New year, old problems for California lawmakers
By Timm Herdt
Ventura County Star
Posted January 4, 2012 at 5:17 p.m., updated January 4, 2012 at 5:32 p.m
© 2012 Ventura County Star. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. 
SACRAMENTO — California lawmakers returned to the Capitol on Wednesday to begin a new year in which they expect to wrestle with an array of old problems, potentially reworking a water bond they put together in 2009, revisiting the dissolution of redevelopment agencies they approved in 2011 and again tackling a chronic state budget shortfall that has been diminished but has not yet gone away.
One annual ritual that seems unlikely this year is a protracted budget battle. Brown has made clear he intends to submit a budget plan with contingencies — a blueprint that will include about $7 billion in revenues he expects to ask voters to approve in November, and a separate plan detailing spending cuts that will have to be made if the tax measure fails.
Because a spending plan — but not tax increases — can be approved by a majority vote, Brown said last month he does not expect to engage in serious negotiations with Republicans.
"The voters of California made clear they wanted a majority-vote budget," he said. There would be nothing to negotiate, he added, if Brown were to seek Republican support for "a massive tax increase."
Strickland said he hopes there will be issues this year focused on job-creation on which the two parties can work together. He cited last year's agreement on a bill that will provide expedited legal review of any environmental challenges to a proposed football stadium in downtown Los Angeles as "a classic example of how we can work together on a bipartisan basis to create jobs."
Beyond the budget are old issues that must be revisited.
Key among them is an $11 billion water bond now slated for the November ballot. Because of its high cost and questionable chance of passage, lawmakers are likely to reconsider the question this spring.
Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, chairwoman of the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee, said the water bond will not likely go forward in its current form.
The choices, she said, are to postpone putting it on the ballot or make across-the-board reductions in the amounts committed to each element in the bond — storage, repairs to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, conservation and watershed restoration.
"I've taken a lot of surveys in homeowners' groups and chambers of commerce. They have sticker shock," Pavley said. "I think the public finally gets that bonds aren't free money. Still, you can't ignore some of the problems. Disruption of our water system is something that would devastate our economy."
Pavley said across-the-board reductions are likely the only possible way to cut down the size of the bond, because to reopen discussions on the nature of the bond would likely lead to a political dead end.
"I've lived through that once," she said of the high-stakes negotiations that led to adoption of the bond in 2009.
On the question of whether lawmakers will revisit redevelopment in an attempt to resurrect redevelopment agencies, local legislators said they are open to discussion but that a solution will be difficult.
"There may be a Plan B," Pavley said. "I'm hoping to have a discussion, but it can't be at the expense of the general fund."
Williams echoed that sentiment. "We can't do anything that reduces the amount of savings to the general fund," he said. "Anyone who's serious needs to be talking in the narrowest possible terms."
Lawmakers abolished redevelopment agencies last year as part of a two-step approach to save the state $1.7 billion. Under the state's school-funding guarantee, each dollar in property taxes that goes to a redevelopment agency instead of a local school district must be replaced by a dollar from the state's general fund.
The second step was a law that would have allowed redevelopment agencies to divert the money voluntarily as a condition for remaining in existence, but that provision was struck down last month by the state Supreme Court. The decision effectively put redevelopment agencies out of business, and city officials around the state are expected to mount an aggressive lobbying campaign to resurrect those agencies.
Strickland, who last year voted against the measure to dissolve the agencies, said it will be very hard to undo that action.
"I'm working to see what ideas are out there," he said. But he noted the proposal to do away with redevelopment originated with Brown, who now holds all the cards since he would have to sign whatever compromise lawmakers might consider. "There's no way to get enough votes for a veto-override," he said.
The agenda is expected to unfold quickly, as Gov. Jerry Brown will release his proposed budget Tuesday and many other big issues will require action by late spring in order for elements that need voter approval to be on the November ballot.
One annual ritual that seems unlikely this year is a protracted budget battle. Brown has made clear he intends to submit a budget plan with contingencies — a blueprint that will include about $7 billion in revenues he expects to ask voters to approve in November, and a separate plan detailing spending cuts that will have to be made if the tax measure fails.
Because a spending plan — but not tax increases — can be approved by a majority vote, Brown said last month he does not expect to engage in serious negotiations with Republicans.
Sen. Tony Strickland, R-Moorpark, said he anticipates the same scenario.
"The voters of California made clear they wanted a majority-vote budget," he said. There would be nothing to negotiate, he added, if Brown were to seek Republican support for "a massive tax increase."
Strickland said he hopes there will be issues this year focused on job-creation on which the two parties can work together. He cited last year's agreement on a bill that will provide expedited legal review of any environmental challenges to a proposed football stadium in downtown Los Angeles as "a classic example of how we can work together on a bipartisan basis to create jobs."
Assemblyman Das Williams, D-Santa Barbara, said he expects the contingency cuts in whatever budget plan is fashioned will be very ugly. "My hope is that we'll be able to avoid the ugliness by passing the governor's proposal in November," he said.
Beyond the budget are old issues that must be revisited.
Key among them is an $11 billion water bond now slated for the November ballot. Because of its high cost and questionable chance of passage, lawmakers are likely to reconsider the question this spring.
Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, chairwoman of the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee, said the water bond will not likely go forward in its current form.
The choices, she said, are to postpone putting it on the ballot or make across-the-board reductions in the amounts committed to each element in the bond — storage, repairs to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, conservation and watershed restoration.
"I've taken a lot of surveys in homeowners' groups and chambers of commerce. They have sticker shock," Pavley said. "I think the public finally gets that bonds aren't free money. Still, you can't ignore some of the problems. Disruption of our water system is something that would devastate our economy."
Pavley said across-the-board reductions are likely the only possible way to cut down the size of the bond, because to reopen discussions on the nature of the bond would likely lead to a political dead end.
"I've lived through that once," she said of the high-stakes negotiations that led to adoption of the bond in 2009.
On the question of whether lawmakers will revisit redevelopment in an attempt to resurrect redevelopment agencies, local legislators said they are open to discussion but that a solution will be difficult.
"There may be a Plan B," Pavley said. "I'm hoping to have a discussion, but it can't be at the expense of the general fund."
Williams echoed that sentiment. "We can't do anything that reduces the amount of savings to the general fund," he said. "Anyone who's serious needs to be talking in the narrowest possible terms."
Lawmakers abolished redevelopment agencies last year as part of a two-step approach to save the state $1.7 billion. Under the state's school-funding guarantee, each dollar in property taxes that goes to a redevelopment agency instead of a local school district must be replaced by a dollar from the state's general fund.
The second step was a law that would have allowed redevelopment agencies to divert the money voluntarily as a condition for remaining in existence, but that provision was struck down last month by the state Supreme Court. The decision effectively put redevelopment agencies out of business, and city officials around the state are expected to mount an aggressive lobbying campaign to resurrect those agencies.
Strickland, who last year voted against the measure to dissolve the agencies, said it will be very hard to undo that action.
"I'm working to see what ideas are out there," he said. But he noted the proposal to do away with redevelopment originated with Brown, who now holds all the cards since he would have to sign whatever compromise lawmakers might consider. "There's no way to get enough votes for a veto-override," he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment