Archive for the ‘Opinion’ Category

Analysis: Hit piece against Avila Farias in Assembly race stretches truth

Wednesday, February 28th, 2024

Group behind effort to defeat her has spent over $233,000

By Allen D. Payton

Hit piece mailer against Avila Farias.

At least two campaign mailers against candidate for State Assembly District 15 Anamarie Avila Farias were sent to voters this month by a group named “Contra Costa Neighbors opposed to Farias for Assembly 2024”, and the most recent mailer clearly stretches the truth in one of its claims. They’re part of an effort that has spent over $233,000 to defeat her, so far.

The mailer readers “Typical Politician Anamarie Avila Farias’ Double-Dipping Record Hurt Progress on Homelessness” and among other accusations claims she, “Collected salaries and benefits from multiple governmental agencies at the same time.”

The mailer offers a link to “Check The Facts” on the Transparent California website, which lists public employees’ compensation records provided to them by government agencies – http://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?q=anamarie+farias&y=.

First, while I prefer employees for one government agency to not serve as elected officials for another, it’s not uncommon for local elected officials to also work for other government agencies. That was the case for Avila Farias 10 and 11 years ago. Since then, she has worked for a non-governmental agency and non-profit organization, while serving as both an elected and appointed official.

Some of that information is listed on Avila-Farias’ campaign website.

Government Employment

When reviewing the information about the Assembly candidate on the Transparent California website, it shows she previously worked in government positions as a Senior Management Analyst for the City of Oakland in 2013, then a Program Analyst for the City of Concord in 2013 and 2014, for which she was paid a salary and benefits. Those positions aren’t mentioned on her campaign website but are the only government positions she has held.

Non-Government, Elected & Appointed Positions

Avila Farias currently works as the executive director for the Juvenile Hall Auxiliary of Contra Costa County, a non-profit organization, for which she first served on the board of directors. Avila Farias said she stepped down from the board after being hired to run the organization in 2019.

As a member of the Martinez City Council from 2012-16, Avila Farias received pay and benefits totaling $16,552.01 to $18,791.48 per year. She is now serving in her first term as an elected trustee on the Contra Costa County Board of Education, having been elected in 2020, for which she receives about $550 in stipend and $2,500 in benefits per month.

Avila Farias has also served on the Board of Directors of the California Housing Finance Agency since she was appointed in 2015, for which she said she receives a small stipend of $100 per meeting. That was confirmed by agency staff and is also reflected on the Transparent California website. Avila Farias also serves on the Board of Directors of the Carquinez Regional Environmental Education Center, but that is not a paid position.

According to her profile on the Finance Authority’s website, “She held multiple positions at the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County from 1989 to 2018, including Housing Policy and Program Analyst and Central Waiting List Housing Manager.” However, according to the Housing Authority website, it is not a government agency even though its seven-member board includes all five county supervisors.

Transparent California website search results for Avila Farias.

Following is the list of Avila Farias’ government position-related compensation from the Transparent California website to which the mailer provides the link, in order of years:

Year     Position                                                                       Pay                  Benefits           Total

2012    Martinez Council Member                                          $195.97           $294.78           $490.75

2013    Martinez Council Member                                          $7,020.00        $9,532.01        $16,552.01

2013    Senior Management Analyst, City of Oakland           $20,381.66      $8,850.29        $29,231.95

2013    Program Manager, City of Concord                           $60,587.94      $21,271.40      $81,859.34

2014    Program Manager, City of Concord                           $31,087.64      $7,038.95        $38,126.59

2014    Member, Martinez Council                                         $7,020.00        $11,348.02      $18,368.02

2015    Member, Martinez Council                                         $7,020.00        $11,771.48      $18,791.48

2016    Member, CA Housing Finance Agency Board           $200.00           $ -0-                 $200.00

2016    Member, Martinez Council                                        $6,834.00        $11,523.00      $18,357.00

2016    Member, CA Housing Finance Agency Board           $700.00           $ -0-                 $700.00

2017    Member, CA Housing Finance Agency Board           $700.00           $ -0-                 $700.00

2018    Member, CA Housing Finance Agency Board           $700.00           $ -0-                 $700.00

2019    Member, CA Housing Finance Agency Board           $500.00           $ -0-                 $500.00

2020    Member, CA Housing Finance Agency Board           $700.00           $ -0-                 $700.00

2020    Member, Contra Costa Board of Education              $541.97           $ -0-                 $541.97

2021    Member, CA Housing Finance Agency Board           $800.00           $ -0-                 $800.00

2021    Member, Contra Costa Board of Education               $6,720.44        $30,590.42      $37,310.86

2022    Member, CA Housing Finance Agency Board           $700.00           $ -0-                 $700.00

2022    Member, Contra Costa Board of Education               $6,857.99        $29,685.26      $36,542.55

Mostly False

So, there were only two years, 2013 and 2014 that Avila Farias received pay and benefits both as a government employee and as an elected official, supporting the mailer’s claim of her “double dipping”. But even that is a stretch as she wasn’t paid a salary for both positions, merely a stipend for her elected position and benefits for both and it was for only two agencies at a time. Thus, the mailer’s claim that Avila Farias “Collected salaries and benefits from multiple governmental agencies at the same time” is mostly false.

Keeping Californians Working Form 497 Late Contribution Reports dated Feb. 20, 22 & 26, 2024. Source: CA Secretary of State’s Cal-Access website.

Group Behind the Mailer

According to the disclosure requirement on the mailers, the group behind them “a coalition of charter public school advocates, insurance agents, technology, energy, and health care providers” and the “Ad Committee’s Top Funder” is listed as a political action committee (PAC) named “Keeping Californians Working.” A search of the California Secretary of State’s Cal-Access campaign finance website shows the committee’s FPPC ID number is 1365806 and as of the Feb. 17, 2024, report has raised $521,500 and spent $658,516.89 this year, with ending cash of $759,206.46. The PAC raised $1.125 million in 2023.

According to the PAC’s reports the coalition has spent over $233,000 to defeat Avila Farias. The PAC’s Form 497 Late Contribution Report number 321801-05 dated Feb. 26, 2024, shows they contributed $30,000 to the Contra Costa Neighbors opposed to Avila Farias coalition. According to the PAC’s Form 497 Late Contribution Report number 321801-04 dated Feb. 22, 2024, the committee also contributed $52,785 to defeat her, and report number 21801-03 dated Feb. 20, 2024, shows they contributed $150,000 to the effort against Avila Farias. Another Form 497 report number 321801-06 was filed today, Wednesday, Feb. 28 for an additional $1,000 contribution to the coalition’s efforts.

The PAC’s major contributors include $125,000 from the Personal Insurance Federation of CA Agents & Employees PAC; $250,000 from the Pharmaceutical Research And Manufacturers Of America IEC (Independent Expenditure Committee); $250,000 from Uber Innovation Political Action Committee; $250,000 from Powering California’s Future, Sponsored by Edison International, the Los Angeles-area energy company; $250,000 from DaVita, Inc., a kidney dialysis company; and most recently, $10,000 from Leadership for California: East Bay Committee, whose ID number was pending as of the date of the Form 49 report on Feb. 5, 2024. The PAC is also spending money to support other candidates in other parts of the state.

The election is next Tuesday, March 5. Avila Farias faces fellow Democrats former Contra Costa County Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, Antioch Mayor Pro Tem Monica Wilson and Republican Realtor Sonia Ledo in the race to replace Assemblyman Tim Grayson who is running for State Senate. The top two candidates will face off in the November general election.

Payton Perspective: It’s time for reparations for descendants of African slaves in America

Friday, February 23rd, 2024
“15th Amendment, or the Darkey’s millenium: 40 acres of land and a mule.” Man and boy with cart in front of the Putnam House, Palatka, Fla. Source: The Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs: Photography Collection, from The New York Public Library. (1850 – 1930). (PUBLISHER’S NOTE: Objects depicting racist and/or stereotypical imagery or language may be offensive and disturbing, but the National Museum of African American History and Culture in which this photo is displayed aims to include them in the Collection to present and preserve the historical context in which they were created and used. Objects of this type provide an important historical record from which to study and evaluate racism).

Using federal land, not cash

By Allen D. Payton, Publisher

During this Black History Month, as I’ve been arguing for several years, I believe it’s time for all Americans to agree reparations promised to freed slave families following the Civil War in 1865 should finally be fulfilled – but to their descendants.

First, let me point out the fact – especially to my fellow Republicans who might oppose them – that reparations were first, a Republican idea, ordered by Union Army Major General William Tecumseh Sherman, and supported by President Abraham Lincoln, the nation’s first Republican president. As a reminder, the Republican Party was formed to abolish slavery, and Lincoln and the Union Army successfully fought the Civil War to accomplish that goal.

40 Acres & A Mule

You may have heard the phrase “40 acres and a mule”, which was made more popularly known by movie actor and director Spike Lee who labeled his production company “40 Acres and a Mule Filmworks”. But you may not know that the phrase originated with reparations. That’s because Special Field Orders No. 15 were issued by Sherman on January 16, 1865, before the Civil War ended that May, granting “a plot of not more than (40) forty acres of tillable ground” to families, “made free by the acts of war and the proclamation of the President of the United States He also later ordered the army to lend mules to the freed slaves for their farming efforts.

The orders included the confiscation of 400,000 acres of plantation land along “a strip of (Atlantic) coastline stretching from Charleston, South Carolina to the St. John’s River in Florida, including Georgia’s Sea Islands and the mainland 30 miles in from the coast.” The land was to be divided into parcels on which approximately 18,000 formerly enslaved families and other Black people then living in the area would be settled.

The purpose was to provide for the freed slaves both a means to earn a living and support themselves, and the result would have been giving them an asset that could be passed on to future generations.

According to History.com, “The freedmen set out to begin working their new land immediately, with a group of 1,000 settling on Georgia’s Skidaway Island. In subsequent months as many as 40,000 freedmen settled on the redistributed land.”

Order Rescinded

Unfortunately, after Lincoln’s assassination just three months after the order was issued, his running mate on the National Union Party ticket in 1864, Democrat Vice President Andrew Johnson, following his ascension to the presidency, rescinded Sherman’s order. He returned to Confederate owners the 400,000 acres of land. Thus, the freed slaves were denied the land they had been granted and reparations were never offered to them by the federal government, again.

Why Reparations Now?

Some people argue that it’s been over 150 years, so why do Black Americans need reparations, today? My initial response is that they’re long past due. But my main answer is two-fold. One is the fact that a major issue among most Blacks in the U.S., today is a lack of asset ownership, including homes, real estate, investments and businesses. For example, the average Black family has one-tenth the assets of the average white family in the U.S.

Disparity in Household Wealth

According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Wealth and Asset Ownership Detailed Tables: 2020, Table 1. Median Value of Assets for Households, from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, Survey Year 2021, the median net worth for all households was $140,800. However, when broken down by ethnicity, the median “Black alone” household had one-tenth the assets of the median “White alone” household, or $18,430 compared to $178,500. The disparity is even greater when compared to the median “White alone, non-Hispanic” household which had assets of $217,500.

My argument for the disparity and second one in favor of why reparations, now is the fact that for nearly 250 years, almost all Blacks in the U.S. couldn’t own property because they were property, nor did they get paid. They also couldn’t get an education. So, the rest of us, whose ancestors were never subjected to the horrors and evil of chattel slavery, in effect had a 250-year head start!

Yes, I’ve heard the arguments about the Irish, which is my ancestry, and how they were mistreated, or others who were indentured servants. But those were not the same as being a slave sold, bought and owned by someone else, as well as their future generations to follow.

A Federal Responsibility, Not State or Local

Second, reparations are not a state or local issue, but a federal responsibility. Long before the day the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776, and in spite of the fact it enshrined the statement that, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” and then from the signing of the U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1789, to Lincoln’s issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation and the end of the Civil War, our federal government allowed slavey. It continued for another 65 years after the Constitution was ratified on May 29, 1790, for a total of 246 years since the first African slaves were brought to our country in 1619. So, again, reparations are a federal responsibility.

(A side, historical note on the Three-Fifths Compromise and clauses in the Constitution. It was not intended by the framers to further devalue the lives of slaves, but to reduce the influence in Congress by the slave states, by preventing them from having additional members in the House of Representatives and a greater number of electors in presidential elections. The slave states wanted to include the slaves in the census count, while the free states didn’t want them included at all. The compromise determined that three out of every five slaves were counted when establishing a state’s total population. A benefit to the slave states was it reduced the amount of taxes they had to pay to the federal government.

In Article I, Section II, Clause III of the Constitution, the Three-Fifths Compromise is stated as:

“Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included in this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.”

See also James Madison’s writings in Federalist Paper No. 54 in which he argues that slaves were both property and people, and thus required some degree of representation).

But I digress. Back to the issue at hand.

Source: Federal Bureau of Land Management

Reparations Are About Land, An Asset

Third, to my Democrat friends I remind them, reparations were initially land and that’s what they still should be, today, not cash. They should be about helping Black Americans own an asset for their use, from which to generate income and to pass on to future generations.

The federal government owns over one-fourth of the land in the U.S. According to a 2020 report and 2023 report by the Congressional Research Service, it amounts to “roughly 640 million acres, about 28% of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States”.

Looking at a map you’ll see the federal land is “heavily concentrated in 12 western states (including Alaska), 3 where the federal government owns roughly half of the overall land area.” That includes 45.4% of California, 60.9% of Alaska, 38.6% of Arizona, 36.2% of Colorado, 20.2% of Hawaii, 61.9% of Idaho, 29.0% of Montana, 80.1% of Nevada, 52.5% of Oregon, 63.1% of Utah, 28.6% of Washington and 46.7% of Wyoming. The federal government also owns 12.9% of Florida.

Much of that land is either in national parks (79.9 million acres), in national forests (192.9 million acres) or is farm and ranch land leased to farmers and ranchers. Five federal agencies administer most of it, including the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park Service (NPS) in the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture. with the Department of Defense controlling 8.8 million acres, and 4% administered by multiple other agencies.

So, my proposal is to give to all Black Americans, who can prove they are a descendant of a slave in America, some of that federal land. It can either be given out on an individual or family basis.

While not all Black Americans are descendants of a slave in the U.S. – for example, Vice President Kamala Harris, whose father descended from a Jamaican slave, would not qualify – for simple calculation purposes let’s say all of them are. Blacks currently make up about 13% of the U.S. population of about 330 million people for a total of 40 million people.

If we gave every Black American one, two or even five acres, that would be 40, 80 or as much as 200 million acres which would still leave 440 million acres remaining for ownership and use by the federal government. (Frankly, I don’t understand why the federal government needs to own so much land, especially ranch land for grazing, anyway.)

The new owners could do what they want with the land: farm it, drill it for oil, gas or water, mine it, lease it, swap it with other reparation land recipients, build a home on it, borrow against it, or perhaps form joint ventures with neighboring property owners and develop new communities, even cities. But I believe the one stipulation should be the land could only be sold to another descendant of an American slave. Then, it could be passed on to future generations.

Another argument I’ve heard or read about reparations is, why should people today have to pay anything when neither they nor their family ever owned slaves. This approach addresses that concern. By giving out federal land, there would be no cost to current taxpayers. While it might reduce revenue to the federal government from a reduction in leased lands, that’s a small price to pay for addressing this 160-year-old matter once and for all time.

Source: Congressional Research Service

No One Has to Participate

Some Black people have stated publicly they don’t need or want the help and find it offensive that they be offered reparations. Let’s be clear, no one who is qualified has to participate in a federal reparations program. But I believe most would. Who wouldn’t want free land?

Those who chose to participate would, of course, have to prove their status, and some form of reparations commission or government agency would have to be formed to verify their status and manage the distribution of the land grants. Once verified, program participants would be entered into a lottery and the property could be distributed in periodic drawings. It could even be televised nationally as the participants’ numbers are drawn, and advertising could be sold, and the revenue shared with the federal government to make up for the loss of land lease revenue.

One Time Program May Take Several Years

To sum up, I say it’s time, once and for all, to fulfill the commitment of reparations ordered in 1865 and give portions of federally owned land to the descendants of slaves in the U.S. It might take several years to accomplish, but I believe we should and could start right away.

Once the land has been distributed and all who want it received their share, then that would be it. We’d be done. Everyone would be happy, and there could be no more complaining. The agency would be disbanded, the issue would be put to rest, and it would be up to the new landowners to make do with theirs what they can.

Now, all we need is for Members of Congress and U.S. Senators to introduce the idea and move it forward.

California is not East Berlin. A wealth tax in the Golden State would expedite the exodus

Wednesday, January 24th, 2024

By Jon Coupal

Note: This column first appeared in The Press-Enterprise. Republished with permission.

Daily news reports on the great “California Exodus” are not just from conservative outlets. Left-leaning publications such as the Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle have recently reported on the outmigration of upper-income citizens who, even if not billionaires, still generate a lot of income tax revenue.

Earlier this month the California Legislature held a hearing on Assembly Bill 259 which would lay the foundation for the imposition of a wealth tax. The companion legislation to AB 259 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would, among other things, effectively sweep away Proposition 13’s limits on taxing property.

Fortunately, the idea that California would be the first in the nation to impose a highly unpopular wealth tax is so radical that the proposal was rejected by Democrats as well as Republicans on the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee. It didn’t take long for the Democrat chair of the committee to shuffle the bill to the “suspense” file where bad legislation goes to die.

Coincidentally, the wealth tax hearing occurred on the same day that Gov. Newsom released his proposed budget. Things got a little sparky during the presentation with Newsom pushing hard against the Legislative Analyst’s figure of a $68 billion deficit. Newsom contends that the deficit is “only” $38 billion. (But hey, what’s a $30 billion difference between friends).

Newsom saved his most animated criticism for those who highlight the state’s shortcomings, including the significant outmigration of California’s most productive citizens. He especially targeted the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, which has never been reticent about commenting on the state’s well-deserved reputation for anti-business bias.

But to his credit, Newsom rejected the notion of a wealth tax – at least for now. For taxpayers, it matters little whether the governor’s stance is motivated by politics or a sincere policy position. Either way, we’ll take it.

The problems with the wealth tax proposal – even as half-baked as it is – are legion. But one issue should be especially troubling to anyone who believes both in fiscal restraint and basic constitutional freedoms. That is, could a wealth tax be applied to people who voluntarily leave the state for the specific purpose of avoiding California’s highest-in-the-nation income taxes? AB 259 contains a provision that applies the wealth tax to every “wealth-tax resident,” defined as someone who “is no longer a resident, and does not have the reasonable expectation to return to the state.”

The question here is not whether a resident of another state can be taxed when they have a “nexus” to California, for example income earned in California or owning property in the state. Rather, what about someone who no longer has any connection to California? The proposal to tax wealth on such people would likely be deemed to violate the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause.

More fundamentally, an “exit tax” could be construed as an impairment to the right to travel. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in 1958 in Kent v. Dulles that citizens have a liberty interest in the right to travel: “[t]he right to travel is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment …”

Setting aside the practical and legal problems with this or any wealth tax proposal, a fundamental problem is the signal it sends to all productive California taxpayers as well as those in other states who might consider moving here.  California already has a horrible reputation for its treatment of taxpayers and businesses, why would we even consider another punishing tax?

The proponents of the wealth tax need to be reminded that, as much as they might want to prevent citizens from leaving, California is not East Berlin. The U.S. Constitution will not allow the state government to build a wall to keep citizens in, and then shoot tax bills at them when they try to escape.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

Slay California’s Death Tax

Friday, January 19th, 2024

About 1.2 million signatures needed by February 5th to qualify the Repeal the Death Tax Act for November’s ballot

Download your petition below to help

By Katy Grimes

This article was first by the California Globe. Republished with permission.

Last week when Gov. Gavin Newsom was sharing his proposed 2024-2025 budget, he insisted that he was opposed to a proposed wealth tax. And sure enough, Assembly Bill 259 by Assemblyman Alex Lee (D-Palo Alto), which will impose an annual “worldwide net worth” tax of 1 percent on net worth above $50 million, rising to 1.5 percent on net worth over $1.0 billion, was killed in committee that afternoon.

However, the governor has been mum about another type of wealth tax – California’s sneaky Death Tax, which adds a new tax on property inherited by a family member, which was already was taxed over the years of ownership.

In 2020, Proposition 19 resurrected the Death Tax on families whose property is left to loved ones when they die, putting their homes, property and businesses at significant risk. While the initiative was cleverly disguised as a benefit for the elderly and disabled communities, Proposition 19 caused far more harm than good.

In May, Senator Kelly Seyarto (R-Murrieta) introduced Senate Constitutional Amendment 4, to restore taxpayers’ property rights by reversing the state’s “death tax” written into in Proposition 19. Deviously titled “the Property Tax Transfers, Exemptions, and Revenue for Wildfire Agencies and Counties Amendment,”

SCA 4 would have reversed one of the largest property tax increases in state history, a little-noticed provision of Proposition 19 that revoked the ability of families and parents to pass property to their children without any change to the property tax bill, according to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

However, Democrats killed Seyarto’s SCA 4 in a legislative committee.

I remember when the Death Tax was first slayed.

“It was 1986 when the parent-child exclusion from reassessment was first added to the state constitution,” Susan Shelly recently wrote. “A growing number of Californians were angry to discover that state law treated death and inheritance as a “change of ownership” under Prop. 13, triggering reassessment to current market value just as if it was a sale. The legislature proposed a constitutional amendment that would allow parent-child transfers of a home and a limited amount of other property, such as a small business or a rental property, without reassessment.”

“The parent-child transfer protection passed by a unanimous vote in both houses of the legislature, and then was approved by 75% of voters statewide.”

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) elaborates on how Proposition 19 hurts taxpayers:

Proposition 19 had two main elements. The first was expanded “portability” of base-year property taxes. Homeowners who are 55 years of age or older, who are victims of a wildfire, or who are disabled may now move to a replacement home anywhere in the state, of any value, and take the base-year property tax assessment of the old home with them to a new home up to three times.

Now to the other part of Proposition 19. Previously under the state constitution, property transfers between parents and children, and sometimes grandparents and grandchildren, were excluded from reassessment. These family members could transfer a home of any value and up to $1 million of assessed value of other property, such as a small business property, a vacation cabin, or a rental property, without any increase in the property tax bill. This taxpayer protection was added to the state constitution in 1986 by Proposition 58 (parents and children) and in 1996 by Proposition 193 (grandparents and grandchildren) with overwhelming public support.

Proposition 58 was approved by more than 75% of California voters, and Proposition 193 was approved by nearly the same margin. Now, these taxpayer protections are gone.

Proposition 19 has replaced 58 and 193 with a very narrow exclusion for family transfers of property. Only a principal residence that the inheriting child occupies as his or her permanent primary residence is eligible for an exclusion from reassessment. Unless the new owner can move in within one year, the property is reassessed to market value. Business properties and rental properties lose the protection entirely.

So, what can be done?

Susan Shelly continues, “the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, where I am on staff as VP of Communications, is collecting signatures to put an initiative on the ballot that would repeal the tax increase that was hidden in Prop. 19, without touching the other provisions in it. The official petition is available at RepealTheDeathTax.com and can be downloaded and printed on one sheet of ordinary letter-size paper. This enables instant distribution of the petition throughout the state. Theoretically, a million people could download the petition at the same time, fill it out and sign it, and have one other registered voter in the household also sign it.”

It’s easy. Click on RepealTheDeathTax.com and/or

Click here to DOWNLOAD the official petition RIGHT NOW

RepealTheDeathTax.com has more details HERE:

Read the Initiative here.

Please note: You must print and sign the petition with paper and ink. It’s not electronic.

Follow the easy instructions. And please note:

DEADLINE EXTENDED! Return signed petitions to HJTA postmarked by FEBRUARY 5

Download the official, legal petition to put the REPEAL THE DEATH TAX initiative on the November 2024 ballot.

Complete instructions are included in the pdf file.

Get your petition in the mail ASAP – before February 5th.

Katy Grimes, the Editor in Chief of the California Globe, is a long-time Investigative Journalist covering the California State Capitol, and the co-author of California’s War Against Donald Trump: Who Wins? Who Loses?

Letter writer proposes ranked choice voting for Antioch elections

Friday, January 19th, 2024

Dear Editor:

One of the most basic principles of democracy is majority rule, but guess what? Antioch does not have majority rule!  Our mayor and city council members are often elected without a majority. For example, in 2020 our mayor was elected with only 41% of the vote. In 2022 in District 1 the winner only received 31% of the vote. That is unacceptable.

There are two ways to make sure we have a majority winner.  The first way is to have a primary election.  Then the top two vote getters would have a runoff election.  The second is to use a voting system called Ranked Choice Voting (RCV for short). 

Having two elections is not a good system. First, it is much more expensive to have two elections than one. Runoff elections are a waste of taxpayers’ money. Second, less people vote in the primary and it is a less diverse group of voters. Third, the runoff election becomes very negative with lots of mudslinging.

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) gives a majority winner in a single high turnout election. It is very easy for voters.  Your #1 vote is for your favorite candidate, your #2 vote is for your backup candidate, etc. In addition, RCV has several other advantages.  Elections tend to be positive and issue oriented. There is no worry about splitting the vote, and usually, more candidates run. RCV is used all over California and the USA. Voters like it.  It is a proven system.  RCV gives voters more choice and more voice.

Antioch needs RCV. Please call or email your council member and mayor. To get email updates or volunteer please go to http://calrcv.org/antioch.

Robert Bruce

Antioch

Opinion: Contra Costa Assessor says Supes hypocritical in new Treasurer-Tax Collector appointment

Wednesday, January 10th, 2024

Dear Editor:

Once more the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors has made fools of themselves and embarrassed the rest of the citizens of our county by its recent appointment to fill the vacancy of the County Treasurer-Tax Collector.

The Board of Supervisors, after months of pontificating, chest beating and self-congratulating each other for creating a new department with two department heads called the Department of Racial Equity and Social Justice, proved how hypocritical they truly are.

During the same board meeting, the board held public interviews for the County Treasurer-Tax Collector position, even though two of the candidates were current, high-level managers, with many years in the Treasurer-Tax Collector’s Office, and both women of color, who were eminently qualified and credentialed. Predictably, the board instead picked a white man from Yuba County.

Why should any of us ever believe anything these board members say or do about racial or social justice?

Sincerely,

Gus S. Kramer, Assessor, Contra Costa County

CA State Controller complains of inability to tax largest portion from L.A. Dodgers pitcher’s contract

Monday, January 8th, 2024
L.A. Dodgers’ pitcher Shohei Ohtani. Source: L.A. Dodgers Instagram

Wants Congress to approve caps on deferred compensation

SACRAMENTO — State Controller Malia M. Cohen released the following statement following last month’s announcement that the L.A. Dodgers signed a 10-year, $700 million contract with pitcher Shohei Ohtani. The contract is structured so that Ohtani will receive $2 million per year and defer the balance approximately 10 years, when he could potentially return to Japan and escape payment of California state income taxes on the deferred amount:

“The current tax system allows for unlimited deferrals for those fortunate enough to be in the highest tax brackets, creating a significant imbalance in the tax structure.” said Cohen. “The absence of reasonable caps on deferral for the wealthiest individuals exacerbates income inequality and hinders the fair distribution of taxes. I would urge Congress to take immediate and decisive action to rectify this imbalance.”

“Introducing limits on deductions and exemptions for high-income earners promotes social responsibility and contributes to a tax system that is just and beneficial for all. This action would not only create a more equitable tax system, but also generate additional revenue that can be directed towards addressing pressing important social issues and fostering economic stability,” Cohen stated.

About Controller Cohen

As the chief fiscal officer of California, Controller Cohen is responsible for accountability and disbursement of the state’s financial resources. The Controller has independent auditing authority over government agencies that spend state funds. She is a member of numerous financing authorities, and fiscal and financial oversight entities including the Franchise Tax Board. She also serves on the boards for the nation’s two largest public pension funds. Follow the Controller on X at @CAController and on Facebook.

Opinion: CCTA experiment with “low cost” transit option could prove costly

Tuesday, December 26th, 2023
Glydways vehicles and station rendering. Source: Glydways

By Marc Joffe

The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) has announced plans to install a new type of transit system in a suburban area 45 miles northeast of San Francisco. The system, created by transportation startup Glydways, offers some compelling efficiencies, but its application in a relatively low‐​density area does not appear to be cost‐​effective. As such, CCTA’s plan merits a hard look from both local and federal taxpayers who will be obliged to fund it.

Glydways’ system uses small driverless vehicles (with a capacity of up to four passengers) on a narrow, dedicated guideway. Because the vehicles use rubber tires, there is no need to install rail tracks. Vehicles are available on demand, typically within two to five minutes of being summoned on the Glydways app.

The Glydways solution addresses several criticisms of traditional rail transit projects, which involve large (often empty) vehicles operating on fixed schedules piloted by operators entitled to generous pension benefits. Projects of this type, including New York’s Second Avenue Subway and BART’s Silicon Valley extension, not only cost billions to build but they are also expensive to operate.

As such, Glydways offers much needed innovation in public transportation, perhaps because it is looking at the challenge from a startup lens. Formed in 2019, the company has raised over $70 million from a group of investors that includes Bill Gates and Vinod Khosla. Their solution is an interesting attempt to apply ideas pioneered by Uber and Waymo to the requirements of public transit.

But innovation alone is no assurance that government will use taxpayer money effectively. Incentives also have a role to play. When companies simply sell products and services to a public agency, they do not have a strong motive to economize. Indeed, they often benefit from cost overruns.

But the CCTA project promises to resolve this incentive problem by using the public‐​private‐​partnership (or P3) model. The P3 charged with delivering the East Contra Costa County Dynamic Personal Micro Transit (DPMT) project includes Glydways and four other companies, along with CCTA and the local public sector bus operator.

Under a P3, companies are supposed to take some ownership of the project. If a P3 truly transfers risk to the corporate partners, their interests better align with those of the taxpayer. In a transportation context, risk transfer means that private sector players should be required to absorb construction cost overruns, excess operational costs, and lower‐​than‐​expected fare revenues. But from the CCTA press release, it is not clear what risk Glydways and the other companies will be expected to shoulder.

And the risks are substantial. Because this is a system that has yet to be tried in a real‐​world setting, a lot can go wrong with the vehicles and the dispatching technology. The unattended vehicles will be especially vulnerable to vandalism, which, unfortunately, is common in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Further, the cost and ridership projections for DPMT do not look promising. A 2021 presentation listed an annual ridership estimate of seven million, which works out to about 20,000 rides per weekday. The same presentation provided a capital cost estimate of $451 million. That seems like a lot of money to transport not too many people, and this is before operating costs are considered.

Further, if these numbers were re‐​estimated in 2024, they will probably look worse. General inflation has pushed up costs for all construction projects. Meanwhile, ridership on the connecting mass transit line (known as eBART) is running about half of 2019 levels. Since the ridership model for DPMT appears to be based on 2019 transit utilization rates, it is likely that a new model based on post‐​COVID transit use would project more modest ridership.

Potential utilization for DPMT is limited by the area’s relatively low population density. The four cities that would be served by the new transit system average about 4000 people per square mile, compared to over 7500 in Oakland and 17,700 in San Francisco.

Applying a new transit solution to this area sounds intriguing, but the relatively limited number of potential users may be more economically served by a new multi‐​use trail with shared e‑scooter and e‑bike stations.

This column first appeared on the CATO Institute website.

A resident of Walnut Creek, CA Joffe is a Federalism and State Policy Analyst with the CATO Institute.