December 4,
2006
Moving
Forward After the November 2006 Election
By
Marna Smeltzer
President and
CEO
This was a very important election for Redondo Beach and the
state of California. People voted to re-elect Governor
Schwarzenegger, who is committed to a strong economy,
favorable business climate and job creation. Californians
rejected: anti-business tax increases, increased gasoline
prices and an attempt to stifle the ability of the business
community to communicate with the voters. We have
demonstrated our distaste for the creation of new,
unaccountable bureaucracies and programs that operate
outside the normal legislative budget and oversight process.
The people have spoken. Now Sacramento must move forward.
One of the most important victories on the ballot was the
passage of Proposition 1B. The Redondo Beach
Chamber-supported measure enacts a $19.9 billion bond to
fund repairs to our freeways, streets and roads, improves
bridge safety, expands public transit, and improves port
security. It is no secret that California and our regional
economy and population will continue to grow. We must
prepare our region and the state for the increased commerce
and people that will come. Proposition 1B will accommodate
those increases by bringing needed relief to our failing
infrastructure. Investing in our infrastructure puts us on
the path to continued progress.
Now begins the process of determining where the funding will
go. Politically, our region stands in a perfect position to
receive needed funding. However, our interests are not
alone. The competition for the funds will be a massive
political process. The lobbying in Sacramento began moments
after Proposition 1B was certified. Many interests began
their lobbying efforts weeks before the election in
anticipation of Proposition 1B passing.
I am confident Redondo Beach will see the needed funding to
reduce, among other priorities, traffic congestion. Working
with the California Chamber of Commerce and our local
elected state officials, we will work hard to endure that
Redondo Beach’s transportation funding needs are taken into
consideration during the process of moving forward. I will
keep you posted.
November 6,
2006
Redondo
Beach Chamber Fights Tax Increase:
Vote NO on Proposition 86
Brad Scott, Redondo Beach Chamber Government Relations
Council Chair, speaks out in recent interview.
Click here to
watch the interview.
The Redondo Beach Chamber
opposes
Proposition 86 on the November 7th ballot.
Proposition 86, backed by special interest groups including
huge hospital corporations, would raise taxes on a pack of
cigarettes by $2.60, raising California’s excise tax to
$3.47 on a single pack of cigarettes.
Why we oppose
The Redondo Beach Chamber
opposes Proposition 86 for many reasons. We believe that
increasing taxes on 14% of Californians (the number of
people who use tobacco products in California) to fund 38
pages of new programs (as outlined in Proposition 86) is
bad public policy.
Furthermore, those who support
Proposition 86 claim that it is an effort to curb smoking.
If that is true, then why is only 10% of the total
revenue generated by Proposition 86 intended for
anti-smoking programs?
Proposition 86 is clearly an
effort by the health care industry to tax a small percentage
of Californians to cover the cost of failures in our health
care system.
Where will
the money go?
Despite this
astronomical 300 percent increase on all tobacco products, less than 10 percent
of the tax revenues go toward helping smokers quit or
keeping kids from starting.
The largest share of the money,
potentially hundreds of millions annually, would go to the
hospital corporations, many of which are funding
the campaign to raise these taxes. Approximately 85 percent
of the funds raised by the higher taxes would pay for things
that have nothing to do with smoking or the use of tobacco
products.
Is
Proposition 86 really about anti-smoking?
Approximately 85 percent of the
new tax would pay for programs unrelated to smoking, but 100
percent of the tax is paid by the small percentage of people
(14 percent of adults) who smoke or use smokeless tobacco
products. Why should one segment of society pay 100 percent
of the taxes when the money goes to things like obesity
control and health insurance premiums? If funding these
programs is as important as proponents claim, all
Californians should share the burden.
Taxpayer advocates call the
estimated $2.1 billion tax increase proposal “wrong-headed,”
“extreme taxation,” a “misuse of taxpayer revenues,” and
warn it will lead to massive tax fraud, tax avoidance, state
government waste and abuse, and even smuggling.
Proposition
86 is Bad Public Policy.
Finally, Proposition 86 clearly
pits the health care industry against the tobacco industry.
Targeting an industry with a 300% tax increase to fund
another industry is bad public policy. Voters have resisted recent attempts to tax one
segment of the population to pay for unrelated state
programs. In June 2006, voters rejected Proposition 82 to tax
high-income earners to pay for universal preschool. In
November 2005, voters rejected Proposition 67 to tax phone
services to pay for emergency room services – a previous
attempt by hospitals to generate money to benefit
themselves.
October 25,
2006
Proposition
89 Spells Disaster for Business in Politics
Gives Anti-Business Forces Upper Hand in Campaigns
The Redondo Beach Chamber urges
the business community to oppose Proposition 89. The Chamber
opposes Proposition 89 because it:
- Raises taxes on ALL
incorporated California businesses, large and small;
- Discriminates against
non-profit organizations and small businesses, and;
- Wastes precious tax dollars to fund negative political
campaigns.
“Proposition 89 is step one — disarming the business
community. Step two will be to pass every bad initiative the
business community has fought in the last decade,” said
Marna Smeltzer, President and CEO of the Redondo Beach
Chamber.
"Unless we stop Proposition 89 now, we’ll be facing
excessive litigation, increased costs for energy and health
care, and a rollback of the workers’ compensation reforms
that have reined in runaway premium increases. These would
all be from bad initiatives we won’t be able to fight. The
result would be disastrous for the California economy and
jobs.
The business community would lose the ability to defeat bad
proposals, sponsor needed reforms and overturn poorly
considered laws passed by the Legislature,” Smeltzer
continued.
Taxpayer Funding for Negative Campaigns
Falsely touted by its supporters as a “clean money” measure,
Proposition 89 increases the income tax rate on
corporations, banks and financial corporations by 0.2
percent per year to fund a new public campaign financing
system.
Many small businesses, even mom-and-pop shops that are
incorporated, would be subject to the tax.
Candidates for office would be able to tap taxpayers to fund
their campaigns, including paying for negative television
ads and hit-piece direct mailers. The measure places
practically no limits on how the politicians spend the
taxpayer-provided campaign funds.
Restrictions on Business
The new contribution restrictions on business include:
- $10,000 limit on corporate expenditures to support or
oppose any given ballot measure;
- a ban on corporate
contributions to political parties or political action
committees;
- a ban on corporations making
independent expenditures to support or
oppose candidates or contributing to an independent
expenditure committee;
- a $10,000 limit on corporate
contributions to a candidate-controlled ballot measure
committee;
- a ban on corporate contributions to candidates who opt to
receive public funding. Individuals may contribute only up
to $100 during specified periods and only if they live in
the district in which the candidate seeks office;
- a significant decrease in the amount a corporation may
give to a non-publicly funded candidate for state office —
only $500 per election for legislative and Board of
Equalization candidates and $1,000 per election for
statewide candidates, with a combined annual limit of $7,500
to all candidates for state office.
Referendum
Essentially Barred
Californians enjoy the right of
referendum to take laws passed by the Legislature directly
to the people before they take effect. Under Proposition 89,
businesses would in effect be barred from the referendum
process due to the measure’s severe limits on the ability of
businesses to contribute to issue and ballot measure
campaigns.
Had Proposition 89 been on the books, SB 2, the $7 billion
employer health care mandate, might well be the law today.
The business community would not have been able to wage the
successful campaign to place the Proposition 72 referendum
on the November 2004 ballot, giving voters an opportunity to
reject the mandate for a government-run health care system.
Similarly, insurers would not have been able to put before
voters in March 2000 a referendum on the “bad faith”
legislation, sponsored by trial lawyers and signed into law
by Governor Gray Davis. Voters rejected the legislation,
which would have added billions in costs to insurance bills.
Trial Lawyers Advantage
Proposition 89 does not
expressly include trial lawyers in its restrictions on
expenditures to ballot measure campaigns, political parties,
political action committees or independent expenditure
committees. But trial lawyers are particularly advantaged by
Proposition 89, giving them the ability to move their
anti-jobs/pro-lawsuit agenda forward.
Other Provisions
Not only does Proposition 89
give tax money to politicians to spend on their campaigns;
it also permits publicly funded candidates to receive
additional “matching funds” to offset contributions and
independent expenditures beyond a certain level on behalf of
privately funded opponents.
The measure also prohibits state contractors or anyone
seeking state contracts from contributing to any candidate
for or holder of an office with which the contractor has or
seeks a contract. State contractors could not contribute to
political party committees or independent expenditure
committees to support or oppose candidates, or to legal
defense funds of candidates or office holders.
Join Opposition
Proposition 89 is a blatant
effort to deprive California’s job providers of a voice in
the political process. The Redondo Beach Chamber urges
members of the business community and their supporters to
join the campaign to oppose Proposition 89.
or more information, visit the campaign website at
www.noprop89.org
September 29,
2006
In Depth:
Proposition 90 is a Taxpayer Trap
Redondo Beach Chamber
Continues Effort to Educate Business Community on November
2006 Statewide Ballot
If passed by the voters in November 2006, Proposition 90
would amend the California Constitution to require
government to pay property owners for substantial economic
losses resulting from eminent domain actions and it will
limit government authority to take ownership of private
property.
Proposition 90 is not just about eminent domain reform.
Hidden in the fine print of Proposition 90 are unrelated and
far-reaching provisions that will cost taxpayers billions of
dollars each year and hinder economic growth and
job-creation. Proposition 90 will require new payouts any
time the most basic law or regulation is passed – except
those intended to protect the narrowly-defined public health
and safety. This is because the measure redefines “damages,”
allowing virtually anyone to sue claiming a new law or
regulation has impacted the value of their property or
business – no matter how far-fetched the claim.
“These hidden provisions create a new cause of action that
allows a few individuals to sue to stop new housing and new
businesses that will benefit the local economy and
community,” stated Marna Smeltzer, Redondo Beach Chamber
President and CEO.
In fact, any group that does not want new housing or
businesses – or even a restaurant operating past a certain
time – can sue. Either the local agency (and taxpayers) will
have to pay for these claims or, if the agency can’t afford
it, then the project simply would not be approved.
There is tremendous potential for these frivolous lawsuits
to bring the land-use and business approval process to a
halt because it will take years for courts to sort out what
actions are compensable and at what price – delaying and
increasing the costs for important local projects that
create jobs and make communities economically vibrant. In
Oregon, where a somewhat similar measure was recently
passed, over 2,200 claims totaling more than $5 billion have
been filed. Oregon newspapers report the sheer number of
these claims has swamped local planning officials and has
hindered their ability to handle other basic functions like
land-use approvals.
If enacted, Proposition 90 would be disastrous for
California taxpayers and businesses.
September 6, 2006
Redondo Beach Chamber Fights for Business
Approves Positions on November Ballot Propositions
The Redondo Beach Chamber calls upon the business community
to understand the impacts of the November statewide
propositions. “The Redondo Beach Chamber continues to
examine the stream of propositions that are turning out for
the November ballot,” confirmed Marna Smeltzer, Redondo
Beach Chamber President and CEO. “We will continue to do our
job in taking positions on these initiatives—there is much
at stake for our members, ” Smeltzer continued.
- SUPPORT Proposition 1A: Transportation Loop Hole
- SUPPORT: Proposition 1B: Transportation
- SUPPORT: Proposition 1C: Housing
- SUPPORT: Proposition 1E: Levees/Flood Control
- SUPPORT: Proposition 84: Water Quality
- OPPOSE: Proposition 86: Tax on Cigarettes
- OPPOSE: Proposition 87: Oil Tax
- OPPOSE: Proposition 88: Parcel Tax Increase
- OPPOSE: Proposition 89: Political Campaign Funding
- OPPOSE: Proposition 90:
Taxpayer Trap
- NO POSITION: Proposition 1D:
Housing
- NO POSITION: Proposition 83:
Sex Offenders
- NO POSITION: Proposition 85:
Parental Abortion Notification
SUPPORT
Proposition 1A:
Transportation Investment Fund
California voters in 2002 overwhelmingly approved
Proposition 42, which directed that sales taxes on gasoline
be spent on transportation. The money previously was sent to
the state’s General Fund. However, Proposition 42 included a
loophole that lets Governors take or borrow the money in any
budget year. The borrowing now exceeds $3.3 billion and has
slowed or stalled transportation projects across the state.
The measure is part of a statewide infrastructure
improvement package by Senate Democrats. Torlakson and Sen.
Don Perata have introduced the centerpiece proposal, SB
1024. This $10.3 billion infrastructure bond includes
funding for transportation, affordable housing, shipping
ports, rail transit, and related program.
SUPPORT
Proposition 1B:
Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, Port
Security Bond Act
If approved by voters in November Proposition 1B will enact
a $19.9 billion general obligation bond to fund repairs,
reduce congestion, improve bridge safety, expand public
transit, and improve port security statewide. The bond
proposal also authorizes public/private transportation
partnerships, application of the Design-Build method for
these projects, and legislation to streamline the
environmental review process.
SUPPORT
Proposition 1C:
Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006
The $2.85 billion housing bond will be Proposition 1C on the
November ballot. The bond will provide funding for financial
assistance to first-time homebuyers, incentives to build
affordable rental housing, construction of temporary and
permanent homeless shelters and helping urban communities
develop vacant parcels:
SUPPORT
Proposition 1E:
Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006
The $4 billion levee repair and flood control bond measure,
AB 140 (Núñez; D-Los Angeles) will be Proposition 1E on the
November ballot.
It includes $3 billion for evaluating, repairing and
replacing levees and flood control infrastructure in the
Central Valley and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
The Delta is made up of more than 1,100 miles of levees and
is the source of drinking water for two-thirds of
California’s population, as well as irrigation water for
millions of acres of crops. The Delta also offers vital
flood protection for the California Central Valley flood
plains.
SUPPORT
Proposition 84:
Water Quality, Safety and Supply. Flood Control. Natural
Resource Protection. Park Improvements. Bonds. Initiative
Statute.
Authorizes $5,388,000,000 in general obligation bonds,
payable from the state’s General Fund, to fund projects
relating to safe drinking water, water quality and supply,
flood control, waterway and natural resource protection,
water pollution and contamination control, state and local
park improvements, public access to natural resources, and
conservation efforts. Provides funding for emergency
drinking water, and exempts such expenditures from public
contract and procurement requirements to ensure immediate
action for public safety.
OPPOSE
Proposition 86:
Tax on Cigarettes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and
Statute.
This measure increases excise taxes on cigarettes (and, as
discussed below, indirectly on other tobacco products) to
provide funding for hospitals for emergency services as well
as programs to increase access to health insurance for
children, expand nursing education, support various new and
existing health and education activities, curb tobacco use
and regulate tobacco sales.
OPPOSE
Proposition 87:
Severance Tax on Oil Production in California.
Beginning in January 2007, the measure would impose a
severance tax on oil production in California to generate
revenues to fund $4 billion in alternative energy programs
over time. (The term “severance tax” is commonly used to
describe a tax on the production of any mineral or product
taken from the ground, including oil.) The measure defines
“producers,” who are required to pay the tax, broadly to
include any person who extracts oil from the ground or
water, owns or manages an oil well, or owns a royalty
interest in oil.
OPPOSE
Proposition 88:
Education Funding. Real Property Parcel Tax. Initiative
Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Proposition 88 creates a statewide parcel tax and uses the
resulting revenue to fund specific K-12 education programs.
It would take effect July 1, 2007. The measure adds a new
section to the State Constitution that establishes an annual
$50 tax on most parcels of land in California. (This dollar
amount would not change over time.) For purposes of the
measure, a “parcel” is defined as any unit of real property
in the state that currently receives a separate local
property tax bill. This definition would result in the vast
majority of individuals and businesses that currently pay
property taxes being subject to the new parcel tax. The
measure exempts from the new tax any parcel owner who: (1)
resides on the parcel, (2) is eligible for the state’s
existing homeowner’s property tax exemption, and (3) is
either 65 years of age or older or a severely and
permanently disabled person.
OPPOSE
Proposition 89:
Political Campaigns. Public Financing. Corporate Tax
Increase. Contribution and Expenditure Limits. Initiative
Statute.
This measure makes significant changes to state laws
regarding the financing of campaigns for elected state
offices and state ballot measures. The measure’s provisions
regarding candidates for office generally affect only state
elected officials. Specifically, this proposition increases
income tax rate on corporations and financial institutions
by 0.2 percent to fund program.
The proposition provides that candidates for state elective
office meeting certain eligibility requirements, including
collection of a specified number of $5.00 contributions from
voters, may voluntarily receive public campaign funding from
the Fair Political Practices Commission, in amounts varying
by elective office and type of election. Increased revenues
(primarily from increased taxes on corporations and
financial institutions) totaling more than $200 million
annually to pay for the public financing of political
campaigns for state elected offices.
OPPOSE
Proposition 90:
Taxpayer Trap
Proposition 90
amends the California Constitution to require government to
pay property owners for substantial economic losses
resulting from some new laws and rules and will limit
government authority to take ownership of private property.
It is true, California may need to take policy steps to
address eminent domain issues in our state but Proposition
90 is too extreme and poorly thought out. The Chamber
opposes Prop 90 because it contains hidden provisions that
are unrelated to eminent domain and will cost taxpayers
billions of dollars. More importantly, Prop 90 will threaten
our economy and job creation here. To make matters worse,
provisions in Prop 90 will encourage thousands of frivolous
and time-consuming lawsuits, and will tie up needed land-use
planning in litigation delays. We agree, we need to find a
better way to address eminent domain in our state, but
proposition 90 does not do the job.
July 19, 2006
Bond Measures Meet the Needs of Californians
By Carleen Beste, Chair of the Board
Northrop Grumman Space Technology
With
summer almost gone and fall just around the corner, we
should all be thinking about the upcoming November 7
election. Given that there are 13 initiatives on the ballot,
it will take a few months just to sort though everything…but
that is definitely the subject of another article. However,
we should pay close attention to the four bond measures –
1B, 1C, 1D and 1E – that address state-wide infrastructure
needs related to transportation, education, housing and
levee repair and flood control. We need to understand and
consider these very carefully.
The state’s past investments in infrastructure are showing
their age and are straining to support a vibrant economy and
population much larger than they were designed to
accommodate. To put it in perspective, that state’s
population was about 13 million in 1955. Today it is about
37 million, and the population is estimated to be 46 million
by 2025.
These bond measures, which are all part of Governor
Schwarzenegger’s Strategic Growth Plan, are designed to
accommodate the increase in California’s population and the
needs of its people. In the years to come, we can expect to
face about $500 billion in infrastructure needs. The
Governor’s plan will leverage a little more than $37 billion
in general obligation bonds over the next 10 years to invest
in the state’s infrastructure.
Elements of these bond initiatives will directly impact the
South Bay and the Redondo Beach community. We could see
traffic light synchronization projects, major thoroughfare
and freeway improvements and investments in our local
schools and colleges. I think that we would all agree that
this is something that is needed. How we get there is the
$500 billion question. Please consider your answer
carefully.
You can find more information on the Governor’s Strategic
Growth Plan by visiting
www.strategicgrowthplan.com
Information on all of the ballot initiatives can be found on
the Secretary of State’s Web site at
www.ss.ca.gov
March 30, 2006
Dream of Nightmare: Future of
California Resting On Infrastructure Bond
The epic effort to get an infrastructure bond on the June
ballot was like one of those occasional dreams you might
have experienced where you struggle and struggle but never
quite get to your destination. Hopefully this real dream of
a mammoth infrastructure bond does not end up being a
nightmare. Too much of the future of California is riding on
reality not dream.
Business leaders, voters, union members, legislators, and of
course Governor Schwarzenegger all have the same urgent
dream but it all got muddled in divergent opinions regarding
content and priorities. Meetings were intense but without
the final consensus needed to meet the deadline for
placement in the June ballot.
It is important to understand were there are differences and
which factions support the differing alternatives. Here are
two key issues in the debate.
Water! Republicans want to build water storage capacity
while Democrats want water conservation. The solution? It
would seem that the politicians agree the state needs water,
but should get out of trying to stipulate the means that the
water supply can be assured in the future.
Freeway design-build! This is another difference of opinion
that stalled resolution by the ballot deadline. Many are
pushing for a more expedient cost-effective project approach
while the Caltrans engineers’ union continues to protect
their accepted practices that include much more study prior
to action. The crux of the argument hinges on the success
seen in rebuilding the 405 freeway that was earthquake
damaged. Yes, the practices used to rebuild were radical by
some standards, but it is hard to argue with the
results—under budget and record completion time.
Nobody is discouraged, mostly because everyone is passionate
about the need for funding infrastructure repair, upgrading
and new construction. It is the passion that reassures all
parties that regardless of the name-calling and partisan
causes, a compromise is promising for the November ballot.
Some hold out hope that the lawmakers might extend the
deadline for the June ballot. If that comes to pass, then we
can be assured that there is a compromise plan near
agreement. If not, then everyone has a few more months to
calm down, regroup, and embrace the objective of getting a
solution to this critical issue.
Reality causes most to think that a short-term agreement is
not close, so the November ballot is the likely goal.
Pressure is the key. This particular bond issue will affect
everyone in the state. California is an economic force
because of the past lawmaker’s vision and determination to
build an infrastructure that supported growth in future
generations. All must continue to pressure for another
visionary initiative.
Once opposing factions realize that their 15 seconds of fame
will come from setting the stage for the future, not
quibbling over the details of today’s petty issues, real
progress will be made. Vision must precede tactics, teamwork
will always trump individual grandstanding! What voters need
is a “Dream Team”, not a nightmare.
