them California icons like Hewlett-Packard and Tesla. Texas and Arizona are among low or no-tax states that are happy to welcome California’s wealthy expatriates.

An objective of Mayors for a Guaranteed Income and others is to establish a federal guaranteed income program. The federal government can print copious amounts of money, redistribute revenue from low-spending to high-spending states, and does not need constituents’ approval to raise taxes. The only catch is that residents of low-spending states might not be happy with this plan.

  • Preliminary analysis of Stockton’s guaranteed income program: “Results gathered from the first year, which spanned February of 2019 to February of 2020, found recipients obtained full-time employment at more than twice the rate of non-recipients. Recipients were less anxious and depressed, both over time and compared to the control group … Recipients had a greater ability to pay for unexpected expenses …” University of Tennessee, College of Social Work, March 5, 2021.

“Asian/Pacific Islanders and homeowners comprised a larger share of the debit-card recipients than of the control group , which could have biased the results…The study’s small sample and reliance on self-reported outcomes are bigger problems. It’s difficult to assess a statistically significant effect on employment among such a small group over a one-year period—from Feb. 2019 to Feb. 2020—especially given high labor-market turnover among lower earners.” Universal Basic Income Hype, Wall Street Journal, March 22, 2021.

Conclusion

The highly-promoted Stockton experiment is serving as a catalyst for the proliferation of guaranteed income trials in California. However, it is difficult to see how a study of 125 folks, among them homeowners, can apply to California’s large population of low or no-income residents.

The state of California has a poverty rate of 11% compared to lower-poverty states like New Hampshire at 4.9%. Also, California has the third largest rate of homelessness of all states in the U.S. (after New York and Hawaii).

Guaranteed income programs in California will prove expensive. Local and state jurisdictions will have difficulty finding sources of cash. The federal government, with its ability to create debt, would be a reasonable source, but would low-spending states be willing to subsidize high-spending states?

Lyndon Johnson’s expensive Great Society sounded wonderful, but nothing really got fixed. It will be worth carefully reading the fine print on guaranteed income programs.

Parents of School Children are Fighting Back

Alison Collins, S.F. School Board Vice President, is the latest official caught in today’s endless uproar about race. Petition for her removal is in full swing.

The Just Vote No Blog recently discussed California’s BLM-inspired schools. Identity politics has permeated schools as it has other sectors of society. Some are fighting back. In San Francisco, a fuse that ignited a revolt was the Board of Education’s decision to change the merit-based admission policy of Lowell High School to a lottery-based system. This decision will bring Lowell down to the mediocre level of other San Francisco government/union-run schools.

One school official caught in the maelstrom is Alison Collins, Vice President of the San Francisco Board of Education. Her unfortunate Tweets insinuating that Asians behave like white supremacists to get ahead placed Ms. Collins in a difficult position. She offended both the race-focused progressives and the traditional-education-focused parents of Lowell High students. Mission Local in an article dated March 23, explains the situation well.

A petition calling for Ms. Collins ejection from the School Board has been posted on Change.org.

Perhaps petitions and other means of raising awareness need to be posted regarding the broader issue: school officials that descend into race peddling.

The BLM-Inspired Schools of California

Thank you to Steve Frank, publisher of California Political News & Views, for publishing this article by JVN editor. Our universities have been dispensers of identity-socialism rhetoric for the past half century. The rhetoric is now tricking down to our children’s primary schools.

On one of the windows of a public Marin County middle school there was recently not a display of children’s work or announcements of school events.  There was instead a poster issued by Black Lives Matter at School asking for a pledge of support for,

Restorative Justice. Transgender Affirming. Globalism. Collective Value. Queer Affirming. Unapologetically Black.  Loving Engagement.  Empathy. Intergenerational. Black Villages.  Black Women. Black Families. Diversity. 

One would have to wonder how a 12-year old might interpret this complex pledge.  Parents, as well as taxpayers, might want to ask themselves how time spent discussing such concepts affect time available to learn skills like reading and math. 

This Black Lives Matter at School poster falls comfortably under political propaganda.  The objective of all propaganda is to convert as many hearts and minds as possible.  Therefore, parents and taxpayers should know what they and their children are being recruited for. 

The BLM at School website from which the poster in question can be procured makes quite clear what the group wants their recruits to support.  As all attempts at winning hearts and minds, BLM at School principles contain both positive and dangerous objectives.  And, as is often the case, positive messages of love and understanding do not pass muster when the more aggressive messages are explored.  Here are samples from the BLM at School website.

It is our duty to fight for our freedom.  It is our duty to win.  We must love each other and support each other.  We have nothing to lose but our chains.   ~Assata Shakur

We are committed to collectively, lovingly, and courageously working vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people. As we forge our path, we intentionally build and nurture a beloved community that is bonded together through a beautiful struggle that is restorative, not depleting.

We are committed to fostering a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking or, rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual unless s/he or they disclose otherwise.

We are committed to disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, and especially “our” children to the degree that mothers, parents and children are comfortable.

The first objective quoted above might need clarification for those not familiar with Assata Shakur.  Ms. Shakur, a former member of the Black Liberation Army, is presently residing in Cuba, where she received asylum following her escape from prison in 1984. Her crime was murder of a state trooper during a 1973 shootout.  Her brother, Mutulu Shakur, also a member of the BLA is still incarcerated for his role in a 1981 Brinks armored truck robbery, in which two policemen (one, by the way, Black) and one Brinks guard were murdered.  In violent struggles for liberation people die, regardless of all professed love and justice.

Ms. Shakur is not the only radical honored in the BLM at School website.  Another name that should stand out, especially to residents of San Francisco, is BLM at School endorser Bill Ayers, a leader of the Weather Underground and foster parent of San Francisco DA Chesa Boudin.  However, his role in several bombings in protest of the Vietnam War during the late 1960s and 1970s is not what is significant here. 

Bill Ayers, along with other prominent radicals like Bernardine Dohrn (Weather Underground leader and retired Northwestern University law professor) and Kathy Boudin (Weather Underground leader and Columbia University co-founder of the Center for Justice), pivoted from violence to education (or indoctrination).  After his Weather Underground days, Ayers became known for his work in education theory, education reform, curriculum and instruction.

Things roll downhill, and the race/gender-focused socialism that radicals brought into universities is now sipping into primary schools.

The Marin County middle school poster could have been the idea of one teacher or one parent for all we know.  The concern here is not with that particular school, but with a wider trend of mainstreaming radicalism in children’s schools.  The California Department of Education website has a section describing California’s Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum and containing the following in the lesson plan.

… develop an understanding and analyze the effectiveness of #BlackLivesMatter and the broader Movement for Black Lives (M4BL), specifically delving into the movement’s structure, key organizations, and tactics/actions used to respond to incidents of police brutality…

The ultimate questions for parents and taxpayers need to be:  Is reform of schools, criminal justice, and some cultural conventions desirable at this time?  What is the track record of the race/gender-focused education that has gained ground during the past three decades?  Are parents and taxpayers these days willing to speak up if their answer to the first question is “Yes” and to the second question is “Lousy?”

This article was written for California Political News & Views, March 23, 2021

Governor Newsom’s Recall Turns Real

Gavin Newsom is behaving like the quintessential elite–someone who creates a self-serving vision and proceed to implement it. The Recall is a reaction to Newsom’s perceived elitism as much as an attempt to put an end to his misguided policies.

What started as a Quixotic effort to remove California Governor Gavin Newsom from office, has now turned serious. The Recall Gavin Newsom campaign has gathered as of the beginning of March 2021, 1.9 million signatures. California requires 1.5 million signatures for the recall to appear on the ballot. Looks like there are almost 2 million folks that are past their tolerance point for Newsom.

What has this once popular California governor done to deserve such fate? Is he so much worse than other progressive governors? Probably not.

However, constituents have grown skeptical of Newsom’s incessant swagger about California being an economic powerhouse as homeless tents pop up everywhere, public pensions become unsustainable, and California’s middle class dwindles. Workers are tired of being thrown out of jobs, first by legislation that strangles small businesses, and presently by lockdowns. Parents of public school children are seeing their children fall behind in their education as Newsom’s children attend in-person instruction in private school.

Such disregard for the common people has marked Gavin Newsom as the quintessential establishment elite – someone who conceives a self-serving vision of what people need and proceeds to impose the vision on the populace regardless of realities. The Recall is a reaction to Newsom’s perceived elitism as much as it is an attempt to put an end to his misguided policies.

The Recall Gavin Newsom campaign claims 80,000 grassroots volunteers that can be relied upon to waive signs and collect recall signatures. Campaign organizers say they have raised almost $4 million, mostly from wealthy donors within California, but some also from Nevada ($29,250), Kansas ($26,000), Texas ($20,100), and Arizona ($6,525). Interestingly, San Francisco – solidly Democrat and committedly progressive – stands second after Irvine in Newsome Recall donations.

The litany of Newsom failures listed on the Recall document include the following:

  • Housing unaffordable to the middle class
  • Exploding homelessness
  • Rising crime
  • Failing public schools
  • Harassment of independent contractors
  • Unsustainable public pension debt
  • Infringement of 2nd Amendment rights
  • Sanctuary laws that fail to screen out criminals
  • High taxes
  • Poor water management
  • A dysfunctional Employment Development Departments
  • Extreme overreach in dealing with Covid-19
  • Public schools closed for nearly a year
  • Inability to control teachers union refusal to resume in-person teaching.
  • A last straw occurred when Newsom and his wife were caught dining with lobbyists at the posh French Laundry eatery after he recommended that his constituents dine alone on Thanksgiving.

The establishment elite – not to be confused with the merely rich — operate by rules that grow without regard to what the populace want or need. For example, the Recall document mentions Assembly Bill 5, which assumes everyone wants to be an employee rather than an independent contractor, thus ruining the livelihood of many happily self employed workers.

The establishment elite do not seem to notice that often there is a discrepancy between what they mandate and what they do, as exemplified by Newsom’s French Laundry incident.

Thus, Gavin Newsom’s image stands as dubious as his policies, and a recall election to give voters a chance to weigh in on how seriously they take this matter is warranted.