Marin Forum

Washington DC may have attracted two million people, but throughout the country people gathered at makeshift inauguration events to watching the swearing in of the 44th President of the United States. Here, at the University of California, Berkeley perhaps around a thousand people congregated on Sproul Plaza before classes to watch the historic event.

Some will say that the inauguration speech itself was lackluster, but Barack Obama probably was not aiming to deliver a speech that would be remembered for the ages. Its focus was more on “we’ve got a lot of problems, so lets get to work.” Still it was excellently delivered.

Now begins the first one hundred days where Obama will be held under close scruitney as some will be hoping for a period similar to the first days of FDR’s presidency. Time will tell how things play out.

Prop 1A

Prop 1A provides the necessary funds to begin construction of necessary transportation infrastructure to address the issues of climate change and peak oil. Our opinion of 1A should already be clear as put forward in a previous post: http://marin-forum.com/?p=197. California lacks rail networks that connect Northern and Southern California. Not only would highspeed rail be cheaper than airfare between LA and SF but the travel times would not be much different. Highspeed rail is costly but it is a good long term investment.

Our Opinion: YES

Prop 2

Animal rights are important and conditions in California farms, especially among the large commercial farms, are deplorable. Prop 2 specifically targets the egg industry but also addresses conditions in the cattle and pig industry. These industries should have addressed the humane treatment of their animals but they were more concerned with their profits. Action needs to be taken to clean up the industry. However, we do not believe this issue is best addressed through the initiative process. The vast majority of voters have no stake in the issue while a small group of people will be significantly affected if the proposition passes. Also opponents to Prop 2 claimed that the egg industry would be severely affected and may even relocate out of state driving up the cost of eggs. This claim was confirmed by the LA times so it has credibility. Considering the state of our economy this is not a good time to see an increase in food costs.

Our Opinion: NEUTRAL

Prop 3

Prop 3 addresses children’s health by funding children’s health hospitals through bonds. There does not seem to be many significant negative aspects to this proposition and the money is not coming directly from the California budget. Furthermore, it will significantly fund the University of California system which has been facing serious budget cuts as of late. We are also concerned by opponents’ efforts to connect Prop 3 with illegal immigration. According to them Prop 3 will provide money for healthcare given to illegal immigrants. This issue has nothing to do with immigration.

Our Opinion: YES

Prop 4

Parental notification for a minor wishing to obtain an abortion has appeared on the ballot several times before. Each time it has been voted down. There are too many loopholes in this proposition and it could create a mess in our legal system. Furthermore, if a girl wants to get an abortion, she will get it even if it means getting it through back ally methods. In many cases a minor cannot obtain certain medical procedures without parental consent; however, there are exceptions. Many of the exemptions involve reproductive health but they also include infectious diseases and mental health. Therefore, an exception for abortion is not out of the ordinary. Abortion is a personal issue and the state should not intervene.

Our Opinion: NO

Prop 5

By removing nonviolent drug offenders from the prison system Prop 5 would significantly impact the California prison system. Prop 5 allocates nearly half a billion dollars for drug treatment programs and in the long term will remove many people from the prison system addressing the issue of overcrowded. Currently the California prison system is extremely overcrowded and badly needs to be reformed. Prop 5 would address this issue but in the process cost the state a significant amount of money that it doesn’t have at the moment. Furthermore, the effectiveness of drug rehab programs is unclear. Considering California’s budget problems now is not the time to allocate funds to prison reform without finding some way to increase revenue (i.e. taxes). Money is better spent on preventive measures, not corrective measures.

Our Opinion: NO

Prop 6

Prop 6 provides funding for law enforcement. Specifically it targets gang related crimes. Other affected areas include vehicle theft, methamphetamine use, and parole penalties. The problem: the state does not have nearly one billion dollars to allocate to these programs. Furthermore, the State is already beginning to address these issues through other programs such as CalGRIP. California just doesn’t have the money for this proposition.

Our Opinion: NO

Prop 7

It is absolutely necessary to increase the use of renewable energy and fund research and development of associated technologies. Prop 7 would increase the renewable energy standards for utilities among other things. Unfortunately Prop 7 is extremely flawed. It puts nearly impossible demands on local utilities. It seems highly unlikely that municipal utilities could reach the 20% standard in two years. The investor owned utilities are struggling to reach 20% and they have had nearly five years. It also seems unlikely that utilities could reach 40% by 2020. Furthermore, Sacramento is already moving toward increasing renewable energy use without prodding from the people. The California legislature will be able to draft a similar bill that is much better worded and probably more effective. Tellingly the opponents of Prop 7 include environmentalists, investor-owned utilities, and both political parties. Prop 7 places nearly impossible burdens on utilities and similar legislation will pass through Sacramento in the next few years.

Our Opinion: NO

Prop 8

Prop 8 is probably the most controversial proposition on the ballot. There is no reason that same sex couples should be prevented from marrying. First the state should not be regulating who can marry and who cannot. Everyone deserves access to the same benefits and rights regardless of sexual orientation. Marriage is no longer completely a religious issue and allowing same sex marriage does not force religious institutions to perform same sex marriages. Prop 8 has nothing to do with “saving the children.” No well constructed study proves that same sex marriages harm a child’s growth and development. Also California schools are NOT required to teach students about marriage. Once again this is an issue where the state should not be intervening.

Our Opinion: NO

Prop 9

Prop 9 is another crime related proposition that deals with victims’ rights. It would allow victims to have a larger role in the criminal justice process. It also makes some changes to the parole system. Under previous laws and a 1982 proposition victims received certain constitutional rights. Today victims already receive some rights. More importantly, victims should not have a larger role in the criminal justice process. It is important that victims are kept someone separate from the trial to insure a fair trial. This is an aspect of our criminal system that does not have high priority in reform.

Our Opinion: NO

Prop 10

Prop 10 is sponsored by T. Boone Pickens and would create a demand for natural gas vehicles. It just happens to be that the use of natural gas vehicles is crucial part of the Pickens Plan. The Pickens Plan is an interesting idea to remove our dependence on foreign oil by increasing domestic sources including investments in renewable energy, but it’s questionable whether switching to natural gas is really a solution. The problem with Prop 10 is that the main beneficiary is Pickens’ natural gas company. There are better ways to develop renewable energy and energy independence. Prop 10 creates a market that didn’t exist before; it is a gimmick by special interests.

Our Opinion: NO

Prop 11

Prop 11 would create a commission to do redistricting. Currently districts in California are designed to give a significant advantage to Democrats. This issue needs to be addressed and district boundaries should not favor one party over the other. However, the state doesn’t have the resources at the moment to begin redistricting. In light of our budget crisis now is not the time to perform redistricting, but this issue will have to be addressed eventually.

Our Opinion: NO

Prop 12

This is a no brainer. Since 1921 Californians have approved bonds to help veterans buy homes and farms. There is no reason why this shouldn’t continue especially since there is no cost to tax payers. There is hardly any opposition to this proposition, and voters should continue to approve these bonds.

Our Opinion: YES

In the upcoming decade effective and efficient train service will become imperative as fuel prices rise. Unfortunately California’s passenger rail system is in serious decay. Regional rail systems fair slightly better but as of now there is no rail service other than Amtrak connecting the Bay Area to the greater Los Angeles region. Amtrak itself is a failing system and it has no direct rail service to San Francisco. Furthermore it is still more convent to fly or even drive between San Francisco and Los Angeles than to take Amtrak. Yet fuel expenses are on the rise and travel between the two cities may soon become costly via car or plane. On the regional level improved rail systems will get people out of their cars and somewhat reduce congestion. So here’s a brief look at two rail financing plans facing Marin County voters (and California voters for Prop 1A):

Measure Q (Marin County)

Measure Q involves a quarter cent sales tax to finance a light-rail system servicing Sonoma and Marin counties (SMART). The North Bay lacks any commuter rail system and there is no bus system that covers both Sonoma and Marin counties. Existing bus systems (Golden Gate Transit) are in weakening condition. I have already addressed SMART in a previous post which you can read here: http://marin-forum.com/?p=115. SMART is important because it is the first regional rail system servicing the North Bay. Ultimately it may be able to link with the other regional transit systems in the area, but for now Measure Q establishes the infrastructure for an improved transit network.

Prop 1A

Measure Q is an example of the necessary regional transit systems to get people out of their cars and make commuting more efficient. Since Measure Q establishes a commuter rail system its effects will be felt relatively soon. Prop 1A is far more long term, but the creation of a high speed rail system connecting Northern and Southern California could be the single most important California transportation investment/improvment in the next few decades. There may come a point where air travel is too expensive for some people and by that time Amtrak may no longer be functioning. Even if Amtrak is still operating its long travel times between Los Angeles and San Francisco will surely discourage people. The high speed rail, however, will make that travel time less than three hours. Considering that it takes at least six hours by car around three plus hours by plane (including baggage checking and other hassles associated with the airport) the train seems to be a great alternative. Fuel prices are only going to increase which will make the train even more appealing. The project will be costly which some people may not see as justified considering California’s budget at the moment, but such infrastructure improvements are vital for economy. The longer such a project is put off the more expensive it will become to finance and its implementation will be more problematic. Construction on a high speed rail network has to begin as soon as possible to negate problems associated with high fuel costs.

*****

Portland’s (Oregon) climate action plan stresses the importance of developing efficient rail systems to address the problem of peak oil. It is not a matter of if peak oil will occur but when. Therefore, it is important that we start developing the infrastructure now before we are in the midst of the crisis. The rail system in the United States is in sorry shape especially on the West Coast. Air travel may become a luxery and long distance car travel may not be cost effective and it certainly will not be efficient. In an improved rail system will provide an efficient alternative.  Voting YES on Measure Q and Prop 1A will go a long way in improving our transportation network to address peak oil and climate change.

This November Marin and Sonoma residents will again vote on a sales tax to fund SMART, the regional transit system that will serve both counties. SMART is not perfect, especially since it does not directly connect commuters to San Francisco, but it is extremely necessary in an area that lacks a solid transportation system. Gas prices are only going to increase which may make the cost of travel impractical for some people, yet at the moment there are very few alternatives. The only way to get people out of their cars is to develop a solid mass transit infrastructure. The current bus system is unreliable and at the moment Marin has no light rail option which are now becoming more common in outlying suburbs of today’s cities.

Besides issues raised by the anti-tax people, SMART seems to come under fire from two groups that I would like to highlight.

1. The Status Quo Group. This group consists of two subgroups. The first are those who do not see how they will be impacted by the light rail system since they live far (i.e. Southern Marin) from the service area. Voters tend to be selfish when it comes to money related issues since in their minds why should they fund something that they will never use. The second group would rather see current transportation improvements completed (the widening of US 101) before money is investing in a new project. The first group fails to realize that SMART will take many commuters off the road which in turn will make their commute less of a hassle. The problem with the second group is that widening freeways is not a solution to the problem. It will only encourage people to drive more and in a few years congestion will be back to today’s levels.
2. The BART Group. This groups wants to wait until the “ideal” transit system can be implemented. In most cases this means expanding BART to Marin or linking Marin to one of the other Bay Area transit systems. While they have the right idea, such a solution is completely impractical. Many years ago BART was going to be expanded to Marin, but voters rejected the idea. Today a project to expand BART to Marin would be very expensive. But lets consider three options. First, BART could run up to Vallejo and then along Highway 37 to Marin. This approach is probably the cheapest but most of the line would serve absolutely no one, and the travel time would make it undesirable to Marin commuters. The second option is to run BART under the Golden Gate Bridge as was original proposed. Not only would the project be costly, but it would run into immense opposition. In order to connect into the BART system a line would have to be run underneath a large part of San Francisco. BART does have plans to expand its service out to North Beach but that option is far into the future. The last option, is to run BART under the Richmond Bridge and connect into the Richmond line. Once again, it would be a very expensive project.

Another interesting point that I’ve see is that SMART would only facilitate the expansion of the suburbs. At the turn of the century mass transit was responsible for the movement of people away from the city centers. Then the 1950s was the age of the freeway. The expansion of the freeway and the automobile allowed for people to further move away from the dirty city centers. The twentieth century saw an exodus of people city centers and the expansion of the suburb, but demographics are changing. People are returning to the cities, and the shift will continue as commute times from the suburbs become longer and the price of gas increases. It is unlikely that the expansion of mass transit systems will reverse this demographic change. Instead mass transit will fix some of the problems that plague suburbia and the rapid expansion outwards that occurred during the second half of the twentieth century.

The two groups represent two ends of the spectrum. One side wants to put in as little effort as possible, while the other group has goals that are too lofty and ambitious. The current status quo is unacceptable but waiting for the “perfect” option is also unacceptable as chances are the “perfect” solution will never occur. However, the third BART solution may be practical in the future. SMART could run into San Rafael and then commuters could transfer to BART which would take them to the East Bay and San Francisco. First Marin needs to develop a light rail system. In the up coming years a solid mass transit system will be of high priority and if Marin fails to develop the infrastructure now, then it will be far behind when mass transit becomes a necessity. Opponents of SMART fail to see that SMART is about securing our future through the beginnings of a solid mass transit system.

Last week Alameda County Superior Court Judge Barbara Miller handed down her decision to allow the University of California to go ahead with the construction of its athletic center. In 2006 protesters occupied several trees near the stadium where the new structure was to be placed. Since then it has been a legal battle that has spawned copy-cat protests and many jokes pointed at UC Berkeley.

And yet why have the tree-sitters been able to occupy the trees for so long? The simple answer is that the campus has been too lenient and afraid to accept the risks involved in forcibly removing the protesters. However, it is questionable whether the tree-sitters are protected by the First Amendment.

The tree-sitters could be considered trespassers. The UC Berkeley campus belongs to the State of California and thus unwanted “guests” can be removed. The university has an area designated for protests. This argument is perhaps the weakest partly because a state university campus is quite different than a private residence or office complex.

More importantly the tree-sitters endanger the public safety. Besides any possible public health hazards from day-to-day living in a tree (garbage and human waste disposal), by delaying construction of the new facility, Memorial Stadium remains an earthquake hazard. The stadium’s retrofitting is tied into the athletic center’s construction. The ninety-one year old stadium lies right on top of the Hayward Fault and the effects of fault creep are obvious to the naked eye. I seriously question the structural integrity of the stadium especially when the “Big One” strikes. By delaying construction the tree-sitters are endangering over 70,000 lives when the stadium is at capacity on game days. The US Supreme Court has held that the freedom of speech is not protected if it endangers lives; the classic example being shouting fire in a crowded theater. In this case the protest does not immediately harm anyone, but it leaves the potential to grave future harm to a large amount of people.

The two red lines should be flush against each other

Fault Creep Evidence on the Outer Walls

The tree-sitters’ protest takes the freedom of speech too far. They are trespassing and desecrating property and they are posing a problem to public safety. The university should have recognized this and taken a tougher stand which would have saved them at least 2 years of legal battles. In fact the battle continues as last week’s ruling is being appealed. Meanwhile people temporarily occupied another tree on campus. The University reached a deal where one of the new tree sitters could join the rest and food would be provided daily. Why is the university letting the protest to continue? At UC Berkeley the freedom of speech is revered and all protest movements take guidance from the Free Speech Movement; however, today’s tree sitters are a far cry from Mario’s Savio.

This is a follow up to my first post on this topic, How Green is Your Electric Utility? with revised numbers and the addition of nearly every power utility in California. The original purpose of compiling this data was to compare investor owned utilities with municipal utilities to find which one offered more green energy. The California, PG&E, and SCE data has been revised, and San Diego Gas & Electric has been added.

Here are the charts and data:

california-electric-utilities

The utilities included:

• PG&E
• SCE
• SDG&E
• Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
• Sacramento Municipal Utility District
• Riverside Public Utilities
• Anaheim
• Glendale
• Lodi
• Pasadena
• Plumas-Sierra
• Redding Electric Utility
• Roseville
• Silicon Valley Power
• Burbank
• Alameda Power & Telecom
• Banning Power
• Azusa
• Healdsburg
• Imperial Irrigation District
• Ukiah
• City of Vernon

A couple remarks about the data:

1. While I do compared the California municipal utilities with the national investor owned utilities it is important to remember that often the investor-owned utilities only reported their power generation mixes. By California law, the Californian power utilities have to report their entire power mix (generation and purchase). Thus, the investor-owned utilities excluding PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E could quite possibly have higher renewable energy mixes.
2. Alameda Power & Telecom (55%), Ukiah (54%), and Healdsburg(48%) were by far the leaders in renewable energy. Palo Alto also gets a sizable amount of their energy from non-fossil fuel sources (mostly large hydroelectric). Burbank was the worst with only 1% of their energy coming from renewable energy as of 2006. Azusa, Riverside, Pasadena, and Anaheim are highly dependent on coal (over 65%). Azusa receives 75% of their energy from coal.
3. Overall municipal utilities are more green than the investor-owned utilities. Even when compared to only the Californian investor-owned utilities (who are far greener than the rest of the country), municipal utilities still outperform them.
4. I noticed that Southern Californian utilities used far more coal than Northern Californian utilities so based on past data I decided to split the municipal utility group into Northern California and Southern California. The results were shocking. Northern Californian municipal utilities were far greener than their southern counterparts. In fact Southern California municipal utilities were less green than the combined average for PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E. SoCal municipal utilities were only slightly more green than the average computed for the national investor owned utilities.
5. Many of the municipal utilities matched their renewable energy content with the state’s renewable energy content. If PG&E, SCE, SDG&E, and the other large utilities in the state take the lead in improving their renewable energy content, then the smaller districts should do the same.

Coal is definitely a problem or a roadblock in the move toward renewable energy. The low price of coal makes it hard for utilities to invest in renewable energy without raising rates. What I’m currently looking into at the moment is the link between the use of coal and the investment in the renewable energy. There seems to be a very small negative correlation, but I’m unsure of my calculations. If anyone is interested in this topic and is knowledgeable in the realm of statistics, please contact me and help me run the data to find some answers.

On the June 3rd California ballot voters will decide whether to reform eminent domain and eliminate rent control under Proposition 98. Regardless of what you make think of rent control, Prop. 98 should be viewed as a flawed and deceptive initiative. Prop. 98 uses a rather uncontroversial issue (eminent domain reform) to hide a “secret agenda” (elimination of rent control).

Proposition 98 consists of of six sections. Only one of the six sections involves eminent domain reform. Section six titled ” Effective Date” lays out how rent control will be eliminated, yet the section feels tacked on at the end of the initiative. There is also one more instance where rent control is mentioned. Art. 1 Sec. 19 (b) (3) (iii) of the the Californian Constitution would read:

regulation of the ownership, occupancy or use of privately owned real property or associated property rights in order to transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the property owner.

That paragraph is the only section in the proposed amendment that mentions rent control. The amendment contains 24 paragraphs; 23 of them deal with eminent domain reform. The stated purpose of Prop. 98 furthers the perception that the anti-rent control measure is tacked on. No where in Section 2 Statement of Purpose is rent control mentioned. Paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) all involve eminent domain. Why isn’t rent control mentioned in the “Statement of Purpose?”

Perhaps there is no “secret agenda” behind Prop. 98 and the main purpose of it is to pass eminent domain reform, but then why is rent control tacked onto it? Eminent domain and rent control are two different issues. The anti-rent control portion is a rider and its inclusion makes the entire purpose of the initiative suspect. If interest groups want to eliminate rent control then they should create a separate initiative that puts the decision clearly before the voters. Proposition 98 is nothing more than a lame attempt to deceive voters and sneak in a controversial issue.