Today on AirTalk we dissect the Latino vote, debate the pros and cons of Proposition 31, consider the constitutionality of Simi Valley's Halloween law targeting sex offenders, question the effects that seismic tests have on marine life, and examine the connection between urban sprawl and city bankruptcy.
How powerful is the Latino vote?
It’s long been known that the Latino voting demographic could make or break this election cycle. But their role could be intensified due to a recent report from the Pew Hispanic Center, which shows that Latino voter eligibility has risen 22 percent since 2008.
As it stands now, nearly 24 million Latino voters could cast ballots in the 2012 elections.
"This is driven by the demographic of the Latino community and a lot of this growth is up to 24 million eligible Latino voters compared with 19.5 million in 2008, has really been driven by young people," said Mark Hugo Lopez associate director, Pew Hispanic Center. "Young people who have turned 18 for example, but also by adult hispanics who were on the verge of naturalizing and have naturalized, so these numbers really reflect growth in those two populations."
This seems to be astoundingly good news for Barack Obama and Democrats, as an impreMedia-Latino Decisions tracking poll found the President would be the choice for 73 percent of national Latino voters, with only 21 percent choosing Romney. In the battleground states Obama still enjoys a majority with 61 percent.
"It'll be interesting to see how Latinos react to the issues that are at play," said Republican political strategist Luis Alvarez. "25 percent or so of young voters are having difficulty entering the workplace, so the economy somehow supersedes the previous issues or tactics that have been used to get Latinos to come out and vote with a punitive vote, whether because they're voting against a certain law that is being passed, like 1070 or 187, or because they don't like the candidate or what they represent."
Some analysts are quick to point out that even though these numbers are staggering, they may not make as big a difference this year as predicted. That’s because the two states with the highest Latino populations, California and Texas, are not actually in play for the presidential race.
Also, the Latino vote has traditionally been underrepresented in comparison to that of whites and blacks. 2008 marked a 50 percent turnout among Latinos, the highest ever seen, but that number trails the 65 and 66 percent of African-Americans and whites who turned out, respectively.
"There are more African Americans who are eligible to vote by about a million to a million and-a-half than Latinos who are eligible to vote, yet in the general US population, the hispanic population is a larger population," said Lopez. "But the reason why many Hispanics aren't eligible to vote is they're under 18, so they're young, or they're an adult who doesn't hold U.S. citizenship…The hispanic electorate is a more youthful electorate."
So what are the campaigns doing to maximize the effect of the Latino vote? Why aren’t the numbers matching those of African-Americans and whites? Will that all change this year?
Guests:
Mark Hugo Lopez, associate director, Pew Hispanic Center; lead author of the report
Luis Alvarado, Republican political strategist specializing in engaging the Latino electorate
Artie Blanco, formerly with the Democratic National Committee, where she served as the Western States Political Director for the 2008 campaign cycle: Recently the Nevada state director for Mi Familia Vota- a national non-profit organization focused on Latino civic participation in the Latino Community; now with the AFL-CIO (Nevada state director)
The pros and cons of Proposition 31
Proposition 31 is an effort on behalf of the political organization California Forward to “bring accountability and transparency” to the state. If passed, Prop 31 would achieve this by establishing a two-year budget cycle with prohibitions on the legislature creating $25 million expenditures without corresponding revenues or spending cuts.
But the law wouldn’t just limit power; in cases where the legislature fails to act, it also gives the governor power to unilaterally slash budgets in a state of fiscal emergencies.
Furthermore, it allows for local governments to alter the way in which programs funded by the state impact the communities, and any changes would stand unless the state Legislature or a specific agency vetoes them within 60 days.
It creates some specific requirements for California, calling for mandatory performance reviews of all programs, performance goals to be attached to state and local budgets, and bills must be published three days prior to a legislative vote.
California Republicans on the whole support this measure, as they feel that challenging the status quo could result in them gaining more power in the government. Democrats, being the controlling party, oppose it and want to keep things as they are.
Prop Breakdown:
Official Title — State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitution Amendment and Statute.Establishes two-year state budget cycle. Prohibits Legislature from creating expenditures of more than $25 million unless offsetting revenues or spending cuts are identified. Permits Governor to cut budget unilaterally during declared fiscal emergencies if Legislature fails to act. Requires performance reviews of all state programs. Requires performance goals in state and local budgets. Requires publication of bills at least three days prior to legislative vote. Allows local governments to alter how laws governing state-funded programs apply to them, unless Legislature or state agency vetoes change within 60 days.
Weigh In:
What other factions are siding for or against Prop 31? Which side is resonating more with voters? What would the implications be if it passes? What if it doesn’t?
Guests:
Jim Mayer, Executive Director for California Forward
Wendy Mitchell, California League of Conservation Voters
Simi Valley’s Halloween law is no treat, according to registered sex offenders
Less than a month after the city of Simi Valley approved restrictions of registered sex offenders’ Halloween activities, it has been sued for allegedly violating the first amendment rights of convicted sex criminals and their families.
The new law bans individuals convicted of sex crimes from displaying Halloween decorations and lighting on their homes every October 31. Offenders listed on the Megan’s Law website are additionally required to post a sign on the front door in letters at least an inch tall that reads: “No candy or treats at this residence.” Both requirements violate free speech rights, according to the lawsuit.
Several California municipalities, including communities in Riverside County and the city of Orange, enforce Halloween laws for sex offenders. Janice Bellucci, the lawyer representing five registered sex offenders and their family members, said Monday she plans to ask a federal judge for an injunction to stop Simi Valley from enforcing its new law this Halloween.
Mayor Bob Huber, who introduced the new restrictions, declined to comment because of the pending litigation. Does the new law in Simi Valley violate sex offender’s free speech rights? Would you feel your kids were safer if there were similar “no candy” laws in your community?
Guests:
Janice Bellucci, Lawyer in private practice based in Santa Barbara County; Board President, California Reform Sex Offender Laws
Carolyn V. Cavecche, Mayor, City of Orange
Do undersea seismic tests threaten marine life?
Researching active fault zones in earthquake-prone areas like California is a complex scientific process. One controversial testing technique involves the use of high-decibel air cannons to create detailed images of submarine fault zones, but the practice has environmental groups up in arms. Scientists and officials at power plants that run nuclear power facilities like Diablo Canyon and San Onofre are especially interested in the findings of such research following the disaster at Japan’s Fukushima facility in the aftermath of the March 2011 earthquake and subsequent tsunami.
The air blasts would sound every 15 seconds for 12 consecutive days at 250 decibels (jet engines are in the 140 decibel range,) meaning that the proposed research would subject undersea life to significant but temporary threats to their health and their habitats. Researchers say that the scans would be preceded by low-frequency sound waves designed to scare off fish and marine mammals.
Before the proposed tests are conducted off the coast of California, they must first be approved by a number of different agencies.
What kind of research is justified in the name of seismic science? How important are these kinds of tests around potentially hazardous facilities like nuclear power generating facilities?
Guests:
Karen Garrison, senior policy analyst, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) oceans program
Bruce Gibson, district 2 supervisor, County of San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors
Is urban sprawl to blame for cities going bankrupt?
Stockton was the first and largest California city to go bankrupt in 2012, followed by Mammoth Lakes, and San Bernardino, which filed for municipal bankruptcy protection in July. Word is the small city of Atwater in Central California might be next.
In each case, it seemed that large public pension obligations were to blame, but in a recent Los Angeles Times op-ed, former Ventura mayor William Fulton argues that, “…the pension blame game masks another, deeper problem for the state’s taxpayers: the hidden but crushing costs of sprawl.”
Fulton acknowledges that pensions are a big part of the financial challenges cities are facing, but he says that if cities grow smartly by building roads and buildings close together instead of spread out, it will be more affordable for those cities to provide services and offer them a way out of this financial box.
“I don’t want to underestimate the importance of the pension issue, as a former mayor I understand that is a huge issue and pension reform is necessary,” said Fulton on AirTalk. “But if you have sprawling suburban development patterns with large lots and long distances from jobs, the public investment to make those subdivisions built in the first place is much higher, the cost of providing police and fire and every other service to those areas is bigger, and therefore its very difficult for cities to regain all of the cost that they have with the tax revenues.”
Fulton also stresses how Proposition 13 makes this a bigger issue in California. He says that the increased property taxes that you find in larger homes does not necessarily compensate for the difference in costs between more condensed areas and urban sprawl.
“Under Proposition 13, unless the house is sold, if it goes up in value it can't be reassessed and the fact that you have low taxes if you don’t move encourages more people to stay put,” said Fulton. “Houses don’t turn over as much as they might otherwise, so overtime the cost of services goes up and the revenue associated with that property goes down.”
On the opposing side of this argument is Wendell Cox, principal, Demographia, and former member of the L.A. County Transportation Commission, who currently resides in Bellville, Illinois. He says it’s the public pensions that are really to blame for certain California cities’ money trouble, not the issue of “smart growth.”
“I could not disagree more, [Fulton] is basically suggesting that the dreaded demon sprawl is to blame for the bankruptcy of those cities... when in fact if we look at California we have a 500 billion pension liability at the moment,” said Cox. “We have a situation where public employee compensation per employee has gone up at three times the rate of the private sector in the last 11 years. If you want to know why California cities are in trouble it’s because they have not controlled their personnel cost.”
Cox disagrees that “smart growth,” is the way to go for cities. He says smart growth increases home prices because of the affect it has on land markets. This has a ripple effect through the economy, increasing cost of living, poverty rates, and the fact that higher densities are associated with traffic congestion and pollution.
“Overall urban densities in California are the highest of any state in the nation. That should mean that things should be better in California all things being equal, but it’s not,” said Cox. “You go to Texas where the densities are half as much and they hardly even think of smart growth … because they did not have the housing bubble. Most of the United States didn’t have a housing bubble at all, and one of the reasons is because they didn’t have smart growth and growth controls you have in California.”
However, Fulton is not convinced. He states that similar to California, Texas over history has additionally had one of the highest rates for municipal bankruptcy. He also says that he agrees with Cox that restrictive land use regulation drives up housing price.
However, he says that, “One of the reasons that has happened in California and that sprawl has become a fiscal drain in cities is that land use regulation is used by local government to suppress densities,” said Fulton. “...The market should be allowed to operate better and it is quite clear to me from looking at market trends that if the market were allowed to work in California as it should then we would see higher densities. We would see more concentration of development, and more compact communities.”
Though Cox may agree that the market needs less regulation, he still does not think that more dense urban communities will solve any problems, nor is urban sprawl the true issue at hand in the California fiscal crisis.
He notes that, “If you look at the cost of compact developments versus sprawl developments they found a $75 per household cost annually. $75 per household is not going to throw Stockton into bankruptcy.”
Weigh In:
Is that the case? Could “smart growth” development save our cities from financial collapse? Is it realistic in both urban and green-field areas? Or might so-called “smart growth” actually contribute to the financial demise of California cities?
Guests:
William Fulton, vice president and director, Policy Development & Implementation Smart Growth America; senior fellow at the Price School of Public Policy at USC; former mayor of Ventura, California
Wendell Cox, principal, Demographia, a consulting firm in demographics and public policy based in Bellville, Illinois; former member of the LA County Transportation Commission