Latest news with #DarrellSteinberg
Yahoo
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Do Sacramento city leaders care about kids? We're about to find out
I have spoken to many people in Sacramento who lead youth service programs, and they all say the same thing: When elected leaders in the city of Sacramento face tough budget cycles, as they are now, the first cuts are often to programs for kids who badly need job training, after-school programs and other resources. It took the city three tries in six years for the city to create a funding stream for kids. In 2020, Measure G failed because too many influencers, including former Mayor Darrell Steinberg, didn't want to lock up 2.5 percent of the city's general fund for kids. In 2022, Measure L passed by a wide margin, in part, because instead of a specific general fund carve-out for youth funding, it requires the city to spend the equivalent of 40 percent of the city's cannabis tax money on kids. This was a pivotal moment in the city's history. Creating a fund to help our communities should never go understated. Measure L based on its own wording was not to replace 'baseline' funding for ongoing city services. Yet funding for parks and youth services in the city's regular 'general fund' budget is undeniably on the increase, that baseline steadily eroding. As one example, Sacramento voters approved a full cent sales tax in 2018, Measure U, on a sales pitch that this new money would expand economic development and youth services going forward. In last year's budget for Youth, Parks and Community Enrichment, the city dedicated more than $46.1 million in Measure U sales tax dollars for various purposes. This year's staff proposal is to plummet Measure U support for these needs by $20 million. Funds for the Community Enrichment Division would decrease by a third, from $1.8 million to $1.2 million. The examples go on. But with a $44 million budget deficit facing the city right now, advocates remain fearful that youth services will be cut to balance city books. Leaders in youth services are worried that the budget cuts will take away funding from programs catered to young adults across all city departments. On Tuesday, the council and mayor had their first debate over the proposed budget and the cuts to follow. Everything from skate parks to police was discussed as an avenue for cuts. As the council looks for ways to create a new budget. youth services leaders find themselves in a position where they again advocating for these vital programs. Councilmember Mai Vang emphasized the stakes involved by invoking a simple phrase: 'It's all about our priorities. We don't have a budget deficit, we have a values deficit,' Vang said. She's right. The city's leaders are going to demonstrate their values in the budget process. Do they value kids or not? By way of the Sacramento Children's Fund, the city will give out $46 million in grants over the next five years for youth services. The city uses general fund money to cover Measure L services and the total must come out to 40% of the annual estimated cannabis business tax revenue. Vang champions supporting the city's youth, particularly with programs. It's a fairly simple idea for her. 'If we really care about moving upstream and taking care of our families, we have to invest. It also means looking at our budget and imagining what that could look like and the majority of that funding goes to police right now.' Vang's point to cut police funding could be a way to ensure that Measure L funds are not changed. It's not like the police are hurting for funds. Over four years, the Sacramento Police budget has increased by more than $50 million, coming to a total of $247 million and it's proposed to increase by $8 million in the next budget. The police department is a good start to look at where cuts could be made so measure L and other vital city resources can stay. The city wholeheartedly supported Measure L to be funded, not reduced. The Sacramento Bee's opinion team is hard at work sifting through the chaos so you don't have to. Get our weekly Bee Opinionated newsletter straight to your inbox and we'll help you cut through the drone of the news cycle. Youth programs are a direct investment in the future. Lowering funding or taking away positions that ensure these programs exist prevent our young adults from achieving their highest potential. Budget cuts are never easy, but the city council has a moment to change the way these tough decisions are made. Back in 2022, voters made a huge statement by passing Measure L, which said our youth matter and should be prioritized. During this budget-cut season, the council has the opportunity to do the same. The baseline for the measure L is 23.2 million, which could easily be reached by staff salary. There is more money in the budget that can go towards helping our young people. Our city depends on their success. 'Our youth is 1/3 of our city but they are 100 percent of our future,' Vang said. Let's hope the rest of the council feels that way come June 10 when the budget is voted on.
Yahoo
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
California's Environmental Regulations Are a Mess. Why Won't Lawmakers Fix Them?
It's not that typical that an acronym for an arcane regulation would be a household word, but in California the term CEQA—pronounced see-kwa—is as well-known as terms such as OMG and LOL. Signed by Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1970, the voluminous statute provides a laundry list of terms and conditions on developers of every manner of construction project. CEQA has created a regulatory nightmare, although it still has defenders. LOL indeed. As the Planning and Conservation League explains, "The California Environmental Quality Act…is California's premier environmental law. It allows public agencies to make informed decisions about activities that could degrade public health and damage the environment. It also provides California residents with the legal framework to hold their public agencies accountable." That sounds so unobjectionable. Who doesn't want public agencies to make informed decisions and provide community members with tools to protect the environment and hold officials accountable? But the reality is far different than what these Pollyannaish civics-textbook explanations suggest. California lawmakers refuse to substantively reform the law, but what's the first thing they do whenever they want a particular project built? You guessed it—they provide a CEQA exemption or streamlining. When the Sacramento Kings wanted to build a new downtown arena and keep the team from leaving town, Senate President Darrell Steinberg (later elected the city's mayor) ushered through an exemption. We've seen multiple examples—or attempts—to reduce the application of CEQA to other professional sports projects, as well as other favored projects, including one tied to LA's effort to lure the Olympics. It's always the sign of a bad law when it constantly requires exemptions. That reminds me of Assembly Bill 5, which banned most independent contracting—but its supporters exempted more than 100 industries from its grip because it threatened so many people's livelihoods. A recent national example: Donald Trump's tariffs posed an existential threat to many businesses, so he's been exempting certain industries. All these regulatory edicts empower the politically well-connected, who have lobbyists who can secure special favors. So what's wrong with CEQA? Whenever the government has discretionary approval authority, the law requires the agency to conduct a review. It usually requires the developers to conduct an extensive environmental analysis. It triggers an initial study process and then often a costly, time-consuming full Environmental Impact Report. Agencies can then mandate remediation or reject the project. It gives any stakeholder the right to file a lawsuit challenging the agency's approval. As is now well documented, interest groups often file lawsuits that are not related to improving the environment. No-growthers file suits to stop—or reduce the size—of projects they don't like. Neighbors can file lawsuits because they don't want more traffic. Unions threaten suits as a way to gain leverage to secure project-labor agreements and other union-friendly conditions. As the law firm Holland & Knight reported in 2015, "64% of those filing CEQA lawsuits are individuals or local 'associations,' the vast majority of which have no prior track record of environmental advocacy." And if you think these cynical efforts to gum up the construction process help the environment, then consider this alarming point from that analysis: "Projects designed to advance California's environmental policy objectives are the most frequent targets of CEQA lawsuits." These include transit projects, multi-family housing, parks, schools and libraries. It notes that 80 percent of the CEQA lawsuits are in infill locations, which is where environmentalists want us to build. CEQA criticism has grown even on the political Left thanks largely to the law's stifling effect on new housing construction. As everyone here knows, California faces a severe housing crisis as the median home price statewide has soared above $800,000 and well over $1 million in many coastal metros. That has led to massive rent spikes and has exacerbated our homelessness situation. Lawmakers have—to their credit—passed targeted exemptions and streamlining provisions for particular types of housing projects (infill, multi-family, duplexes), but it's not enough. A 2022 report for the Center for Jobs and the Economy by Holland & Knight attorney Jennifer Hernandez notes that despite those new laws, "CEQA lawsuits targeting new housing production, in contrast, continue to expand—with 47,999 housing units targeted in the CEQA lawsuits filed just in 2020." The California Air Resources Board (CARB) "acknowledges that two-thirds of CEQA lawsuits allege violations of climate impacts." Look, if CEQA can be used to stop projects based on climate impacts, then it can be used against any project. It's been weaponized as a no-growth tool—constraining housing, energy projects, freeways, rail, you name it. Unless we're happy just grinding progress to a halt, we need to repeal—or significantly reform—this monstrosity and get beyond occasional exemptions for ballparks and public housing. We all know CEQA by name and deed, so why won't elected officials do anything about it? This column was first published in The Orange County Register. The post California's Environmental Regulations Are a Mess. Why Won't Lawmakers Fix Them? appeared first on
