All posts by admin

Points in favor of Hamilton

Marin Independent Journal March 26, 1989

 By Dwayne Hunn

MARIN VOICE

Dwayne Hunn is assistant ex­ecutive director of Novato Ecu­menical Hous­ing and co-di­rector of the North Bay Transportation Management Association

 Opponents of the Hamilton project have used their interpretation of Novato’s redevelopment agency financing to lure supporters to their camp. They would benefit by contemplating Arthur Vandenberg’s wise words from the past.

It is less important to redistribute wealth than it is to redistribute opportu­nity. If the Hamilton project is rejected by the voters in June, the costs of doing business as usual will continue, forcing long Sonoma commutes that gridlock Highway 101, depriving the region of in­creasing and balancing the supply of jobs with affordable housing, and weakening the possibilities of making the train eco­nomically viable on the Northwestern Pacific right of way.

Rejecting the Hamilton project will force us to find more expensive means “to redistribute wealth to regain those lost opportunities in the future.” From this perspective I address some of the is­sues raised by the opponents.

The 400-plus acres purchased by Berg and Revoir for $45 million will be a mas­ter planned community. Opponents compare Hamilton to non-master planned communities where haphazard, piecemeal development at higher densities has occurred.

The Hamilton project calls for 215 acres to have 2,550 housing units, about 12 units per acre. Seventy acres have been set aside for parks, open space, lighted ball fields and so on. Woven throughout the project are bike and walking-running paths.

Hamilton Field’s boarded-up barracks, unused and rundown hangars and decay­ing underground utilities make it a blighted, stagnant area. Hamilton gener­ates no tax revenue to the city of Novato, which has the lowest tax revenue per person of any city in the nine Bay Area counties.

In 1985 the use of redevelopment agency bond financing was an option available to the purchaser. Then, the cost estimates to improve the freeway and frontage road and to add inter­changes (which until the Hamilton pro­ject have never been required of a private developer) were S7 million. In 1988, those cost estimates are $24 million.

The costs to totally replace sewers, electrical and water utilities, drainage and flood control improvements —which benefit the extended region in which Hamilton lies, including the Lanham Village, the mobile home park and the Hamilton School — also increased.

When these escalating redevelopment costs were added to the $33 million of Berg-Revoir site improvement costs, fi­nancial logic dictated that available re­development agency bond financing be requested.

Opponents claim that using redevelop­ment financing will steal Novato taxpay­ers’ dollars. The law says:

“Blighted areas are an economic and social drag upon the community and it is good public business to eliminate them. By the adoption of this constitutional amendment, it will be made possible for the property to pay its own way and if­nance the cost of redevelopment without any additional levy upon the already overburdened taxpayers.”

Project opponents claim there is same deep, dark conspiracy involved in rede­velopment funding. Those weak sisters whom opponents must believe were blindfolded and arm-twisted into giving support include the Novato city staff, the Novato Unified School District, the san­itary district, the fire district and the po­lice department, as well as every member of the Mann County Board of Supervi­sors.

After every new Hamilton-generated city service— every police, fire, school, park and road expense— is paid for, the city will annually receive about $165,000 in general revenues for about 30 years while the redevelopment agency bonds are paid off. After that, the city will re­ceive between $2 million and $2.5 million per year. In addition, the city’s sales-tax revenues will jump by about $500,000 a year.

Perhaps most importantly, redevelop­ment agency financing will generate $32 million (non-inflated) or $92 million (in­flated) to assist on-site workers in own­ing or renting at Hamilton. This assis­tance, mandated by the Community Redevelopment Act, along with the de­velopment and use of the adjacent rail­road lines, is a strength that wasn’t even considered in the environmental impact report, which estimated the amount of traffic Hamilton could generate or the number of workers who could live on site.

In one fell swoop of about 10 years, Hamilton does more than 100 smaller projects to balance jobs and housing, to increase Novato revenues, to encourage the first of many needed pedestrian pockets which will promote transit use and traffic reduction, and to increase the supply of affordable housing.

Why is it that so many of the tradi­tional naysayers want to push those op­portunities off onto future generations where the cost will be much higher?

Former Peace Corps Director Blatchford

Good PC Directors know value of growing the Peace Corps.
Good PC Directors know value of growing the Peace Corps.

 

CONNOR & HANNAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JOSEPH H. BLATCHFORD
SUITE 8OO
I9I9 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C.  20006-3443
(202) 887-1400

February 23, l989

 

Dear Dwayne:

Thank you for sending me the materials on your proposal for

Soviet-U.S. Peace Corps.  I see you are making progress and have

gotten the backing of Representative Boxer.

Thanks for keeping me informed and very best wishes.

Sincerely,

Joseph Blatchford

  Building a better Marin

Marin Independent Journal    Friday, December 16, 1988

 By Dwayne Hunn, Co-Director of North Bay Transportation Association

TWO guys, an avid health nut and an ex-Vietnam helicopter pilot, return to Marin.

From the rough-and-tumble of life, they have learned to be pleasant gents and not pushy cowboys. In reputed red­neck Novato, they are refreshing fellows.

On their return, they venture about as far west as they can, buy 400 acres and propose to build 3,500 homes and 7,000 jobs at Hamilton Air Force Base.

They knew they had emptied their pockets. They didn’t know they had put their necks in a noose laid by self-appointed posses.

When the necktie party started, the noose wasn’t too tight. Coolly these two listened and responded to concerns from community activists, Marin and Sonoma officials as well as the typical Marin naysayer.

Sometimes they backed off, totally changing their plan to mollify Sonoma officials. Other times they stood eyeball-to-eyeball with the Department of Defense and wouldn’t flinch, forcing a toxic bowl to be cleaned.

Now, long before the rubber hits the road of 101, and while their feet are still on the ground and not dangling from a tree, other peoples’ boots are starting to step on theirs. “Too many rentals! Too much traffic! Too many households earning less than $35,000 a year — what a troublesome ghetto It’ll be. Too much biomedical research! Too few bird sanctuaries!” All this because two pleasant gents want to go back to the future.

Part of the reason the Old West was won was because we had men with steel nerves who found that steel rails were a more efficient means of sending trade, doing commerce and cutting through frontiers to build the future.

Every now and then, a city with shops. schools, businesses and homes grew up around the rails of the Old West. Then and for some time thereafter, America was known as a “can-do nation.”

Then America had no choice but to become melting pot of rich and poor, colored and clear to get a job done and build a future. Do Marin, Sonoma and Novato want to go back to the future?

America has become great from the strength it built during those bursts when it acted with vision. Hamilton should be looked on as part of a vision. Hamilton should not be just another de­velopment that the gang of naysayers attacks as though no answers exist for any problem that bedevils us.

You want to deal with the lack of affordable housing? Allow solid residential intensities to be built into projects that also set aside a lot of adjacent open space and that provide recreation and child-care facilities.

To fund city services? Use funds from the Hamilton Redevelopment Agency to fund essential city services as well as generate rental subsidy and affordable housing financing.

To deal with 101 gridlock? Build these intense residential projects along another transit way — like the Northwestern Pacific right of way.

To cut the single-occupant-vehicle commute? Build office and commercial space within this residential community and build 10 to 12 of these along the NWP right of way so that people are given both opportunity and reason to climb aboard a train, work at one rail stop and live arid love at another.

America is weak when it fails to turn problems into opportunities. Mean when it shuts its doors as an answer to problems. Hamilton is a microcosm of problems faced in the North Bay and America. If the Berg-Revoir Hamilton development results in  a small number of exclusive homes or an enlarged military barracks, Novato had voted for the America  of weakness and meanness.

The 21st century will not be controlled by nation, that generate the most law-’suits or commute the farthest to jobs and affordable housing. If American communities choose the weak-and-mean route, then America can expect Arabs to fuel our inflation as Japan buys our productive facilities and real estate.

Participatory democracy gives its participants precious gifts. Moderate-income households, renters, commuters, and those who ignore the intricacies of housing development should learn about and support projects like Berg-Revoir’s.

All of Marin and Sonoma’s projected population growth could be housed in 20 mixed-used projects built along the Northwestern Pacific rails. If we take that route we will be emulating the visionary periods of America when steel nerves turned problems into opportunities that built our nation’s strengths.

 

Rail/Highway alternative best with development “pockets’

News Pointer September 7-13, 1988

One point of view

DWAYNE  HUNN Community Contributor

The 101 Corridor Commit­tee has been meeting since 1986. It is now finalizing cost estimates for either rail/highway or bus/ highway construction that will take the 101 corridor into the 21st century. Their consultants’ esti­mates show rail/highway having higher capital but lower operat­ing costs. The bus/highway has lower capital but higher operating costs. The result is that both are estimated to cost about $1 billion dollars. That money could be obtained by ratifying a 1 cent sales tax in Marin and a 1/2 cent sales tax in Sonoma.

Chief consultant to the 101 Corridor Study, Bob Harrison, succinctly sums up years of research and discussion when he says, “The costs are about the same. What’s important is how you want the corridor to develop In the future.”

Three reasons make me hope the train/highway option is our choice.

1) By continuing to over-rely on the automobile, America dis­regards good logic that tells us to not rely on Middle East oil and to seriously begin dealing with our atmospheric degradation., Car­bon dioxide produced by the in­ternal combustion engine is one of the big villains in destroying our ozone level.

2)America should lead, not be led, in the high tech manufac­turing areas of the 21st century. The United States not just, Japan, France and Disneyland, ought to be noted for effective, efficient long-lasting trains..

3) Marin is one of America’s most beautiful counties. From almost anywhere in the county, one can ride his/her bike for five minutes and be in open space agricultural reserve or a national park. Only a little of the 19% of land that can be developed re­mains to be developed, and much of that land lies adjacent to the101 right-of-way and just hap­pens to butt up to the North West Pacific right-of-way. Already apartments, business centers, and residential units are planned along the eastern side of Marin’s portion of the 101 corridor that runs from San Rafael to points further north.

Many argue that we should stop all that development. In America that means buying the land at fair market value, which is not feasible. Many argue that we should downzone what is pro­posed — reducing tax revenues for the involved cities and forcing the prices of the allowable homes up even higher. This produces
more suburban sprawl and con­tinues our over-reliance on the automobile.
Hopefully, Marin will not be burdened with years of debates and delaying tactics over how the eastern portion of 101 should be developed, it only delays the needed tax revenues, allows pro­ject costs to escalate and continues the inefficiencies that long commutes promote.

What is planned by devel­opers of the eastern portion of 101 are a series of development “pockets.” Can this develop­ment movement be joined Into something that is positive for all concerned?

Yes, with some coordina­tion. These pockets could be developed in a Mariner that would fall within the efficient land use patterns that are propos­ed by Sausalito architect Peter’ Calthorpe in his “Pedestrian Pockets.” Such development could also serve as the start for pocket developments all the way up the existing railroad line.

Calthorpe’s “Pedestrian Pockets” call for dense, mixed use development within a 1/4 mile of the railroad right-of-way with, large open spaces surrounding the development. A series of such developments through Marin and Sonoma’ would allow increased opportunities for people to live and~ work at one of the mini-neighborhood pockets. This would increase the likelihood that they would hop a train to go to and from work, as well as to shop and socialize. The proposal Is so logical, efficient and sensible that it is bound to cause debates, ar­guments and lost opportunities.

Dwayne Hunn is a member of the Board of Directors of the Canal Community Alliance and’ is Assistant Executive Director of Novato Ecumenical Housing.

  East San Rafael’s needs

Marin Independent Journal Sunday, June 12, 1988

 

By Dwayne Hunn

During many of the meetings on that San Rafael general plan, we heard vari­ous citizens talk about reducing density in their neighborhoods. Maintaining their neighborhood’s character is one of the reasons often given for allowing less density in the future.

This attitude has spawned strong dis­cussion among East San Rafael resi­dents. The discussion goes something like this: Other neighborhoods have for a long time had political representation on the City Council and Planning Commis­sion. East San Rafael has not. This area hears the other neighborhoods demand less density, less diversity more exclusiv­ity. In East San Rafael, that plea sounds like NIMBY — not in my back yard.

While NIMBY echoes around the city, the city’s fundamental needs remain:

  • More affordable housing to offer more opportunity to balance the jobs-housing imbalance and reduce traffic.
  • More tax revenues.

Where then must the city look to sup­ply the fundamental (not the parochial or often selfish) desires of individual neighborhoods and needs of the larger community? The city’s political structure forces it to look to two neighbor­hood.: St. Vincent’s-Silveira and East San Rafael.

Many East San Rafael community leaders look at infill lots in more exclu­sive neighborhoods and believe more affordable units should be built in those ar­eas. That doesn’t happen because of the NIMBY attitude, the political structure and the belief that maintaining neighborhood character is some kind of constitutional guarantee plugged into the general plan.

So in more exclusive neighborhoods, fewer homes are built on larger lots to guarantee that what exists today appreciates astronomically in value tomorrow.

It would take tremendous political courage to do what is best for the larger city and county community and put more affordable housing in the more ex­clusive neighborhoods. The present Political structure does not make that seem likely. So when these frustrated East San Rafael discussions move to the reality phase, what does that neighborhood want?

Does East San Rafael want other areas to pay a fairness assessment and send the money east to help subsidize the afford­able housing the other neighborhoods will not allow?, Yes, East San Rafael would see a program that buys and up-grades existing units for affordable owner­ship and/or rental as fair and equita­ble. Can such a program be implemented? Yes, if the political will exists to wrestle with a neighborhood political powder keg.

If East San Rafael is going to bear the brunt of the city’s tax-generating enter­prises and much of its future housing—affordable and otherwise—then the city should implement programs that reflect some fairness and equity. Implement is an important word here.

Socially conscious words written in a general plan are not enough. The city should enact programs that will give East San Rafael additional resources to carry the ex­tra burden placed on this neighborhood to carry density, diversity and tax-gener­ating activities that others have success­fully locked out of their neighborhood.

Citizens from more exclusive neigh­borhoods have complained about not baying their trees cut enough. From less politically wired East San Rafael have come the anguished cries of residents

Saying they want drugs and crimes cut. East Rafael does not understand the cost effectiveness of removing a limb that blocks the sunshine when it is pitted against a budgetary line item that can re­move a drug pusher who will take the light from a little child’s life.

Bringing more affordable housing and even more affordable ownership to low-income families in East San Rafael will help deter crime, keep the streets clean­er, raise smart, healthy kids and bring pride to the city.

Dwayne Hunn of MW Valley is a assistant ex­ecutive director of Novato Ecumenical Hous­ing and a Ca­nal Community Alliance Board Member.

Boxer will introduce American Soviet Peace Corps

Draft -may delete

In 1988 Congresswoman Boxer took the American Soviet Peace Corps proposal, which started as a model program competing for a Buck Trust grant, and introduced it into Congress as HR 1807.

Click the link below to read her May 25, 1988 letter giving her reasons for doing so:

Boxer-Will-Introduce-ASPC-88

Read her September 1, 1988 “working on letter” here

Boxer says “working on” US-Soviet Peace Corps legislation

Have you asked her to do it again this year for America’s World Service Corps Congressional Proposal, giving us the army the 21st century needs?

Boxer introduces. To start in each nation.
Boxer introduces. To start in each nation.
Congress of United States
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

May 25, 1988

Dear Mr.   Hunn:

Thank you for contacting me again about the Soviet-American Peace Corps.  I am very pleased to see that you have continued to work on raising the profile of the concept.  I am very impressed by your tireless dedication to the creation of such an organization.

I have in fact given the subject further thought, and I plan to introduce the enabling legislation. I apologize if you perceive us to be moving slowly, but I  assure you it is only a function of the legislation and concomitant workload to which we have already committed for this session, and not a lack of enthusiasm for your proposal.

Beyond the issues John Callon of my staff discussed with you regarding the necessity of an open application and admissions process, I am also of a mind that the initial program should be directed at work on projects in the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., rather than leaping fully from the start into Third World development. I believe doing it this way would simplify the initial organizational and logistical challenge, leave more room for the massaging of any problems which arise, and keep the program more directly in the public eye. This would allow public awareness and support for the program to grow. I would be interested in your reaction to this.

When I have the proposal drafted, I will send it to you and meet with Representative Kennedy to discuss it.   Your feedback before the bill is in final form will be important.

Thank you again for your excellent efforts.  I look forward to working with you further. We will get back to you in two weeks.

In friendship,

BARBARA BOXER

Member of Congress

BB: jc

TV 50 editorials

During the late 1980’s I did a number of these TV public service announcements pushing the ASPC.  Imagine how much healthier our and Russia’s relations with the world would be today had we built it 20+ years ago.

Feel free to do your own PSAs on TV or to just a couple friends… or pests.

While at it, why not ask past supporters and now Senators Boxer and Feinstein to bring back the American Soviet Peace Corps (ASPC) and link it with the American World Service Corps (AWSC).

TV50 – EDITORIALS TWO

BY DWAYNE HUNN  PEACE CORPS#2 March  1988

GRANDPA HENRY

USED TO SAY “SHARE

A FOXHOLE WITH A

STRANGER AND

YOU’LL COME AWAY

WITH A FRIEND.”

AMERICANS AND

SOVIETS SHOULD NOT

SHARE OR FACE EACH

OTHER ACROSS FUTURE

FOXHOLES.  INSTEAD

THEY SHOULD

SHARE A SOVIET

AMERICAN PEACE

CORPS WHERE COLLEGE

GRADUATES FROM

EACH NATION TRAIN,

WORK AND LIVE

TOGETHER.  A SAPC

THAT EMULATES THE

PEACE CORPS SUCCESS

IN:

1) WORKING ON THE

BASIC PROBLEMS OF

POVERTY

2) LEARNING ABOUT

THE WORLD’S TRUE

NEEDS &

3) MAKING FRIENDS

TREATIES BREAK

DOWN WHEN RADICAL

LEADERSHIP CHANGES

TAKE PLACE IN

GOVERNMENTS WITH

PHILOSOPHIES AS

DISPARATE AS OURS.

THAT’S ONE REASON

WHY WE SHOULD TAKE

ADVANTAGE OF THE

GORBACHEV/REAGAN

ERA AND

INSTITUTIONALIZE A

SAPC.

SHOW GRAPHIC

IF 20,000 SOVIETS

AND AMERICANS

SERVED TOGETHER IN

LESSER DEVELOPED

COUNTRIES OVER THE

NEXT 10 YEARS, NO

MORE BERLIN WALLS

WOULD GO UP AND

ONE WOULD COME

DOWN.

GRAPHIC OUT

WRITE CONGRESS.

TELL THEM

AMERICA’S

LEADERSHIP SHOULD

GO TO GORBACHEV AT

THE JUNE SUMMIT

AND SAY “ASK NOT

WHAT YOU CAN DO

FOR JUST YOUR

COUNTRY.  BUT ASK

WHAT, TOGETHER, WE

CAN DO FOR THE

WORLD.”

.PA    ————————

TV50 – EDITORIAL ONE

BY DWAYNE HUNN PEACE CORPS #1

DID YOU KNOW THAT

UNTIL 1987

MILITARY MARCHING

BANDS HAD A LARGER

BUDGET THAN THE

PEACE CORPS?

THAT THE

PEACE CORPS 1986

BUDGET OF

APPROXIAMTELY $110

MILLION EQUALS ITS

1966 BUDGET?  WHAT

HAS CHANGED,

HOWEVER, IS THE

NUMBER OF

VOLUNTEERS SERVING

IN LDCs — FROM A

1966 PEAK OF

15,500 TO 5,500 IN

THE WORLD’S NEED

HAS NOT LESSENED.

WHAT HAS CHANGED,

OVER THE 25 YEARS

SINCE PRESIDENT

KENNEDY STARTED

THE PEACE CORPS,

IS THE DIRECTION

OUR LEADERSHIP HAS

GIVEN OUR NATION

IN DEVELOPING A

GLOBAL STRATEGY

FOR PEACE.

IT COSTS

$20,000 TO PUT A

PCV IN THE FIELD

FOR A YEAR.

TRANSFERRING THE

MONEY NEEDED TO

BUILD ONE B-1

BOMBER WOULD

DOUBLE THE SIZE OF

PEACE CORPS.

HELPING POOR

COUNTRIES BECOME

SELF SUFFICIENT

MAKES THEM FUTURE

TRADING MARKETS

AND HELPS

THEM REJECT

RADICAL “ISMS”.

ENLARGING      THE

PEACE CORPS MAKES

US A SMARTER

NATION AND THAT

WILL SAVE US FROM

MORE COSTLY

PROBLEMS LATER ON.

 

Address our housing needs

Marin Independent Journal   January 27, 1988

Opinion

Address our housing needs

By Dwayne Hunn

Dwayne Hunn chairs the Ma­rin Housing Development

Trust Fund Task Force. 

A recent Marin Independent Journal editorial accurately said:

“Marin land is pricey to the point of exclusivity. We are at risk of becoming a single-class society of landed gentry, served by outsiders who commute be­cause they cannot afford to live where they work.”

In that editorial, the U called for the establishment of a permanent relation­ship between the Marin Community Foundation and a network of non-profit affordable housing associations.

In 1984, when the San Francisco Foundation administered the Buck Trust, a group of affordable housing pro­viders began to develop such a program. Pursuit of this concept consumed sub­stantial amounts of organizational time, showed few results and produced much frustration.

After two years, at Novato Ecumenical Housing’s urging, Supervisor Robert Stockwell convened the Canal Commu­nity Alliance, the Ecumenical Association for Housing, Marin Community De­velopment Block Grant officials and the, Marin Housing Authority to resurrect the idea of a Marin Housing Develop­ment Trust Fund. These organizations have provided the staff and funding for a housing development’ proposal.

More than 70 percent of the speakers at the foundation’s community forums expressed affordable housing as their primary need and concern.

As part of the process following their community forums, the foundation is now discussing specific goals for the fu­ture in their Consultation Group meet­ings. Those of us involved in producing affordable housing are confident that the 38-page development trust fund proposal will be given attention by the new foun­dation.

What would a Marin Housing Devel­opment Trust Fund do? As proposed it would implement a unified long-term strategy to produce affordable housing by establishing:

  • A revolving low-interest loan pro­gram that would support 100 percent of the trust fund’s

administrative costs.

  • A risk capital program to enable non-profit sponsors to pursue outstand­ing property acquisition

opportunities.

  • A pre-development seed money pro­gram, which would use annual earnings on an endowment to

make loans to get projects started.

  • A grant program, which would sup­plement existing sources of such funds to reduce the up-front costs of housing.

The task force requested $5 million a year for four years to implement this model program. At this time, while the foundation’s, income is low for the next few years, $5 million could amount to 25 percent of the foundation’s yearly in­come — certainly, a lot of money. But when one remembers that most people devote 30 percent or more of their yearly income to shelter costs, that kind of foundation budgeting does not seem un­reasonable.

Drawing $5 million a year from the $400 million corpus and securing it on Marin real estate should also be consid­ered as a profitable strategy and a rea­sonable investment in improving Marin’s quality of life.

Each task force member, as well as the other housing advocates who have pro­vided valuable input to the Marin Hous­ing Development Trust Fund proposal, hope that the New Year will find Marin on its way to answering some of the impassioned pleas for affordable housing that were so often heard during the com­munity forums.

 

Visionary Leaders needed

Marin Independent Journal Tuesday, May 19, 1987

By Dwayne Hunn

      Forty years ago, the United States was so productive that America felt compelled to rebuild most of Europe and Asia so that nations there could recover from war and be profitable enough to buy our goods. Today, our trade deficit, rather than our productivity, sets world records. Once our educational system stood out for the world to emulate. We proudly proclaimed bow ready our youth were to face the world’s challenges. Today, we look to copy not only other nations’ production techniques, but also how they teach and mold their young. The proud inflection of the “Can-do nations!” now leaves many with the hollow sound of the “Can-do-nation?”

For many of us living and working at the local level, these national and international issues seem too large to handle. Many who read and think about these issues may be upset that America has been slipping, but if we don’t feel our local efforts have an impact on national and international issues, we only cringe and go on with life.

We seem to have forgotten the roots of America’s democratic and economic structure. We have forgotten that local politics is the source of America’s strength and long-term resiliency.

Just consider the long-term effect of an actual Marin local government decision, as it is played out numerous times throughout one of the richest counties of America.

A Novato developer wants to build a significant number of affordable housing units so that a better jobs/housing balance can help reduce freeway gridlock. The developer is blocked because the neighbors oppose the density, or question the fumes from parking cars in the neighborhood, or distrust the “low income” people who will reside there. The neighbors win. Does their victory serve Marin and Sonoma? Does it bring America closer to energy self-sufficiency? Does it allow commuters to use their wasted commute time for skill-building, educational enrichment, or more quality time with their families?

Each time one of those projects fails or is delayed interminably, all of £he following happen:

  • The extended commute to Sonoma, Napa, etc., increases the pollutants in the air our children must breathe.
  • America’s reliance on expensive imported fuels increases as does the national debt we pass on to the young.
  • The percentage of household income that goes to housing and transit climbs while the money and time available for skill, education and family time declines proportionally.

Marin has one of the higher percentages of single-parent households in the nation. Thirteen percent of Novato’s households are run by single parents whose median income is $15,676. These households desperately need affordable housing in Marin. Are local officials aware of how their decisions on issues like parks, child care centers and affordable housing have an impact on these important parents and children? Are they aware of how their decisions form the foundation of a strong America, whose core is a secure family, or a shaky America, whose footing teeters over a troubled family?

In an increasingly competitive world, enlightened leadership requires much more than concern about one’s neighborhood or high-sounding speeches about what ‘America’s’ world role should be. Visionary local officials must make decisions that reflect concern about the long-term strength of this nation. Patriotic local leaders must weigh each of their decisions in terms of how they help prepare those of lower and middle incomes in Marin to compete among the 5 billion who now inhabit the increasingly interdependent nations of Planet Earth.

It is more difficult for local leaders to avoid the immediate consequences of their decision than it is for those cushioned by the miles to Washington, D.C. Therefore, it is often easier for local leaders to follow the desires of vocal advocates of self interest. Too many local leaders fail to recognize that a constituency larger than neighborhood groups ends their leadership, namely —the children of tomorrow, single parents, the American family structure, and all of us negatively affected by our nation’s declining competitive capacity and increasing trade deficit.

Leadership isn’t easy. It is difficult to lead because in order to lead without too much pain the education of those led’ must move in step. Christ exemplified the pain of leadership out of sync with- the masses. Churchill learned how tortuous trying to educate others to lead can be, as he tried to mobilize his lethargic peers to action.

Far-sighted leadership for the common good is difficult. For America to grow strong, however, more courage an& vision and less parochial and petty rationalization must go into local decision making.

Dwayne Hunn, a former Peace Corps volunteer, has a Ph.D. in Public Finance & Administration and has taught at the college level in Southern California.

 

 

Joyce’s rebuttal I&RR

PEOPLE’S LOBBY, INC

          1500 7th Street #7B

          Sacramento, CA 95814

          (916) 443-7508

March 4, 1986

RE:    “Reform” of the Initiative Process—a Discussion

BY:    Joyce Koupal, Executive Director

As many of you know, the initiative process is under  legislative attack  in California. Many of the “reforms” proposed  by the legislature  are also suggested in an article recently  published by  the  IAR.

Initiative & Referendum Report

Patrick B. McGuigan, Editor

721 Second Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20002

Re: Analysis and Critique of Larry Berg and CB Holman’s  overview of the initiative process in California entitled “The  Initiative Process  and  Its  Declining Agenda-Setting  Value”,  March  1986 issue.

Berg  and Holman begin their essay from a mistaken  prem­ise.  The initiative process is not . . . “a ‘people’s check’  on the political agenda produced by representatives.. . .” That  is the function of the -referendum- process.

The  other important point is that instead of  making  it even harder for those who are frozen out of the initiative  proc­ess  by high prices and the other points so impressively made  by Berg  and Holman – why not simply -REDUCE Initiatives signatures BY AT LEAST 50%-. Along with that it would help to legislate  the right  of citizens to gather signatures in public access  places, such as shopping centers.

The important thing to remember is that when one side of  a political stripe seems to be dominating the use of the  initia­tive process it really means that the other side should be  exam­ining  why they have left the field of struggle.  Abolishing  the other  side is not the answer to the problem, especially when  we live  in a “democracy”. Berg and Holman should examine what hap­pened  to the political parties in California when  we abolished cross-filing,  something that should have accomplished what Berg

and Holman seem to want (rejuvenated political parties).

Thank you,

Joyce Koupal

Ex Director

*”THE  SIGNATURE REQUIREMENT FOR Initiatives, geographic  “distribution” of petition signatures, limitations on initiative subject matter,  indirect initiative, shorter referendum  and  initiative ballots,  cooling-off  periods for  initiatives  previously considered,  and signature thresholds. If such oppressive  “reforms” succeed, they will silence the people and bring temporary comfort to the established power structure.

The  IAR  article uses a series of so-called facts  and  data  to establish reasons why the initiative process should be “reformed” out of existence. It issues a call to business to make “reform” a top  priority  of their public affairs departments.  The article provides  an  excellent opportunity to discuss the  issues  being raised  by  the enemies of the initiative  process.  I  therefore submit my comments to you and welcome your criticism.

I&RR CONTENDS: *People’s  admitted  ignorance  supports:

No. 1. Voters like the concept of the initiative process, but are concerned about the specifics.

No. 2. A high percentage of voters admit they  do not understand the initiative process-.

*People’s supports on of early initiative history indicates that the people of California  clearly under­stood  the power and use of the process. Because they became so skilled, enemies of the initiative process in the 1940s, in  the form  of liquor lobbyist Artie Samish, obtained passage  of  “re­form”  legislation. The initiative process was virtually lost to the  people  of California for almost thirty years.  As late as 1969, professional signature gathering firm president Joe Robin­son bragged to initiative proponents that, “If you don’t hire me, your initiative  won’t  qualify.” So, for the  rich,  who could afford  to  pay, the initiative process was  a  viable  political tool.  For the great body of citizen activists,  the  initiative process was beyond their budgets

While the initiative process lay fallow, the power structure  was using it.  For those, who could afford to pay, the initiative process was  a viable political tool. For the great body of citizen activists, the initiative process was beyond their budgets.  For them it was non-existent.  Initiatives were given one line  in  California  text books  and,  over  the next few years, that line  was  gradually expanded to a chapter on history.

In order to encourage and teach others to use the process,  Peo­ple’s Lobby speakers appeared on high school and college campuses nationwide. PLI (People’s Lobby Incorporated) wrote, printed and distributed millions of pieces of educational material about the process. In 1975, PLI published a  compendium on all known initiative information, and,  in  1976 published  — Direct Democracy-. It had become clear that not one book in the entire country, dealing exclusively with the  initia­tive, recall and referendum processes, existed.

It’s  been fifteen years since PLI broke down the roadblocks  for using  the process and initiative information in our  educational system still doesn’t exist. How can people know what they are not taught or cannot find out about on their own?

Organized groups are — using —  the initiative process — not studying non-existent information. These groups are receiving what little technical  information  is  available  by  paying  professionals, piecemeal from other action groups, or, through practical experi­ence. Whether paying professionals or learning “the hard way”, it is an expensive and time consuming process.

Action  oriented  groups, with little or no  training,  can  make mistakes or use the initiative process in ways that anger others. It  is wrong to punish the initiative process because such  prob­lems may exist.

I&RR CONTENDS:

No. 3. The initiative is no cure-all for what ails democracy.  Supporters of a national  initiative process  base their feelings in large measure  on the Swiss experience with direct democracy and believe a  national initiative is a “quick fix” for  democratic  ailments such as low voter turnouts.-

*Attack on the national initiative proposal

I  don’t know any national initiative proponent who believes  the Swiss experience can provide a standard for the  United  States, Switzerland  still hasn’t given women full voting rights.  It  is difficult,  however,  to  study initiatives  without  discussing Switzerland; the process started there.

Proponents  have  contended that more voters turn  out  and  vote during a controversial initiative campaign. Statistics tend  to support  that  position. When you take +all  ballot  measures  on average+, as IARs statistics do, then the trend is less votes  on issues than for candidates. Supporting a predisposed position by using “numbers games” is a tactic often used by our enemies.

There is nothing sinister about a national initiative process; it is  a civilized way to address grievances. A national  initiative is  a  natural  extension of voting rights.  Starting  from only propertied  men voting, to most men, to black men, to  women,  to eighteen-year-olds,  voting rights have been extended.  Abolition of poll taxes, voting directly for United States Senators, post-card registration, and many other reforms have further  extended voting,

I&RR CONTENDS:

No. 4. The presence of the initiative does not necessarily +increase+ voter turnout in the state that use the process.

No. 5. Many voters who do go to the polls decline the opportunity to vote in  the states  that  use  the process.