Senate Bill 1: Good Bye California Republic, Hello California ‘Soviet’ Republic

Senate Bill 1: Good Bye California Republic, Hello California ‘Soviet’ Republic

by Paul Preston, Agenda 21 Radio, 8/12/13

“I look at the red star and the word Republic on the California Flag and understand how much the left would like to insert the word ‘Soviet’ between California & Republic.”Paul Preston, Agenda 21 Radio

By PAUL PRESTON
The new motto under the bear on the California State flag is going to have to be revised from “California Republic” to California Soviet Republic” if proposed Senate Bill 1 by State Senator Steinberg is passed and signed into law. SB 1 came about following the massive defeat of Prop. 31 in last November’s election which was defeated by California Voters 61% to 39%. Cal Watch Dog’s Wayne Lusvardi in his November 9, 2012 article tilted : Prop. 31 would have ended California’s republic” http://calwatchdog.com/2012/11/09/prop-31-would-have-ended-californias-republic/”>http://calwatchdog.com/2012/11/09/prop-31-would-have-ended-californias-republic”
, commented “Republicanism Upheld Only by Accident: The reason attributed to Prop. 31 losing by most sources was not that it would have replaced a republican form of government with unelected regional councils controlled by the Legislature The only opposition George Skelton and the Los Angeles Times had to Prop. 31 was that it was “long and complex.” TV station KQED in Northern California said it was just “too complicated.”
But even those who found it too complicated never mentioned that Prop. 31 would have mostly ended California’s republican form of revenue sharing. In its place would have been a hybrid regional form of governmental revenue sharing. The new revenue sharing mechanism under Prop. 31 would have funneled gasoline and property taxes to the Strategic Action Committees, rather than cities, counties, and school districts. And some of Prop. 31’s provisions could have trumped the “home rule” of zoning, housing, etc.
- See more at: http://calwatchdog.com/2012/11/09/prop-31-would-have-ended-californias-republic/#sthash.IJAz7TjJ.dpuf”.

“Should these bills be voted into law they will be the capstone legislation that will bring Soviet style government to California.” Paul Preston, Agenda 21 Radio

Prop. 31 was funded by the Nicolas Berggruen Institute Trust with $1,200,000 of seed money which formed reform group California Forward. The Berggruen Institute is funded by billionaire Nicolas Berggruen who has ties to the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives aka ‘ICLEI’ which is headquartered in Bonn, Germany. ICLEI is the local action arm of the United Nations Agenda 21 plan. The Nicolas Berggruen Institute is headquartered not far from Bonn in Berlin, Germany.

Following its massive defeat in November of 2012, a series of bills that reflected the language of Prop 31 were introduced into the legislature by December 4, 2013. SB 1, SB 11, and SB 33 were all introduced with the idea to go around the wishes of the California voters. Should these bills be voted into law they will be the capstone legislation that will bring Soviet style government to California.

SB-1 Sustainable Communities Investment Authority is sponsored by State Senator Steinberg (Sacramento), and State Senator Mark DeSaulnier (Contra Costa County) passed the State Senate with 27 Yes and 11 No votes. SB 1 creates a new government agency in each county or city to extract property tax and other taxes(sales tax) to fund
‘sustainable communities” in California. This bill would allow cities, special districts, and counties to
create a Sustainable Community Investment Authority with no voter oversight to alter our way of life.
Here a few highlights of the Bill:
-It can issue bonds without voter approval.
-It can also declare rural and suburban areas blight without cause (Eminent Domain on Steroids)
-It will lead to government abuse/eminent domain over private property rights.
-It will lead to increase in city/county taxes.

From SB 1 Preamble

SB 1, as amended, Steinberg. Sustainable Communities Investment
Authority.
The Community Redevelopment Law authorizes the establishment
of redevelopment agencies in communities to address the effects of
blight, as defined. Existing law dissolved redevelopment agencies and
community development agencies, as of February 1, 2012, and provides
for the designation of successor agencies.
Existing law provides for various economic development programs
that foster community sustainability and community and economic
development initiatives throughout the state.
This bill would authorize certain public entities of a Sustainable
Communities Investment Area, as described, to form a Sustainable
Communities Investment Authority (authority) to carry out the
Community Redevelopment Law in a specified manner. The bill would
require the authority to adopt a Sustainable Communities Investment
Plan for a Sustainable Communities Investment Area and authorize the
authority to include in that plan a provision for the receipt of tax
increment funds provided that certain economic development and
planning requirements are met. The bill would authorize the legislative
body of a city or county forming an authority to dedicate any portion
of its net available revenue, as defined, to the authority through its
Sustainable Communities Investment Plan. The bill would require the
authority to contract for an independent financial and performance audit
every 5 years.
The bill would establish prequalification requirements for entities
that will receive more than $1,000,000 from the Sustainable
Communities Investment Authority and would require the Department
of Industrial Relations to monitor and enforce compliance with
prevailing wage requirements for specified projects within a Sustainable
Communities Investment Area. The bill would deposit moneys received
by the department from developer charges related to the costs of
monitoring and enforcement in the State Public Works Enforcement
Fund. By depositing a new source of revenue in the State Public Works
Enforcement Fund, a continuously appropriated special fund, the bill
would make an appropriation.

The text of SB-1 is located here
http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_1_bill_20130502_amended_sen_v97.pdf

Timing of Left Polling Article About Green House Questionable if Not Suspicious
Green energy: California poll finds overwhelming support LA Times July 27, 2013
In spite of all the data against global warming a new suspicious statewide survey of environment issues conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California found more residents favor climate change policy, want to cut greenhouse gas emissions and believe they are already experiencing the effects of global warming. The timing of the release of this poll seems to coincide with hearings this week in the California Legislature regarding SB 1, the legislative version of defeated Prop. 31 last November.

“This is a clear mandate that people want to move beyond dirty energy,” said David Graham-Caso, Los Angeles Sierra Club spokesman.

The survey, the 11th since 2000, sampled more than 2,500 people and found Californians are strongly supportive of policies that encourage fuel efficiency and renewable energy, according to Mark Baldassare, president and CEO of PPIC.

Most survey takers (67%) support the state’s law reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Across the board, state residents agree that automakers should be required to improve fuel efficiency standards (90% Democrats, 81% independents, and 76% Republicans).

They also overwhelmingly favor (79%) government regulation of the release of greenhouse gases from sources such as power plants, cars and factories to reduce global warming. While 79% favor greenhouse gas regulations, they are split between a cap and trade system (54% in favor) and a carbon tax (60% in favor).

“People see it as a tax to discourage fossil fuel use and to improve state infrastructure,” said Jim Metropulos, senior advocate of the Sierra Club in Sacramento. “The Sierra Club believes something like a carbon tax would make it easier to achieve outcomes that we want quickly.”

Sixty-six percent of Californians consider air pollution “a big problem” but are divided when asked whether pollution is a more serious health threat in lower-income areas than in other areas in their region (50% yes, 45% no). The survey found blacks (36%) and Latinos (26%) are more likely than whites (14%) or Asians (11%) to see regional air pollution as a very serious health threat.
On the other hand, 75% view global warming as a threat to the economy and 61% believe the effects of global warming have already begun. This is an increase of 7 points since last July (54%). The percentage of Republicans who believe the effects of global warming are starting to show went up by 10 points, by 7 points among independents, while among Democrats it remained the same.
“In California, environment issues are somewhat less polarized,” said David Jenkins, a spokesman for the Republicans for Environmental Protection, a organization that works with Republican elected officials and voters on environmental issues.

The group is working to put pressure on the GOP to be more in line with conservation policies than it has been in the last couple of decades. “Republican leadership has been particularly hostile to environmental policies that most Americans think are common sense,” Jenkins said.

Republican influences such as former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former Reagan Administration Treasury Secretary George P. Shultz spoke forcefully about environment issues, molding the issue into a bipartisan concern, Jenkins said. With Shultz’s help, Proposition 23, the ballot initiative to suspend California’s ambitious global warming law, was defeated last year.
“The whole nation could learn from California,” Jenkins said.

Jenkins also points to unique state issues, such as wildfires and water scarcity, that are influencing skeptics to favor policies that combat global warming. This is supported by the PPIC survey, which found Californians are more concerned about the increased severity of wildfires (56%), air pollution (48%) and drought (45%).

“Clean air is not a partisan issue, Graham-Caso said. “Stimulating the economy through sustainable energy policy is a common-sense issue.”

Seventy-seven percent of the survey takers agree with California’s plan to develop green energy technology such as wind, solar and hydrogen power. Yet if the policy results in higher electricity bills, only 46% are still on board.

Support for building nuclear facilities dropped sharply from last year, which PPIC attributes to fears created by the recent Japanese nuclear crisis. Sixty-five percent oppose building more plants, 30% in favor, which is 14 points lower than last year.

“The support for nuclear energy is going to be waning until people find renewed comfort in the ability to mitigate its risks,” Jenkins said.

While supporting investment in green energy, Californians are split over offshore drilling on the coast, with 46% favoring more drilling and 49% opposed. “There are residents who don’t want to see the coast marred by offshore drilling rigs, and then there are people who think offshore drilling will lower gas prices,” Metropulos said. “But in the short term, it takes a long time to lower gas prices.”

Seventy percent of the sample said they commute by driving alone, with just 12% carpooling and even fewer taking public transit (8%). Seventy-six percent also said recent gas price hikes have caused households financial hardship.

The rough economic atmosphere suppressed the reaction to last year’s BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico because of gas prices, Jenkins said. “But what people don’t realize is most of the easy and cheap oil has already been tapped.” Dependency on foreign nations, which Republicans see as a threat to national security and the job market, is another reason they are more accepting of green, sustainable energy policies, he said.

“We need to be leading that charge and getting products to market, or else we are going to have a problem with jobs in this country,” Jenkins said.

The federal and state governments’ rating on handling environmental issues dropped this year, with residents disapproving of Gov. Jerry Brown, President Obama and both federal and state congress.

“Gov. Brown is doing the best that he can, but he was obviously consumed by the budget,” Metropolus said. “There is a lot more he can do now that he’s not weighed down by budget issues. The Sierra Club finds no fault with the way he’s handled the environment.”

Jenkins said Obama has talked about going forward with environment policies but has not led on the issue.

The people sampled by PPIC interviewers were contacted by land line or cellphones July 5 to 19, 2011. Interviews were held in English, Spanish, Chinese (Mandarin or Cantonese), Korean and Vietnamese. The margin of sampling error hovers around ±3 percent.