Wednesday, August 28, 2013

'San Gabriel County' makes sense

Pasadena Star News
By: Cynthia Kurtz
Posted 8/21/2013 

There has been news lately about a legal challenge to Los Angeles County’s adopted supervisorial redistricting plan. That challenge reminded me about a speech I gave more than 14 years ago - long before I worked at the San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership. Since the notion of county governance is being discussed, I’ll float my idea again - still relevant after all these years. Here’s the abbreviated version of my speech:

“I recommend we establish “San Gabriel County.” Let me say that this is in no way a complaint about our current elected representation which I think is good. It is, however, about a more effective governance structure and what the San Gabriel Valley could do as a distinct county.

First, we could focus on our problem and our solutions. Does anyone believe we have the same problems as the Westside, Downtown, or the South Bay? 

Second, we would receive a fairer share of funding. Between 1983 and 1999 the San Gabriel Valley contributed an estimated $400 million more to the region in transportation taxes then it received in transportation projects. 

Third, it would bring us together as a region. 

With apologies to David Letterman, here are the top 10 reasons why we need to create the new “San Gabriel County.” 

Reason #10 - Los Angeles County is too big to be governed effectively: 10 million residents versus 2 million in the SGV. I am not claiming that smaller counties are inherently better governed but I do claim that smaller counties have a better chance of being better governed.

Reason #9 - We invented the Los Angeles region at the San Gabriel Mission. After 200 years, it is time for an overhaul.

Reason #8 - Five Supervisors closer to home.

Reason #7 - It will help grow and tap the leadership potential of our Asian American and Latino communities.

Reason  #6 - We can use our tax dollars more effectively and we won’t be exporting them to downtown Los Angeles.

Reason #5 - We won’t have to fight with the MTA anymore.

Reason #4 – Foothill Transit, the Gold Line and ACE.

Reason #3 - The LA Times won’t realize we have left anyway.

Reason # 2 - In our heart of hearts we really want to do it.

And the #1 reason for creating the San Gabriel County - It’s a win-win. Creating the San Gabriel County will be just as good for the rest of Los Angeles County as it is for us. It will create a more responsive and effective county government for Los Angeles County residents.

Thursday, August 22, 2013

State’s environmental review process flawed

Pasadena Star News
By: Cynthia Kurtz
Posted 8/21/2013 

There was an interesting story about the California High Speed Rail Authority in the news this week. Unless you are a policy wonk you may not have paid any attention to the details. The story wasn’t about the merits of the project or whether high speed rail is California’s future or a complete folly. 

This story was about the environmental review requirements for the project. The California High Speed Rail Authority filed a brief in a recent court case claiming that they were not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. Instead they claim the project need only comply with the federal environmental laws called National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA.

Just to be very clear, the California High Speed Rail Authority’s board of directors is made up of nine members, five of whom are appointed by the Governor, two by the Senate Committee on Rules, and two by the Speaker of the Assembly. It is a state board appointed to oversee a state project, yet they claim to be exempt from state rules.

You may be wondering why I think this is even a little bit interesting. Isn’t it just one more esoteric court battle? I think the Authority’s action is a very public demonstration about what businesses throughout the state have been saying for years: CEQA is no longer about protecting the environment.  

While some opponents of the Authority’s action claim that NEPA is less stringent review process, the requirements for protecting the environment are the same. Environmental standards are set in federal laws such as the Clean Air Act and the Clear Water Act. They must be met regardless of whether it is through a NEPA or CEQA review.

What CEQA adds to environmental requirements is the ability to slow down a project by raising frivolous questions until the project runs out of money, the ability to keep lawyers busy filing claims even if they don’t have a client, the chance for unions to hold a project hostage until a union forces a project labor agreement, and the opportunity for a competitor to thwart its competition. NEPA doesn’t afford project opponents these options.

If the state’s own projects can’t be built efficiently under CEQA, maybe there is a problem with CEQA. One would hope that the Legislature would watch what their appointed board is doing and perhaps be thinking that something should be done.  

Legislation claiming to be CEQA reform is working its way through the Senate now in the form SB 731, authored by Senator Steinberg. Business, housing and local government leaders say the bill does not reform CEQA and in fact makes it harder to approve responsible projects.  

Senator Steinberg says the bill will encourage and expand in-fill development and reduce urban sprawl. They are noble goals but not CEQA reform.

Stay tuned. This battle is far from over.

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

American's can't agree on public policy

Pasadena Star News
By: Cynthia Kurtz
Posted 8/13/2013

“Fickle” - likely to change frequently, suddenly or unexpectedly. Erratic. That seems to fairly well describe Americans when it comes to questions about public policy. A review of the 2013 Reason-Rupe Public Opinion Survey shows that we change our minds often, get tired of issues quickly, and can't agree on what we want from the government. 

In May 2013 over 1,000 adults were interviewed by Princeton Survey Research Associates about current issues. The answers were weighted to correct for demographic discrepancies resulting in a margin of error of plus or minus 3.7 percent.  

You would think a survey like this would be a good barometer on how the country feels about policy issues. It could be a big help to elected officials who are interested in understanding what their constituents want the federal government to do. But it isn't that easy.

First question, "Are things in this country heading in the right direction or the wrong direction?" Pretty clear response to that query - 57 percent said “wrong direction” to 34 percent saying “right direction.”

Who are we holding responsible? Clearly Congress with a 75 percent disapproval rate and a paltry 16 percent approval rating. Ouch.

We think more highly of the job President Obama is doing. He has a 50 percent approval rating. But we can't agree on his economic policies - 45 percent approve and 47 percent disapprove.

Now let's get to those questions on what do we want from our government - 48 percent want less government while 47 percent say the government should be doing more.  

48 percent say the government should be promoting traditional values while 47 percent say government should not favor any particular set of values.

51 percent say on-line retailers should be required to collect sales taxes while 45 percent say they should not.

Some issues we just get tired of. A majority of Americans supported gun control. The U.S. Senate didn't support comprehensive gun control. Now 62 percent of Americans say move on to other issues.

Are we in agreement on any issues? A few. We don’t think the government should be deciding the types of bags available at grocery stores and retailers - 82 percent say let the consumer and stores decide. 61 percent oppose a new tax for a universal preschool system and 58 percent think taking our shoes off at the TSA airport check point makes us safer. We would however like to get rid of the 3 ounce shampoo bottle rule.

It is difficult for Congress to do what we want them to do when we are so divided on what we want done. We are not easy to govern.

Thursday, August 8, 2013

How are jobs, jobless rates calculated?

Pasadena Star News
By: Cynthia Kurtz
Posted 8/08/2013 

On the first Friday of every month, information about the number of jobs created or lost in the prior month and the current unemployment rate is announced by the federal government. The numbers last week were disappointing - just 162,000 jobs were created in July far below the number anticipated or needed. The national unemployment rate still slipped slightly lower to 7.4 percent, probably because of more people leaving the workforce rather than finding work. 


The health of our economy is tracked using these two figures. They drive public policy and consumer confidence. Where does this important data come from and how is it collected? It comes from surveys of households and businesses across the country, probably including a few in the San Gabriel Valley. 

Unemployment rates are computed from the Current Population Survey of 60,000 households. The households are carefully chosen to represent the U.S. population based on geographic sampling and reflecting urban and rural areas.

Each month one-quarter of the sample households are removed from the interview list and not sampled again for eight months. After the second year of participating, a household is removed for good. Therefore, there is both continuity and change built into the sample. About 75 percent of the sample is the same from month to month and about 50 percent from year to year.

The U.S. Census Bureau has been conducting this survey every month since 1940. It takes 2,200 Census Bureau employees to gather the data each month. 

Information about whether a person worked, searched for work, or was absent from work in the past week is collected about every sample household member over the age of 15. The survey gathers information on about 110,000 persons each month.

The data on jobs gained or lost is computed from the Current Employment Statistics Survey - a survey of 145,000 businesses and government agencies covering approximately 557,000 job sites. 

The establishment survey counts paid employees whether they are full-time or part-time. The sample includes 900 industries, businesses from every state and from 400 metropolitan areas. About 40 percent of the sample comprises businesses with less than 20 employees. When compared with numbers from the previous month, the number of new jobs can be determined by industry type.

The survey is conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data is collected through a variety of methods tailored to meet the needs of the surveyed establishment - telephone, touch-tone data entry, internet, fax and mail are used. Some months you might hear there is a revised “new jobs” number from a prior month. Revised data is released when additional surveys are received from sampled employers.

Both surveys have strengths and limitations, but together they give us a gauge to measure the nation’s monthly economic changes. If you are ever asked to be a participant in either survey, say “yes.” It’s important information for setting long-term economic policy and that is important for everyone.