CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2017, OR THEREAFTER
BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“IS SMALLER BETTER, OR IS IT REALLY BIGGER?”
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2017, OR THEREAFTER
BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“IS SMALLER BETTER, OR IS IT REALLY BIGGER?”
Bigger, California has learned through
long experience, isn’t always better. In fact, it can be downright destructive,
as when a city outgrows its water or freeway system.
The question of whether bigger can
actually be better, more responsive and cost-effective arises again this
spring, in a pair of proposals that could fundamentally change politics both statewide
and in California’s largest county.
One of these plans, purveyed in a
proposed 2018 initiative now circulating in some areas, would essentially make
the Legislature 100 times bigger than it is today, while cutting its pay and
reducing the size of Assembly and Senate districts to about 1 percent of their
current dimensions.
The other would expand county boards
of supervisors from five members to seven where population tops 5 million, which
today means only Los Angeles County, which would also get an elected chief
executive similar to a mayor.
This one is aimed to improve government in L.A., sponsors
saying it would modernize the state’s most powerful local government, where
open county board seats can attract sitting members of Congress who already
occupy very secure jobs, as when Democratic former San Pedro Rep. Janice Hahn
won a seat on the board last year.
The more wide-ranging of these plans
comes from John Cox, a San Diego County real estate investor who just now is
the only 2018 Republican candidate for governor. As such, he drew 18 percent
support in one recent major poll, topping the better-known Democratic likes of
former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and current state Treasurer John
Chiang. He trailed only Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, the Democratic former mayor of
San Francisco, who scored 28 percent.
Cox’s current initiative is a rehash
of an idea he floated in 2012 which failed to draw enough petition signatures
to make the 2014 ballot. It would essentially divide the current 80 Assembly
and 40 state Senate districts by 100, creating neighborhood micro-districts of
5,000 and 10,000 persons each. Every district would get a representative –
12,000 in all.
Recognizing this might be just a tad
unwieldy, Cox would have the 12,000 new legislators elect “working committees”
of 80 Assembly members and 40 senators – oddly enough, the exact sizes of
today’s two legislative houses.
The working committees would perform
most tasks of the current Legislature, but the full bodies of 8,000 in the
Assembly and 4,000 for the Senate would vote on all non-urgent matters and
proposed laws. Lawmakers’ pay would be cut to $1,000 yearly.
Cox is convinced this would take most
of the big money out of legislative politics, forcing candidates to go door to
door in their small districts rather than flooding airwaves and mailboxes with
advertising. The actual, working lawmakers on the two active committees would
then have just 99 constituents each (other neighborhood legislators) to please
and pander to.
Don’t expect this one to go very far
once voters realize they wouldn’t even be changing the number of people in the
Capitol, but would add a whole new layer of government.
Meanwhile, the county proposal sponsored
by Democratic state Sen. Tony Mendoza of Artesia could create the second most
powerful political job in California in the Los Angeles County executive, and two
other posts also certain to draw big-name candidates and big-money campaigns.
His plan to add two county supervisors
to the current five would reduce each Los Angeles County supervisor’s district population
to 1.4 million from today’s 2 million.
“By increasing representation and
creating a professional management position, we will address multiple issues
and actively improve local government,” Mendoza said.
This one needs a two-thirds vote in
both current legislative houses to make the 2020 ballot and become effective in
2022. A similar proposal failed in 2015 after drawing opposition from the
then-current Los Angeles County board.
The Mendoza plan also raises the
question of whether it’s right for voters in the rest of California to decide
the structure of politics in Los Angeles, when it won’t affect anyone but
Angelenos.
Either of these plans would make for major upheaval,
something voters historically have not been inclined to approve. But no one can
predict the outcome of such a vote in today’s volatile political climate, not
when it involves creation of thousands of new political positions for ambitious
Californians to occupy.
-30-
Elias is author of the current book “The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government's Campaign to Squelch It,” now available in an updated third edition. His email address is tdelias@aol.com
No comments:
Post a Comment