Custom Search
Showing posts with label California. Show all posts
Showing posts with label California. Show all posts
Monday, September 06, 2010
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
Judge being gay a nonissue during Prop. 8 trial
The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.
Many gay politicians in San Francisco and lawyers who have had dealings with Walker say the 65-year-old jurist, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1989, has never taken pains to disguise - or advertise - his orientation.
They also don't believe it will influence how he rules on the case he's now hearing - whether Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure approved by state voters to ban same-sex marriage, unconstitutionally discriminates against gays and lesbians. Full story
Many gay politicians in San Francisco and lawyers who have had dealings with Walker say the 65-year-old jurist, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1989, has never taken pains to disguise - or advertise - his orientation.
They also don't believe it will influence how he rules on the case he's now hearing - whether Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure approved by state voters to ban same-sex marriage, unconstitutionally discriminates against gays and lesbians. Full story
Friday, November 07, 2008
California Gov. seeks a Sales Tax Hike of 1.25% which could make Los Angeles Sales Tax Rate 10.25%
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed during private negotiations over the weekend to close the state’s $15.2-billion budget gap with a temporary but immediate one-cent hike in the state sales tax, according to legislative sources.
The proposal, floated in meetings with the Legislature’s leaders and their staff, hinges on lawmakers agreeing to automatic spending restraints and new powers for governors to cut programs whenever the state falls into the red.
People involved in the negotiations said Schwarzenegger, who has repeatedly vowed never to raise taxes, would back away from the proposal in the absence of the spending controls.
The increase of one cent per dollar would take effect soon after a budget is signed and last three to four years; after that, the tax rate would gradually drop. It would ultimately settle at a level lower than the current statewide rate of 7.25%.
Los Angeles County residents could face a separate half-cent-on-the-dollar sales-tax increase. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority board has proposed such a measure for the November ballot, with the money to fund transportation projects. If both the MTA and the Schwarzenegger proposals were to be implemented, the sales tax in Los Angeles County would jump to 9.75%.
The governor could declare that over time – perhaps a decade or longer – his statewide plan amounts to a tax cut. In the near term, it would raise more than $5 billion per year.
Administration officials said they would not comment on proposals made during closed-door budget negotiations.
“The governor is pushing Republicans and Democrats to come to the table immediately and reach a compromise because of the looming cash crisis we face,” said Schwarzenegger spokesman Matt David. “This compromise must include budget reform that prevents our state from being in this position.”
State finance officials have said California could run out of cash sometime next month if a budget is not enacted soon. Without a budget in place, the state may not be able to borrow billions of dollars it needs to cover government expenses until the usual flood of tax receipts arrives in the spring. The new fiscal year began July 1.
It is unclear whether lawmakers will embrace the governor’s proposal. His automatic spending restraints would be written into the state Constitution, something Democrats have long resisted, saying they could force steep cuts to schools and other programs and limit the Legislature’s flexibility.
And Democrats have expressed concern that sales taxes fall too heavily on the poor. They support higher income taxes on the wealthy and the repeal of tax breaks available to corporations.
Almost every Republican in the Legislature, meanwhile, has signed an oath never to support a tax increase. Assemblyman Chuck Devore (R-Irvine) predicted that Schwarzenegger’s proposal would win no GOP votes.
“You’re talking about raising the cost of living on working Californians at precisely the time inflation is beginning to raise its ugly head,” he said. “The last thing that hardworking Californians need right now is, in effect, an increase to their cost of living by making everything they purchase, with the exception of food and medicine, more expensive.”
Republicans are also wary of the governor’s proposed spending restraints, which they contend would not do enough to keep the state from continuing to run deficits. State spending has increased 39% since Schwarzenegger took office in 2003.
Any constitutional spending controls would require voter approval. The secretary of state’s deadline for lawmakers to place such a measure on the November ballot is Aug. 16. Other elements in a compromise spending plan could also require a sign-off from voters.
Among them is the governor’s plan to modernize the state lottery. Schwarzenegger says the state could raise billions a year by making improvements to the lottery that have been successfully implemented in other states. Such improvements would include expanding the number and variety of games and enhancing marketing.
Schwarzenegger initially proposed balancing this year’s budget partly by borrowing against a projected increase in lottery profits. But officials at the state treasurer’s office said a budget plan that was overly dependent on lottery revenue that might never materialize – or might fall far short of projections – could badly damage California’s standing on Wall Street.
Legislative leaders say they are open to including lottery changes in the budget, but only to help offset future deficits – after voters approve the changes and the state has a clearer picture of how much money can actually be generated.
Said Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles), who would not discuss the details of the private negotiations: “We’ve always said everything is on the table, and that’s still the case.”
The proposal, floated in meetings with the Legislature’s leaders and their staff, hinges on lawmakers agreeing to automatic spending restraints and new powers for governors to cut programs whenever the state falls into the red.
People involved in the negotiations said Schwarzenegger, who has repeatedly vowed never to raise taxes, would back away from the proposal in the absence of the spending controls.
The increase of one cent per dollar would take effect soon after a budget is signed and last three to four years; after that, the tax rate would gradually drop. It would ultimately settle at a level lower than the current statewide rate of 7.25%.
Los Angeles County residents could face a separate half-cent-on-the-dollar sales-tax increase. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority board has proposed such a measure for the November ballot, with the money to fund transportation projects. If both the MTA and the Schwarzenegger proposals were to be implemented, the sales tax in Los Angeles County would jump to 9.75%.
The governor could declare that over time – perhaps a decade or longer – his statewide plan amounts to a tax cut. In the near term, it would raise more than $5 billion per year.
Administration officials said they would not comment on proposals made during closed-door budget negotiations.
“The governor is pushing Republicans and Democrats to come to the table immediately and reach a compromise because of the looming cash crisis we face,” said Schwarzenegger spokesman Matt David. “This compromise must include budget reform that prevents our state from being in this position.”
State finance officials have said California could run out of cash sometime next month if a budget is not enacted soon. Without a budget in place, the state may not be able to borrow billions of dollars it needs to cover government expenses until the usual flood of tax receipts arrives in the spring. The new fiscal year began July 1.
It is unclear whether lawmakers will embrace the governor’s proposal. His automatic spending restraints would be written into the state Constitution, something Democrats have long resisted, saying they could force steep cuts to schools and other programs and limit the Legislature’s flexibility.
And Democrats have expressed concern that sales taxes fall too heavily on the poor. They support higher income taxes on the wealthy and the repeal of tax breaks available to corporations.
Almost every Republican in the Legislature, meanwhile, has signed an oath never to support a tax increase. Assemblyman Chuck Devore (R-Irvine) predicted that Schwarzenegger’s proposal would win no GOP votes.
“You’re talking about raising the cost of living on working Californians at precisely the time inflation is beginning to raise its ugly head,” he said. “The last thing that hardworking Californians need right now is, in effect, an increase to their cost of living by making everything they purchase, with the exception of food and medicine, more expensive.”
Republicans are also wary of the governor’s proposed spending restraints, which they contend would not do enough to keep the state from continuing to run deficits. State spending has increased 39% since Schwarzenegger took office in 2003.
Any constitutional spending controls would require voter approval. The secretary of state’s deadline for lawmakers to place such a measure on the November ballot is Aug. 16. Other elements in a compromise spending plan could also require a sign-off from voters.
Among them is the governor’s plan to modernize the state lottery. Schwarzenegger says the state could raise billions a year by making improvements to the lottery that have been successfully implemented in other states. Such improvements would include expanding the number and variety of games and enhancing marketing.
Schwarzenegger initially proposed balancing this year’s budget partly by borrowing against a projected increase in lottery profits. But officials at the state treasurer’s office said a budget plan that was overly dependent on lottery revenue that might never materialize – or might fall far short of projections – could badly damage California’s standing on Wall Street.
Legislative leaders say they are open to including lottery changes in the budget, but only to help offset future deficits – after voters approve the changes and the state has a clearer picture of how much money can actually be generated.
Said Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles), who would not discuss the details of the private negotiations: “We’ve always said everything is on the table, and that’s still the case.”
Monday, July 07, 2008
California Foreclosure Reform Bill Clears State Assembly
SB1137, which is designed to reform the foreclosure process in California for the benefit of homeowners trying to retain their homes, has passed the Assembly with bi-partisan support and the two-thirds majority required for passage.
The bill, sponsored by Sens. Don Perata, D-Oakland; Ellen Corbett, D-San Leandro; and Michael Machado, D-Linden, requires lenders and servicers to contact borrowers (or engage in a prescribed process to do so) to schedule telephone or in-person meetings on restructuring options before beginning the foreclosure process; requires a 60-day notice to be given to tenants of buildings facing foreclosure before they can be removed from a rental housing unit; and allows fines of up to $1,000 a day for owners of foreclosed properties that fail to adequately maintain them.
The legislation will take effect immediately if signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, R-Calif., though the provision requiring servicers to contact borrowers before starting the foreclosure process will have a 60-day implementation period before it goes into effect, notes the Center For Responsible Lending, which supports the bill.
"SB1137 will help stem the foreclosure tide in California," says Kevin Stein, associate director of California Reinvestment Coalition. "At the same time, Attorney General Brown's lawsuit against Countrywide underscores the need for the legislature to also put in place strong consumer protections to ban the kinds of abusive practices engaged in by Countrywide and other lenders, which have harmed so many families and fueled the current crisis."
The bill, sponsored by Sens. Don Perata, D-Oakland; Ellen Corbett, D-San Leandro; and Michael Machado, D-Linden, requires lenders and servicers to contact borrowers (or engage in a prescribed process to do so) to schedule telephone or in-person meetings on restructuring options before beginning the foreclosure process; requires a 60-day notice to be given to tenants of buildings facing foreclosure before they can be removed from a rental housing unit; and allows fines of up to $1,000 a day for owners of foreclosed properties that fail to adequately maintain them.
The legislation will take effect immediately if signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, R-Calif., though the provision requiring servicers to contact borrowers before starting the foreclosure process will have a 60-day implementation period before it goes into effect, notes the Center For Responsible Lending, which supports the bill.
"SB1137 will help stem the foreclosure tide in California," says Kevin Stein, associate director of California Reinvestment Coalition. "At the same time, Attorney General Brown's lawsuit against Countrywide underscores the need for the legislature to also put in place strong consumer protections to ban the kinds of abusive practices engaged in by Countrywide and other lenders, which have harmed so many families and fueled the current crisis."
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Mike Reagan: I Am Disgusted with California
Phil Brennan Article
The decision of the California Supreme Court to ignore Proposition 22, which declares that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," and was passed with a whopping 61 percent of the vote, an outraged Michael Reagan urged California voters to join him in refusing to vote for any ballot measures in the State of California in the 2008 November election since the courts can simply nullify their votes whenever they want to. Reagan, whose father Ronald Reagan served two terms as California’s governor before winning the presidency in 1980, said "I am taking my ballot and mailing it directly to the Supreme Court of California at 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102-4797 to allow the judges to decide for us. They’re going to do it anyway.” Reagan told Newsmax: "We have seen this time and time again, Democracy usurped, the voters wishes do not matter, whether its Proposition 187 or the Gay Marriage Ban, its no longer 'We the People,' it is now, 'They the Judges' who make the decisions in the Golden State. As the son of a former Governor of this state I am disgusted." Noting that the courts have been thwarting the express will of the people, Reagan explained to NewsMax in an exclusive interview that “Proposition 187, a 1994 ballot initiative designed to deny social services, health care, and public education to illegal aliens that passed with 58.8 percent of the vote was overturned by a federal court, in effect telling the voters their will doesn’t count. “The state of California has a history of voting for ballot measures. But any time Californians seem to vote for an issue that may be even slightly conservative, the liberal left goes out and shops judges, or as in this case, shops courts, and gets them to overturn ballot measures overwhelmingly supported by the voters,” Reagan said. California voters have no remedy for judicial interference with their expressed will. Reagan said, “We don’t have a Republican Party, it does not exist, it does nothing, and we have a nincompoop for a governor who wants to raise sale taxes or borrow money from the lottery to pay down the out-of-control debt caused by the liberals who are running this state. I’m about ready to say bring back Grey Davis, the guy we recalled. Schwarzenegger has vetoed two measures that would have authorized same-sex marriage, and today said he would abide by the court's ruling. "I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling," he said in a statement. "Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling." Said Mike Reagan “The only recourse California voters have is to protest by following my example and mailing their ballots dealing with the proposed propositions to the State Supreme Court. Let them mark it since it does the voters no good to vote in California when we have a Supreme Court that overturns their will whenever they feel like it." “Why should I vote?” Reagan asked. “I have no reason to vote so as of now I’m stopping. It doesn’t matter what the voters think. It only matters what liberals in black robes think.”
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
The mad rush by policymakers to do something
Legislative Frenzy In California
By Michael Belote on Friday 06 June 2008
The mad rush by policymakers to do something in the wake of the mortgage and foreclosure crises has hit California with a vengeance.Operating year-round and already the busiest state legislature in the country, California lawmakers have introduced a veritable tsunami of bills designed to address the rise in defaults and foreclosures. The proposals touch virtually every area of real estate, including those affecting lenders, servicers, brokers, foreclosure trustees, asset managers and landlords.The mortgage bills raise not only critical policy questions, but also political issues. The failure of a state senator to vote for a major bill on foreclosures, for example, was cited as one reason for submitting recall signatures for a ballot vote which could end the senator's career.Probably the most visible proposal - and the most likely to be enacted - is S.B.1137. The author, Sen. Don Perata of Oakland, is one of the most powerful legislators in California. His proposal first attempted to require lenders to conduct in-person meetings with borrowers at least 30 days prior to recording a notice of default to begin a foreclosure. When that proposal was defeated, real estate groups began an intense round of negotiations to determine if common ground could be reached on foreclosure issues.As passed by the state Senate and forwarded to the Assembly, S.B.1137 now requires that lenders contact borrowers, or show diligent efforts to make contact, at least 30 days prior to notice of default.The purpose of the contact, which may be handled by telephone, is to "assess the borrower's situation and explore options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure." The borrower would be permitted to designate a certified counseling agency, lawyer or other advisor to speak to the lender on his or her behalf. Special transition rules will apply to foreclosures already begun by the effective date of the bill.Other features include special mailings that warn tenants of foreclosure proceedings, extended time for tenants to vacate after foreclosure sales and special powers to local governments to levy fines of up to $1000 per day for failing to maintain real estate owned properties.After extensive discussions and amendments, all major real estate groups removed any opposition to the bill. Mortgage bankers and brokers, commercial banks, trustees and others are now officially neutral.Presented as an urgency measure which requires a 2/3 vote in each house of the legislature, S.B.1137 was approved by the state Senate on a narrow, largely party-line vote of 28-10. If passed by the Assembly and signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the bill will take effect immediately.However, some provisions - including the obligation to make contact with borrowers - will not become operative until 60 days after the governor's signature. Thus, this requirement could kick in by the middle of summer.If action in the state Senate has coalesced largely around S.B.1137, the situation in the lower house is far more chaotic. In the Assembly, real estate groups continue to oppose a variety of measures with potentially catastrophic effects on lending and the availability of capital.With A.B.1830, for example, the Assembly leadership has proposed highly restrictive definitions of subprime, nontraditional and high-cost mortgages, with limitations on rates and fees, prepayment penalties, balloon payments and rebuttable presumptions of inability to pay. Any violation of the very precise and restrictive rules would constitute a defense to foreclosure.Other relevant bills in the Assembly include A.B.2740, proposing extensive new limitations on servicing fees and requirements on servicers to respond within specified periods to requests for information; A.B.2359, which proposes to eliminate holder-in-due-course protections for lenders, brokers and the secondary market in the case of high-cost loans as defined in the bill; A.B.2187, which would require borrowers in default to be provided with a statement of rights concerning foreclosure, in the language which was used in negotiating the loan; A.B. 2880, requiring bonds for certain lenders; and others.The political situation in the California legislature is far too fluid to permit accurate predictions about the fate of these bills. Having placed its weight behind S.B.1137, for example, the state Senate may refuse to pass a number of the bills forwarded to it from the Assembly. Then, too, Schwarzenegger may see fit to veto bills he concludes would hinder mortgage availability in the state.Finally, a number of the bills may be preempted by actions of Congress or federal banking regulators. Answers will be clear by fall, when the legislature adjourns at the conclusion of the 2007-2008 legislative session.Michael Belote is a principal in California Advocates, a Sacramento, Calif.-based lobbying firm, and is the California lobbyist for the United Trustees Association. He can be e-mailed at mbelote@caladvocates.com.
By Michael Belote on Friday 06 June 2008
The mad rush by policymakers to do something in the wake of the mortgage and foreclosure crises has hit California with a vengeance.Operating year-round and already the busiest state legislature in the country, California lawmakers have introduced a veritable tsunami of bills designed to address the rise in defaults and foreclosures. The proposals touch virtually every area of real estate, including those affecting lenders, servicers, brokers, foreclosure trustees, asset managers and landlords.The mortgage bills raise not only critical policy questions, but also political issues. The failure of a state senator to vote for a major bill on foreclosures, for example, was cited as one reason for submitting recall signatures for a ballot vote which could end the senator's career.Probably the most visible proposal - and the most likely to be enacted - is S.B.1137. The author, Sen. Don Perata of Oakland, is one of the most powerful legislators in California. His proposal first attempted to require lenders to conduct in-person meetings with borrowers at least 30 days prior to recording a notice of default to begin a foreclosure. When that proposal was defeated, real estate groups began an intense round of negotiations to determine if common ground could be reached on foreclosure issues.As passed by the state Senate and forwarded to the Assembly, S.B.1137 now requires that lenders contact borrowers, or show diligent efforts to make contact, at least 30 days prior to notice of default.The purpose of the contact, which may be handled by telephone, is to "assess the borrower's situation and explore options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure." The borrower would be permitted to designate a certified counseling agency, lawyer or other advisor to speak to the lender on his or her behalf. Special transition rules will apply to foreclosures already begun by the effective date of the bill.Other features include special mailings that warn tenants of foreclosure proceedings, extended time for tenants to vacate after foreclosure sales and special powers to local governments to levy fines of up to $1000 per day for failing to maintain real estate owned properties.After extensive discussions and amendments, all major real estate groups removed any opposition to the bill. Mortgage bankers and brokers, commercial banks, trustees and others are now officially neutral.Presented as an urgency measure which requires a 2/3 vote in each house of the legislature, S.B.1137 was approved by the state Senate on a narrow, largely party-line vote of 28-10. If passed by the Assembly and signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the bill will take effect immediately.However, some provisions - including the obligation to make contact with borrowers - will not become operative until 60 days after the governor's signature. Thus, this requirement could kick in by the middle of summer.If action in the state Senate has coalesced largely around S.B.1137, the situation in the lower house is far more chaotic. In the Assembly, real estate groups continue to oppose a variety of measures with potentially catastrophic effects on lending and the availability of capital.With A.B.1830, for example, the Assembly leadership has proposed highly restrictive definitions of subprime, nontraditional and high-cost mortgages, with limitations on rates and fees, prepayment penalties, balloon payments and rebuttable presumptions of inability to pay. Any violation of the very precise and restrictive rules would constitute a defense to foreclosure.Other relevant bills in the Assembly include A.B.2740, proposing extensive new limitations on servicing fees and requirements on servicers to respond within specified periods to requests for information; A.B.2359, which proposes to eliminate holder-in-due-course protections for lenders, brokers and the secondary market in the case of high-cost loans as defined in the bill; A.B.2187, which would require borrowers in default to be provided with a statement of rights concerning foreclosure, in the language which was used in negotiating the loan; A.B. 2880, requiring bonds for certain lenders; and others.The political situation in the California legislature is far too fluid to permit accurate predictions about the fate of these bills. Having placed its weight behind S.B.1137, for example, the state Senate may refuse to pass a number of the bills forwarded to it from the Assembly. Then, too, Schwarzenegger may see fit to veto bills he concludes would hinder mortgage availability in the state.Finally, a number of the bills may be preempted by actions of Congress or federal banking regulators. Answers will be clear by fall, when the legislature adjourns at the conclusion of the 2007-2008 legislative session.Michael Belote is a principal in California Advocates, a Sacramento, Calif.-based lobbying firm, and is the California lobbyist for the United Trustees Association. He can be e-mailed at mbelote@caladvocates.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
