PoliticalClimate - page 4

Legendary baseball Hall of Famer Satchel Paige, in his rules for how to stay young, wrote, “Don’t look back. Something might be gaining on you.”

Alas, as we forge ahead into the 2020 Redwood City Council election, with brand spanking new districts, we must look over our shoulder just a bit to Monday evening. The current council decided unanimously to proceed with an election in District 4 and allow Michael Smith to appear on the ballot, even though he is running unopposed.

What interests me more than the decision is that the question prompted a remarkably angry denunciation of district elections as a failure and farce. I’m paraphrasing. The anger went on much longer.

Well, that’s just wrong, not to mention ridiculously premature. Not a single vote has been cast in three districts where there are contested races that promise to be vigorous. It’s like opening your first gift on Christmas morning and finding socks. And then deciding there’s no point in opening any other presents. You never know. There might be a bike hidden behind the tree.

Meanwhile, about those three districts. Yes, the pandemic response will be an issue. So will funding for police services and the economic crisis facing the city and its business community. But these are four-year seats and when it comes to political issues in Redwood City, the angle of repose is set on growth and development.

DISTRICT 1: Planning Commissioner Nancy Radcliffe versus former Councilmember Jeff Gee.

This is the district carved out for Redwood Shores. It’s the wealthiest district in the city and has the highest concentration of Asian-Americans — 39 percent, nearly four times higher than any other district.

When the council created districts, there was a widespread expectation that Gee, a longtime resident, would run for this seat. He announced for re-election in 2018 and then dropped out. Gee was targeted — sometimes on a personal level — by residents who were unhappiest with the growth and development that transformed downtown into a regional center and accommodated an increasing urbanization occurring throughout the Peninsula.

Even now, it appears the campaign is likely to be about those issues.

Radcliffe, a renter who moved to Redwood Shores two years ago, has been on the Planning Commission for 20 years, which has put her in the middle of many of the decisions that have changed Redwood City. But more recently, she has tempered her support and been a more difficult vote for development.

For a person with such a long public career and service on hosts of public and community committees, she has had a remarkably low political profile. Even now, a social media search turns up little on her, other than her Planning Commission tenure. Her personal financial disclosure statement — required from every public servant — lists no reportable investments or holdings.

DISTRICT 3: Councilmember Janet Borgens versus Isabella Chu and Lissette Espinoza-Garnica.

This district covers the Friendly Acres neighborhood in southern Redwood City and is one of the two minority-majority districts — 71 percent Hispanic, 64 percent renters, 62 percent of households with an annual income below $75,000 and only 20 percent with a college or graduate degree.

Borgens, a resident for more than 50 years, is seeking her second term. She was on the Planning Commission prior to her election, and she supported many of the changes to the city’s profile. But as a candidate she said it was time to pull the reins. Now, she is looking to broaden her appeal and her candidate ballot statement is a smorgasbord of district concerns. “I’m a strong voice at City Hall of residents, including our Latino families and Millennials starting families. Addressing racism and how we truly protect our community has made my voice stronger,” she wrote.

Still, this is a district where residents might feel that the city’s economic expansion passed them by and there may be a larger appetite for development that also might bring jobs and more housing.

That turf was staked out long ago by Chu, the leading voice of Redwood City Forward, an organization that supports smart growth and expansion. She also chairs the Friendly Acres Neighborhood Association. “I believe that Redwood City residents are progressive and practical and want our city to adapt to meet changing circumstances of the 21st century,’ she wrote on her campaign Facebook page.

Espinoza-Garnica is the newcomer, a young voice, self-described in their candidate statement as a “first-generation, queer, non-binary Chicanx.” They said “our neighborhood too often is neglected,” and they openly called for a reinvestment of the city’s $48.9 million police budget and for more affordable housing in the district.

DISTRICT 7: Councilmember Alicia Aguirre versus Chris Rasmussen and Mark Wolohan.

This district, which runs west of Alameda de las Pulgas up to Farm Hill, is one of the centers of greatest resistance to development.

It’s at the other end of the spectrum from District 3. It is 70 percent White and only 17 percent Hispanic, which is of note since Aguirre is the only Latino on the council. It’s also the second-wealthiest, behind District 1, but it has more homes than any other district — 87 percent single family residences, and 79 percent of the residents are home owners.

Aguirre, a  councilmember for 15 years, is seeking her fourth full term and was part of the coalition that built the city’s downtown. She is running as someone who experienced the 2009 recession, equipping her to handle the present and future, pandemic-driven fiscal crisis.

Her principal opponent is Rasmussen, recently retired from the city police department and widely known for his high-profile work as the city’s community police officer. He has been praised, particularly, for his work with the homeless. Backed by the residentialist-inclined activists involved with the Redwood City Residents Say What? Facebook page, Rasmussen is off to an energetic start, with campaign signs already dotting the district. In his candidate statement, he said, quite directly, “It is time for new leadership” on the council.

The political newcomer is Wolohan, a lifelong resident and renter, who promises to bring a “fresh and holistic perspective’ to the council, which apparently includes an extensive effort at ending school consolidations. He also said his campaign will be “entirely self-funded, without campaign contributions from developers or anyone else.”

Contact Mark Simon at mark.simon24@yahoo.com.

*The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Climate Online.

No doubt, after five months of Sheltering In Place, you are hungry for something new and different. Well, my friends, you have come to the right place. Political Climate is back for the duration, which runs through November 3, and I’m happy to be your tour guide. My sustaining philosophy is informed by the classic line from “All About Eve,” uttered in that Bette Davis way by, of all people, Bette Davis: “Fasten your seatbelt. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.”

Indeed. It is Redwood City’s first foray into district elections and there are four City Council seats on the ballot. Three of the seats are contested and two feature incumbents who don’t get to be called incumbents anymore because they were elected citywide, but now are running in districts. So, according to their ballot designations, we should use councilmember when referring to Alicia Aguirre and Janet Borgens. Which certainly has the same semantic effect as incumbent, but there you go. It’s a brave new world.

If you did the math, one district seat is uncontested, and congratulations to Planning Commissioner Michael Smith. In fact, the City Council is meeting Monday for the sole purpose of conceding the seat to Smith and bypassing the election. It’s supposed to save a modest chunk of change, but it’s an interesting way to initiate the new districts over which the council labored so. I think if I were Smith, I’d want to have my name on the ballot — start off that political career with an affirmation from the voters. But that’s just me.

Smith will represent District 4, which takes in the Five Points area and is one of two minority-majority districts: 77 percent of residents are Hispanic, 80 percent are renters, and education and income levels are among the lowest in the city.

Smith has been in the Bay Area only four years and is only two years into his first term on the Planning Commission. But he has established himself quickly as a community activist, serving a wide range of city and neighborhood organizations. Apparently, that was enough to discourage opposition in a district that could have been expected to attract a Latino candidate.

It is understandable, however, that a community denied a fair share of representation on the council and city boards and commissions will need some time to build up a bench of eventual candidates. Meanwhile, Smith brings a fresh energy to a district where residents long have felt overlooked.

A WHOLE NEW BALLGAME: The other three districts not only are contested but promise to be competitive campaigns. The 2018 city council campaign also was competitive —  seven candidates running for three seats. But it was a citywide election, which meant it was difficult for some candidates to separate themselves from the crowd. It also was a testy election, a proving ground of factional disputes over development and growth that often became quite personal, particularly behind the scenes. In that citywide election, oddly enough, the agenda was dominated by a small group of advocates.

The new political setting will be quite different and the ability to influence the council or the election is spread out, which was the idea. Residents of District 1, the Redwood Shores district, are going to have priorities, including views on development and housing growth, that differ dramatically from residents in the Farm Hill area of District 7 or the Friendly Acres area of southernmost District 3, not to mention such issues as rent control or sea level rise.

And all of this is overlaid by Covid-19 and a community still under quarantine — to devastating effect on the city’s economic well-being. Candidates can, and will, run on a variety of issues that are also highly localized. But whatever issues they raise, whatever promises they make, the council that convenes in December is going to spend most of its time making budget cuts and frantically seeking ways to bail out a city with an annual shortfall of $10 million.

The fiscal effects of the pandemic not only will dominate the new city council — with, possibly, a brand new majority — but it will have a huge impact on the campaign, or, more precisely, how the candidates will campaign. One of the benefits of districts is that candidates can knock on every door, sometimes more than once. Campaigns are much more personal, and, likely, much less costly. A pandemic would seem to make face-to-face campaigning less inviting. Mask-to-mask campaigning?

NEW LIMITATIONS: That would tilt 2020 campaigning toward mail and online messages, which take money. But the other new wrinkle is a campaign donation limit of $1,000, which took effect in mid-March, right around the time most of us were being told to go home and to stay there.

The donation limit already has made its presence felt in the form of hurried-up contributions.  Julie Pardini, the prime force behind the residentialist-inclined Facebook page of Redwood City Residents Say What?, has given $5,000 to Chris Rasmussen, the retired cop who is challenging Aguirre in District 7.

The donations by Pardini to Rasmussen were made on February 4 ($1,000) and March 1 ($4,000).  The new donation limit took effect on March 11. Rasmussen said the donations were legal at the time and that makes them acceptable to him.

Borgens also got $2,000 from Pardini on March 9, just two days before the new law took effect. But Borgens returned $1,000 with a note on her campaign finance report that Pardini “already contributed the maximum amount.” Borgens acknowledged she didn’t have to give back half the money, but she said she served on the council committee that recommended the limit and she felt she should observe the spirit of the new law.

Rasmussen also received two contributions totaling $2,000 from Christina Umhofer, a losing council candidate in 2018. The first donation was on January 24 ($1,000). The second was on May 28 ($1,000) from her 2018 council campaign committee.

The cumulative donations are legal, according to City Attorney Veronica Ramirez, speaking through city Communications Director Jennifer Yamaguma. The first donation occurred prior to the new law and does not count as part of the aggregate amount contributed by Umhofer.

SOMETHING OLD, SOMETHING NEW: The goal of moving to district elections — whether coerced or by choice — is to invite more diversity among candidates, not just demographically, but politically. Certainly, there are new faces in the three contested districts, but also some familiar ones. And there is a new electorate, if you will. From the analytical work done in creating the new districts, we know something about population and voting trends from past elections. What we don’t know is how true that will be this time.

And, so, we are off to the races. Ordinarily, campaigns avoid too much activity until after Labor Day, but these certainly are not ordinary times. I’ll dive into the contested races in my next missive. Meanwhile, and to tide you over, remember that old saying, “May you live in interesting times.”

Contact Mark Simon at mark.simon24@yahoo.com.

*The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Climate Online.

With still many ballots to count, Alexander Glew, the Los Altos mechanical engineer and lone Republican aiming to succeed District 13 State Sen. Jerry Hill, currently leads the seven-candidate race with 21.92 percent of the vote. Former venture capitalist, CEO and Menlo Park resident Josh Becker is close behind at 19.01 percent, according to results released after the polls closed on Election Day Tuesday.

In California, the top two vote-getters move on to the November elections, regardless of party.

Redwood City Councilmember Shelly Masur is in third in the State Senate District 13 race with 17.72 percent of the vote. Millbrae city councilmember Annie Oliva (14,722), Burlingame city councilmember Mike Brownrigg (13,516), former state Assemblymember and Mountain View resident Sally Lieber (12,347) and lone Libertarian John Webster (2,256) round out the preliminary ranking.

Also, supporters of several school district measures and bonds are optimistic with the preliminary results:

Measure N (San Carlos School District) has garnered 68.35 percent approval to increase the district’s annual parcel tax from $246.60 to $334.60 for the next eight years. The measure needs two-thirds approval to pass.

Measure M (La Honda-Pescadero Unified) has garnered 68.82 percent approval to increase the district’s annual parcel tax from $100 to $130 over seven years. Two-thirds approval is needed to pass.

Measure P (Portola Valley School District) is thus far just short of two-thirds approval at 63.46 percent in favor of renewing the district’s annual parcel tax of $581 per parcel with a 3 percent increase every year.

Measure J (Jefferson Union High School District) has so far garnered 61.06 percent approval for a $27 million bond issue to fund upgrades to schools and other district facilities. Fifty-five percent voter-approval is needed to pass.

Measure O (Burlingame Elementary School District) has 57.14 percent approval for a $97 million bond issue to fund school facility upgrades. Fifty-five percent approval is needed to pass.

Measure K (Brisbane School District) has 58.97 percent approval for a 27 million bond to make safety, security and facility upgrades in the district. Fifty-five percent approval is needed to pass.

Measure P (Portola Valley School District) has 63.46 percent approval in renewing the current $581 per parcel tax, with 3 percent annual increases, raising at least $1,200,000 annually, for eight years. Fifty-five percent approval is needed to pass.

Measure L (San Mateo Union High School District) currently has 54.15 percent approval for a $385 million bond measure aimed at upgrading schools and facilities and modernize classrooms. Fifty-five percent approval is needed to pass.

Still ballots left to count:

Tuesday as come and gone, but the primary election is not over as plenty more ballots remain to count, according to the San Mateo County Elections Office. The results released Tuesday included all ballots cast at vote centers. The results also included vote by mail ballots the Elections Office had received in the mail by Monday, and vote by mail ballots turned into Vote Centers and Drop Boxes by Sunday.

The results, however, do not include mailed ballots received by the Election’s Office after Monday, or ballots dropped off at Vote Centers or Drop Boxes after Sunday. The results also don’t include conditional voter registration or provisional ballots.

The Elections Office will release another update on results today at 5 p.m.

Talk about a “City of Good Living.”

San Carlos Mayor Ron Collins will deliver the State of the City address at Devils Canyon Brewery on March 12. The free event will take place from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. at the brewery at 935 Washington St. Titled “Change and Reinvention,” the State of the City updates residents on the city’s affairs.

The event requires advanced registration. To register, click bit.ly/2SJpnca.

A total of 2,047 voters were recently impacted by a ballot printing error that affected four school district measures in four jurisdictions, including the San Mateo Union, Honda Pescadero Unified, San Carlo and  Portola Valley school districts, according to the San Mateo County Elections Office.

It is unclear how many, if any, voters have returned corrected ballots, but considering how close recent funding measures on the Peninsula have become, the “every vote counts” mantra has never been more accurate.

In a statement Friday, San Mateo County Chief Elections Officer Mark Church said his office learned of the ballot misprint on Feb. 6 and, within 48 hours, notified every affected voter and sent replacement ballots with the correct measures. An “Important Notice” with instructions was included with those ballots, according to Church.

Church said his office’s printing vendor, K&H Integrity Communications, “did not precisely follow our mapping instructions for the construction of the official ballot.”

“Either a school district measure that should have been included in a ballot was omitted, or a school district measure was omitted that should have been included,” Church added.

The misprint affected Measure N in the San Carlos School District, Measure M for the La Honda-Pescadero Unified School District, Measure L for the San Mateo Union High School District, and Measure P for the Portola Valley School District.

The superintendents for all school districts were contacted about the ballot misprints, Church said.

Amber Farinha, director of enterprise and community relations for the San Carlos School District, expressed concern about the error’s impact on the election. She was informed 165 voters in the district received initial ballots that did not include Measure N.

“We want to make sure voters are aware of the error and look for their new ballot and return it before March 3,” Farinha said, adding that the district’s last measure in 2015 narrowly passed by 110 votes.

Affected voters are being asked to discard their previous ballot and use the replacement one. Ballots that have already been submitted will be discarded when the second, corrected ballot is returned, election officials said.  If voters don’t return their corrected ballot, their votes from their old ballot will still count towards measures shared between the precincts. And for those who voted on issues outside their district, those particular votes won’t count, the elections office said.

This mistake comes on the heels of a particularly tough election cycle last year where complaints of late ballots and slow counts were registered against the elections department run by Church. Also in October 2018, ballots began arriving in San Mateo County mailboxes more than a week late after a race for the Board of Education was left off the ballot. Previous to that, a race for local judgeship was omitted from the ballot.

This story has been updated with clarifications provided by the Elections Office.

A mother’s $460,000 campaign contribution to her son’s candidacy for the 13^th State Senate District raised eyebrows and questions.

Michael Browningg’s 84-year-old mother, Linda Browningg of Burlingame, put the hefty donation into an independent expenditure committee (IE) called Californians Supporting Brownrigg for Senate 2020. She contributed $32,400 on Jan. 2, and then $425,000 on Jan. 17, with the aim of funding media advertising and polling in the campaign for her son, a Burlingame council member since 2009.

Unlike direct contributions to a candidate, those made to IEs have no limit. However, questions have been raised over whether the contribution violates state election law, which forbids an IE from coordinating with the candidate. Election law presumes that an immediate family member’s IE contribution is improper, unless the facts prove otherwise.

“If there is coordination, the payments are reported as contributions, and, among other things, may be subject to contribution limits,” which for individual donations to state senate campaigns is $4,700 per election, according to the California Fair Political Practices Commission (CFPPC).

The penalty for failing to comply with the Act’s disclosure requirements is a fine of up to $5,000 per violation. In addition, violating the disclosure requirements involving IE advertisements may be liable for a fine of up to three times the cost of the advertisement, including placement costs, according to CFPPC.

Brownrigg has not yet responded to a request for comment by Climate. This story will be updated when a response is received. Brownrigg told media outlets earlier this week he had no idea his mother was going to make the contribution. He told San Jose Spotlight it isn’t a fair assumption that his mother broke a campaign law. His mother told Spotlight she made the contribution “on the advice of someone else,” but declined to identify that person.

As of Wednesday, the CFPPC had not received a complaint regarding the contribution, CFPPC spokesperson Jay Wierenga told Climate. Wierenga declined to comment on the specifics of Brownrigg’s case.

Image: California Secretary of State

In the highly competitive race for termed-out State Sen. Jerry Hill’s District 13 seat in the 2020 election, polling predicts that Republican candidate Alex Glew (pictured on left) and Democrat Shelly Masur (right) will be the two candidates to win the California primary, according to a recent poll by EMC Research.

The emailed poll garnered responses from 709 likely Senate 13 District voters from Nov. 11-17.

Twenty-five percent of respondents said they would vote for Glew, a longtime mechanical engineer in Silicon Valley who currently serves on the Los Altos Design Review Commission, followed by 22 percent saying they’d vote for Masur, a former nonprofit executive who currently serves as a Redwood City councilmember.

Regardless of their party affiliation, the top two vote-getters in the California primary, set for March 3, 2020, will earn their spot on the ballot in the November 2020 election.

Glew is likely to earn a spot in the top two because, as the lone Republican, he’ll have consolidated support from voters in his party unlike his five Democratic opponents, according to EMC Research.

Still, Democrats tend to win District 13 in November, and Masur, who benefits from name-recognition and key endorsements by State Treasurer Fiona Ma, the California Teachers Association, and California Federation of Teachers, has emerged as an early favorite among her party’s voters, pollsters say.

Josh Becker, a Menlo Park resident who created the Full Circle Fund and serves on the California State Workforce Development Board, received support from 16 percent of voters. Former State Assemblymember and Mountain View mayor Sally Lieber had 9 percent; Michael Brownrigg, a two-term mayor and 10-year councilmember for the City of Burlingame, had 7 percent; and Annie Olivia, a realtor and Millbrae city councilmember, had 4 percent. Eighteen percent of the electorate, however, remain undecided, the poll suggests.

When additional information is provided to voters about all the candidates, Glew’s lead over Masur slightly narrows, 27 percent to 25 percent, and interest in nearly all other candidates tick slightly upward as well.

Housing, transportation, infrastructure – growth and change – it always seems to come back to these specific topics and those two overriding issues. And so we plunge into a number of local matters that reflect the struggle to embrace change, accommodate change and define what it means to continue to move forward.

PENINSULA NOW AND LATER: It has been a few weeks since former Redwood City Councilmen Jeff Gee and John Seybert kicked off a lobbying group named Peninsula Now at a private event. Enough questions remain that we touched base with Gee again on the organization, what he’s trying to do and why.

“This is not a platform for developers, as much as some people might think it is,” said Gee, and that’s just as well, I suppose. One reason those who consistently oppose growth and change are so much noisier is that they lack any real power or influence, except through the ability to be noisy. On the other hand, developers never seem to have trouble getting their side of the story heard, which is a pretty good definition of having power and influence.

Still, Gee is worried that the public debate is dominated by opposition. “From my experience on the council, people who are unhappy are usually the ones who show up and raise an angry voice,” Gee said, adding that he thinks the debate should not be “one-sided. … We want to create an opportunity for those who like what’s going on. …It’s not just about making sure there is more housing. It’s about making sure the consensus is not about the status quo. The status quo is not acceptable.”

The critical issues facing the region – housing, transportation, infrastructure – have to be tackled now and in earnest by a broad coalition of decision-makers and policy-influencers, he said. “If they don’t start now, they don’t have a hell of a chance,” Gee said.

He said the organization is intended as a “convener.” Peninsula Now will conduct candidate forums, for example, Gee said, including the race for the 13^th Senate District seat. And the group will weigh in politically on ballot measures, candidates and issues that come before local councils. As an example, Gee said a local city council is on the verge of ignoring its own zoning regulations and city ordinances and downzoning a parcel, quite likely in violation of state law. On a regional level, Gee wants Peninsula Now to be a vigorous advocate for San Mateo County’s interests, citing the work toward a regional transit measure. “What’s really in it for San Mateo County? Are we going to get our fair share?” Gee said.

Some of this is already being done by Rosanne Foust through her leadership of the San Mateo County Economic Development Association, but the county has long been overlooked as a regional player so it could be argued another voice is useful. In trying to develop a regional presence, redundancy probably doesn’t hurt.

Peninsula Now is established as an independent expenditure committee, which means it can get involved in support of candidates and on ballot measures. It also means Peninsula Now won’t have to disclose who donates to the group, although Gee, again, was a little vague about how that would work. If money is raised for a candidates’ forum, “there’d be no need to disclose who’s funding our operation,” he said.

How all this manifests itself is still pretty vague and it’s hard to tell if Gee doesn’t know yet or simply isn’t saying.

“It’s so early in the process. We want to grow and learn,” he said.

One thing is certain, he said. Peninsula Now is not a vehicle for Gee’s return to the Redwood City Council. With the advent of districts, Gee’s neighborhood, Redwood Shores, has been carved out as a distinct entity and would seem ripe for him. The council currently has no one from the Shores and won’t until the 2020 election.

“I haven’t made any decisions (about running) and that has nothing to do with Peninsula Now. … I haven’t ruled it out. I haven’t ruled it in either,” Gee said.

SAN BRU-NOPE: In referring to a city that was on the verge of a troubling housing decision, perhaps Gee was anticipating the defeat in San Bruno this week of a 425-unit housing project by the narrowest and weirdest of circumstances – a 2-1 vote with two council members recusing themselves because they owned property nearby. By any measure it’s a lost opportunity.

More than any other city on the Peninsula, San Bruno has been hungry to reinvent a largely moribund downtown, and this project would have been a huge step in that long-desired direction. And it’s absolutely the wrong message to send to those who continue to seek ways to relieve local cities of land-use authority that blocks housing development near transit.

GETTING REAL ON EL CAMINO: In another occupation (or preoccupation), it was a particular pleasure to be part of the initial efforts to form the Grand Boulevard Initiative, a regional effort to transform El Camino Real into a world class boulevard of housing, businesses, recreation and retail. One of the fundamental planning concepts described at an early Grand Boulevard brainstorming session was the creation of nodes – centralized locations of commercial business, ranging from regional centers, like the Hillsdale Shopping Center, to mid-level community centers, like many of the Peninsula’s downtowns, to neighborhood service centers, like 25^th Avenue in San Mateo.

Between these nodes would be high-density, high-rise housing – apartments and condos, mostly, designed to fit into the character of an adjacent residential neighborhood. There would be greenswards and bike paths and transit would be high-frequency and take people readily and conveniently to the nodes.

One key element of this concept is development that doesn’t push right up to the curb. But if you tool up and down El Camino, that’s exactly what you’ll see – housing projects that go right up to the edge of the sidewalk. This is happening because local cities are willing to go out rather than up.

El Camino housing development can be the answer to the Peninsula’s housing quandary, but it is going to require a willingness to build up and preserve the ground level for human use and enjoyment.

IN CONTROL: Assemblyman Kevin Mullin and I were fortunate recently to interview State Controller Betty Yee on our TV show, The Game. Among the interesting tidbits from the state’s highest-ranking female officeholder: 70 percent of the state’s General Fund comes from personal income taxes, which makes the state budget extremely vulnerable to economic downturn. She said the tax structure is used to fund public services, but it’s fuller purpose should be to support economic development and growth. She said reform of Proposition 13 should be among the tax reforms up for discussion. You can see the interview here: https://www.pentv.tv/videos/community/the-game/

Contact Mark Simon at mark.simon24@yahoo.com.

*The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Climate Online.

CORRECTION: The original column incorrectly stated that 70 percent of California’s General Fund revenues come from sales tax, when in fact 70 percent of General Fund revenues come from personal income tax. The story has been corrected.

Above photo by Getty Images: Aerial Photography view south-east of Boothbay Park, Hillsdale, San Mateo with a view of Oracle in Redwood City, Marine View Park and Belmont.