Tag: decision-2013

Last Tuesday was an election in the 45th California State Assembly district 45. Perhaps you didn’t notice. The final results were quite interesting:

Candidate		Votes	Percent
	Matt Dababneh (Party Preference: DEM)	14,984	50.6%
	Susan Shelley (Party Preference: REP)	14,655	49.4%

Now, what’s interesting here is that the election was so close… in a district where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2 to 1, and Dababneh outspent his opponents 10 to 1. If you listen to Shelley, she always believed the area would support a fiscal conservative with socially moderate views. I don’t believe that.

I believe the problem was complacency.

In terms of mailers I received and signs I saw, Dababneh blew his spending wad during the primary election, hoping to get over 50% and avoid a runoff. I was getting 2-3 mailers from him every day. Once we entered the general election… nothing. I saw no street signs, I recieved no mailers, I got nary a phone call. It was as if Dababneh felt he could coast on the large Democratic margin in the district, and didn’t need to campaign.

Shelley, on the other hand, was out there getting street signs everywhere. I received a couple of mailers from her. I’m sure she won over some of the voters who originally supported Dababneh’s opponents.

Further, look at the turnout numbers. Between 29,000 and 30,000 voted. This is in a district with over 250,000 voters (250,000 in LA county plus one Ventura pct). In short, perhaps 10% voted. With such a low turnout, people were driven by specific issues (e.g., Republicans fed up with Obamacare), and turn out the vote efforts. The complacent voters, who expected a particular candidate to win, didn’t bother to vote.

This election was close due to indifference and mobilization. Dababneh should be worried for next time (although he’ll have the incumbancy advantage), and those expecting easy victories should remember that every election should be fought as if it would be close… because it very well may be.

 

As promised, here’s my analysis of the upcoming election. You’re probably saying, “What election?”. In my state assembly district, we’re having a special election because our former state senator, after winning his state office in 2012, opted to run for Los Angeles City Council to start over again. He won… leaving a vacant seat in AD45. Back in September, we had a special primary election.  Neither of the top two candidates got over 50%, meaning we won a special general election. As for all elections, I’m doing a fresh analysis and posting my thoughts.

What’s interesting about this special general election is the dearth of advertising and calls. For the primary, we were deluged with mailers from most of the 7 Democrats, 3 Republicans, and one unaffiliated person. We were getting loads of phone calls and door to door visits. For the general election, there has been nary a mailer or call. The sole publicity has been some advertising signs for the Republican candidate along some of the streets. Could they believe the election is a forgone conclusion given the political makeup of California and this district?

In any case, we’re down to two candidates:

• Susan Shelly, Author/Publisher (R). Her splash page on her website emphasizes the Daily News endorsement, that she supports Prop 13, and her Republican nature. Her emphasis is cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes. This is a bad refrain, and Prop 13 has been one of the worst things for our state because (a) of how it led to corporations not paying their fair share through loopholes, and (b) how overtime it has created significant inequalities in the property tax rolls.  Her bio shows her as a valley girls — El Camino Real HS and CSUN, and the author of some political books such as “The 37th Amendment” and “How the First Amendment Came to Protect Topless Dancing”. She ran for Congress in 2012 and lost. She’s endorsed by a number of Republican Groups and the Howard Jarvis association. Her issues? Prevent tax increases, cancel the bullet train, reduce efforts for renewable energy, protect students, not listening to unions, and reducing the number of smog checks.
• Matt Dababneh, Congressman’s Chief Deputy (D). His page also claims he has the endorsement of the California Democratic Party (which contradicts Damian Carroll). The answer is that the endorsements are split: the state organization backs Dababneh, the SFV organization backs Carroll. Born in the Valley; UCLA grad (Poli Sci/History). District chief to Brad Sherman. Issues: the same as everyone else: economy, jobs, health care, accessibility, education. Endorsements are Daily News (presumably on the D side), California Democratic Party, Brad Sherman, Mike Dukakis, Grey Davis, Dianne Watson (who also endorsed Badger?), Ed Begley Jr., and a number of other politicians and organizations.

The descriptions above were from the post on the primary. What’s interesting is that both of the candidates are still claiming the endorsement of the Daily News.

Last time, I supported Audra Hoffman, one of the Democratic candidates. She lost. So I’ve revisiting each candidate’s web site to see if there’s something that is either convincing me to vote for them, or (correspondingly) to not vote for them.

I started with Susan Shelley. Right on the top she states “Protect Prop 13”. That’s actually a negative in my book. Prop 13 was good in its day, and it is still benefitting some really older homeowners and those who have passed on their homes to family. Who it benefits most, however, is business that takes advantage of loopholes to avoid paying property tax. It also hurts those of us who have entered the housing market since it passed, as we’re paying current market rates for our assessed values while many others pay artificially depressed rates. It also continues to hurt the schools and the infrastructure, which no longer has the funding it used to. I’d support modifications to Prop 13 to fix the business loopholes, and to periodically adjust the base value for everyone, with a maximum increase per adjustment. Shelley would opposed that.

Looking at some of her other issues: She wants to cancel the bullet train. I can see the issue with the cost, but I can also see the need for some visionary infrastructure thinking such as California had in the 1950s and 1960s. Under her discussion of protecting students, she doesn’t talk about what she would do to protect them, but goes off on the teacher’s union. There’s no mention of what she would do to address gun violence in the classroom — or more importantly, bullying in the classroom and on the Internet, which is what is the proximate cause of the gun violence. She talks about good sense in Government, which is a great idea in concept… but she gives no specifics. She also talks about smog checks every three years… which is a good idea, but is also a minor issue.

Reading through this, she seems to be narrowly focused in her statements on her opposition to changes in Prop 13, and reading through the lines, the main reason to elect her is to eliminate the supermajority of the Democrats in Sacramento.

So what about Matt D, who makes me think of the line in Fiorello of “Nobody wants a candidate whose name they can’t spell”.  My main objection to Matt at the time was that he seemed to be poised to use the Assembly as a stepping stone for Congress… meaning a lack of local attention. I still have that fear, but I don’t see any more of a local attention from Shelley, meaning my concern is addressed by neither side.

What about Matt’s position on the issues? Upfront, he doesn’t talk about what he opposes (“changes to Prop 13”); rather, he emphasizes what he wants to do: “I am committed to setting California on a responsible and sustainable fiscal path. I will work to grow our state’s economy and create new good paying middle class jobs by creating a competitive business environment in California.”. This is good — positive thinking, instead of an objectionist and obstructory attitude. He wants to promote economic growth by reducing the cost of doing business in California, spur infrastructure investment (which is sorely needed), promote the entertainment industry, and protecting the vulnerable. He’s also opposed to changes in Prop 13 ( 🙁 ), but at least doesn’t make it the center of his position. He wants to continue to protect the environment and ensure health care is provided. He also wants to keep higher education in California affordable.

I tend to agree with Matt’s positions. More importantly, I know what they are and can see that they address multiple areas, provide specifics, and cover a broad range. Shelley’s issues seem to be more in what she opposes; there’s very little said on her website about what she wants to do (except in a few minor areas).

So, my conclusion (probably not surprisingly) is in favor of Matt Dababneh.

I’d welcome your thoughts on the various candidates, if you live in the area.

Actions often have unintended consequences and costs. Quite a few years ago, everyone wanted term limits because it (supposedly) meant you would not have career politicians, and more people would run for office. Did that happen? Not in your life — we have politicians that just run from office to office. In California, what has happened is that politi-critters do their stints in the state assembly and state senate, and then move to the city councils.

That’s what happened to our state senator: Just reelected to the state senate for his last term, he opted to run for Los Angeles City Council to start over again. He won… leaving a vacant seat in AD45, bringing us a special election a week from Tuesday. [BTW, term limits is also going to bring a sea change to the LA County Board of Supervisors in the next few years] We’ve been getting calls for a few weeks from candidates we don’t know, and I tell them all the same thing: I will do a detailed ballot analysis and make my decision shortly before the election.

That’s this post.

So even though you aren’t in Assembly District 45, you’re the lucky winner of my analysis. The primary election brings us 11 candidates: 7 Democrats, 3 Republicans, and one who has no party preference. What factors will I use to determine things. First, I want a candidate that understands California’s problems — in particular, the issues with transportation infrastructure. I’d like a candidate that acknowledges understanding of cybersecurity issues, as I often see bills in the legislature about that. I’d also like a candidate that understands the valley, and (as they say) “shares my values” (which tend to be progressive Jewish values). In particular, regarding the latter, I don’t want a candidate that will push conservative Christian values. I look at who endorses the candidates: that often shows individuals with whom values and agendas are shared. So let’s look at the candidates:
Read More …

For the last few weeks, my phone has been ringing off the hook with calls from home remodeling outfits, solar electricity salescritters, offers to reduce my loan rate, null calls, … and pollsters. The pollsters all want to know how I’m going to vote in the upcoming municipal Los Angeles election, and I tell them all the same thing: I start each election fresh, and make up my mind after I’ve received the sample ballot and after I’ve done an analysis of the candidates and their positions. Well this week I received my sample ballot, so it is now time to do the analysis.

Los Angeles Mayor: Greuel vs. Garcetti

This is the big race: electing someone to replace Antonio Villaraigosa, who has been a so-so mayor for Los Angeles (his only real positive legacy is in the area of transportation). After an interesting primary election, the field has been narrowed down to two candidates: Eric Garcetti and Wendy Greuel. Both candidates are very similar, and truth be told, Los Angeles will have a good leader no matter which of the two wins. This is a good position to be in.

Garcetti is the current council member for District 13 in the Hollywood area. Greuel is a former council member, and current Los Angeles City controller. A recent LA Times article noted they have similar records, but very different styles. Garcetti grew up in the Valley, moved away from LA, and now resides and associates with the hipster communities in Hollywood, Silverlake, and Echo Park. He is a skilled pianist who recently jammed at a fundraiser with Moby; his father is former Los Angeles DA Gil Garcetti. He attended the private Harvard-Westlake High School. Greuel is more down-to-earth. She was born in the Valley, and has lived in the Valley all her life. She drives a hybrid SUV, favors modest skirt suits and marks snack duty for her son’s soccer games on her official city calendar. She enjoys listening to Elton John. Her family has run a building supply store in North Hollywood, and she’s an alumna of Kennedy High School in Granada Hills. I think in terms of personal style and background, I’d have to give the point to Gruel.

Endorsement-wise, they’ve been battling for endorsements. Garcetti has the support of the LA Times and the Daily Bruin, of councilmembers such as Ruth Galanter, Yvonne Braithwaite Burke, Jan Perry and Emanuel Pleitez (both candidates in the primary), a number of unions including the California Federation of Teachers, numerous actors and leaders, and the sole republican candidate for Mayor, Kevin James. Greuel has an equal number of name supporters, including Bill Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Richard Riorden (the former mayor), loads of congress and assembly people, and most notably, the public utility unions. In fact, most of the unions support Greuel, with the notable exception being the Teacher’s union (so the LAUSD board is behind Greuel, and the teachers behind Garcetti). The troubling aspects here are the LA DWP unions, which have held a bit too much power in the city…. but the teachers are behind Garcetti. Which union wields its power for good, and which for evil. Right now, on the endorsement side, I’m giving the point to Garcetti, but it really is a split decision.

Let’s look at some other issues. Garcetti has had some troubling issues with conflicts of interest, and specifically not recusing or admitting when those conflicts existed. This occurred both in the Clear Channel vote and ownership interests in leases under Beverly Hills High School. Greuel has also had conflicts of interest. I do think Greuel will be more fiscally responsible. Both support tunnels under the Sepulveda Pass for transit (like that will ever happen). Greuel supports the LAX modernization plan that will drastically impact Westchester; Garcetti is opposed to it.  Although I agree somewhat with Garcetti regarding LAX, the other issues here make me lean towards Greuel. Again, a split decision, this time with a leaning towards Greuel.

I think it boils down to issues and vision. Here I’m leaning like I did with John Anderson — going for the candidate that clearly articulates their vision the best. The point here is clearly Greuel’s. She’s sent out a booklet to all voters detailing her positions, and she has a clear summary on her website of all her positions. Garcetti only has a few positions on his website. Further, I like how Greuel is emphasizing jobs and transportion issues, and looks to be emphasizing growing technology jobs.  She has the right ideas regarding schools (and more importantly, has experience with the LA Unified Public Schools). She’ll also, I feel, understand the needs of the valley better.

In the primary, Greuel was initially my favorite, but my analysis swayed me towards Perry. At the last minute, transit issues switched me to Garcetti. Looking again at the two contenders, I’m still mostly in the middle, but leaning slightly towards Greuel. I think she’s more like the people of the city, and less of a hipster looking for status (which was one of the current mayor’s problems).

Conclusion: Wendy Greuel.

City Attorney: Trutanich vs. Feuer

Yet another epic battle, this time between the current city attorney Carmen “Nuch” Trutanich and termed-out assemblycritter Mike Feuer. I remember when Trutanich ran the first time on a strong law and order campaign, and then lost the faith of the city by then running for District Attorney before his first term was even out. Feuer, who has the endorsement of the LA Times, is attempting to stay in politics after being termed-out at the state level.

Endorsement-wise, Nuch has the sheriff, a former city attorney, Riordan, and some councilcritters and unions behind him. Feuer has even more supporters, including all the major papers, lots of local and national leaders, and loads of unions and law enforcement.

Looking at the positions of the two candidates, Feuer has a much more detailed statement of positions on the issues than does Nuch, who really only has three short videos detailing his positions.

In short, I don’t believe Nuch (Trutanich) has proven himself a successful city attorney deserving of a second term. I think Feuer will do a better job. This was my conclusion in the primary as well.

Conclusion: Mike Feuer.

City Controller: Galperin vs. Zine

This contest is between a current city councilman/reserve police officer, Dennis Zine, vs. an efficiency commissioner and businessman, Ron Galperin. The analysis I did at the primary showed that  although Zine is a good man, his focus is not financial but law and order. Galperin has a fiscal focus that is important in the city controller.

Looking at the issues again, I see that Galperin still has the endorsements of the major papers, many congresscritters, former Mayor Riorden, Kevin James, loads of unions, and all the Democratic clubs. Zine’s endorsements are primarily law enforcement unions plus citycouncil members and other political leaders. It almost looks like city leaders are endorsing Zine, and those whose oxen wouldn’t be gored by an investigation are endorsing Galperin.

More important to me is constrasting the background of Zine vs. Galperin. Zine’s emphasis throughout his career has been law enforcement and law and order. Fiscal responsibility and efficiency has been there, but in the background. Galperin, on the other hand, has been focused on the financial and fiscal aspects, looking into how to do more with less. In this era where flat budgets are considered the new norm, we need that financial focus.

Conclusion: Ron Galperin.

Los Angeles Community College District, Seat Nº 6: Pearlman vs Vela

In the primary, there were four candidates: Tom Oliver, Nancy Pearlman, Michael Aldapa, and David Vela. The LA Times endorsed Oliver. Only Oliver and Pearlman had real websites. Oliver is a past college president, but his issues statement focuses on student improvement. Pearlman doesn’t have that focus, and continues to support the problematic building program.

Now it is Pearlman vs. Vela. Vela now has a website, and the endorsement of the Democratic party and labor, among others. Pearlman’s website is much less polished, doesn’t detail her positions, and even pimps her cabin in the woods. She does, however, have an impressive list of endorsements. The Times has endorsed Pearlman, stating that she has better experience and goals than does Vela.

Contrasting their backgrounds, Pearlman doesn’t bring much to the table other than currently being involved in the issues. Vela brings a lot, but little is educated related.

Conclusion: Nancy Pearlman, solely on the strength of the Times recommendation.

Measure C: Resolution Regarding Rights of Corporations

This is an advisory resolution that there should be limits on political campaign spending, and that corporations should not have the constitutional rights of human beings. It simply encourages congress to pass a constitutional amendment.

Conclusion: For.

Measures D, E, F: Competing Medical Marijuana Proposals

The state long ago approved medical marijuana, but left it up to the cities to regulate the cooperatives. Los Angeles has totally screwed up doing this, resulting in the mess we see in the ballot today.  What happened is there was a plan in place before 2007 and a number of coops followed it. Then in 2007 that plan was set aside and pot shops proliferated. The city then tried to close them all down. The CSUN Daily Sundial has a good analysis of the issue.

Measure D basically limits the establishments to those approved before 2007 (about 135), increases the taxes, and defines rules for those establishments. Measure E roughly does the same thing, and the people who supported E have moved their support to D (E was an initiative, D from the city council). F establishes no limits on the number of establishments, but does increase taxes and puts in some quality rules.

Both of the papers have come out in favor of D. My initial thought was to vote yes on all of them. However, after reading more, D seems the best of the three.

Conclusion: Yes on Measure D; No on Measures E and F.