EASTSIDER-As we move closer to November, the subject of DWP Reform is still front and center in the media, including CityWatch. The reform issue itself is serious business, for the simple reason that, win or lose, this will likely be the last DWP reform measure for a longtime to come. 

Sadly, most voters will only know about Charter Amendment RRR, as it is named, based on the YES and NO arguments in their in their Voter Guide. And that’s assuming that they even read the arguments. Truth is, very few people even read the LA Times anymore, and there is virtually no coverage at all about DWP Reform on the cable and network television “news” channels. Even the CityWatch audience, great as it is, consists of a drop in the bucket in terms of the total number of registered voters in Los Angeles for the November 8 General Election. 

The Ballot Arguments 

It’s a shame, because the arguments for and against Charter Amendment RRR, aren’t really helpful in trying to understand what the Amendment is about and what it really means. Remember we tend to forget that, by definition, ballot arguments are political arguments, not analysis. Persuasion, not truth, is their goal. Further, the names associated with the pro Arguments are a bit misleading, as they imply wholehearted endorsement. 

For example, you will see Marcie Edwards (General Manager of DWP), Mel Levine (DWP Board President) and Dr. Fred Pickel (Ratepayer Advocate) listed on the YES statement. If you look beyond the names, however, their appearance as YES proponents does not imply unqualified enthusiasm. Marcie Edwards was appointed by the Mayor, and so was Mel Levine, and they serve at his pleasure. So you will never know what they really think. Dr. Pickel was charged with drafting the YES ballot argument itself, so again, his name does not necessarily reflect what his personal opinion/beliefs may be. 

Not to belabor the point, but the Mayor appoints the entire DWP Board of Directors, guaranteeing that, notwithstanding what they might want or say in private, their input had little to do with the City Council sausage making machine that produced Charter Amendment RRR. 

I don’t know who actually penned the NO argument, but it’s also fairly misleading, as you can expect from those opposed to a ballot measure. For example, RRR is described as a “power grab by the DWP,” but the measure was in fact concocted by the LA City Council, not the DWP. Actually, you could argue that DWP reform started out because Councilmember Fuentes was looking for another full time gig as a DWP Commissioner. This because the unpopular “worst legislator in California” knew he would be voted out of office if he ran again for City Council. 

A Taste of the Real Language 

Truth is, if you actually read the ballot language, it is some 16 pages of highly technical, complex and often difficult to understand language. Even those of us who have tracked the evolution of the measure from the beginning get buried in the verbiage. There is no simple “yes” or “no” answer to the proposed Charter amendment. 

Contracting 

While those in opposition to the measure cry out that the City Council will lose all authority over contracts by the proposed DWP Board, the actual language doesn’t say this. 

In one of those statutory gobbledygook twists of the English language, Section 245 of the LA City Charter, details the City Council’s ability to veto Board actions, including those of the DWP. The subsection containing the DWP’s ability to use delegated authority to enter into contracts, lists the following as being exempt from Council review: 

(8) … “actions of the Board of Water and Power Commissioners regarding contracts involving consideration reasonably valued at less than an amount specified by ordinance...” 

In other words, the LA City Council gets to write whatever ordinance they want that sets the threshold for Council review of DWP contracts. That amount could be the same as it is now, or it could be X millions of dollars. Either way, the City Council, not the DWP Board, determines the amount. Not only that, if I remember correctly, it only takes about 90 days to revise any ordinance that the Council doesn’t like. (Just in case they get it wrong the first time.) 

Civil Service 

If you think the delegation language is ambiguous, check out the so-called “elimination of Civil Service for DWP” referred to in the ballot arguments. I will not quote the proposed Charter text here, since the language goes on for about two pages in the Resolution and makes the contracting language look like a masterpiece of clarity. For the brave, you can read the full text of City Charter Amendment RRR here.  Look starting at the end of page 11 for the text concerning civil service. 

Honestly, even reading the language is no help unless you’re an expert on public sector employment law. As I noted in a prior CityWatch article:

“As to the proposed amendment on personnel and hiring, I can only say that my hat’s off to an absolute masterpiece of obfuscation, persiflage, and all round mealy-mouth platitudes. Clearly, over the years Council President Herb Wesson has mastered the art of writing a lot of words while saying nothing, and he has really outdone himself in this one. 

“For example, the ‘salary setting authority’ ‘may’ waive some or all of the Civil Service requirements ‘pursuant to a legally binding collectively bargained MOU.’ Then there are further requirements that the ‘waivers’ would have to maintain ‘specific merit system standards.’ Finally the Council ‘may’ but doesn’t have to, even designate the new DWP Board as the ‘salary setting authority.’” 

Unlimited power to set Rate Increases

The opponents of the measure argue that the DWP and its “bureaucrats” will have the unfettered ability to jack up our rates with virtually no oversight. I guess that’s worse than the City Council’s ability to do the same? 

Anyhow, the language of Charter Amendment RRR doesn’t support this contention. Section 676 (Strategic Plan and Rate Setting) provides for a series of four year rate/revenue plans, which the Council can approve or disapprove. Once approved, anything that exceeds the parameters of the plan has to be approved by the Council and the Mayor. Further, “The City Council, by ordinance, may further define the policies, projects, programs and revenue requirements that shall be within the parameters of the Plan.” 

While I know that the courts have ruled that ballot arguments can lie like a rug, there are legitimate reasons to question Amendment RRR without engaging in hyperbole. 

Our DWP Committee Forum/Debate 

The complexity of DWP Reform was made apparent at our own DWP Committee meeting on Saturday September 3, 2016. At the impromptu forum, our very own Jack Humphreville was the moderator, and the panelists were Dr. Pickel (Ratepayer Advocate and author of the YES argument), Tony Wilkinson (DWP MOU Chair and participant in the dialogue that produced Amendment RRR), and Nate Holden, long time politician and former City Councilmember from 1987-2003, who is signatory to the NO argument on the measure. 

Even this highly knowledgeable group couldn’t agree on what the language of Charter Amendment RRR means. For example, the much ballyhooed crux of the reform measure has to do with how the city civil service system would be handled if the measure passes. Proponents admitted that there was no certainty as to the outcome or even if there would be any changes, and opponents said that the civil service system as we know it would be utterly destroyed if RRR passes. Dr. Pickel, of course, could not weigh in as we were in a City facility and he was author of the YES language. 

Let’s look at reality. Brian D’Arcy’s IBEW Local 18 is the 800-pound gorilla in the DWP World. This powerful union represents most of the Department’s employees and is not shy about flexing its muscle. Well, surprise, surprise: Local 18 is quietly in favor of the DWP Reform measure, although you would be hard pressed to find much in the way of public statements to that effect. The much smaller peripheral unions -- in terms of DWP membership -- are vigorously opposed to the measure, partly in fear that the idea could spread to the rest of the City, and partly because they lack the clout that Local 18 has with the Department. 

For further detail, and an alternate point of view, check out Julie Butcher’s recent CityWatch article describing the Charter Amendment as “Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!” Actually, her opposition to RRR is a much better read than the ballot arguments. 

The Takeaway 

Love it or hate it, the language of RRR is the necessarily flawed result of the LA City Council-Mayor-City Attorney meat grinder as they desperately try to shift the focus from their own incompetence in overseeing the DWP, the potential fiscal disaster if they lose the current lawsuit over the transfer fees annually extorted from DWP, and the huge ratepayer pushback over recent DWP rate increases. 

My personal belief is that this measure is poorly written and the language itself is difficult to read, much less understand. Given all the paid city staff available to write and vet the endless revisions, I think that this much obfuscation has to be deliberate. Further, I am unable to find the bag of goodies for us, the electorate, in Charter Amendment RRR that would motivate an actual ratepayer to vote yes.

Most voters I know, faced with a confusing ballot measure which will definitely have a long lasting impact on every ratepayer in the City of Los Angeles, will tend to throw their hands up in the air and simply vote NO! 

I find their cynicism to be well founded when it concerns City Hall and I agree with that sentiment.

(Tony Butka is an Eastside community activist, who has served on a neighborhood council, has a background in government and is a contributor to CityWatch.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.) 

GELFAND’S WORLD--Want to chat with Hillary Clinton? You can have the pleasure this coming Tuesday at the home of Seth MacFarlane. You just have to contribute thirty-three thousand, four hundred dollars. Another opportunity for that chat is to have dinner at the home of Diane von Furstenberg and Barry Diller. That one will set you back a hundred thousand dollars per couple. If those are a little rich for your blood, there are a couple of conversations with Tim Kaine (he's the guy running for Vice President) for anything from $2700 to $100,000. The higher priced tickets (starting at ten thousand) get you into the home of Eva Longoria who, unlike most of the others, does not seem to live in Beverly Hills. (Photo above: Hillary Clinton and George Clooney at Clinton fundraiser.) 

Meanwhile, I was having the $2.99 special at Der Weinerschnitzel last night. If I had waited another day, I could have had the $1.29 special on the mini-sundae. 

I'm not sure how I ended up on the email address list for all those lavish parties, but the underlying message is a little depressing. I'm all in favor of Hillary going after Trump with an advertising blitz and putting up well funded campaign HQs all over Florida and Ohio. That's the necessity. But it's too bad that Hillary's companionship in California is limited to the few people who can buy it. 

I bring this recitation up for two reasons. One is to remind you of an old story from back in the George W. Bush administration. The other is to remind my fellow Californians that we are a third class state when it comes to electoral politics. 

Of course it was possible at one time (anytime last year, actually) to meet all of the candidates for merely the price of a cup of coffee. All you had to do was to live in New Hampshire. They came looking for you at the local breakfast hangout. The residents of New Hampshire seem to think they have a divine right to the candidates' time and an equally divine right to choose first. The fact that winning the New Hampshire primary has become the presidential kiss of death seems to be lost on them. Nevertheless, we got to read about one New Hampshire woman who had already met with ten presidential candidates, but remained unsure. 

Meanwhile, 48 other states are left in the lurch. I'm leaving Iowa out of the equation because their caucuses really do go first in the nation and at least for Republicans, the Iowa caucuses are even more of a kiss of death than the New Hampshire primary. 

Want a chance to meet the candidates on the same terms as the New Englanders? Let's set the California primary for the same day as the New Hampshire primary. We don't want to define a particular date in advance, because if we do, the state of New Hampshire will move theirs up a week or three (that's their historical pattern). Instead, let's just define our primary as taking place on or before the date of any and all other states. 

Or, if California voters protest that the additional election would cost a lot of money, let's just put the cost on the political parties by getting rid of our presidential primary and turning California into a caucus state. We could set our caucus date as equal to or in advance of any and all other state caucuses and primaries. 

Of course the Democratic National Committee will probably resist. Let's just ignore them. They'll ultimately come around. The 2020 primary season would be a good time to give the new system a tryout. President Clinton won't have much opposition, so we can treat the 2020 California caucuses as a dry run. Then in 2024, Californians will have the pleasure of going to the local Dennys to meet with candidates Kaine, Clinton the younger, and Jerry Brown. And you'll save that hundred thousand dollars. 

The story I promised you: Back when W was president, one of his top ranking officials was scheduled to do a fund raising dinner here in Los Angeles. It was a mere $2500 per person, but that's still quite a bit for us normal people. At the time, Kevin Drum was blogging for Washington Monthly, and he announced (a bit tongue in cheek, I have to imagine) that if you didn't want to pay to meet with the Bushites, you could join him for lunch at the Farmers Market over on Fairfax. The Farmers Market did extremely well that day, as most of the top bloggers of that era (and Arianna Huffington) showed up. And it was a ninety-nine point seven percent reduction in the price. 

Another dog that didn't bark 

School has started. This year, children entering the first grade in California are required to be up to date on their immunizations, and seventh graders are required to be up to date on whooping cough immunization. A new state law took away parents' rights to refuse vaccinations through what was known as a personal belief exemption. The PBE is no more. The only current exception is a medical condition that makes it unwise to give the injections. The law (SB277) was passed over the objections of a couple of thousand people who stalked the corridors of the state capitol and packed legislative hearings. 

What's interesting about the beginning of this school year is how little public outcry we have seen. I invite the reader to try to recall a television news story about an anti-vaccination protest demonstration this school term. The subject seems to have dropped off the radar. It's the old Sherlock Holmes line (now having become a cliche) of the dog that didn't bark. 

When SB277 was being debated, the opposition made it sound like it would be the imposition of fascism stirred and simmered with genocide. The more extreme opponents made a fetish of the term "vaccine injured" in their attempt to push the very-much-disproven argument that vaccines induce autism in some children. (Carefully done epidemiological studies following millions of children showed otherwise.) But still the angry parents flocked to Sacramento and carried out demonstrations in Los Angeles. Then the law was passed. The opponents tried to get the measure placed on the state ballot, but failed to gain the necessary number of signatures. 

Opponents vowed to continue the fight. They filed a lawsuit, but a federal judge denied a request for an injunction.  Of course the vaccine opponents pledge to continue, but the general tendency of the law is not with them.  

So what is actually going on in the real world of public education? Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) spokesperson Ellen Morgan points out that for one requirement -- that entering seventh graders have an up to date immunization against whooping cough -- the compliance is close to 100 percent. The department is following up on immunization records for entering first graders, which involves a lot of tedious analysis of written records, but the preliminary indication is that the district is doing extremely well. 

There may be a simple answer to why the most strident anti-vaccination people are remaining fairly quiet, at least in public. The text of SB277 allowed for a reasonable accommodation for those who cannot or should not be vaccinated. This includes some children who have immune deficiencies and some children who have undergone chemotherapy recently. But the law did not specify precise limits on the ability of doctors to write exemptions. As the law was being debated in Sacramento, some doctors began to circulate the message that they would bend over backwards to help anti-vaccination families get exemptions. A few doctors wrote fairly long lists of things that might induce them to write exemptions, ranging from allergies to vaccine reactions among distant relatives. 

Parents who are particularly anti-vaccine and can afford the medical bills can shop for a doctor who will write an exemption. That may be what is going on in California this year. Other parents who aren't so dogmatic probably scribbled out personal belief exemptions in the past, because they hadn't taken the time to get their kids to all the scheduled injections. School was starting, and filling out a form solved their problem. 

We will probably discover that a lot of students who would have presented PBEs in the past are now getting their injections. It's simply a matter of figuring out that it is easier to take your kids to an immunization clinic or to a pediatrician than to be forced to home school your children.

(Bob Gelfand writes on science, culture, and politics for City Watch. He can be reached at [email protected]) 

-cw

UPRIGHTING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT-After the Superior Court ruled that Los Angeles’s planning and building officials had, for the past six years, been unlawfully refusing to follow the City’s ordinance regulating second dwelling units (SDUs) and ordered them to stop doing so, these same officials cooked up an ingenious scheme to circumvent the Court’s ruling. The Planning Department would prepare a report proposing that the City Council should simply repeal the SDU ordinance.    

The Department’s report, they schemed, would misleadingly assert that repeal was the only feasible choice. In fact, the Court identified three choices. It would confirm that repeal of the adopted standards would hardly make any difference. In fact, the existing standards are the only protections that LA’s single family neighborhoods have against “by right” SDU development. 

With repeal and the ensuing application of the state “default” standards, extra-large SDUs that are the same size as many primary residences could be built, and designated “hillside” areas would no longer be protected from SDU development. Importantly, the Department would “fast track” its repeal proposal, giving only the minimum required legal notice so that neighborhood councils and homeowner associations would not have sufficient time to inform themselves about the proposal, let alone develop formal positions and provide useful testimony and input. 

A clever but reprehensible scheme, and, fortunately, one that utterly failed. At its August 31 meeting, the City Council unanimously rejected the Department’s repeal proposal. The five Council members (Nury Martinez, David Ryu, Paul Koretz, Paul Krekorian and Bob Blumenfield) who co-authored the motion to reject the repeal proposal -- and their hardworking staffs -- deserve full credit for standing up to protect our neighborhoods. Council members Martinez, Ryu and Koretz, in particular, did the heaving lifting to obtain unanimous Council support, while Council President Herb Wesson and his staff forcefully weighed in to develop the consensus vote for neighborhood protection. 

LA’s neighborhood councils and homeowner associations showed they would not be bullied by the Department’s arrogant approach and that they can act quickly and effectively to call, write and meet with Council members. They played a key role in educating the Council about the vital importance of LA’s protective standards against the negative impacts of too-large and poorly located SDU development. They also developed convincing testimony that the Department’s report failed to consider the potentially serious cumulative negative impacts the repeal proposal would have on LA’s already stressed infrastructure. After all, repeal would be tantamount to rezoning all single family R-1 zones into R-2 zones, since the “default” standards would effectively allow, by right, a second, similarly sized residence on every lot.  

Altogether it was a very bad day in Council for the Planning Department. Not only did the Council firmly reject repeal, but the Council’s motion makes it clear that -- in stark contrast to the fast tracked, closed and slipshod process the Department followed for its repeal proposal -- it must now, looking to the future, initiate a new code amendment process to develop new SDU standards with a “comprehensive, open and transparent review” process. Take that, Planning Department! 

Further, in contrast to the Department’s proposal’s to use repeal to replace LA’s existing local standards with the very permissive “one size fits all” state “default” standards, the Council’s motion directs that the new LA standards must take into account “the unique characteristics of each geographic area of the city that may result in certain limitations and prohibitions” regarding SDU development. On the chin, Planning Department! 

And yet the Department’s hubris seems to know no bounds. When Council President Wesson was describing to the new Planning Director, Vince Bertoni, how its motion expects the Department to quickly bring back an “interim solution” that the Council can present to the Court and that the City can enforce until such time as the new code amendment is finalized, Bertoni appeared completely tone deaf. 

The Council motion called for the Department to prepare an administrative memorandum similar to the one issued by the Chief Zoning Administrator in 2003. In that memo, then CZA Robert Janovici had invoked the very limited power AB 1866 gives local governments to treat previous discretionary CUP procedures as “null and void” so that SDU permits can be issued “by right.” 

Since the City had successfully used the 2003 memo to administer SDU applications for seven years from 2003 to 2010 and since the memo had been explicitly approved by the Superior Court (and even identified by the Court as one of the Council’s three options going forward,) the task of preparing a similar memo to delete the discretionary CUP procedures should likely take about only an afternoon or two of work.   

Wesson pressed Bertoni about how long it would take before the new administrative memo would be presented to the Council. Not just a few days, Bertoni responded. He saw it as taking perhaps “several weeks.” Why? Because, Bertoni explained, he and his staff wanted to go behind-closed-doors with the City Attorney representatives in order to undertake a wide-ranging fishing expedition by which the Department would “pick and choose” which parts of the existing SDU standards appear to pass legal muster in the Department’s eyes. After all, the Department wouldn’t want to be administering illegal SDU standards. 

As an example of this “picking and choosing” effort, Bertoni focused on the adopted LA standard that allows SDUs only on lots that are at least 7,500 sq. ft. According to Bertoni, most LA single family lots are not this large, and in some geographic areas, only a relatively few lots meet this standard. Bertoni then ventured his opinion that, under state law, a city “can’t completely prohibit SDUs overall in the city or in geographical areas” unless it makes very detailed, hard-to-establish findings. Consequently, after some new fact research, the existing 7,500 sq. ft. standard may not make it into the CZA’s interim standards memo. 

Yipes! Does the new Planning Director really intend for us to take him seriously? If so, he shouldn’t be uttering sheer hokum. What’s wrong with it? 

It’s a fundamental part of the American legal system that bureaucrats do not have power to “pick and choose” which ordinance provisions they think are “illegal” and refuse to enforce them. They take an oath of office to defend and enforce the laws that have been enacted and, if they disagree with some of those laws, or have doubts about their legality, there are legally acceptable ways for that determination to be made, rather than issuing unilateral administrative fiats.  

AB 1866 gave local officials a very limited specific authority to declare “null and void” certain discretionary CUP procedural mechanisms, based on the unique circumstances that had led to enactment of AB 1866. 

In preparing the 2003 memorandum, then-CZA Janovici carefully limited his “null and void” determinations only to whether a provision was discretionary or mandatory, and not to undertaking a wide-ranging fishing expedition to question whether there might be any legal or policy issues regarding other standards. Bertoni has missed this fundamental point. 

Bertoni also has no idea what the legal standard is. State law explicitly provides cities like LA with authority to establish planning/environmental standards for determining where SDUs can and can’t be properly located, stating that a local second unit ordinance “may do any of the following: (A) designate areas within the jurisdiction… where second units may be permitted.  

The designations of areas may be based on criteria that may include but are not limited to, the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of second units on traffic flow.” Bertoni’s obscure legal pronouncement seems wrongly derived from a completely different portion of the statute that forbids cities from “totally preclud[ing]” SDUs from their territorial boundaries altogether, unless they can make the findings in question.  

Ironically, Bertoni recently left employment as Pasadena’s Planning Director.  Pasadena has a 15,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size for SDUs, far greater than LA’s 7,500 sq. ft. size that he now claims presents legal difficulties. 

Once Bertoni and his colleagues open the question of excluding SDUs from LA lots smaller than 7,500 sq. ft., their attention would likely next turn to the adopted LA standard that precludes SDUs from designated “hillside” areas. 

This standard, too, would be suspect under Bertoni’s described legal criteria. Large areas of the Los Angeles are designated “hillside” for obvious environmental and planning reasons. But Bertoni and his team apparently believe that they have authority to determine that LA’s prohibition on SDUs in hillside areas is inconsistent with state law unless the difficult-to-make “findings” can be applied to those areas.  

The existing “hillside” SDU prohibition, of course, is highly valued by many neighborhood councils and homeowner associations, and there is no Department-proposed “pick and choose” exercise that would be more likely to raise their hackles. 

Director Bertoni misses the irony in his proposal to go behind-closed-doors to use some conjectured “lawfulness” criteria as the means of preparing the “interim solution” CZA memo. The Council has just vigorously yanked the Department’s chain for its ill-conceived closed, fast-tracked process followed in its repeal proposal, dictating instead that an open, thoughtful and transparent process be used to develop changes in the City’s SDU standards. It looks like the Council now needs to put Bertoni on a very short leash and quickly terminate his weeks-long “picking and choosing” fishing expedition approach for preparing the interim SDU administrative memo.

(Carlyle Hall is an environmental and land use lawyer in Los Angeles who founded the Center for Law in the Public Interest and litigated the well-known AB 283 litigation, in which the Superior Court ordered the City to rezone about one third of the properties within its territorial boundaries (an area the size of Chicago) to bring them into consistency with its 35 community plans. He also co-founded LA Neighbors in Action, which has recently been litigating with the City over its second dwelling unit policies and practices.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

NEW GEOGRAPHY--When comparing the health of state economies, we usually look at employment and incomes. Another critical indicator worth closer attention is where Americans choose to move, and the places they are leaving.

American history has been shaped by migration, from England to the Eastern seaboard, and later from the Atlantic Coast toward the Midwest, and later to the Pacific.

Our analysis of Internal Revenue Service data from 2014, the most recent available, give us an important snapshot of where Americans are moving now, and, equally important, a breakdown by income levels and age.

The Big Winners: The Sunbelt and Texas

To measure the states that are most attractive to Americans on the move, we developed an “attraction” ratio that measures the number of domestic in-migrants per 100 out-migrants. A state that has a rating of 100 would be perfectly balanced between those leaving and coming.

Overall, the biggest winner — both in absolute numbers and in our ranking —  is Texas. In 2014 the Lone Star State posted a remarkable 156 attraction ratio, gaining 229,000 more migrants than it lost, roughly twice as many as went to No. 3 Florida, which clocked an impressive 126.7 attraction ratio.

Most of the top gainers of domestic migrants are low-tax, low-regulation states, including No. 2 South Carolina, with an attraction ratio of 127.3, as well as No. 5 North Dakota, and No. 7 Nevada. These states generally have lower housing costs than the states losing the most migrants.

But it’s not simply a matter of taxes and regulations. There are three states in our top 10 with mixed reputations for red tape and taxes: Oregon (fourth), Colorado (sixth), and Washington (eighth). These are states that have thriving information  and professional business services sectors, which offer higher wages. And though these states have high housing costs, they are well below California’s. For Californians, the employment opportunities available in Seattle, Denver and Portland, combined with the prospect of huge profits from selling the house, makes moving particularly attractive.

The Biggest Losers

High costs go a long way to explain which states are losing the most migrants. At the top, or rather, the bottom of the list is New York State, which had an abysmal 65.4 attraction ratio in 2014 and lost by far the most net migrants, an astounding 126,000 people. Close behind was Illinois, a high tax, high regulation, and low growth disaster area. In 2014 the Land of Lincoln had an abysmal 67.2 attraction ratio, losing a net 82,000 domestic migrants.

Most of the other top people-exporting states are in the Northeast and Midwest. But the West, traditionally the magnet for newcomers, now also has some major losers, including Alaska (80.1), New Mexico (84.6) and Wyoming (88.6). The outflow for some of these western states may get worse, unless prices for natural resources like coal, oil, gas and minerals do not recover in the near future.

And then there is the big enchilada, California. For generations, the Golden State developed a reputation as the ultimate destination of choice for millions of Americans. No longer. Since 2000 the state has lost 1.75 million net domestic migrants, according to Census Bureau estimates. And even amid an economic recovery, the pattern of outmigration continued in 2014, with a loss of 57,900 people and an attraction ratio of 88.5, placing the Golden State 13th from the bottom, well behind longtime people exporters Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky and Louisiana. California was a net loser of domestic migrants in all age categories.

Where’s The Money Going?

Some analysts have claimed that the people leaving California are mostly poor while the more affluent are still coming. The 2014 IRS data shows something quite different. To be sure the Golden State, with its deindustrializing economy and high costs, is losing many people making under $50,000 a year, but it is also losing people earning over $75,000, with the lowest attractiveness ratios among those making between $100,000 and $200,000 annually, slightly less than those with incomes of $10,000 to $25,000.

Overall, many of the most affluent states are the ones hemorrhaging high-income earners the most rapidly. As in overall migration, New York sets the standard, with the highest outmigration of high income earners (defined as annual income over $200,000) relative to in-migrants (attraction ratio: 53). New York is followed closely by Illinois, the District of Columbia and New Jersey, which are all losing the over-$200,000-a-year crowd at a faster pace than California.

The big winners in terms of affluent migration tend to be historically poorer states, mainly in the Sun Belt and the Intermountain West. Florida has an attraction ratio for people earning over $200,000 a year of 223, the highest in the nation, followed by South Carolina, Montana, Idaho and North Carolina. Four of the states with the highest attraction rate among the highest income earners were in the top five in net in–migration of seniors, many of whom are taking nice nest eggs with them. South Carolina scored the highest, followed by Delaware, Idaho, North Carolina and Florida.

Where Young Adults And Families Are Headed

Much of the discussion about millennial migration tends to focus on high-cost, dense urban regions such as those that dominate New York, Massachusetts and, of course, California. Yet the IRS data tells us a very different story about migrants aged 26 to 34. Here it’s Texas in the lead, and by a wide margin, followed by Oregon, Colorado, Washington, Nevada, North Dakota, South Carolina, Maine, Florida and New Hampshire. Once again New York and Illinois stand out as the biggest losers in this age category.

Perhaps more important for the immediate future may be the migration of people at the peak of their careers, those aged 35 to 54. These are also the age cohorts most likely to be raising children. The top four are the same in both cohorts. Among the 35 to 44 age group, it’s Texas, followed by Florida,  South Carolina and North Dakota. Among the 45 to 54 cohort, Texas, followed by South Carolina, Florida and North Dakota.

Far more than the often anecdote-laden accounts seen in the media, the IRS data provides us with a glimpse of a demographic future dominated by those states that are either retirement havens or lower cost places that can compete with the traditional high-income economies such as Massachusetts, California, New York and New Jersey. As millennials age, along with their boomer parents, the data gives us a vision of a changing America which is likely to see a greater dispersal of population, income and demographic groups to many places that, like Texas, Florida or South Carolina, have been considered backwaters but now seem destined to emerge as shapers of our national future.

(Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com where this piece was first posted. Wendell Cox is principal of Demographia, an international pubilc policy and demographics firm.)

-cw

THIS IS WHAT I KNOW-This past Friday, Brock Turner walked out of jail after serving just three months of a controversial six-month sentence, released under a law that credits inmates for time served. The now 21-year old former Stanford swimmer and Judge Aaron Persky who sentenced him were at the center of a swarming controversy after Persky’s light sentencing. 

Turner was found guilty in March of three felony counts: assault with intent to commit rape of an intoxicated or unconscious person, penetration of an intoxicated person and penetration of an unconscious person. Deputy District Attorney Alaleh Kianerci argued that Turner should receive a six-year sentence in state prison as he lacked remorse and because the victim was particularly vulnerable in her unconscious state. 

Perksy, however, chose to follow the probation department’s recommendation of probation and county jail time, citing the assailant’s lack of criminal history, his display of “sincere remorse” and that alcohol had impaired his judgement. “I think you have to take the whole picture in terms of what impact imprisonment has on a specific individual’s life. And the impact statements that have been [submitted] … [and the] character letters that have been submitted, do show a huge collateral consequence for Mr. Turner based on the conviction,” Persky wrote. 

Updates: 

Judge Persky 

Almost a million people signed a recall petition for the judge, while those supporting him argued that censoring judges for sentencing goes down a dangerous slope. Per Persky’s request, the judge has been transferred to the civil division by the end of September and will no longer hear criminal cases. 

Brock Turner 

Turner has returned to his family’s Dayton, Ohio home where his parents have been asking local police to monitor protests in their neighborhood. He will have five days from his release to register as a sex offender and must re-register every 90 days. His image, conviction information and address will be publicly available on Ohio’s sex offender registry. All those living within 1,250 feet of his address will be notified by mail of his presence and he will not be able to live within 1,000 feet of schools or playgrounds. 

Turner will also need to complete three years of probation and enter a sex offender management program for a minimum of one year but as long as three years. This is typically centered on group counseling led by psychologists based on cognitive behavior treatment to address anti-social behavior leading to distorted thinking about sex, relationships and empathy. 

As a registered sex offender, he must notify law enforcement of changes in address, employment, education schedule, vehicles, phone numbers, volunteer work and Internet access such as user names and passwords for emails, websites and social networking sites. Turner was expelled from Stanford and banned by USA Swimming for life.

Stanford University 

While Stanford University has issued an official statement just weeks following the rape that the university has participated in the investigation, encouraged bystanders to act and that the university had a zero tolerance for sexual assault and rape, the university has joined in on the focus of the case on intoxication as a “cause” of sexual assault. 

As of late August, the University has placed a ban on liquors 20 percent alcohol by volume (40 proof) at undergraduate gatherings. The ban extends to containers of hard-alcohol that are 750 ml or larger in student residences. Stanford director of the Office of Alcohol Policy and Education Ralph Castro called the new policy a “harm reduction strategy,” a tactic that many see as capitulating to Turner’s assessment that alcohol and the party culture are to blame for his assault, denying his personal responsibility. 

State Legislature Passes Mandatory Sentencing Bill in Response to Turner Case 

The State Legislature passed Assembly Bill 2888 last Monday, in direct response to the Turner sentencing. If signed by Governor Brown, the bill would expand the types of sexual assault convictions subject to mandatory sentencing. 

By amending the penal code, the bill would bar judges from granting probation for crimes that include two for which Turner had been convicted: sexually penetrating an intoxicated person with a foreign object (his finger) and sexually penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object. Under the new law, both would require mandatory three year prison sentences. 

The third crime of which Turner was convicted, intent to commit (penile) rape would be at the discretion of judges but would generally place a two-year prison sentence on the assailant. 

While mandatory sentencing may seem to be a solution to cases like Turner’s, the end result might not necessarily be the answer. Our justice system tends to skew in favor of those who can afford legal representation. Many criminal defendants are forced to plead out their cases due to inadequate funding for public defenders. Turner was able to mount a rigorous defense unavailable to many on trial. Mica Doctoroff of the ACLU Northern California regards AB 2888 as “hasty-policymaking” in response to a high profile case that would disproportionately impact communities of color. 

Another side to the sexual assault problem on college campuses and elsewhere is the low rate of conviction for sexual assaults. According to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN), only about one in three sexual assault cases are reported to the police. Only 63 reports per 1,000 assaults lead to an arrest; 13 of those are referred to prosecutors and only seven lead to a felony conviction with only six rapists sentenced with incarceration. Thousands of rape kits go untested every year. 

The current fiscal environment means prosecutors are reluctant to take on cases that might not be a win. Even with mandatory minimum sentencing, rape and assault cases are still subject to prosecutorial and law enforcement discretion before the case ever makes it before a jury. While requiring mandatory minimum sentencing may seem to be an effective deterrent, the tactic may be less than ideal. 

We must continue the discussion about consent and improve training on sexual assault at police academies and law schools. We must continue work to change the culture that blames women for sexual assault. Teaching or encouraging women to follow safe practices and the culpability for rape and assault need to be seen as two separate issues. 

If a woman, for example, is intoxicated, that should not be seen as a green light to assault or mitigate the severity of the charge. We need to provide adequate funding to process rape kits and to conduct investigations, as well as support for the assaulted. Mandatory sentencing may not be the panacea it appears to be.

(Beth Cone Kramer is a Los Angeles writer and a columnist for CityWatch.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

LABOR POLITICS-“The labor question, is, and for a long time must be, the paramount economic question in this country.” — Justice Louis Brandeis, 1904 

The labor question is back. After World War II, it seemed to many that widespread unionization and collective bargaining had made sure that the people who did the work in this country were getting a fair share of the wealth they created, and that through their unions working people had a substantial voice in the way our country was governed. 

But we live in a different world today. Only 11 percent of all American workers belong to a union, and less than 7 percent of private-sector workers are organized. Workers’ incomes have been stagnant for decades, and whatever gains have occurred in family income have gone entirely to the top of the wage structure, driving runaway inequality. At the same time, working people feel increasingly alienated from and betrayed by our political system. 

It wasn’t so long ago that very serious people denied that the economy was failing working people in America. But overwhelming data on inequality and wage stagnation marshalled by such economists as Emmanuel Saez, Thomas Piketty and the team at the Economic Policy Institute have changed the narrative. Now defenders of the status quo of runaway inequality have shifted from saying there isn’t a problem to saying that, while there is a problem, NOTHING CAN BE DONE. The new line from the very serious people is that runaway inequality and stagnant wages are somehow the result of the unstoppable natural forces of technological change and globalization. 

There are two reasons to be suspicious of those who move so easily from denial to despair. First, basic economic theory tells us that when productivity rises, wages should rise as well. Technological progress should make the average person better off, not worse off. Second, globalization and technological change are not confined to English-speaking countries — yet since 1980 the United States and the United Kingdom have been total outliers in terms of wage stagnation and inequality among advanced societies. 

The data strongly supports what the American people say that they believe in poll after poll — that elites rigged the economic rules in our society to benefit themselves. That the United States adopted public policies — labor laws, trade rules, fiscal and monetary policies, immigration policies and tax policies — that ensured technological progress and globalization would benefit only a small number of Americans. 

The most dangerous moment for a democracy is if the people who do the work conclude they live in a democracy in name only. 

And so the labor question is back, and that question is: How can the people who do the work in America receive a fair share of the wealth we create, and how can our voices be heard in our politics, our society and our culture? 

The reason this question was so important to Justice Brandeis and at least as important to America today is that when working people are economically exploited and socially and politically marginalized, our economy and our society do not work. Our economy stagnates, our competitive position deteriorates and our politics become prey to purveyors of extremism and hate. And the most dangerous moment for a democracy is if the people who do the work conclude they live in a democracy in name only, where the ballot box is just window dressing for a process controlled by the rich. 

The labor question pervades our public policy debates — but if you don’t listen carefully, you might miss it. When you hear economists bemoan “secular stagnation” and “demand shortfalls,” they are talking about the labor question. They are talking about stagnant wages and loss of worker bargaining power. 

When you hear business leaders and engineers talk about the crisis in infrastructure and education — about how no one can find the political will to raise the taxes to fund the investments we must make to be competitive — they may not know it but they are talking about the labor question. Throughout modern history, in every successful society, organized workers provide the political power to drive public investment. 

When you hear business leaders complain they can’t find skilled workers, and can’t afford to train their workforces, they, too, are talking about the labor question. Individual employers never train their workers adequately — it’s not economically rational to do it. Where workers are organized, together with their employers they can solve the collective action problem of training. 

That’s how it still works today in highly unionized parts of our economy, and that’s how it works in countries that compete with us like Germany. But increasingly, as private-sector union density falls, adequate training is the exception rather than the rule. 

When you hear concern from all quarters about rising extremism and hate, you are hearing a conversation about the labor question. 

In America, the labor question has always been intertwined with issues of race and gender. Sometimes people talk as if the working class is made up of white men. The reality is that the majority of people in jobs paying less than the median wage are women and people of color, and the economic devastation in deindustrialized predominantly African-American communities like St. Louis and Baltimore is part of the labor question, as is the denial of rights to undocumented workers.

And so when you hear concern from all quarters about rising extremism and hate, you are hearing a conversation about the labor question. 

When working people organize around their economic interests, and when public policy supports working people having an independent voice in our politics and our society — then working people themselves can ensure we are not left behind, that our issues are heard and addressed.

When we are marginalized, ignored and silenced, some of us become desperate, like anyone else would. Some of us give up on our democratic system, and some of us are tempted to turn on each other. The labor question is not just economics. Solving it is fundamental to the health of our democracy. 

The 20^th century was called the “American Century” fundamentally because we addressed the labor question democratically and we did it first — propelling the US out of the Great Depression and enabling us to be the Arsenal of Democracy.  Our 20^th-century economic competitors were torn apart by the social conflicts associated with the labor question, and they became the battlefields of World War II. 

In the 21^st-century global economy, those countries that can solve the labor question will be able to sustain broad-based prosperity. Those that do not will face social instability and national decline.

The labor question has an answer. When the people who do the work in our society have collective voice through unions — democratically run workplace organizations — then working people have a way of being heard when the big decisions get made in the workplace and in public life. 

But the labor question has many false answers as well. In this presidential election year of 2016, all the false answers are on display — racism, faith in the benevolence of the super rich, and appeals to return to the social order of the past. And so are the real answers — standing up to those who would divide us, bringing working people together, strengthening worker bargaining power and worker voice, and using that voice and that power to drive investment in our nation’s future. The choice could not be clearer or more urgent.

(Damon A. Silvers is the Director of Policy and Special Counsel for the AFL-CIO. Published first at BillMoyers.com. This was also published by CommonDreams.org.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.