Fabian's Power Moves
How the battle over term limits made affordable housing a casualty
By Greg Katz
The charismatic Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau once said, "The essential ingredient of politics is timing." Surely Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez would agree. His campaign to extend California legislators' term limits - to 12 in both the Assembly and the Senate, up from six and eight in the respective houses - faced a series of time-sensitive hurdles.
The first step, taken in March, was to move up California's primary from June to February. The reason given to appease California voters was that California is the most populous state and should have more say in the presidential primaries. But the date change served another purpose for Núñez and legislators approaching the ends of their terms. Since candidates for the California Legislature must declare their intentions to run by March 7, they couldn't wait until a June primary for voters to decide their fates. And rather than call for a special election, they figured they'd find greater sympathy if voters were focused on presidential issues.
The election date change gave supporters until early September to gather signatures. Secretary of State Debra Bowen certified enough signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot. Now all that's left, it seems, is to prepare for a fight at the ballot box.
For awhile the measure's supporters seemed to be assured of an ally in popular Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who planned to support the much-maligned measure if it was accompanied on the ballot by a redistricting proposal. But the Legislature dropped the ball. While lawmakers managed to pass 962 bills by the end of their regular session on September 12, they didn't find time for a redistricting measure, which could cost them the governor's endorsement.
Whether a redistricting measure emerges in special session remains to be seen. The legislature until September 27 to come up with a ballot measure or give itself an extension. Otherwise, no redistricting reform will appear on the February ballot. Coming up with a measure seems unlikely, as the deadline looms and the governor has not yet put redistricting reform in play during the legislature's special session. However, Schwarzenegger spokesperson Aaron McLear says, the governor is "still very focused on redistricting reform, so we have not ruled out doing that." If redistricting
doesn't emerge from the special session, the legislature could put a redistricting bill on the June or November ballot to effect the scheduled 2012 redistricting, but it would not sit astride a term limits extension measure, much to the governor's dismay. The last time redistricting made the ballot, during the governor's 2005 special election, it got clobbered, with 60 percent of voters rejecting it; Schwarzenegger may see its association
with a term limits bill as the only compromise voters will accept. Timing, again, is essential.
A special deal for a Los Angeles developer could be part of the game plan. Among the hundreds of bills awaiting the governor's verdict is Assembly Bill 1053, a measure that loosens eligibility rules for the $2.85 billion in affordable housing bonds that voters approved last year. The legislation would make business improvement districts eligible for grants to improve infrastructure if they partner with public organizations on affordable housing projects.
One such beneficiary would be Anschutz Entertainment Group, which lobbied for the legislation and owns such downtown Los Angeles properties as the Staples Center and the forthcoming L.A. Live. Núñez rammed through the legislation in the wee morning hours of the last legislative session for the year, perhaps believing he would need AEG's support if he lost the governor's; Anschutz had already given $50,000 to the campaign to extend term limits.
The speaker's office would not corroborate such a theory. "There's no dots to connect between [Anschutz's] contributions and their being eligible to compete for a project along with hundreds of other entities," said Steve Maviglio, a spokesperson for Núñez. "It's not an earmark for them. It simply makes them eligible to compete for money. There's 58 of these districts around the state, the competition's intense, and frankly some of the low-income housing advocates aren't used to having real competition for these funds."
Similarly, Maviglio didn't see any reason for concern with the last-minute timing of the bill. "We had a very long, ugly and protracted budget fight this year ... Obviously the budget ran into September this year, so that's why the lateness."
Julie Snyder, policy director for affordable housing advocacy group Housing California, sees it differently. "On a policy level, when you're considering something or being asked to vote on something and it's only been out there [in] an amended version for three or four days, inevitably there are going to be policy implications that everyone misses," she observed.
Snyder sees the bill as an irresponsible way to apportion money dedicated to affordable housing. "The most fundamental concern is that business improvement districts are not appropriate recipients of these state funds because their interest may conflict with the most efficient and best use of the funds from the perspective of residents," she said. While no one knows whether AEG will be a successful low-cost housing builder (the company did not return requests for comment), Snyder questions their motives. "[AEG] originally put forward amendments to SB465," a Senate bill with similar substance to AB1053, a week earlier, she said. "They were promoting changes to the program that would have allowed the infrastructure dollars to be used to improve an area, then high-end condos to be built in that nice new area, and then the homes for working people, for the average Los Angeles family, could be built miles away."
Snyder said that there was "no good reason" for the state to enable this conflict of interest. With all but one of the 27 "No" votes on AB1053 being cast by Republicans - rarely anti-big business or anti-competition - opponents likely saw the bill as a step toward Democratic fundraising for term limit extensions.
This may turn out to be the final questionable legislation of the year connected with term limits, or perhaps other programs will join affordable housing as victims in the coming battle over extending the reigns of sitting state legislators. Time, and timing, will tell.
Published: 09/27/2007
DIGG | del.icio.us | REDDIT
