Government Affairs (Monthly) September 7, 2010
Committee on Government Affairs
Berkeley Chamber of Commerce
Tuesday, Sept. 7, 2010, 12:00 to 1:30 p.m.
Community Room, Berkeley Public Library
2090 Kittredge, Berkeley
Public Forum on Propositions 21, 23, and 25
Background on Proposition 21
If approved by the voters, this proposition would establish an $18 annual vehicle license surcharge to help fund state parks and wildlife programs.
Proposition would grant surcharged vehicles free admission to all state parks.
Proposition would redirect the $130 million the state currently spends on state parks into the state’s general fund.
Proposition would result in an annual increase to state revenues of $500 million. After offsetting some existing funding services, these revenues would provide at least $250 million more annually for the state parks and wildlife reservations.
Agenda for Consideration of Proposition 21
12:00 – 12:10: Yes On Prop 21 spokesperson Alex Comisar (invited)
12:10 – 12:20: No On Prop 21 spokesperson Chip Nielsen (invited)
12:20 – 12:30: Q&A
Background on Proposition 23
If approved by the voters, this proposition would suspend implementation of the Air Pollution Control Law (AB 32). AB 32 was approved by the state legislature in 2006 as California’s response to the threat of climate change. If fully implemented, AB 32 would require major sources of emissions to be reported and reduced. If fully implemented, Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions that cause global warming would be reduced, by 2020, to the same level as they were in 1990. This proposition will, if approved by the voters, suspend such implementation until unemployment drops to 5.5% or less for a full year.
Proponents argue that, while they are not opposed to addressing climate change in principle, they are opposed to addressing climate change in such a way that California loses thousands of jobs.
Opponents argue that defeat of Prop 23 and consequent full implementation of AB 32 will create thousands of new clean tech jobs. Opponents argue concurrently that if Prop 23 succeeds, it will “kill a clean energy economy for California.”
Agenda for Consideration of Proposition 23
12:30 – 12:40: Yes On Prop 23 spokesperson Ken DeVore (invited)
12:40 – 12:50: No on Prop 23 spokesperson Danny Kennedy, founder of Sungevity (confirmed)
12:50 – 1:00 : Q&A
Background on Proposition 25
If voters approve Prop 25, the legislative vote requirement to pass a budget and budget-related legislation would change from two-thirds to a simple majority.
Proponents argue that Prop 25 holds the legislators accountable if they fail to pass a budget on time. They also argue that if Prop 25 passes, it will be able to break legislative gridlock, and California will become like 47 other states, which require only a simple majority to approve budget.
Opponents claim that a budget needs to be supported by a supermajority that includes sizable numbers of members of each political party. They also argue that the proposition is “a Trojan horse” which will actually permit tax increases to be voted in by a simple majority.
Agenda for Consideration of Proposition 25
1:00 – 1:10: Yes On Prop 25 spokesperson Assemblyperson Loni Hancock (confirmed)
1:10 – 1:20: No On Prop 25 spokesperson Tom Ross, Partner, Meridian Pacific Political Consulting (confirmed)
1:20 – 1:30: Q&A