Political Column # 123 – How shall I trust thee? A sequel

Last month, my column “How might I tax thee? Let me count the ways.” presented a litany of new taxes, bonds and fees that were being considered in San Diego County. We follow, this month, with an exploration of blunders, back-alley deals, unnecessary legal expenses and failed financial management that helped lead to a gross shortage of funds to cover normal municipal expenses. We ask: How do we trust them to clean up their act before hitting on the public to cover the impact of their misdeeds.

Published in the RB News Journal and Poway News Chieftain on April 18, 2024

How shall I trust thee? A Sequel

As I expected, the response to last month’s column on taxes, fees, and bonds garnered wide support. Why would the general populous embrace sending more money to the government? That, of course, is a preposterous question. All governments are supported, in some way, by the people. When there is not enough money, the people bear the cost in lower services or inferior infrastructure. At least, that’s what our government leaders tell us.

As documented last month, our city, county, and school agencies are pushing and fighting for a place in line to grab some more of our money, threatening to reduce services and infrastructure that are already acknowledged to be sub-standard. And we are being asked to trust that they will use this money better this time, with nothing to demonstrate that they have learned anything from their past errors or misdeeds.

What’s the saying? “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” In a clear illustration of naivety, our governments expect that we will answer the call for more taxes and fees and that the people believe this time will be different. Well, maybe not. Most of the recent tax and bond requests have failed to garner sufficient votes and the current stream of public commentary has not indicated a significant change of heart.

In fact, the only chance for these pending propositions and measures is that the bar will be lowered for passage. Bills proposing such change are in the works in Sacramento. So agencies are proceeding to propose the taxes/bonds with the hope that they can pass with as low as a 50% vote.

With options between higher taxes or lower services, the people have little choice. But why are we not looking at a third option? Why are we not demanding that the agencies have better financial performance? Why are the good people of San Diego willing to accept government practices that would put a private business into bankruptcy or incarceration? 

Politics is not part of my skill set. But Business and Financial Management are. Viewing the performance of most of the local agencies through a business lens, we see a litany of failures, many of which are repeated, as if nothing went wrong before. Most of these failures have been enormously costly, with taxpayers picking up the bill.

In San Diego, the city, already carrying the inglorious title of “Enron by the Sea,” has topped that by making the real estate blunder of the century (at 101 Ash Street), only to be repeated by buying hotels (to address the homeless issues) at inflated prices. In both cases, the city was not only duped on pricing, but accepted guidance from “experts” that were profiting from their “advice.” And what kind of nincompoop would put the city at risk by buying uninspected property?

The Mayor seems more interested in building a legacy, first by attempting to create a new grand City Center (with the Ash Street property included). This had no financing behind it and it fell flat when no one responded to the invitation to participate. Now, we are asked to turn our attention to a new grand Ocean Beach Pier, as if that is the highest on our list of needs. Can we at least get our priorities straight?

Do we actually have a business manager in San Diego? Do our agencies employ Best Practices? Are we overpaying for labor, non-competitive contracts, and non-competitive extras? 

How much are we paying out in legal fees and judgments due to avoidable deaths in jails and misbehavior by Peace Officers and other government employees?

Why does the San Diego Housing Commission have 22 Vice-presidents in their organization chart? That defies all best practices in organizational design, What is this costing in excessive highly-paid positions? Is the government bloated with unnecessary patronage jobs?

It is obvious that there is a lack of performance and transparency in many of our agencies. SANDAG is an important county agency that fails to meet the public trust. Major issues occur far too often to be an accident. The latest brouhaha regarding toll collection on the South Bay Expressway reflects a long period of malfeasance and lack of transparency. The toll system contract was surely mismanaged and cost the county dearly.

All these issues reflect the absence of accountability. Money is being spent where not necessary or to cover mistakes. Is anyone ever penalized for poor performance or poor management of contracts? Are projects ever evaluated and terminated if they no longer meet expected goals?

Why is San Diego awarding huge contracts to assess street repair needs and determine a trash collection price? That information is readily available. I pay a private hauler $20 a month. Why should the city (a non-profit) be looking at way more than that? Why are they paying millions to figure it out and to “sell” the eventual pricing to the public?

The city and county have plans to add sales taxes and parcel taxes to cover budget shortages caused, at least in part, by their own performance deficiencies, or failure to apply special tax funds to original purposes. Now they want us to trust them that this time it will be different. 

Due, in part, to current state funding policies, shrinking attendance, and a huge maintenance backlog, the Poway Unified School District, also, is considering adding to its bond obligations. Since PUSD has current obligations that stretch out to 2051, any additional bonds will be added to our property tax bills. They are not replacing expiring bonds.

Our governments have let us down. Between back-alley deals, lack of transparency, poor fiscal management, lack of due diligence, and overall poor business performance, San Diego City and County and PUSD have failed to provide needed services and have squandered taxpayer dollars.

I expect that the voters would like to see corrections to these deficiencies before supporting additional tax burdens.

Political Column # 122 – By What Means Shall We Perish?

While working on drafts of several topics, my mind kept coming back to the frightening state of affairs that makes all of the other topics miniscule by comparison. Then I came across a NY Times article, that had picked up on an early Lincoln speech that encouraged me to write what really was in my mind. It is, indeed, a clarion call of a danger that eclipses most of the many that we face.

Published in the RB News Journal & Poway News Chieftain on February 15, 2024.

By what means shall we perish?

Is it okay if I quote something that was already quoted? Jamelle Bouie, writing for the New York Times, is exceptionally qualified to express his thoughts in his own words. But on Feb. 2, he got hung up on the magnificent prose of Abraham Lincoln and he let a young Abe, 28 at the time, make his case.

From among the bevy of notable speeches, Bouie selected a speech that was inspired by the 1836 lynching of Francis McIntosh, a free Black man, in St. Louis as well as an outbreak of mob violence in Mississippi. Lincoln was serving his second term in the Illinois Legislature.

The overarching point of Lincoln’s speech was the threat of social disorder brought on by unregulated passion, Bouie said.

I hope I am over wary; but if I am not, there is, even now, something of ill omen, amongst us. I mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions, in lieu of the sober judgment of courts; and the worse than savage mobs, for the executive ministers of justice. This disposition is awfully fearful in any community; and that it now exists in ours, though grating to our feelings to admit, it would be a violation of truth, and an insult to our intelligence, to deny.

Bouie sees Lincoln referring to the primary threat to America’s political institutions, with a mob spirit, as well as the grasping desire of ambitious men.

Bouie continues with one of his favorite lines from any Lincoln address. It is an observation about the United States of his day that still applies to our present.

At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some trans-Atlantic military giant, to step the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

Imagine the message here (me speaking now). With all the efforts to fend off threats from abroad — with all the money and lives spent on national defense, are we to be undone by our own hand?

Do we, within us, have the ability to right the ship, yet choose to navigate blindly into a tar pit? Disregard for the law, wild and furious passions, savage mobs, will that be our fatal undoing?

There was a time when politics was an honorable endeavor. As the electorate, we rallied behind patriots committed to maintain safety and prosperity for a nation that believed in following the Golden Rule.

To participate in an election, these days, is a sad exercise. How are we to put our trust in people who, as our elected lawmakers, show unbridled disdain for the law? How are we to respect lawmakers, such as in the Oregon Senate, who rather than do their duty, repeatedly walked out of the chamber, to avoid participating in productive legislating?

Is the thirst for a particular policy so compelling that we close our eyes to the grossest behavior? What is victory at the cost of honor? Why would we willingly choose to contribute to our own demise?

This is the year, and the season, where we have the opportunity to decide if the country will die by its own hand. We get to decide who we send to City Hall, Sacramento and Washington, D.C.

We need to see through the obfuscation. We need to override the impact of the money and political power to support candidates who will do what’s right for all of us. We are the nation’s best defense against the enemy — which is us.

As we choose candidates for office, at any level, we must go beyond rating for ability to do the job and loyalty to the party. For as long as we wish to remain a democracy, there are greater loyalties. None more important than to our Constitution. None more important than by ALL people, for ALL people.

Great leadership, sorely needed in these times, will have the skills and desire to seek a coalescence of views rather than embracing laws that favor one group over another. Throughout the world, today, there are elements locked into mortal combat — committed to fight to the death rather than find common ground.

But we need not look beyond our shores to know that we suffer from a similar affliction. By what means shall we perish? Will our tombstone read “Here lies American Democracy, a victim of its own vanity, dead by its own hand?”

Political Column # 121 – What’s Fair for Utility & Solar Pricing

In December, I posted a column that I had published in the main San Diego newspaper, on some paradigm shifts in how Californian’s will be paying for electricity and get reimbursed for sending excess energy from solar panels back into the system. I followed up with a column in my usual local newspapers (printed below) that continued the discussion on the concept of Income-based pricing for utilities and the solar reimbursement policy. This is followed by a letter clarifying some later changes that had skipped my attention. This is an ever-changing subject that is getting greater scrutiny in the State Legislature and is likely to experience some pull-back.

Most interesting is that since these were published, several state legislators have come around to ask the same questions, and to react to a notable backlash from the public. They are even asking the same questions, using identical wording as I used in the columns.

Published in the RB News Journal and Poway News Chieftain on January 18, 2024

What’s Fair for Utility and Solar Pricing?

The public has been getting an earful about pricing of electricity and credits to solar overproducers. The subject has been in the news for over two years, and the public’s interest is rising.

Yet it’s difficult to sort out all the claims and to figure out who the winners and losers are. I’ve been studying the topic and reported on it last April and May in two “Just Sayin’” columns, as well as my opinion piece in the Union-Tribune on Dec. 14.

I’ve revisited the topic and sorted out the issues, who wins, and who gets hurt by changes being passed by the California Public Utility Commission. Two specific policies are being changed. The first one went into effect on April 15, 2023. The second is in review, with a target decision by July 1, 2024.

NET 3.0: This is the third iteration of the Net Electric Metering rules. This applies to solar users only and determines how homeowners with “rooftop” solar will be reimbursed when their system produces more than their draw from the utility.

Earlier versions required the utility to pay oversized solar producers at the same “retail price” that they charge for electricity delivered. Note: this refers only to the electricity generation charges, not the electricity transportation and delivery charges, which are listed separately.

The utilities argue that they should only have to pay the “avoided cost;” that is, how much the utility would have to pay to buy or produce the electricity. This is different from the retail price that SDG&E puts on the product. The CPUC has supported that argument, and the new pricing rule is in effect for solar owners who activated their systems after April 15, 2023.

Prior owners are grandfathered by the previous rules for 20 years from when their system was put into operation.

While solar users have generally been against NET 3.0, there is reasonable justification for the change in policy. Owners of extra large systems had calculated a return on investment that counted on making money on the overproduction. But there is a reasonable argument that the public should not be in the power generation business and that the pricing policies should draw the line at paying no more than the avoided cost.

What is extremely puzzling, however, is the difference between Avoided Cost and Retail Price (reported to be about 8 cents and 30 cents, respectively). SDG&E says that this difference covers assorted fees, taxes, and public programs. They are adamant that it does not add profit (which is prohibited by law on the electrical generation portion of the bill).

The details have been elusive. The public is entitled to know how these add-ons can almost quadruple the cost.

Income-based pricing for electricity: Assembly Bill 205 was passed by the state Legislature and signed into law on June 30, 2023. A section of that bill instructs the CPUC to invite proposals and select a revised model for billing for electricity.

Currently, electricity is almost entirely priced on usage. The utilities argue that solar users are not contributing their fair share for the costs of the infrastructure for delivering electricity to the users. AB-205 would establish a base rate that all utility customers would pay, regardless of use. The model reduces the price per KwH so that the average, non-solar customer would come out about even.

However, this would negatively impact solar owners, who could be paying as much as $1,536 a year in fixed charges, without using a single KwH of SDG&E’s electricity (in the model submitted by SDG&E).

AB-205 further stipulates that the new “fixed charges” shall be in three or more steps, based on family income. Very low-income users would have a fixed charge that would replace the special low fees established in two current state programs for low-income families (CARE and FERA). Higher fees would be established for middle-income and high-income families.

In this case, theoretically, non-solar middle-income people would pay about the same as before, with lower KwH charges offsetting the new fixed charge. Higher-income people would be required to carry a larger burden, for the same product (income-based pricing).

This is a paradigm shift in how people are charged for products and services. It is inexcusable for the Legislature to mandate such a huge economic policy shift without an extensive discussion with all stakeholders. Yet, this mandate was slipped into a bill that was primarily dealing with different issues and most of the public and even many of the legislators never had a chance to review and comment.

Winners and Losers: The proposed model, likely to be adopted, will adversely impact ALL high-income families and ALL solar owners. On the winning side will be political liberals who wish to move closer to a progressive “pay what you can” economic model, and the utilities, who will be able to increase their investment in solar production, allowing them to “earn” a greater profit.

SDG&E argues vehemently that the new pricing model is “profit neutral.” However, the combination of NET 3.0 and AB-205 will have the devastating effect of virtually canceling the incentive for homeowners to invest in solar. The utilities will, by design, pick up the slack.

SDG&E wants to be the only producer of solar. They make a profit on the value of their investment.

AB-205 says that the new fixed-pricing model shall not deter from the state mandate to reduce carbon-based generation of electricity or to reverse incentives for homeowner solar. This is ignored by the proposed models. Recent studies indicate that the solar industry will be virtually destroyed, with as much as a 75% loss of solar providers. This will also leave current owners without a source for maintenance of their units.

The proposed plans make no significant changes to the utility charges for low-income families. However, there is a view that since only rich people can afford solar, they can handle the revised pricing model. This is an outrageous form of discrimination and is patently wrong.

The impacts of AB-205 on most electricity customers will be far-reaching, with most of the public coming out on the short end. A model with a much smaller fixed-price billing component would be fairer to most stakeholders, including solar owners and the utilities.

Update on ‘Just Sayin’ column of Jan. 18

Letter to Editor, February 1, 2024

My column was not fully up to date on the proposals that have been made in response to Assembly Bill 205. The column reported that AB-205 requires a restructuring of electric billing that would implement an Income-Graduated Fixed Charge (IGFC), combined with a reduced per kilowatt fee.

Several sources have posited that it would be extremely difficult to design and implement a system that was dependent on access to and verification of family incomes. There have been revised submittals of the IGFC proposals that limit the fixed fee to just “low-income” and “all other.”

The bottom line is that the CPUC is going ahead with the fixed charge component of AB-205, but is likely to delay the Income-Graduated part, except for low income. The adverse impact to solar users remains.

There are others beside myself, including many in the state Legislature, that agree that the concept of income-based pricing is worthy of a dedicated conversation, rather than being buried in an obscure segment of a larger bill. With the realization that implementation of such a policy would be extremely complicated, it looks as if there will be an opportunity to give it the careful examination that it is due.

Political Column #120 (U-T)- Income Based Pricing: Did the State Think this Through?

This column represents a breakthrough. It was published by the San Diego Union Tribune — the daily newspaper serving an area of over 3 million people. It was their featured article in the editorial section. The issue involves a California law that directs the state’s utilities to impose a monthly fixed fee for electric service, independent of the usage, and that the fee be varied according to income levels.

The progressive legislature of California, driven by a mission to serve a large income-challenged population, is joined here by a profit-driven group of utilities who will benefit from the loss of incentives for rooftop solar by homeowners. Questions arise both about the imposed shift in solar ownership from homeowners to the utilities (who can make a profit on the investment), and the first step in an economic paradigm shift to income-based pricing.

Published in the San Diego Union Tribune on December 14, 2023

Income-based Pricing: Did the State Think this Through?

OK, Costco fans, what do you think of this? You drop into your local Costco to grab a roasted chicken. You know, the rotisserie bird that will set you back a mere $4.99 for several good meals. But something has changed. The sign above the shelves says: “Roasted Chickens — $10.99 for high-income families, $7.99 for middle-income families and free to low-income families.”

Low-income families would have an allocation of one free chicken per week. There would have to be a universal database to track low-income chicken buyers. And, of course, we would all have to carry a copy of our last income tax report, sitting in our wallets next to our COVID-19 vaccination record.

But that’s not all. Upon leaving the Costco store, you stop by the gas pumps. They have been changed. Instead of the traditional different prices, by grade, there are now three prices by income level, for the same product. Now, by the way, the system has been upgraded so that your Costco card has a record of your tax status.

Could this scenario become a reality? Left to the crafty minds at SDG&E, the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) and your elected legislators in Sacramento, the first step toward income-based pricing is about to be thrust upon an unsuspecting public.

Although making the news way back in the spring, the general public is just getting around to realizing the pricing model for electricity is about to be drastically redesigned.

SDG&E is a target of growing animosity towards this plan, as it should be. However, this impending calamity is actually the result of devious collusion by a cabal made up of the state’s three investor-owned utilities plus the CPUC and the California Legislature.

It would appear that our legislators, via Assembly Bill 205 — signed into law on June 30, 2022 — have decided that electricity is an essential commodity that requires the government to assure that it is available to all regardless of ability to pay. That is an understandable position in a state where progressive attitudes, leaning toward social justice, prevail.

Of course, the government doesn’t pay for our electricity. It just directs others how to pay. That’s you and me, folks. AB 205 directs the CPUC to select from suggested models proposed by various stakeholders. The prevailing model is the one proposed by the three big utilities.

The utilities don’t really care about how their income is sourced. But they do have an underlying strategy to limit the economic rewards to individual owners of rooftop solar. Every kilowatt of electricity produced by homeowners hurts the utilities’ bottom line. This has been recently disclosed to the public, with SDG&E officials noting that their profits are limited to a percentage of their infrastructure investments. The utilities wish to be the sole owners of solar facilities. They make a profit on this and none on homeowner solar.

The SDG&E model would have three monthly fixed fees for all users, in addition to the per-kilowatt fee (which would be reduced). There would be a very low fee for low-income families. Mid-income would pay $73 a month ($876 annually). Higher income families would be charged $128 a month, in addition to their usage charges. This would add $1,536 per year to the higher group, even if they didn’t use a single kilowatt of electricity off of the grid.

In some eyes, the view is, “they can afford it.” But it certainly will tick people off when they made big investments in solar with savings expectations that will no longer be realized because of the added fixed fees. Then, there is the question of punishing people who thought that they were doing the right thing, ecologically.

This brilliant deception by the cabal raises several philosophical questions and exposes major ground faults in our governance of essential goods and services.

AB 205 is the type of bill that is a catch-all for several seemingly small items, many of which are inserted late in the process and are not fully vetted by the legislators when they vote. How they can change the pricing model for electricity without an openly researched study of its systemic implications boggles the mind. But this apparently was the case.

The CPUC has been charged, by the Legislature, with the responsibility of selecting the new pricing model. Its board members are appointed by the governor and often are either people who have come out of the utility industry or are outgoing state executives looking for new jobs. Are these the best people to trust with the interests of the general public?

An income-based pricing model opens up a major can of worms. Where would this be applied? How deeply would it spread? When the progressive model of graduated income taxes spreads to include graduated pricing, does this move the paradigm from a reasonable sharing of the wealth to being penalized for wealth?

Might we be concerned that this compassionate concept of income-based pricing can become an absolute nightmare? I have to wonder if the folks that we sent to Sacramento have actually considered all the implications. Meanwhile, SDG&E is laughing all the way to the bank. It claims that the new model is income-neutral. But by shunning solar power generated by homeowners, SDG&E’s profits grow. It’s all smoke and mirrors.

Political Column #119 – A Milestone and a Reflection

The milestone, six years of doing these columns, is marked by a re-publication of the first column that I did for these newspapers. There is not a word that I had to change for it to be appropriate for today. This week also marks the start of a new publishing relationship. After several denials, the San Diego Union-Tribune accepted a 900 word essay on a significant California issue, and it was published on December 18th. I will post it separately. Also this week, the San Diego U-T accepted a letter to the editor, which will be published on December 22nd. And to top off a crazy week of writing events, an old client, who has moved to a new firm, has just invited me to create some e-books for their website on the subject of Earned Value Management. This will be an income opportunity.

Published in the RB News Journal and Poway News Chieftain on December 21, 2023.

A Milestone and a Reflection

This month marks the completion of six years of writing in this space. One hundred and nineteen columns. I hadn’t intended to focus on political opinion. That just happened because the RB and Poway newspapers had been featuring alternating pieces by a left leaning and a right leaning contributor and one of them moved away.

What started all of this for me was an unsolicited essay that I wrote, called “I wish I Understood.” Six years later, I find that not much has changed except that our obsession to focus on identity and differences has intensified. We grow further apart, less tolerant, and more burdened by misdirected anger.

So, in the hope that perhaps it can inspire an effort to reverse this unproductive behavior, I’m offering this original column for a second reading.

  I Wish I Understood (January 5, 2017)

  We can’t help but get caught up these days in the dialog (perhaps rather cacophony) about DIFFERENCES. We are continually confronted with issues of difference. Differences in race and/or religion. Differences in political preferences. Differences in sexual orientation. Differences in economic status and policy. Differences in nationalities and citizen status. Opportunities for differentiation are virtually unlimited. In theory, we are a richer nation because of these differences. In practice, however, these have become the basis for exploding levels of intolerance and malicious behavior. Diversity has become a euphemism for “people who are not like us.”

  So, after an overdose of news about such things, and occasionally personally coming face to face with these issues, I am spending more time lately in trying to sort this mess out. Why are we, a basically open and welcoming civilization, failing so badly in our relationships? What are we doing wrong?

  As a former boy scout and boy scout leader, I always believed that there was a very significant item missing from the ten parts of the Boy Scout Oath. It is “A Scout is Tolerant”. Recognizing organized scouting’s intolerance for freedom of religious preference and sexual orientation, I guess that might explain the omission. But that’s a topic for another time.

  I always had this thinking that TOLERANCE was the answer for much of what is wrong with our dealing with differences. If we could just be accepting, the issues would go away. So it was fine with me if you were a different color, if you wore something on your head, had nose and belly button rings, favored heavy metal, or rooted for the Oakland Raiders. Not my cup of tea. But, I’m okay with it. How you feel about God is your business. Just don’t push it in my face.

  But I am so wrong about this. Tolerance doesn’t come anywhere close to addressing the issues. We can’t just be accepting. We have to UNDERSTAND. Our attitudes and preferences are not always freely chosen. Many traits are with us at birth, such as race and gender. Most are imprinted on us by cultural influences. We develop our individual personalities and preferences as we mature and learn to cope with our personal universes. The way we act and react is often scripted by our experiences and expectations. We must resist the tendency to be judgmental, until we dig deeper – to understand the history of each individual and the circumstances that conditioned their persona. It goes way further than “Can’t we all get along.” It’s more closely to “Walk a little in my shoes, see what I see, hear what I hear, feel what I feel. Then maybe you will understand why I am the way I am.”

  Knowing how other people feel is important. Understanding what makes them feel that way is even more important. We need to open up. We need to take the time to see people on their turf, to learn their history, to understand their needs and fears. And as we learn more, we need to get rid of those filters that tend to select what we already profess as the truth and recognize a wider reality.

  I can’t count the number of times, regretfully, that I reacted to things that I saw without fully understanding the background for the action. It is so easy to make assumptions without full knowledge. To be judgmental without placing one’s self in the other’s shoes. And it is so wrong to be that way.

  It won’t be easy. We’ll hardly make a dent in the animus that permeates our world. But, if we can hold back just a bit on thinking that we know everything and concentrate on being more understanding, perhaps we can turn the corner. I’ll end with one more quotation. “The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step”.

As we enter a new year, surrounded by madness within and abroad, can we turn to each other and lean upon what we share as individuals, rather than building silos of assigned identities. Let’s get to know each other better.

Political Column #118 – Are Bonds the Best Way to Fund School Infrastructure?

In California, the law limits property taxes to one percent of assessed value. This is the infamous Proposition 13. A way around this limit is to borrow money and issue bonds to pay it back. The bond payments are added to the tax bill. Bonds are traditionally considered to be a reasonable way to pay for new construction and major projects. What is questioned here is the use of bonds to pay for ongoing facility maintenance.

Published in the RB News Journal and Poway News Chieftain on November 16, 2023.

Are Bonds the Best Way to Fund School Infrastructure?

It appears that many local property owners are confused about the School Bond line item on their annual property tax bills. One angry homeowner wrote on Nextdoor about a supposedly new tax and assumed that it was the start of the 18-year payback period for the PUSD bond issue of 2012. Then one of my neighbors stopped me in the street to ask if I had seen the letter accompanying my tax bill. He saw a $800 item for School Bonds and a note that some unexpected increases might be due to school bond increases. Well, in the words of Ira Gershwin “It ain’t necessarily so.”

I looked at my bill, which included a $700 School Bond charge. It didn’t seem to be abnormal, so I dug up the bills for the prior three years and noted that the School Bond charge was about the same over the past four years. A little research showed that the subject Capital Appreciation Bond of 2012 has zero annual payment until 2033, ten years hence. I believe that most of us, unless subject to a significant assessment change, will be seeing a current year school bond charge in the same ballpark as recent years.

Many of you may remember the ruckus when PUSD pulled a borrowing act that was later considered to be so unsavory that a law was passed in Sacramento prohibiting such extended payment bonds in the future. The issue with such bonds is that the payback is delayed, vastly increasing the total amount of interest, and pushing the tax consequences down the road to future generations of taxpayers. In this case, PUSD got the money ten years ago, but won’t start paying for the loan for another ten years. We’ll be seeing that tax on our property tax bills from 2033 to 2051.

While many PUSD taxpayers might have been mistaken about the charge on their recent tax bill, their anger was not necessarily misdirected. I will try to shed some light on this.

There are currently four other bonds (exclusive of Mello-Roos bonds) that are active and are scheduled for repayment in 2027, 2030, 2031 and 2033. This probably explains why the payments for the 2012 bond were delayed until 8/1/33. These other bonds are what we are paying for in our current tax bills. But it would be foolhardy to believe that there would be no new bonds requested in the next ten years?

We have already seen attempts to borrow additional funding (PUSD Measure P, on the March 2020 ballot, was defeated with 50.35% in favor, but 55% required to pass), and there is no reason to believe that living on borrowed money won’t continue to be standard procedure. What this means is that when the 2012 bond payments become due in 2033, they will be on top of anticipated future outstanding bond obligations.

Now it’s only fair to ask what is behind this ongoing need to borrow money. As I understand it, the schools get funding, primarily from the state, with some coming from federal and local tax sources. Virtually every dollar is earmarked (restricted) for specific expenses, outlined in various programs.

What is missing from the operating budget is ongoing infrastructure improvements, maintenance and replacement (I/M/R). Generally accepted financial practices recommend that ongoing maintenance and replacement be included directly in the operating budget or in a reserve account that is funded from the operating budget. This is the only sound way to assure that the capital assets, such as school facilities are maintained. In a normal world, it should not be necessary to borrow money to replace an A/C system, or replenish desks or light bulbs, or paint buildings. But that’s not the way that it works at PUSD, and other schools. Another example of shortsightedness is the new state program for Pre-kindergarten. The state provides funding for the program, but not for the infrastructure required for the extra classes.

Since there are no programs that earmark funds for I/M/R, school districts have to find the money somewhere else, and bonds are the vehicle of choice. My project management experience requires that I reject this philosophy. But the realities of current funding legislation suggests that using bonds for I/M/R may be the only way out. Proposition 13 limits the total property tax to one percent of assessed value. If the money for I/M/R can’t come out of that one percent, (or the state) the last resort is bonds. By law, the payment of the bonds can be added to the one percent. If you look at your tax bill, you’ll see some other added taxes for the Zoo, Health care and a college district. The school bonds are just another add-on.

I personally would like to see the I/M/R as a planned item in the operating budget. However, as long as the school districts have this other sourcing available (assuming that the voting public approves), it looks like we will all be looking at continued bonding and increasing taxing for this purpose.

PUSD would be wise to recognize that they risk taxpayer resistance if they do not address this issue well before the tax bump hits in 2033. Any new bonds will add to the impact of the deceptively delayed payment bond of 2012. Meanwhile, it would seem appropriate to get the Governor, Superintendent of Public Instruction and State Legislature to look at ways to get funding for I/M/R into the ongoing operating budgets of the school districts.

(Note: PUSD was invited to contribute to and comment on this column, but did not respond.)

Political Column # 117 – Who should Select the City Attorney?

In the City of San Diego, the City Attorney is an elected position. The City Attorney Office has two separate key functions. There is a prosecutor’s division that handles local misdemeanors and parking infractions, and a legal section that advises the Mayor and City Council. The City Council president has suggested that the latter function be removed from the elected position and the the legal section head (Municipal Counsel) be appointed by the City Council.

Published in the RB News Journal and Poway News Chieftain on October 19th, 2023

Who should select the City Attorney?

October has started out with a bang, as far as politics is concerned. Activity in Washington and Sacramento might have taken most of our attention if it were not for several high-impact issues here in San Diego. Two major items caught my attention. The City Council voted 6 to 3 to impose an almost 20% increase in water fees, to be phased in over the next 15 months. I have some views on this which I’ll cover in a future column. We also have a controversy brewing regarding whether to make significant structural changes to the City Attorney’s office.

The San Diego City Council is behind a proposal to divide the City Attorney job into two components. The Criminal section would remain under an elected position, still called City Attorney, or perhaps City Prosecutor. The Civil section (Municipal Counsel) would be under the direct control of the City Council. Key voices are lining up on both sides of the issue, which will require a ballot measure to amend the City Charter.

The City Rules Committee (made up of five council members) was preparing to support the measure but was sidetracked by a memorandum (MS 59 9/20/23) from current City Attorney, Mara Elliott, who was highly critical of the move. They have rightfully decided to study the issue further in light of the controversy.

At issue is the perceived independence of an appointed Municipal Counsel. Perhaps, in a perfect world, it would make sense for lawyers in the Mayor’s office to provide the legal guidance needed for activities under the Mayor’s or City Council’s purview. However, past practices present a picture of a Mayor or City Council frequently attempting to do an end-run around potential legal obstacles. Would the Municipal Counsel, who owes that appointment to the City Council, have the freedom to stand in the way of such attempts to circumvent the law? Currently, the City Attorney serves as a watchdog over city practices. Would this oversight role disappear under the proposed structure?

Our democratic government is built upon a foundation of laws. But sometimes the law stands in the way of a proposed action. Certainly, there would be consequences of not having the protection and guidance of the law. This proposal, proffered as a more efficient way to provide non-conflicting counsel, might also be looked at as a power play.

So while the Municipal Counsel would likely be providing legal guidance, that role needs to include legal oversight as well. And that is where the lack of independence may well be a problem.

Mara Elliott’s concerns over the proposed Charter amendments have merit. However, retaining the position as an elected office is not without potential shortcomings. A vote of the people is only effective if the people are able to make an informed choice. Frankly, how many voters are reasonably knowledgeable of the position and of the candidates’ qualifications and political views?

The office of City Attorney is not (or at least should not be) subject to political party preference. The law is colorblind, neither red nor blue. Would the City Council be equally as colorblind in its selection of an attorney?Voters need to put aside party preferences and look at the candidates based on their record.

The San Diego County Bar Association conducts evaluations of candidates running in contested judicial elections. But not for the City Attorney or District Attorney. Perhaps this omission should be rectified.

There are other sources for evaluation of candidates. We should be able to make judgments based on hearing and reading statements and commentary from the media and the candidates themselves. We can gain insight by observing the various endorsements for the candidates. But these may be prejudiced, as some groups might benefit from one candidate over another. This is not consistent with neutrality objectives.

The Union-Tribune reports that both candidates for City Attorney in 2024, Heather Ferbert and Brian Maienschein, are among several current and former office holders in favor of retaining the current City Attorney structure. There are some that find merit with the proposed change, including Congressman Scott Peters.

As Ms. Ferbert, currently Chief Deputy City Attorney for San Diego, explained it to me “Taking away the public’s right to vote is bad enough since no election means no accountability, no term limits, no salary restrictions, no requirement that San Diego’s city attorney even be a resident of San Diego. But no election also means no independence for an office created to be just that – independent from the other elected city officials – and that’s what’s most troubling.”

The City Attorney is a partner in governance and has an important role in providing advice and counsel. These aspects of the job must be balanced. Among the qualities that we should consider are (1) a record of unblemished integrity, (2) a rating of “Exceptionally or Well Qualified” as an attorney, and (3) evidence of leadership skills. Running the City’s legal department is challenging and should be free of political pressures and free from power plays by the Mayor’s office or the City Council. If and when a City Charter amendment appears on a future ballot, we should keep these considerations in mind. Recognizing the past instances where attempts were made to circumvent the law strongly suggests that the position of City Attorney needs to maintain some independence from and oversight over the Mayor and City Council. It should remain an elected office. And the voters must make the effort to make an informed choice.

Political Column #116 – Today’s politics are Harming us

This is my regular column for September, on my usual platform. The header is inspired by the Doctor’s Hippocratic Oath “First, Do No Harm.” The response has been very positive. It seems to reflect where most voters are these days, frustrated with negativism and the lack of a mechanism to break out of the deadlock.

Published in the RB News Journal and the Poway News Chieftain on September 19th.

Today’s politics are Harming us

Regardless of our political inclination, it’s clear that extremism is dominating policy making. Our feelings are so strong that there is no room for other views. With no interest in negotiation or compromise in our legislative bodies, the power brokers often shut the door to discussion even within the party group.

Voters and legislators are positive that their positions represent what is best for the people. The problem is “what people.” The problem is that no one seems to consider the “other people.” It’s like a war, or a sporting event, where there are winners and losers. Does anyone care about the people on the other side? Does anyone look at a policy and ask “how does this create harm and to whom?” Does anyone think to look at ways to mitigate that pending harm? Is winning at any cost a worthy strategy for a caring nation?

The founding fathers, in designing a Constitution of/by/for the people, struggled with many of the very issues that we face today. By frank and open discussion, they carefully considered the ramification of their positions. They knew that they could not resolve all the underlying differences. Large states vs. small. Slave states vs. Free. Agriculture vs. Industrial. States Rights vs. Federalism. 

Had each delegate fought for everything that he wanted, we would still be governed by the Articles of Confederation – readily acknowledged to be wholly inadequate for a democratic republic. But they asked the hard questions. They bent where they had to, for the sake of the nation and the common good. Most of them accepted being beaten down on some preferred positions, realizing the importance of the gift that they were about to bestow on an emerging, diverse nation.

Today, 236 years later, this experiment in democracy has weathered internal and external attacks, and stands as a shining light in the face of growing totalitarianism and intolerance of diversity. However, the greatest tests to sustaining this democracy are now before us. We face a crippling intolerance of ideas, philosophies and needs that are not in line with our own. We are building silos of communication sources that ensure that these differences are filtered out of our hearing. We willingly succumb to propositions that are not supported by reality. 

Today’s “my way or the highway” mentality rejects the aim of serving the common good, but rather willingly inflicts harm upon any excluded group. It is quite clear that our legislating bodies, at all levels, have fallen into this trap – to win at all costs – without consideration of the harm inflicted upon the “losers.”

How have we lost the promise to be a nation for all? Do we actually have a government “of the people, by the people, for the people?” Can we still rightfully call ourselves the ”United States?” 

Surely, the differences between us are not new. The challenges to bridge the divide go back well before the exodus from foreign lands where justice and inclusion were not written into law. But, some time ago, we pledged to be a nation that would bridge this divide. That dedication has dissolved into petty politics and personal vendettas. Lost is the obligation to serve the common good and to do no harm.

As I peruse my extensive news sources, I see this at all levels of government, and by all political persuasions. The Speaker of the House is threatened with expulsion by his own party if he does not support the extreme right. The California legislature spews out bill after bill that impose policies that are well out of reach of the localities and are insensitive to the needs and rights of the locals. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) insists on using a weighted voting model that mutes the voices of the smaller communities. 

The current tendency toward animus and inaction is harmful in two ways. Narrow-minded selfish legislation leaves large segments of the population in a losing position. Worse yet, is the failure to make any progress on burning issues, bringing harm to the greater masses. A key goal of politics is to promote reciprocal concessions.  Our compulsive roadblock on social issues diverts energy and resources from critical issues such as poverty, homelessness, immigration, etc. This, too, is harmful. 

It’s all about who can muster the power to impose their will. It’s politics at its worst. Frankly, I’m at a loss for how to climb out of this crevasse. I’d like to say that we ignore party preferences and support candidates who would pledge to support policies that are based on debate and compromise. Policies that promise to do no harm and to support the common good. But that would apparently be like swimming upstream during a flood. 

As a nation of elected executives and legislators, of a strong judiciary, and an empowered voting public, it is imperative that we work to resist the natural inclination to defend one’s position at all costs. We need to recognize and accept the value of mutually achieved accommodations – to acknowledge that compromise need not be thought of as capitulation. 

We are at an inflection point. Unless we are ready to accept a totalitarian leadership with widespread exclusion of the masses (that means us), we must, with pen and ballot, exercise the power granted by the Constitution to promote candidates who would break the deadlock and commit to a platform based on justice and inclusion. A platform to support the common good and to do no harm.

Trump-Biden: The Week that the Earth’s Axis Shifted

Breaking News! I have added a new publication to send my opinion pieces. The “Times of San Diego” is a full-time, on-line publication that has a reader focus on all of San Diego County.

I was looking for a place where I could send current items of interest, without waiting for my regular monthly time slot. In this case, I had composed a brief commentary on the Biden/Trump contest, primarily in response to the in-depth interview of Trump by Kristen Welker, new moderator of Meet the Press.

Of particular interest to me was the declaration by Trump of his support for a compromise on abortion, suggesting that there should be an accommodation of the minds on all sides, and calling for a 15 week (more or less) cut-off for abortions with allowance for exceptions for rape, incest or mother’s health. (see the article).

My immediate thoughts were “what a brilliant move.” Trump would appeal to the large segment of pro-choice Republicans – people who can’t vote for a Democrat, but would not vote for a pro-life Trump. This scares the hell out of me. Not that anyone can trust Trump to follow through on such a policy. All he cares about is getting elected. He was in over his head just trying to explain what he wanted.

But he did go out on a limb to strongly criticize DeSantis for his 6 week, no exceptions stance, thereby distancing himself from his closest challenger. Personally, I am worried that Trump may get away with this latest caper. Stranger things have happened.

Trump & Biden: The Week that the Earth’s Axis May Have Shifted

Published, on-line, in the “Times of San Diego”, September 19, 2023

Well, I didn’t mean that literally. There’s been no change on the earth’s gravity as of yet, except, perhaps, to the gravity of the next presidential election.

It’s been a week of events that are likely to have a strong impact on the 2024 expected contest between Trump and Biden. The latter, despite impressive leadership and accomplishments thus far in his first term, has struggled to gain traction for his run for a repeat. The opposition this past week has been piling on. First there were the ludacris moves to impeach Biden, presumably for misdeeds that have been implied, but not verified. This was quickly followed by the indictment of Hunter Biden, the troubled son of  the President – for gun charges that are verified and acknowledged.

If these historical behaviors were not enough to sink a candidate, Biden is also under suspicion for the mortal sin of aging. 

Meanwhile, the other old guy is putting up a strong fight, albeit in his atypical confrontational style. As the subject of an in-depth interview by Kristen Welker, newly anointed moderator of NBC’s Meet the Press, it appeared that Welker was pinning Trump down. Welker was thorough and tough and stuck to her talking points. But Trump would not back down and was a reasonable foil to Welker’s probing jabs.

Trump scored well in the round on abortion issues. He clearly refuted his own party for advocating extreme restrictions on abortion. He blasted DeSantis for his position of a six-week cut-off with no exceptions for rape, incest, or mother’s medical situation. Trump repeatedly supported the exceptions and suggested that all parties should come together to support a reasonable cut-off (about 15 weeks) as well as the aforementioned exceptions.

Trump resisted taking a position regarding federal or state control of abortion law, although repeatedly being pushed for a response from Welker. 

Overall, Trump seemed energized and sure of himself. Surprisingly, his make-up people failed to disguise the fact that even the macho man was showing his age. Baggy eyes and a sagging chin suggested a burden of age, as well, possibly, of indictment on 93 charges.

My personal take-away from the interview is that Trump’s position on abortion might hurt him a bit with his evangelical base, but would more than compensate for that by making himself acceptable to conservatives who are pro-choice.

It’s going to be a tough slog through the mud toward November 2024. But this past week, with a few points gained by Trump and with the Bidens under fire, I fear that a Democrat win is far from assured.

Political Column #115 – A Bridge Too Far

This column addresses issues that arise out of over-ambitious planning that promises to deliver benefits too far out in the distance to attract sufficient support for success. Recommendations are made to shift to smaller gains in shorter durations, coupled with a change in persuasion methods from sticks to carrots.

Published in the RB News Journal and Poway News Chieftain on August 17, 2023

A Bridge Too Far

Union-Tribune columnist Michael Smolens and I have both written on the same subject this week, and independently used the same term “A bridge too far.” Our concern is that certain proposed actions may require changes that go beyond reasonable acceptability by the public.

While Smolens focused on controversial initiatives on housing, this column widens the topic to include other initiatives that offer questionable solutions for several nagging problems. Innovative proposals have been put forth to address environmental challenges, transit, and utilities, as well as housing.

It is admirable that our representatives in Sacramento, as well as the professionals at San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), are reacting to these challenges with bold, sea-change proposals and legislation. There is general agreement that maintaining the status quo is unacceptable. Nevertheless, these government institutions have often failed to recognize the likely backlash from a public that doesn’t want to give up their current ways. Human nature is a powerful force – not to be written off easily.

The latest backlash incident is the public’s reaction to Senate Bill 10. SB-10 allows local governments to override existing residential, single family zoning, by permitting the construction of up to ten residential units on a single lot. Such parcels must be located in high-transit areas or an urban infill site.

San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria intended to adopt the SB-10 option by including it in his proposed Housing Action Package 2.0 (HAP2). The city Planning Department held a public workshop in March, soliciting feedback from the community. In consideration of significant negative feedback, the Planning Commission voted on August 3 to approve HAP2 without including SB-10. A revised HAP2, without SB-10, will now go to the City Land Use and Housing Committee for review before a final vote by the City Council.

A similar reversal occurred in Carlsbad, as the City Council took a step back on their proposed ordinance to ban gas-powered appliances in new construction. Comparable legislation in Berkeley was overturned by a federal appeals court. Carlsbad is now thinking of urging 100% electrification, rather than forbidding gas.

In its 2021 Regional Transportation Plan, SANDAG responded to environmental challenges by proposing numerous paradigm changes in how San Diegians travel and how they pay for it. Two of the plan’s features have hit a brick wall. The plan called for requiring all vehicles to pay to use the highways, by imposing a Vehicle Miles Traveled fee. The VMT is actually being tested in parts of the state and is intended to reduce traffic congestion and help replace the loss in fuel taxes as we change to EVs. Response to the VMT concept was first embraced by the SANDAG board. However, as the time to vote on the plan approached, several board members, representing a majority of the weighted vote, got cold feet and requested that SANDAG (against the wishes of the Executive Director) remove the VMT from the plan. The board was reacting to an outpouring of negative feedback.

The plan also proposed three increases in the Sales Tax, in half-percent increments, that would be dedicated to the transportation projects. An effort, with big support from labor, business and environmental groups, to place a half-cent sales tax hike on the 2022 ballot was not able to garner enough signatures and never made it to the ballot.

What we are obviously seeing here is imbedded resistance to change and to new taxes and fees. As the consensus for change grows, the government responds with proposals for changes, including funding. When the people realize what is expected of them, they are not willing to go along.

There is no magic recipe to get around this conundrum. We are asked to make sacrifices where the benefits are too far in the future and too hard to relate to personal, current needs. SANDAG’s Executive Director, Hasan Ikhrata, promised that the VMT would work “if they priced it right.” That is: make the penalties large enough that people would change.

Perhaps we should think about rewarding people for accepting change, rather than punishing them. Rebates for environment-friendly vehicles and appliances tend to work. What else can we do to reward the public for accepting unpopular changes?

Benefits and rewards need to be in smaller pieces, with faster payoff. What are we doing for current environment-friendly investments?  My old gas water heater died this week. I just replaced it with a similar model.  Conversion to environment-friendly electricity would have required an extra expense for new wiring. I am not aware of any inducements for me to do that.

The California legislature has passed AB-205 which requires the state’s large utilities to add income-based fixed costs, thereby significantly reducing or eliminating rewards for roof-top solar. This would make it difficult to justify investment in roof-top solar. That is a change in the wrong direction. Incentives for home ownership of solar were a positive move, now being taken away.

Lastly, we have to be more business-like in choosing environmental programs. Think about return on investment. Select the programs that will have the largest benefits, in relation to what it will take to work. We are currently embarking on several programs that will have an infinitesimal benefit for a huge cost (such as separating food waste from other trash). This is patently inefficient and diverts resources and money from other more practical options.

We need to make change efficient, effective and timely. We need to make change something that we want to do and is within reasonable reach. Change is inevitable if we are to advance and survive. But let’s be smart about how we do it.