You are here: Home / Archives for Government Issues

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATION STRENGTHENS CARBON MONOXIDE PROTECTION

January 29, 2013 By

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATION STRENGTHENS CARBON MONOXIDE PROTECTION

New Mandates Require Alarms in Multi-Family Housing Units in 2013

by Deborah Hanson, director of external affairs, BRK Brands, Inc.

California is taking another stand against the “silent killer,” with new carbon monoxide (CO) legislation set to take effect statewide on January 1, 2013. At that time, California law requires owners of multi-family dwellings to install CO alarms in every unit of their properties. These requirements are the final phase of the state’s groundbreaking Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act.

Under the new law, owners of multi-family dwellings are required to install, repair, maintain and test CO devices in each of their properties’ units. The law applies to all multi-family residences, such as apartment buildings, that contain carbon monoxide sources or are situated within structures that contain one or more sources of this poisonous gas. CO sources may include, but are not limited to, heaters, fireplaces, furnaces, appliances or cooking sources using coal, wood, petroleum products, or other fuels emitting CO as a by-product of combustion. Attached garages with doors, ductwork or ventilation shafts connected to a living space also are sources of CO.

The January deadline for these new requirements is of particular importance, as more CO deaths occur during the winter months than any other time of year, due in part to increased use of fuel-burning sources to heat homes, according to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).

CO laws coupled with education and awareness will help reduce the number of accidental poisonings from this silent killer. According to the American Medical Association, CO poisoning is the number one cause of accidental poisoning in the U.S. Over-exposure to this colorless, odorless gas leads to approximately 450 deaths and more than 20,000 emergency room visits each year. The California Air Resources Board attributes 30-40 avoidable deaths annually statewide from unintentional carbon monoxide poisoning.

Diagnosis of CO poisoning can be difficult because symptoms mimic those of many other illnesses and include nausea, headaches, dizziness, weakness, chest pain and vomiting. In more severe poisoning cases, people may experience disorientation or unconsciousness, or suffer long-term neurological disabilities, cardio respiratory failure or death.

Added Protection for Tenants:

The following is an overview of the new regulations:

  • Owners of multi-family leased/rental dwellings (i.e. apartment buildings)  are required to install, repair, maintain and test the CO devices, pursuant to Civil Code 1954, which allows them to enter the unit with 24-hour notice.  The CO device must be operable at the time the tenant takes possession of the unit.
  • CO alarms must have a distinct audible sound.  If the alarm is a combination smoke/fire and CO detector, the alarm must have separate distinct audible sounds for each function.
  • CO alarms may be either battery powered or plug-in/hard-wired with battery back-up.

As the most trusted and recognized brand name in home safety, First Alert is committed to educating the public about the dangers of fire and CO poisoning. For additional information on carbon monoxide safety, visit http://www.firstalert.com/.

More information on the Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act can be found on the Office of the State Fire Marshal website, at http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/.

Filed Under: Government Issues Tagged With: , ,

A Landlord’s Uphill Fight to Ease Rent Regulations: The “Madison Group”

October 19, 2012 By
By Craig Mordoh, Esq.

On July 11, 2012, representatives from various residential rental property owner groups from across the nation met at the distinguished Cato Institute to begin the process of formulating a strategy to place a constitutional challenge to rent control land – rent stabilization laws before the United States Supreme Court.

This effort is the brainchild of James Harmon, a former prosecuting attorney who gained some recent notoriety in the landlord community by mounting a one-man challenge to the New York Rent Stabilization Law that almost made it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

After an unsuccessful two-year battle to evict a tenant, who could well afford to live anywhere, Jim decided to challenge the constitutionality of the rent law itself. Making a sympathetic plaintiff, Jim received much favorable press coverage and the assistance of many prominent amici curiae; however, after a number of good signs that the Supreme Court might decide to hear his case, the court ultimately chose not to.

Beaten, but not defeated, Jim decided to try and find a way to challenge not just the New York Law, but rent control laws everywhere.  Currently rent control in some form exists in relatively few places, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Washington D.C. and California. Many other states have laws or court’s rulings prohibiting rent control. In one famous instance, the voters of the State of Massachusetts voted to eliminate rent control throughout the state. Amazingly, the elimination of rent control in that state created no upheaval in the tenant community and improved the housing stock in those cities that now had a newly-created free market.

The first step in Jim's plan was to find the commonalities in each of the laws. For instance, not every law has a state-wide enabling legislation, but every law limits the right to evict tenants.

Other potential areas of inquiry include:

What does a new-construction exemption say about the need for rent control and its effect on the housing market?

Does the emergency situation which formed the rationale for every rent control law still exist after all these years?

If yes, does it still create a lawful basis for rent control and what does its existence say about the efficiency of rent control?

Must an owner have the right to   recapture their property?

Once the commonalities are identified, chose the one susceptible to the strongest legal challenge and the file that single-issue Federal lawsuit in each of the rent control localities. This would result in rent control challenge in five different federal circuits. It is anticipated that the appellate level would require a review by the Supreme Court. 

I attended this meeting on behalf of the California Apartment Law Information Foundation as well as the Apartment Associations of Greater Los Angeles. In addition, there were representatives of the National Apartment Association, the Institute for Justice, New York University School of Law and representatives from local owner’s groups from all of the affected jurisdictions.

The attendees were dunned the “Madison Group” in honor of James Madison, our fourth President, who stated “commercial shackles are generally unjust, oppressive, and impolitic.” This may be the most concise, yet accurate, description of rent control ever.

Following the meeting, the enthusiasm of the participants was high and a follow-up national teleconference was scheduled for September. CALIF and AAGLA will continue to participate in this effort and provide periodic reports to this magazine.

Mordoh is Senior Attorney of the California Apartment Law Information Foundation (CALIF). Since its inception, CALIF has pursued its dual goals of providing an informational base for landlords and tenants on the workings of landlord-tenant law in California and challenging state and local municipalities when they take actions that infringe upon the constitutionally guaranteed property and civil rights of California residents. CALIF is qualified to receive tax-deductible contributions under IRC Section 501(c)(3).

Filed Under: Government Issues Tagged With: , , ,

Late News…

October 17, 2012 By
By Rich Singleton

Sacramento:              

A bill sponsored by State Senator Ted Lieu (D-Redondo Beach) will prohibit landlords from requiring online rent payments only for tenants. 

The bill, which was amended to include input from Apartment Industry groups, including AAGLA, then obtained apartment industry support. 

It has passed the State Assembly and Senate, and is awaiting Governor Brown to either sign or veto it.

Lieu said he sponsored the legislation after hearing from an 87-year-old constituent who told him she received an eviction notice after refusing to pay her rent online once her landlord began requiring all tenants to pay online.

The 87-year-old woman said her reason for not making online rent payments, considering she has been paying her rent by check for the past three years, was due to having been a victim of identity theft.

Lieu said more and more apartment owners and managers are requiring the use of online rent payments in order to ensure timely payments and cut costs by saving them time and money, it usually takes to collect the rent.

“That struck me as unfair because it had a disparate impact on those who didn’t have an internet connection or didn’t have a computer or didn’t want to pay online because of their own view of privacy,” Lieu said. “It also has a disparate impact on the poor and those who are not familiar with internet payment structures.”

The legislation not only has bi-partisan political support, and the support from apartment industry groups, it also has the backing of tenant advocacy groups.

“We applaud Senator Ted Lieu for introducing this important tenant’s rights legislation to protect renters,” said Larry Gross, with the Coalition for Economic Survival, a tenant advocacy group.

“We believe this rent online scheme is just another way to increase rent-controlled rents by evicting long-term, low-rent tenants, who just happen to be, for the most part, seniors and the disabled. In other words, this affects those who are less likely to have the ability to pay online.”

Los Angeles:

According to a report from UCLA, the extensive surge in apartment construction throughout the Southern California region as well as other parts of the country has about two-years remaining before it comes to an end.

The report from the UCLA Ziman Center for Real Estate, said that developers are reacting to the failure of the single-family housing market during the current financial decline.

The economic downturn prompted increased demand for rental units as some homeowners lost their property and potential purchasers withdrew from the unpredictable real estate market.

Numerous investors feel apartment buildings are a reliable, promising and profitable investment opportunity, according to the UCLA report.

The study mentioned that 10-year Treasury bond yields are less than 2%, and that the large investors are looking for superior earning alternatives. Currently soaring rents present the expectation of greater potential revenue and principal appreciation.

“Of course, the boom in multifamily construction will have the seeds of its own destruction,” said David Shulman, a UCLA economist.  “As rents rise, consumers will shift out of rental into ownership units.”

The report said that by 2014 quantity of multifamily units will outpace demand for them.

“The American Dream of homeownership may be comatose, but it is not dead,” said Shulman, the UCLA economist.  “And the wake-up call will come in the form of higher rents.”

Filed Under: Government Issues Tagged With: , , ,

SB 1191 Seeks to Shield Tenants from Risk Foreclosures Today; What’s Next?

October 16, 2012 By
By Steve Carlson & Tim Coyle, Sacramento Lobbyists

It was Lewis Carroll who introduced us nearly 150 years ago to the strange world of Alice’s Wonderland where logic and reason were rarely present and where what was considered by most mortals as profoundly absurd was considered in this place to be normal. “Up is down and down is up” was the author’s profound and most precise description of what made this mythical domain so different from what we know is reality.

Though much less colorful than Carroll’s Wonderland, California’s Legislature is equally fantastic and entertaining. The institution is famous for interesting characters and their various antics. And, the upside-down logic that is commonly used by state lawmakers to justify their support or opposition to legislation, is particularly pervasive during the final two weeks of the  legislative session.

And, so it was that a bill like SB 1191 (Simitian) which, despite AAGLA’s best efforts to defeat, was approved last month before lawmakers adjourned for the year. Far from being reasonable, the bill required property owners in financial difficulty to warn would-be renters from living there – the thinking being that consumers needed to know what dangers lay ahead before they made their decision. If an owner failed to present this information to someone shopping for a rental, he or she would be fined the cash equivalent of one month’s rent or would have to forfeit a full month’s actual rent.  

Bad bill – the winner of the author’s local “There Ought to be a Law” contest – but not horrific.  And, even a skeptic could extract some amount of logic – that consumers deserve material information before making their decision. Except that:

The bill was based on the false premise that a loan default is as good as a foreclosure;

The bill required compensation to a tenant, even though the tenant suffered no injury or damage and the owner may have cured the default in the interim; and

The bill only applied to small owners – those whose properties were one to four units.

Let’s break this measure down. First, if you’re a borrower or you’re a lender, your primary interest, should a default occur, is to cure the delinquency and bring the loan current. Indeed, data shows that most defaults get worked out. Hence, despite the declaration imbedded in SB 1191 – that a lender’s  Notice of Default means “the foreclosure process has begun” and tenants may be kicked out of their home if they rent there – both sides usually attempt to move Heaven and Earth to cure the default. And, the good news is: more often than not they do. 

But, what’s critical to curing the default? Rental income, which SB 1191 would essentially deny the property owners. 

Second, more than likely, a tenant is unaffected by an owner’s efforts to bring a loan current. It’s one thing if the owner fails to maintain the property – if that happens he or she faces stiff penalties under current law until the problem is corrected. But, SB 1191 says that on that happy day when borrower and   lender reach agreement on a default cure, the tenant is entitled to a minimum cash payment of one month’s rent simply because the owner didn’t disclose the existence of a financial jam.

Unfortunately, bills like SB 1191 are more common than not, and is another example of what goes on “Beyond the Looking Glass” in Sacramento where the recurring message to private property owners is “Proceed at Your Own Risk”.

Filed Under: Government Issues Tagged With: , , ,

Don’t Forget to Vote

October 15, 2012 By
By Greg Brown,  NAA Legislative Affairs

Apartment Industry Colleagues,

It’s October and we have entered the proverbial “Final Act” of the 2012 campaign season.  Depending on when you are reading this column, we are somewhere between 36 and 26 days from Election Day, November 6, 2012. A lot will be determined on that day – the next occupant of the White House, control of the House and Senate, control of governors’ mansions, state  legislatures, city councils and mayors’ offices, 166 state-wide initiatives in 35 states and a staggering amount of local  community questions. I hope everyone did their homework because for some, it will be a very long ballot.

While Election Day still holds a sacred and powerful place in American culture, it has quietly lost some of its magic as an increasing number of states offer early voting and the use of absentee ballots. Thirty-two states currently offer some form of early voting. Twenty-seven offer no-excuse, absentee ballot voting by mail. This means higher voter turnout, but also a longer barrage of political advertisements as campaigns seek to influence voters who make decisions before November 6th. This is especially true if you are in one of the so-called “swing” states that will decide the Presidential contest – New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa and Nevada. So much spending on television advertisements is expected in these states that some local stations have told their regular commercial clients not to bother buying ad time. It will be lost in the deluge. 

Another cultural icon of our political process is the Presidential nominating conventions, though those have also lost much of their glamour. Unlike the past, these events are almost entirely scripted (sometimes over-scripted), self-contained commercials for the candidates with little or no actual nominating taking place. Still, the presence of members of Congress, governors and local elected leaders does offer some limited opportunities to promote the apartment industry and share our perspective on critical issues facing the nation. NAA did just that at both conventions this year as a participant in a webcast panel discussion with members of Congress and colleagues from almost 20 other real estate organizations. NAA Chair Jerry Wilkinson and Chair-elect Alex Jackiw represented NAA and the National Multi-Housing Council and gave voice to apartment industry concerns on tax reform, federal regulation and the future of the housing finance system, among other issues. If you would like to see a replay of the webcast, go to the NAA government affairs webpage at www.naahq.org/governmentaffairs.

 A special thanks to those of you who participated in NAA’s August Recess Program again this year. We once again had a strong showing by NAA affiliates and members who met with their members of Congress in August carrying our message on taxes and tax reform. This is an important component in our advocacy strategy. When members of Congress return after the elections for the “lame-duck” session, they will have to address the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Your voice will be needed once again to ensure that the apartment industry’s voice is heard. For more information on NAA’s priorities on taxes and tax reform, go to the NAA government affairs advocacy page at www.naahq.org/governmentaffairs/naaadvocacy.

That’s it from me. Now for your homework assignment – email me at greg@naahq.org if there is an initiative or other item on your statewide ballot this fall that impacts the apartment industry.  Tell me what it is, how it impacts our industry, and what the likelihood is that it passes. As always, if you have thoughts or comments on anything about which I’ve written, please tell me that too.

Talk to you next month.

Filed Under: Government Issues Tagged With: , , , ,

AAGLA Zeros in on Waste Hauler – Franchise Proposal

October 11, 2012 By
By James B. Clarke, AAGLA Executive Director

This past month brought quite a bit of action with regard to the Waste Hauler Franchise proposal in the City of Los Angeles. As many of you know, this proposal would take away the right for apartment owners to negotiate their own agreements with trash hauling companies by creating 11 different waste districts – each serviced by a single company.  It may also mandate on-site diversion with regard to recycling requirements forced upon us by the state.

AAGLA’s goal is to make certain that any changes to the current system are fair, do not raise fees, allow for competition amongst the haulers and – at the same time – strengthen industry environmental standards. 

Here is a synopsis of some of our activities. 

AAGLA President, Rick Otterstrom, participated in a press conference along with representatives from other business organizations including Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, Central City Association, The Valley Industry and Commerce Association, etc., relaying their concerns about an exclusive waste hauling franchise being proposed by the Bureau of Sanitation. 

During the past few weeks, I met with Council-members Cardenas and Zine – both members of the Energy and Environment Committee – to relay our message, insisting that any proposal contain a competitive process to keep service prices down. AAGLA Directors Michael Millman and Ron Bowdoin attended a joint hearing held by the Ad Hoc Committee on Waste Hauling and the Energy and Environment Committee. The Committees delivered a bit of a blow to our efforts as they sent the current proposal which contained an exclusive franchise system to the full City Council for more debate.

Also, last month, I joined members of three tenant advocacy groups in a meeting with the Office of the Mayor and the President of the Board of Public Works (BPW). Tenants and owners have developed a list of shared principles on the waste hauling issue. During our hour and a half-long meeting, the principles - which include a warning of rising service costs that will result in higher rents – were presented to the Mayor’s Deputy Chief of Staff and the President of the BPW.

AAGLA will continue to focus on this issue. According to Council sources, this is just the beginning of a very long process. We were assured that there will be plenty of time and opportunity for more modification to the current proposal. 

You may be certain that AAGLA will be at the table to do all we can to make sure our prices don’t skyrocket and that we and our managers won’t become the recycling police for our residents. In the coming month, you will receive more information about this issue and others; and how you can be of great assistance in our battle. Stay tuned…

Filed Under: Government Issues Tagged With: , , ,

2012 Election

October 10, 2012 By
By Rick Otterstrom

In just under a month, you will have the opportunity to participate in the Presidential Election of 2012. We believe every citizen should make their own personal informed decision on who they want to run our country. We also believe every citizen has the duty to participate and cast their ballot on November 6th, 2012. For those of you who use the option of the absentee ballot; your ballot should be in the mail in a few days.

The 2012 California Primary Election was held in June and AAGLA supported a number of candidates for State Assembly, State Senate and Congress. Now on November 6th in the General Election, the two candidates from each District that received the most votes in the Primary Election will meet in the General Election to determine who will eventually hold each office. In the 2012 General Election, we are supporting the listed incumbents and candidates in the following races:

STATE ASSEMBLY:

SCOTT WILK, District 36
RAUL BOCANEGRA, District 39
MIKE MORRELL, District 40
CHRIS HOLDEN, District 41
MIKE GATTO, District 43
JEFF GORELL, District 44
BOB BLUMENFIELD, District 45
ADRIN NAZARIAN, District 46
ROGER HERNANDEZ, District 48
EDWIN “ED” CHAU, District 49
BETSY BUTLER, District 50
JIMMY GOMEZ, District 51
NORMA TORRES, District 52
JOHN PEREZ, District 53
HOLLY MITCHELL, District 54
IAN CALDERON, District 57
CHRISTINA GARCIA, District 58
REGGIE JONES-SAWYER, District 59
CURT HAGMAN, District 60
STEVE BRADFORD, District 62
ANTHONY RENDON, District 63
ISADORE HALL, District 64
AL MURATSUCHI, District 66
TOM DALY, District 69

STATE SENATE:

CAROL LIU, District 25
ROBERT HUFF, District 29
RICARDO LARA, District 33
ROD WRIGHT, District 35

UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVES:

TONY CARDENAS, District 29
JANICE HAHN, District 44

AAGLA is a special interest group and we keep this in mind when making these decisions. Our focus is very narrow on each race and candidate. We choose to support the candidate we believe is the best in the district for the rental housing industry. To make an informed decision on which candidates to support in each district, we spend months interviewing the viable candidates who are running in these elections. When making our final decision, we select the best candidate in the race that meets our standards and has the ability to win! The candidate must understand the rental housing business, identify with our pending issues, listen to our positions, and finally, be the best vote for us.

These recommendations are for the benefit of the rental housing industry. Each voter should look at all aspects of each candidate running in his/her district to make their own final decision. Please vote November 6, 2012.

Filed Under: Government Issues Tagged With: , ,

Employee or Independent Contractor – Senate Bill 459 and How it Affects You!

September 6, 2012 By
By Thomas Schultz, Hub International Insurance Services

All too often, usually around the time of their Workers’ Compensation Audit, clients call or email wondering why an independent contractor has been included in their annual payroll. In general it is the case that the person they thought was an independent contractor does not meet the criteria and is considered an employee by the auditor. If an independent contractor does not carry his/her own Workers Comp insurance then their fees, plus the cost of materials are all considered payroll and subject to the exposure rate. The result is a higher premium and a lesson as to why proper employee classification is so important. The WCIRB and most insurance agents can provide guidelines for determining whether a person is an independent contractor and it is always recommended to get a certificate of their insurance. Still there are always going to be those employers who try and circumvent the law and make it harder for the rest of us. Now, with the passage of Senate Bill 459 employers or their advisors, who willfully misclassify an employee, can face stiff penalties.

Violation of the statute can result in a civil penalty of between $5,000 and $15,000. If it can be shown the employer has engaged “in a pattern or practice of violations” the civil penalty increases to $10,000 to $25,000. “Pattern of practice” has yet to be defined and as a result is open to interpretation. Furthermore the law includes “that a person who, for money or other valuable consideration, knowingly advises an employer to treat an individual as an independent contractor to avoid employee status for the individual shall be jointly and severally liable with the employer if the individual is not found to be an independent contractor.” This guideline sets a new precedent for labor law, making California the first state to impose liability on people who provide employers advice for a fee. Compared to proper insurance coverage the penalties are costly and should encourage employers to carefully examine their business relationships with independent contractors.

The law is the result of the IRS’ new settlement initiative, the Voluntary Classification Settlement Program. This program allows employers to come forward if they are not under audit, reclassify independent contractors as employees and pay a significantly reduced employment tax. Attorneys and employees who offer classification advice are excluded from liability but other advisors such as business consultants or insurance agents should be careful with their level of involvement in such decisions. Beyond the monetary penalties any employer or advisor found guilty of violating the law will be required to post a notice on their company website stating that they violated the law. The best advice for employers is to make sure your employees are classified correctly and that if you hire independent contractors make sure they carry their own insurance. Overall the new law serves as a reminder that employers who follow the guidelines will save themselves time and money.

Filed Under: Government Issues Tagged With: , , , ,

Can Banks Come After You After A Short Sale Deficiency? – Part 3 of 3

August 31, 2012 By
By Victor Sy, CPA

A short sale occurs when a property sells for less than the remaining amount of indebtedness. Banks can go after homeowners for the deficiency – the difference between a low sale price and a high loan amount.

The passage of two anti-deficiency judgment bills is a victory for California home-owners who have been forced to short sell their property, only to find that lenders can pursue them after a short sale for the difference between the loan and the proceeds that the property sold for.

We discussed Senate Bill 931, a relief from deficiencies on first deeds of trust in a prior article. Let’s discuss Senate Bill 458 which helps borrowers on junior liens (second deeds of trust and home equity loans).

Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 458, introduced by Senate Majority Leader Ellen Corbett, on July 11, 2011. It was effective immediately as an urgency statute. SB 458 builds on the protections initiated by SB 931 which requires the first lien holder in a short sale to accept an agreed-upon payment as full payment for the outstanding loan balance. This new law extends this prohibition to all junior lenders as well. It prohibits secondary lien holders from pursuing deficiencies after a short sale closes. In short, Senate Bill 458 requires the same “no recourse” treatment for all secondary loans.

Points of Clarification:

• These rules apply only to residences. 

• Dwellings don’t have to be owner occupied.

• Dwellings cannot be more than four units.

• A lender is prohibited from demanding a seller to contribute as a condition of approval.

• However, a borrower may voluntarily offer monetary contribution to a lender to obtain approval. 

• A lender is permitted to negotiate a contribution from other lenders, agents, and relatives.

The New Law Does Not Apply To:

• Foreclosures.

• A lender seeking damages for a borrower’s fraud or waste.

• A borrower that is a corporation, LLC, limited partnership, or political subdivision of the state.

• A lien secured by a bond as specified or a public utility lien.

The Beauty of Senate Bills 931 and 458:

Both bills are blessings to homeowners who lose their homes to a short sale. Their miseries do not end with the loss. They may also face lawsuits by banks who try to recover funds that have not been fully paid from the sale. SB 458 comes to the rescue by ensuring that once a lender agrees to accept a short sale, all lien holders – senior and junior loans – must consider the outstanding balance as paid in full. The homeowner will not be held responsible for additional payments. In short, these two new laws protect homeowners by barring first and second lien holders from going after sellers after a short sale.

In Summary:

• SB 931 prohibits primary lien holders (first trust deeds) from pursuing deficiencies after a short sale closes.

• SB 458 prohibits secondary lien holders (second trust deeds and lines of credit) from pursuing deficiencies.

Both laws stated above, prohibit lenders from going after first, second, and subsequent mortgages.

Sy can be reached at 626-744-0200 or online at vsy@victsycpa.com.

Filed Under: Government Issues Tagged With: , , ,

Few Surprises Come from “Open” Primary

August 28, 2012 By
By Steve Carlson & Tim Coyle, Sacramento Lobbyists

Great expectations for June 5, 2012 primary election began forming well before its new, path-breaking format was put into action several weeks ago. The idea of an “open primary” had become popular in California over the past two decades. Pundits said elections where vote totals, not political parties, decide the finalists for a general election would attract more centrist candidates to compete. If the centrist candidate prevailed, the theory went, there would be less partisanship in Sacramento and gridlock would eventually come to an end.

Despite the build-up, there were few dramatic outcomes attributable to the state’s recent open primary. Of the 20 Senate races conducted, only 2 will see candidates of the same political parties vie against one another in November. Similarly in the Assembly, while the finalists in 18 of the 40 races are candidates from the same political party, nearly half of those races featured candidates from the same party to begin with.

There were a few scattered contests where so-called moderates made it to the final match-up in November. But for the most part, non-centrist, liberal candidates survived to be the favorites in Democrat contests and likewise, the more conservative candidates prevailed in predominantly Republican districts.

One important exception is the race in the 39th Assembly District. The contest in this Eastern San Fernando Valley district featured the chief of staff to term-out Assembly Member Felipe Fuentes – Raul Bocanegra – versus Los Angeles City Councilman Richard Alarcon. Even though Bocanegra out- performed Alarcon by nearly 3,000 votes – just under 10% – in the June face-off, the new open-primary rules force these 2 combatants into a run-off election in November. AAGLA has taken a keen interest in this race, particularly because of Alarcon’s terrible record on matters important to Southland property owners.

Perhaps one of the most important outcomes of the June primary is how much closer it took Democrats to winning that game-changing 2/3 majority in the Legislature’s upper house. Going into November, Democrats (in both houses) are only 2 votes away from winning the much-prized 2/3 majority. A super majority gives the controlling party power to, among other things, raise taxes and fees, and to place constitutional amendments on the ballot. While it’s not likely that Republicans in the Assembly will give up a net 2 seats and yield the 2/3 margin to their political adversaries, it is conversely very possible that it will happen in the Senate.

Another significant result of the June primary came as a surprise to political observers all across the state: the overwhelming support given by California voters to Proposition 28, a ballot measure to change the two-decades-old law governing and limiting the terms of state legislators. Under the current term-limit law, individuals may only serve a maximum of 6 years in the state Assembly (three 2-year terms) and 8-years in the state Senate (two 4-year terms). These are lifetime limits – a maximum of 14-years. Proposition 28, which passed by a substantial margin on June 5, amends the law to a) cap the total lifetime limit at 12-years; and b) allows any or all of those 12-years to be served in either the Assembly or Senate, or some combination of both.

Proponents of Proposition 28 had argued that if a legislator who plans to serve all 12-years in one house of the Legislature, he or she will devote himself or herself to a particular issue and thereby become more of an expert in that field. We agree. We also believe that better relationships can be established with lawmakers who, say, use their lengthened stay in the Legislature to take a greater and long-term interest in housing. Of course, the opposite is possible, as well – we could get stuck with a hostile lawmaker who gains strength and power with time.

In the end, however, maybe the biggest surprise coming from the June 5th primary election was that there were few surprises. We’ll know more in November.

Filed Under: Government Issues Tagged With: , , ,
« Older Posts