AirTalk parses through the implications of Monday’s state Supreme Court ruling, which said ballot initiatives sponsored by citizens are not subject to the same restrictions as proposals from elected officials. We also debate a state Senate bill that would charge a fee on real-estate transactions to support affordable housing projects; explore what we know about ‘magic mushrooms’ in the wake of a proposal to legalize the psychedelic drug in California; and more.
CA Supreme Court decision could make it easier for local governments to raise taxes
The California Supreme Court has handed down a ruling that could make it slightly easier for citizens to use ballot initiatives to raise new local taxes.
The court on Monday ruled that ballot initiatives sponsored by citizens are not subject to the same constraints as tax increases proposed by city and county elected officials. The court interpreted sections of the state Constitution impacted by Proposition 218. Approved in 1996, the proposition spelled out how local governments may levy new taxes and fees.
Writing for the majority, Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuellar says that the law, as it stands, does not bind voters to the constraints placed on local governments by Proposition 218, which intends to make it more difficult to create new taxes.
With AP files.
Guests:
Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, a taxpayers’ rights group
Roger Jon Diamond, attorney based in Santa Monica; he argued the California Supreme Court appeals case, California Cannabis Coalition vs. City of Upland, which could make it easier for citizens to use ballot initiatives to raise taxes
After CA ballot measure proposal to legalize psilocybins, exploring what we know scientifically and medically about ‘magic mushrooms’
It was a big step for drug policy reformers in California when voters approved a ballot measure to legalize recreational adult use of marijuana.
A similar measure on the 2012 ballot had come up short. Now, a mayoral candidate from Northern California is looking to take it one step further and has submitted a ballot measure that would eliminate criminal penalties for adults 21 and older for possessing, selling, cultivating or transporting psilocybins, known on the street as “magic mushrooms.”
Marina mayoral candidate Kevin Saunders says that hallucinogenic mushrooms helped him quit using heroin and feels like legalizing them is a logical next step after recreational marijuana. The trouble is the stigma that still shrouds the drug. Psilocybins are classified as a Schedule I drug at the federal level. These are drugs that the government says have a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. It’s the same category where you’ll find marijuana, LSD, and heroin. Some privately-funded studies have shown potential medical benefits in certain cases like treating anxiety in adults with late-stage cancer, but psylocibin’s Schedule I status prevents funding from being allocated to study it at the federal level.
Have you used mushrooms before? Given your experience, would you support the legalization of recreational use of psilocybins? How much research has been done about the potential for psilocybins to have medical benefits?
Guest:
Dr. Charles Grob, professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at UCLA and director of the division of child and adolescent psychiatry at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center
Should CA subsidize electric cars to the tune of $3 billion?
Assembly Bill 1184 says yes, hunkering down on the $449 million already spent on consumer rebates to increase zero-emission vehicle sales over the last seven years.
If approved by the full state Legislature by September 15, the bill will land on the desk of Governor Jerry Brown.
The idea behind the bill, sponsored by Assemblyman Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) is to subsidize electric vehicles so that they’re comparable in price to similarly sized natural gas-powered vehicles. This will help California meet its 2030 greenhouse gas emission reduction goals, which includes the California Air Resources Board’s target number of 4 million electric vehicles on the road by 2030. According to supporters, these subsidies will drive down the market price of electric cars, eventually making them affordable for all.
But opposition argues that these subsidies would only benefit the wealthy and wouldn’t significantly drive down overall costs. Another major point of contention is where the $3 billion will come from. Right now, it will be primarily drawn from California’s cap-and-trade auction revenue, and some lawmakers argue these state funds could be used more effectively for other projects.
The bill also raises larger questions about whether California should be subsidizing electric cars at all. Is the environmental impact significant enough to merit the cost of subsidies? Could those funds find better use? And will subsidies actually encourage people to buy electric vehicles, or do other factors, such as size and charging station range, play an outsized role?
Guests:
Steve Chadima, senior vice president for External Affairs at Advanced Energy Economy, a business group that co-sponsored AB 1184; he tweets
Adrian Moore, vice president of Policy at the Reason Foundation; he previously served on the California Public Infrastructure Advisory Commission (2010-2012); he tweets
The pros and cons of a recording fee for real estate documents
When California's crippling affordable housing crisis comes up, two problems that should surprise no one often emerge among the biggest hurdles to get past: funding and supply. In order to build up the supply, you've first got to have funding, which is the aim of one affordable housing bill that's part of a larger package currently making its way through the legislature.
Senate Bill 2, also known as the Building Homes and Jobs Act, would impose a fee ranging from $75 to $225 “to be paid at the time of the recording of every real estate instrument, paper, or notice required or permitted by law to be recorded.”
That money would be deposited into a new fund the bill would create within the State Treasury, and a board comprised of members of both the public and private sectors would ultimately decide how those funds are spent. However, they are required to spend 20 percent of the money in the fund on affordable owner-occupied workforce housing and 10 percent for housing purposes related to agricultural workers and their families.
The bill is sponsored by San Diego Democratic Senator Toni Atkins and has received support across the state from housing advocacy groups, various chambers of commerce and a number of local governments. Here's what they see as the biggest upsides to the legislation:
Establishes a permanent, ongoing source of funding for affordable housing that will bring in $200-$300 million a year in revenue.
Has potential to leverage millions more in private funding as well as funding from local and state government.
Deployment of the funds through public-private partnership, as it is set up, will generate revenue and create jobs for local governments who use these funds to build affordable housing.
Despite receiving support from the California Association of Realtors, not all real estate professionals are on board with the bill. The California Mortgage Association and California Escrow Association both oppose the bill. Here's why:
SB 2 picks winners and losers in terms of who will pay. A working person facing foreclosure will have to pay the fee on those documents and if they decide to refinance their mortgage, they'll pay fees on those too. You've got a strange situation where working class people who are trying to keep their own house will pay the fee so someone else can have a house.
There are 600 documents in California that are eligible for recording, so it goes well beyond just refinancing.
We should be wary of any law that chills or discourages recording.
The bill will need a ⅔ majority to pass the Assembly, and there is concern that some Democrats will be wary of voting in favor of the bill after having supported two other tax hikes this year – an increase on vehicle registration fees and the gas tax increase. As of Tuesday afternoon, SB 2 and the other bills in the package were still being discussed in the legislature, though the L.A. Times reported Monday that changes to SB 2 are expected.
We reached out Senator Atkins as well as the bill’s co-sponsors, California Housing and the California Housing Consortium, but no one was able to accommodate our request.
For more on KPCC's coverage of the affordable housing crisis, click here.
Guests:
Ben Adler, capitol bureau chief for Capital Public Radio in Sacramento, who’s been following the negotiations over the housing bills; he tweets
Jason Rhine, legislative representative for the League of California Cities, which supports SB 2
Mike Belote, contract lobbyist representing a variety of real estate interests, including the California Mortgage Association and California Escrow Association, which oppose SB 2
Nonprofit, commercial developers discuss their roles in the future of LA housing
There’s been a longstanding battle between commercial and nonprofit developers in Los Angeles. A package of housing bills has brought up numerous debates on how to tackle the crisis.
The bills include proposed charges on real-estate transactions to fund affordable housing, a $3-billion bond to fund affordable housing and cutting red tape to make way for new housing projects. More than half of L.A. residents pay over 30 percent of their income on housing, and the city has a goal to build more than 100,000 units for the homeless in the next 10 years. And while no one will argue that there’s a housing crisis in SoCal, approaches on how to solve the problem have created mounting tensions.
So what are the perspectives between for-profit and nonprofit developers in the future of housing in Los Angeles? Larry speaks to advocates from both sides today to see where they disagree and relate on the city’s housing crisis.
Guests:
Alan Greenlee, executive director of Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing, an organization that facilitates development of affordable homes across Southern California
Mott Smith, principal with Civic Enterprise Development, a mid-sized developing firm based in L.A., and adjunct professor in the USC Price School of Public Policy