If you had a friend that was about to commit suicide or maybe just inflict serious harm upon himself, you’d probably try to stop him. Well Californians are about to do just that. The implementation of AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, will inflict serious harm on California and the people who live here. Voting Yes on Prop 23 is the intervention that California needs to save itself from certain injury.

First, let’s talk about AB32 and what it won’t do. AB32 won’t reduce “air pollution” as that term is generally understood. It does nothing to limit real air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, or toxic soot. These emissions that contribute to smog and other conditions related to public health are regulated under numerous separate laws, which are the strictest in the country. The only substance AB32 seeks to limit is CO2. So basically, this is a law that attempts to reduce global warming. The debate as to whether CO2 is a significant source of climate change isn’t going to be solved here, but it’s important for voters to realize that AB32 is only about global warming, not air pollution. Furthermore, even if AB32 is fully implemented, it will have no effect on worldwide global warming. AB32 seeks to reduce California’s CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. But that’s just a small fraction of California’s CO2 output. And, when compared to the worldwide output of CO2, the amount California emits is just a small fraction of 1%. On top of that, businesses that currently emit CO2 here in California may relocate to other states and continue to output the same amount of CO2, resulting in no net reduction overall. So, AB32 will have no effect on global warming and the air won’t be any cleaner.

But let’s see what AB32 would do. According to a report authored by Sanjay B. Varshney, Ph.D., dean of the College of Business Administration at California State University, Sacramento, AB32 will cost California small businesses a net loss of “more than $182.6 billion in gross state output, the equivalent of more than 1.1 million jobs, nearly $76.8 billion in labor income, and nearly $5.8 billion in indirect business taxes”. In addition, consumers would likely see a 60% increase in electricity rates and a 57% hike in natural gas rates as well as a new $500 million per year water tax. Gasoline and diesel prices will likely increase by $3.7 billion a year as well.

Prop 23 seeks to limit the damage that will be done to our economy by delaying the implementation of AB32 until California’s unemployment rate returns to 5.5% for four consecutive quarters. It does not repeal AB32, nor does it have any effect on any other environmental laws in California. California is in deep financial trouble and our economy can’t afford the additional costs that will be imposed by AB32 at this time. I urge you to vote Yes on Prop 23. But if you’re still inclined to vote no, at least now you know what your vote will mean – the loss of millions of jobs and higher energy costs with no improvement in air quality.

By the way, there’s an excellent reason that some oil companies are backing Prop 23 and it’s not because they “want to keep polluting”. As I’ve said, Prop 23 does not lessen any of California’s stringent environmental laws. Oil companies support Prop 23 because their industry, the industry that fuels virtually our entire economy, will be severely penalized under AB32 and will be forced to expend millions of dollars in unnecessary costs that will most likely be passed onto the consumer. That’s you and me, in case you hadn’t realized just who is going to pay for all this. But it’s not just oil companies that are backing Prop 23. A whole host of groups support voting yes, including such disparate entities as the Los Angeles Homeless Restoration Advisory Coalition and the Los Angeles Police Protective League. Here’s an entire list of supporters .

Finally, a word about moving to a “green economy”. While that might be a desirable goal, AB32 is not the way to get there. Making one type of energy more expensive so that less efficient forms of energy can compete is the wrong method of boosting alternative energy. If we are really serious about making renewable energy a viable alternative to fossil fuels, then we need to fund research that will make these types of energy more efficient and competitive in their own right. It’s entirely doable, especially if we don’t waste millions of dollars on an ill advised scheme to punish the use of fossil fuels.

Related posts:

1. PROP 5 – Vote YES
2. PROP 6 – Vote NO
3. PROP 7 – Vote NO

Almost everyone agrees that our drug laws don’t work, create more problems than they solve and make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens.  Most people also recognize that marijuana prohibition makes as little sense as alcohol prohibition did.  They understand that marijuana is nowhere near as harmful as tobacco or alcohol and attempts to prohibit its use have only led to associated street violence and a huge windfall for drug cartels.  But Prop 19, the initiative that would legalize marijuana and allow local governments to tax and regulate its use, has come under attack from a variety of critics.  Most criticisms are clearly just the same old scare tactics and misinformation put forth by anti-drug zealots or those who stand to profit from marijuana’s continued prohibition (I’m talking about you, Alcohol Lobby and Prison Industrial Complex).  These attacks include the usual nonsense about marijuana being addictive or a gateway drug or that legalization “sends the wrong message” to kids.

The truth, of course, is that marijuana has never been shown to be addictive (any more so than chocolate), has never been shown to be a gateway drug, and its legalization in other countries, like Portugal, has led to a reduction in use by teenagers.  Furthermore, removing criminal penalties for the use and possession of small amounts of marijuana frees up law enforcement (and the courts) to concentrate on real crimes and real criminals.  And the ability to tax the state’s most lucrative crop would put a serious dent in our budget deficit.

So there are lots of reasons to vote Yes on 19.  But here’s the most important: If Prop 19 fails, politicians may get the mistaken belief that the majority of the public wants marijuana prohibition and our other onerous drug laws to continue unchanged.  They’ll believe that there just isn’t the popular support for reforming our broken drug policies in favor of a more sensible public health approach.  If we’re worried about sending the wrong message, this is the message we should be worried about sending.  Politicians live and die by popular opinion.  And supporting drug law reform can get you labeled as “soft on crime”, something no politician wants, unless it’s his opponent carrying the label.  But if Prop 19 passes, even if the Feds block its implementation, politicians might realize that there is popular support for doing away with drug prohibition, especially in the case of marijuana, and moving our country away from the failed drug policies we have been pursuing for decades.  That’s the message I want our elected officials to get, and it’s the main reason I’m voting Yes on Prop 19.  It’s why you should vote yes, too.

Related posts:

1. PROP 5 – Vote YES
2. PROP 6 – Vote NO
3. PROP 7 – Vote NO

PROP 19 – Legalizes Marijuana Under California Law – Vote Yes

Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Allows local governments to regulate and tax the production, distribution, and sale of marijuana. Potential increased tax and fee revenues in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually and potential correctional savings of several tens of millions of dollars annually.

While much has been reported about this initiative, there’s one very good reason to vote yes. The drug war has cost this country untold billions of dollars, ruined countless lives, enriched drug cartels, and eroded our civil liberties. And it has done nothing to reduce the use of drugs. While Prop 19 won’t fix all those problems, it is a step in the right direction. If nothing else, its passage will signal the willingness of our citizens to seriously consider ending the war on drugs, especially for drugs like marijuana which is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco and likely provides real medicinal benefits. Our elected official need political cover if they’re ever going to support meaningful drug law reforms. The passage of Prop 19 would give them that political cover.

PROP 20 - Redistricting Of Congressional Districts – Vote Yes

Transfers authority for establishing congressional districts to the recently-authorized 14-member redistricting commission comprised of Democrats, Republicans, and representatives of neither party. Takes redistricting out of the hands of politicians who have used that power to gerrymander the districts to ensure their own reelection.

Voters approved Proposition 11 in 2008 which provided for the same transfer of authority for establishing state election districts. This proposition extends that authority to the establishment of US congressional districts. When politicians have the power to draw the boundaries of their districts, they artificially adjust those boundaries to include or exclude certain groups of voters such as those of a particular political party or ethnic or social group. This results in the elected officials having an unfair advantage in future elections and virtually assures that they will have little or no real competition for their seat. Taking the power out of the hands of elected politicians is the only way to ensure that congressional district boundaries are drawn fairly and don’t give an advantage to any one political party. – Vote Yes

PROP 21 – Establishes $18 Annual Vehicle License Surcharge to Help Fund State Parks – Vote No

Adds $18 to the vehicle license fee each year. This $18 would be earmarked for State Park funding.

While this might seem like a good idea to offset some recent budget cutbacks, imposing this fee is a colossally bad idea. First, while it’s called a fee, it’s actually an additional tax on every vehicle registered in the state. All drivers would pay the same amount, whether they drive an old junker or a Lexus. This means the tax would fall hardest on the lowest income citizens. Furthermore, once this fee is imposed, there’s no guarantee it won’t increase every year. $18 might not be much now, but it could easily rise to $50 or $100 within the next few years. Don’t give the politicians the ability to impose this new tax on California drivers. – Vote No

PROP 22 – Prohibits the State From Borrowing Or Taking Funds Used For Transportation, Redevelopment, Or Local Government Projects And Services – Vote No

This measure reduces or eliminates the state’s authority to:
• Use state fuel tax revenues to pay debt service on state transportation bonds.
• Borrow or change the distribution of state fuel tax revenues.
• Redirect redevlopment agency property taxes to any other local government.
• Temporarily shift property taxes from cities, counties, and special districts to schools.
• Use vehicle license fee (VLF) revenues to reimburse local governments for state mandated costs.

This proposition is basically about a jurisdictional dispute between the State and local governments. Both sides make similar claims that passing the measure (or defeating it) will protect taxpayer funds from “the politicians”. Annual State and local funding is a complicated calculation and usually neither side is entirely happy with the outcome. I recommend that it’s best for voters to stay out of this issue and let our elected officials fight it out. Therefore I recommend a No vote to keep things the way they are now.

PROP 23 – Suspends Implementation of AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, Until Unemployment Drops To 5.5% or Less for Full Year – Vote Yes

Contrary to the way opponents of this initiative would like to characterize it, AB32 does not reduce “pollution”, it reduces CO2 which is not an air pollutant per se. If AB32 is implemented, it would mean the loss of millions of jobs in California. Supporters of AB32 claim that some of those jobs would be replaced with “green jobs”, but there is no guarantee those jobs will ever materialize and even if they do, they would only be a tiny fraction of the number of jobs lost. Those that support AB32 (and oppose this initiative) are asking us to favor potential jobs over jobs that currently exist. Realize that each job lost really means that an actual person who currently has a job will become unemployed. Furthermore, even if AB32 is implemented and we are actually able to reduce CO2 emissions in California, there would be no net effect on global warming since the CO2 produced by California is only a minute fraction of the CO2 produced globally and much of the CO2 we now produce would stilled be produced, only in states other than California as companies relocate to other places (and take our jobs with them). California can’t afford the loss of millions of jobs. – Vote Yes

PROP 24 – Repeals Recent Legislation That Would Allow Businesses To Lower Their Tax Liability – Vote No

In 2008 and 2009, the state legislature adjusted the way some businesses were allowed to calculate their tax liability. This was done to make California more competitive with surrounding states and keep businesses from moving to places with a lower tax rate. California imposes one of the highest tax liabilities on businesses of any state. The previous changes were an attempt to make taxes a bit more fair. Now, however, the proponents of Prop 24 want to take away those adjustments and are mischaracterizing them as a “giveaway”. Businesses are not the enemy, they are the engine that drives our economy and provide jobs to our citizens. In order to keep businesses from fleeing the state, we have to stay competitive. – Vote No

PROP 25 – Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass Budget and Budget-Related Legislation from Two-Thirds to a Simple Majority – Vote No

Critics of the Two-Thirds vote requirement to pass a budget have been claiming that this is the source of all the state’s budgetary problems. This is an absolute lie. The Two-Thirds vote requirement does make it harder to pass a budget because it makes it harder to raise taxes. This forces our legislators to look more deeply at what the state is spending and to make tough choices. That’s a good thing. Granted, the budget is often late, but that’s better than imposing crippling tax increases on out citizens. The Two-Thirds vote requirement is the only thing standing in the way of higher taxes and fees. – Vote No

PROP 26 – Requires That Certain State And Local Fees Be Approved By Two-Thirds Vote – Vote Yes

In order to get around the two-thirds vote requirement to raise taxes, the politicians have begun to call those taxes “fees”. This initiative closes that loophole. – Vote Yes

PROP 27 – Eliminates State Commission On Redistricting – Vote No

This measure is basically the opposite of Prop 20. It puts redistricting back in the hands of politicians by reversing Prop 11 which voters approved in 2008. It’s a power grab by politicians who are afraid that they will lose reelection if they actually have to compete on a level playing field. For a more detailed discussion, see the explanation of Prop 20 above. – Vote No

Here’s my condensed summary:
PROP 19 – Legalizes Marijuana – YES
PROP 20 – Redistricting – YES
PROP 21 – $18 Car Tax – NO
PROP 22 – Prohibits Funds Transfers – NO
PROP 23 – Suspends Job Killing AB32 – YES
PROP 24 – Repeals Businesses Tax Adjustment – NO
PROP 25 – Eliminates Two-Thirds Requirement – NO
PROP 26 – Requires Two-Thirds Vote to Raise Fees – YES
PROP 27 – Eliminates State Redistricting Commission – NO

Related posts:

1. PROP 5 – Vote YES
2. PROP 6 – Vote NO
3. PROP 7 – Vote NO

As I indicated in my previous post on this subject, I believe that the MRCA is violating both the spirit and letter of California law in issuing $175 photo enforced citations at stop signs in their parks and at other locations under their jurisdiction. I have personally spoken with many otherwise law abiding citizens who have been caught up in this revenue generating ticketing scheme. I have been struck by their frustration at the way they are being treated by this particular government agency and their feeling that our elected officials have betrayed us by failing to rectify this wanton disregard for the law and any sense of fair play. Unfortunately, their ability to fight back is impaired by the cost of hiring an attorney and the time and effort involved in educating themselves about their possible legal remedies.

I am happy to report that I may have information on a solution for anyone caught in this predicament. I have had a number of lengthy discussions with attorney R. Allen Baylis about what we might be able to do to help fight back and strike a blow for justice. As you may or may not be aware, Mr. Baylis recently won a very important case in Orange County regarding the admissibility of evidence in photo enforcement cases. The decision in that case has sent shockwaves throughout the state as it will now be much more difficult for law enforcement to prosecute photo red light violations based on evidence collected by third party camera companies such as those used by the MRCA.

During our recent discussion, I asked Mr. Baylis if he might be willing to help the scores of people ticketed by the MRCA. Specifically, I explained that since the ticket was $175 and didn’t add points to the driver’s record, it was not cost effective to hire an attorney to fight it. Mr. Baylis said that if enough defendants were interested in hiring him to fight their MRCA photo tickets, he would be willing to significantly reduce his fees to make it more practical to hire him.

Here’s how this might work. Mr. Baylis would need at least 10 people willing to work with him to fight their tickets. He is aware that the ticket is $175 so he’s willing to charge less than this fine amount, which is a considerable reduction from his regular fee for fighting a traffic ticket. If more than 10 people agree to band together, he will be able to reduce his fee even further. Of course, until he knows how many people are in the group, the exact amount can’t be determined, but the fee will be set before anyone commits to hiring him. In addition, each defendant should expect to pay a $25 filing fee to appeal their case to the Superior Court. Doing the right thing and fighting back against the abuses of government sometimes comes at a price. In this case, though, I’ve tried to find a solution that will cost each individual much less than it would otherwise.

This is just a preliminary inquiry to see who might be interested in joining up to fight back against the MRCA. A response does not commit you in any way, but please give this serious consideration before expressing your interest. There will be a cost, and there will be no guarantee that he will win your case, but if anyone has a chance of beating the MRCA, I think it’s Mr. Baylis.

If you might be interested in this, please send me the following information through my contact page. If enough people respond, I will forward this information to him: contact Allen Baylis directly at:

R. Allen Baylis
9042 Garfield Ave., Suite 306
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
Phone: 714-962-0915

Mr. Baylis indicated that ideally defendants would not yet have attended their hearing, but even if they have already done that, he still should be able to help. Please note that if you have simply paid your ticket without contesting it, or if more than 20 days have elapsed since service of the final administrative order or decision and you did not file an appeal with the superior court, you will be unable to be included in this group. We are, however, still looking at the possibility of the class action suit and/or filing a case in small claims court. When I have further information about that, I will post it on this website.

I hope this offers those unjustly ticketed by the MRCA an alternative to simply rolling over and accepting the unfairness of their situation. I wish I could have found a way for everyone to fight their tickets for free, but I think this is the next best thing.

Please know that I am not soliciting clients for Mr. Baylis, nor am I being paid for passing along this information. My sole intention is to assist those who might not otherwise be able to fight their citations.

However this works out, thanks for your support of the Freedom Minute.

For the FAQ About MRCA Stop Sign Tickets, see this post.

UPDATE: Mr. Baylis has taken on a test case! The MRCA is expending a great deal of money, time, and manpower (even going so far as to fly their attorney down from San Francisco) to defend this. Imagine how quickly this scam would come to a halt if everyone started fighting their tickets in court. I will keep readers of this blog posted as to the outcome of this case.

Related posts:

1. PROP 5 – Vote YES
2. PROP 6 – Vote NO
3. PROP 7 – Vote NO

First, if you haven’t already done so, read my post The $100 Stop Sign Scam about the MRCA issuing tickets at stop signs in their parks. Then, come back here to read about what you can do if you have been issued one of these tickets. Please note that I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice.

Who is the MRCA?
The Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) is a “Joint Powers Agency” (a local government agency) which manages the parklands of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy as well as the Conejo and Rancho Simi Parks and Recreation Districts. As a government agency, the MRCA may exercise the common powers granted to its member entities by the State of California. It may not, however, exercise any powers not granted to its member entities or that conflict with State or Federal law. You can find their website here.

Does the MRCA have the authority to issue citations?
As a Joint Powers Agency, the MRCA is permitted create those ordinances which its member entities would be permitted to create. In this case, the MRCA has created an ordinance establishing rules and regulations for the use of the parklands under its control and the penalties for the violation of those rules. California law permits local agencies to exercise “police powers” and charge citizens with having committing certain crimes; generally misdemeanors or infractions. The law also permits local agencies to issue “administrative citations” rather than charge someone with an infraction.

So what’s an administrative citation?
Without getting too technical, an administrative citation is a lesser charge that carries no criminal penalties, only civil penalties, meaning just a monetary fine. Parking tickets are a form of administrative citation.

I got a ticket mailed from the MRCA claiming I ran a stop sign. What kind of ticket is this?
This is an administrative citation that carries no criminal penalties and no potential to put points on your license. You are being cited for violating the park rules, one of which is that you must obey all signs. The penalty that the MRCA imposes for this is $175.

But isn’t running a stop sign a violation of the Vehicle Code?
Yes. But you are not being charged under the vehicle code. You are being charged with violating park rules. The MRCA has set the park rules, set the penalties for violating those rules, set the conditions under which they can charge you with violating the rules, and set the rules for how you can defend yourself when you are charged with violating the rules.

Is that fair?
It doesn’t seem fair to me, or to a lot of other people who have looked into this issue. But whether or not it’s fair, the real question is, is it legal?

Ok, is it legal?
The MRCA, not surprisingly, claims that it is. And, using taxpayer funds, they’ve hired the law firm of Richards, Watson, & Gershon to come up with a legal rationale for this position. On the other hand, many other attorneys have offered numerous legal arguments as to why the actions of the MRCA are not permitted under State law. The bottom line is that regardless of any lawyer’s or layperson’s opinion, the MRCA will continue to issue these citations until either a court of law rules that their actions are impermissible or state lawmakers amend California law to make it clear that what the MRCA is doing is not allowed.

What are some of the legal arguments that the MRCA is acting illegally?
The answer to that question is quite detailed and is beyond the scope of this FAQ. We are preparing a document focusing on that subject alone and will link to it here once it is completed. In general, though, the arguments against the MRCA are the following:

1. The MRCA ordinance is pre-empted by state law, specifically the California Vehicle Code, which does not permit the use of automated enforcement at stop signs.
2. The MRCA may not use automated enforcement for violations of its ordinances because Public Resources Code 5786.17 which gives parks districts authority to issue citations (and which the MRCA uses to claim its authority to do so) specifies that those citations may only be issued when the violation is committed in the presence of a uniformed employee issuing the citation.
3. The MRCA may not issue administrative citations in excess of $100.00 because Government Code 53069.4 which authorizes local agencies to issue administrative citations (and which the MRCA uses to claim its authority to do so) specifically limits these citations to $100.00.

There are other legal objections to the MRCA’s authority to use automated ticking cameras to issue citations at stop signs, but these are the most notable.

The video doesn’t show who the driver is. Is the citation valid without them identifying the driver?
If you were being charged under the rules of the vehicle code, the answer would be no. However, the MRCA is citing you under their own ordinance which makes the vehicle owner responsible for the violation, not the driver. See above where we discuss how the MRCA makes up all the rules.

Can I just ignore this ticket?
While we can’t give legal advice, here’s what may happen if you simply ignore this ticket. First, the MRCA will add interest and penalties to the violation (again according to their own rules). Then, they will likely send your info to a collection agency who will try to collect from you. The collection agency may also report the debt to the credit reporting agencies and it may show up on your credit report. This is similar to what happens when you don’t pay a parking ticket. However, we have some anecdotal information from readers of this blog that when they contacted the collection agency and stated that the debt wasn’t valid and that they would sue if the debt got reported to the credit reporting agencies, they never heard from the collection agency again and the debt never showed up on their credit report. We can not independently confirm that this is correct information. If we receive additional information on this subject, we will list it here.

How can I fight this ticket?
The procedure for contesting the ticket is spelled out on the MRCA website. Basically, you must respond by the due date, pay the fine, and request a hearing at their location in Franklin Canyon Park off Mulholland Drive in Beverly Hills. Diana Hartman administers the citation program. Her number is 310-858-7272 ext. 103.

Do I have a chance at beating the ticket at the hearing?
Most likely, no. The hearing will be conducted by one of their employees whose job it is to find as many people guilty and collect as much revenue from this program as possible. If the employee found a large number of citizens not guilty, she would soon be out of a job. Therefore, unless you can prove that you were not the owner of the vehicle or that you clearly did come to stop at the stop sign, you are unlikely to prevail. Arguments such as “no one was put in danger”, or you slowed down but didn’t quite stop, or you can’t afford to pay, or the whole thing is a scam (which it is), are unlikely to get you anywhere.

What about the legal arguments you mentioned above?
Again, these arguments are unlikely to sway the hearing officer to find you not guilty. The MRCA has heard them all before and has rejected them. They don’t care how strong or well researched your legal argument is. They either really believe that they are correct or they don’t care if they’re not.

So why should I bother fighting this?
Two reasons. First, why give them your money without making them work for it. It costs them time and money to conduct these hearings and if enough people fought them, the program would be much less profitable. Plus, it’s the principle of the thing. I personally believe that when you are treated unfairly, especially by the government, you fight back, even when there is little hope of success. Second, if/when you are found guilty in the administrative hearing, you can appeal the decision to an actual court with an actual judge. But, if you don’t go to the hearing, you can’t appeal.

What’s the procedure for appealing to superior court?
Within 20 days of being served with the final decision from the hearing officer, you can file an appeal with the superior court. There is a $25 fee to appeal, but if you win, you get back your $175 fine plus the $25 fee. Of course, if you lose then you are out another $25. Note that the 20 day window to appeal may begin on the day the notice of final decision is mailed to you (if you don’t receive it at the hearing), not the day you actually receive it. Therefore, the best thing to do if you want to appeal is to file the paperwork with the court as soon as you receive your notice. If you miss the 20 day window, even if it is by one day, your appeal will be denied.

What’s the chance of beating the ticket in superior court?
Not great, but a whole lot better than at the administrative hearing. Note that this is a whole new trial, what happened at the hearing doesn’t count – although the file from the hearing will be part of the court record and the judge can refer to it. This is the time when you want to make all your legal objections to the citation. These objections would be of two kinds. First, the ordinance and ticketing program are illegal according to state law. (See the limited legal arguments above.) Second, you’d want to make legal objections to the introduction of the photo evidence and other “due process” arguments. There is some recent case law here in California that should make using photo enforcement evidence much more difficult for the MRCA, so getting the photo evidence tossed out is entirely possible. The caveat here is that these are fairly complicated arguments to make and while it’s not impossible for you to handle your case on your own, you will have a much better chance if you are represented by an attorney at this stage. Of course, attorneys cost money; likely more than the $175 fine. But don’t despair, there may be a solution for you. Read my post “Hire an Attorney to Fight Your MRCA Ticket”, for more information. If you decide you want to fight this on your own, let me know and I’ll try to help you as best as I can. Remember, though, that I am not an attorney and can’t give legal advice, just info on how you can help yourself.

What happens if I’m found guilty in superior court?
All is still not lost, you can appeal further – to the Appellate Court and then on to the California Supreme Court if necessary. The process for that is beyond the scope of this FAQ, but do know that it will be an option for you if you do things right in your superior court trial. This is another reason why having an attorney represent you is a good idea – to preserve your ability to appeal should you lose in your original trial. Again, it’s not impossible for you to do it all yourself (I have) but it will take a great deal of time and study to learn what you need to do. The good thing is that there are no additional fees to appeal your case beyond superior court.

What about this class action suit I’ve been hearing about?
At this point, the attorney, Michael Braun of the Braun Law Group has filed a case against the MRCA. There is a hearing in mid September. No class has been certified yet, meaning that there’s no ruling as to who can be part of the group that is suing (the class). When I have more information, I will pass it along. It is possible that if you pay your fine or have paid, that you will get your money back if (1) you qualify to be part of the suit and (2) the suit is successful. Those are two big “ifs” but hopefully that is exactly what will happen for the vast majority of people who have been ripped off by the MRCA.

Is there anything else I can do?
David Goldstein of Channel 2 news here in Los Angeles is considering doing a story about this. You can contact him at djgoldstein@cbs.com and tell him your story. Who knows, if enough people hear about this abuse of power, perhaps our legislators will actually do their jobs and reign in this rogue agency. Edit: The TV expose’ aired on Channel 2 here in Los Angeles in mid September. You can view it here.

Feel free to post additional questions in the comments section. Also, if you feel that this has been helpful, consider making a donation through the paypal link in the sidebar. It’s absolutely not required, but helps me to continue doing this work. Also, sign up for my newsletter and check the box for MRCA Alerts so you can get the most up-to-date and breaking news about legislation and court challenges.

Related posts:

1. PROP 5 – Vote YES
2. PROP 6 – Vote NO
3. PROP 7 – Vote NO

In this clip, Governor Chris Christie of NJ takes on a disgruntled teacher. What’s the teacher so upset about? Apparently, in order to deal with the current budget crisis, the governor has asked the teachers to forgo a raise for one year and contribute a small amount to their overall benefits package.

I wonder if we could entice Chris Christie to move to California and be our governor?

Related posts:

1. PROP 5 – Vote YES
2. PROP 6 – Vote NO
3. PROP 7 – Vote NO

Getting a traffic ticket is no fun. It stings, usually to the tune of hundreds of dollars. What can make the experience even worse, though, is the realization that you’ve just been caught in the latest government scam to separate you from your hard earned cash.

If you want to avoid falling victim to one of the most egregious abuses of government power, you’d best avoid the public parks under the jurisdiction of the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, otherwise known as the MRCA. This little known state agency, which administers the lands belonging to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, the Conejo Recreation and Park District, and the Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District is out to get your money. And they’ll use every dirty trick possible to do it.

Their latest scheme is the installation of automated ticketing cameras at stop signs within their parks.  Anyone who fails to come to a complete stop is hit with a one hundred one hundred and seventy five dollar ticket.  Now we can all agree that blowing through a stop sign, especially in a park where pedestrians are likely to be present, is not only dangerous, but deserving of severe punishment as well as the contempt of your fellow citizens.  But that’s not what we’re talking about here.  We’re talking about what is commonly known as the California Stop, where a driver slows to a crawl but doesn’t quite stop completely before proceeding.  Most drivers who engage in the rolling stop only do so when it’s clear that there’s no one around.  You know, like in a quiet neighborhood or secluded park. And if there does happen to be another vehicle or pedestrian present, there’s plenty of opportunity to come to a full stop without putting anyone in danger.  So, this is what is known as a technical violation.  It’s a little like going 5 mph over the speed limit.  Everyone does it at some point and no harm comes of it.

But regardless of the fact that this behavior puts no one at risk, the MRCA believes that if you engage in this practice on their turf, you deserve a $100 $175 fine.  And to ensure that they can nab you, they’ve flagrantly skirted the state law that forbids the use of this type of automated enforcement.  That’s right, this type of enforcement is not permitted under the California Vehicle Code, which is intended to be the law for all vehicles on the state’s roadways.  So how can the MRCA get away with this abusive practice?  They’ve simply declared that the law doesn’t apply to them.  They’re special; they’re above the law.  The arguments they make in support of this theory are extensive and I’ll leave that for another post where I’ll rebut them all.

What I want to concentrate on in this post, is their self serving claim that this is not about revenue enhancement, but rather all about safety.  In fact, in response to the public outcry against this ticketing scheme, Joe Edmiston, executive director of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, said: “I’m more worried about a law suit from somebody whose child is killed. We’d be sued for millions for not controlling the interface between visitors and cars.”  Wow, it sure sounds like there must have been massive carnage on the roadways within these parks. Joe Edmiston just had to implement these automated fines to save the children.

So how many accidents or injuries can be attributed to drivers failing to stop at the stop signs on the roadways within the jurisdiction of the MRCA?  Exactly zero.  Not one. Not ever.  When pressed, Joe Edmiston couldn’t cite even one accident or injury.  Yet it was necessary to install these automated cameras which extract tens of thousands of dollars from unsuspecting park visitors yearly all in an effort to save the children.  Of course, any reasonable person can see that safety has nothing to do with it.  On the contrary, this is clearly about filling the coffers of the MRCA and enhancing their power within their little fiefdom.

But if you’re still not convinced that this isn’t about safety, have a look at one of these stop sign installations enforced with an automated ticketing camera.

In this picture, taken at Marvin Braude Mulholland Gateway Park at the top of Reseda Blvd in Tarzana, you can plainly see that the stop sign sits pretty much in the middle of the road. There’s no cross street, no crosswalk, no intersection; no chance that any vehicle or pedestrian will cross your path. In fact, there’s absolutely no reason at all to have a stop sign here. And since there’s no common sense reason to stop, other than if you don’t, you’ll get a $100 $175 ticket; many motorists only slow down rather than come to a complete stop. Sure, it’s technically a violation, but only because the MRCA arbitrarily criminalized the behavior. What reason could the MRCA have for locating this sign in such a ridiculous and confusing location? Could it be purely in an attempt to collect as many $100 $175 fines as possible? It certainly isn’t to save the children.

And just to drive the point home, the reverse view of this idiotic photo enforced stop sign installation makes it even more obvious that it was placed in such a way as to ensnare the maximum number of park visitors and reap the greatest amount of revenue.

So be forewarned, the MRCA is out to rob you blind. Don’t get caught up in their revenue enhancement scheme. Photo enforced stop signs are also located in Temescal Gateway Park, Top of Topanga Overlook, Hollywood Bowl Scenic Overlook, and Franklin Canyon Park. There might be others coming soon.

And if you want to express your outrage at how a rogue government agency is engaging in highway robbery, call your city and state representatives. They’ll probably tell you it’s perfectly legal; it’s not. One field deputy for former state senator Sheila Kuehl told me, “Well if the government is doing it, it has to be legal”. Brilliant. But you don’t have to get into any legal debates. Just tell them you abhor this type of blatant revenue enhancement scheme. Tell them you want them to look into it. At the very least, they’ll be on notice that you’re keeping an eye on the actions of our public officials.

And if you happen to have gotten one of these tickets, I want to hear about it.  If you’re still fighting it, maybe you can be a test case to get this overturned.  If your case is already finished, you should know that there’s a class action lawsuit in the works.  I’ll post more about that when I have an update.

Finally, if you suspect that I’m so outraged about this because I’ve gotten one of these bogus tickets, you’d be wrong.  I’ve successfully avoided contributing to the MRCA’s stop sign fund, mainly because I refuse to visit and drive in their parks.  It’s my own little boycott.

After this article was posted, I found that the citation has recently been increased to $175.  Now we can all be doubly outraged.

If you’d like to be kept informed about lawsuits or other actions we’re taking to stop this illegal money grab by the MRCA, you can sign up for email alerts using the form under the heading “Subscribe to the Freedom Minute Newsletter” in the sidebar to the right of this post. Enter your name and email address and check the box for “MRCA Alerts” under “You can also sign up for specific lists” and you’ll always get the most up-to-date information.

For more detailed information about the MRCA photo enforcement scam, read the follow-up article FAQ About MRCA Stop Sign Tickets. It will answer many of your questions.

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Related posts:

1. PROP 5 – Vote YES
2. PROP 6 – Vote NO
3. PROP 7 – Vote NO

As the State of California struggles with its worst financial crisis in decades, lawmakers in Sacramento have finally turned their attention to something really important – cussing. On Thursday, the assembly passed a Concurrent Resolution declaring the first week of March as “Cuss-Free Week”. Since it’s only a resolution and doesn’t carry the weight of law, no one would actually be required to comply. But it isn’t hard to envision a scenario where the two brilliant assembly members who sponsored this measure, Anthony Portantino and Cameron Smyth, would have imposed a fine if they could have.

The idea originated with then junior high student McKay Hatch who started a No Cussing Club at his school two years ago. Using the infallible logic of his 14 year old mind, Hatch surmised that cussing led to drug use, pornography and violence and the world would be just peachy keen if we could only curtail foul language. So, of course, our elected officials thought that a no cussing rule would be the perfect solution to many of our real, adult problems as well. Why else would they take time out of their busy schedules to concentrate their efforts on this pressing matter? It certainly is comforting to know that these statesmen are legitimately earning their $95,000 a year salaries.

Come to think of it, perhaps this is a good idea after all. Maybe if the legislature spent more time on these types of inane resolutions, they’d have less time to raise taxes and drive business out of the state through their job killing regulations. In fact, perhaps we do need more legislation thought up by pubescent teens. How about an “I’m Rubber, You’re Glue Week” where everything unpleasant you say to someone bounces off them and sticks to you. This might curtail gang violence. Or maybe we should implement a “Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire Week” during which, if you’re caught being untruthful, some official would actually douse you in gasoline and set you ablaze. Hey, it’s not any more ridiculous than many of the actual laws dreamed up in our halls of government.

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Related posts:

1. PROP 5 – Vote YES
2. PROP 6 – Vote NO
3. PROP 7 – Vote NO

In his column in Thursday’s LA Times, Michael Hiltzik attempts to draw some conclusions about the voters’ rejection of Props 1A-E while again extolling the virtues of higher taxes. Unfortunately for Mr. Hiltzik, as usual, he’s wrong about virtually everything. This doesn’t particularly surprise me considering my critique of his previous column where he couldn’t keep his facts straight. This time around, Hiltzik draws the wrong conclusions and uses specious statistics to back up his argument.

Are Californians Highly Taxed?

Hiltzik claims that it’s a lie that Californians are burdened by the highest state taxes in the nation. To prove his point, he writes,

The truth, according to 2006 figures derived from the U.S. census, is that, as a percentage of all personal income, California’s tax and fee schedule ranks 18th in the country.

But that’s a misleading statistic. The reason that California comes out 18th, is that we have a few very wealthy citizens and a large percentage of our tax revenue comes from the sales tax which is a flat tax on purchases. This skews the ranking, because when you calculate taxes as a percentage of personal income (taxes divided by personal income), the incomes of our wealthy citizens increases the denominator and lowers the overall percentage. In low income, sparsely populated states, it takes a higher proportion of their incomes merely to provide a basic level of government and infrastructure. More densely populated and higher income states, like California, spread those costs over a greater tax base, allowing the appearance of a lower tax burden. So why use this one statistic to determine whether Californians pay the highest taxes in the nation? I suspect Hiltzik chose this number because it seems to prove his overall point that Californians aren’t taxed enough. However, Hiltzik ignores other, more valid statistics that prove him wrong. For example, in the same report referenced in Hiltzik’s column, California ranks 11th in per capita taxes (total taxes divided by the number of people). Again, this statistic may or may not tell us anything about our personal tax burden, for if there are a large number of people who pay little or no tax, then those that do pay taxes might pay a lot, but the per capita tax rate is lower. Furthermore, it’s unclear whether the above numbers include such things as local levies or other fees imposed on the populace. The point is, measuring the tax burden as a percentage of personal income is only one consideration of the tax environment for any jurisdiction, and not a particularly good one at that. Taking this one statistic out of many and using it as the sole evidence to prove your point is intellectually dishonest and I’m sure Michael Hiltzik knows it.

So let’s set the record straight about how heavily Californians are taxed. California has the highest state sales tax in the nation, the highest tax on motor fuels, one of the , highest corporate tax rates in the country, the second highest top income tax rate (Hawaii just jumped to #1, but not by much) and higher personal tax rates that kick in at some of the lowest income levels. For example, California imposes a 9.55% income tax on individuals earning over $47,000. No other state has such a high rate for those earning such a low salary. Finally, according to the Tax Foundation, for 2008, California ranked 6th highest in the nation in overall state tax burden. And in their 2008 report, the Pacific Research Institute ranked California 47th in overall economic freedom. Considering these numbers, Californians appear to shoulder a very high tax burden as compared to residents of other states. I leave it to the reader to decide whether we should be paying more as Hiltzik suggests.

Are Wealthy Taxpayers Paying Enough?

Elsewhere in his column Hiltzik makes another misleading assertion:

The dirty little secret, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, a left-leaning nonprofit group, is that California’s wealthiest residents shoulder the lightest burden of any income group in the state. The top 1% of California income-earners (average 2007 income: $2.3 million) paid 7.4% of their income in state taxes last year, counting the federal deduction for state taxes. The highest rate was paid by the poorest residents: Those earning $20,000 or less, with average income of $12,600, forked over 10.2% of their earnings.

Again, Hiltzik uses misleading and selective statistics from Citizens for Tax Justice to prove his point. First, the above statement is only true when you factor in the deduction taxpayers get on their federal income taxes for the state income taxes they’ve paid. But is it fair to factor this in? Wealthy taxpayers get more of a deduction on their federal taxes because they pay more state income tax than lower income taxpayers. And, since the deduction comes off their federal taxes, using this benefit as an offset to give the appearance of a lower state tax burden is intentionally misleading. Without this offset, the top 1% of California income-earners is the group that pays the second highest percentage of their income in state taxes. However, this still doesn’t tell the whole story. As we’ve seen above, these numbers incorporate flat taxes and fees such as sales and excise taxes into the calculation. Any statistical calculation that does this will, by necessity, make it appear that lower income taxpayers pay a high percentage of their income in taxes. And the larger the percentage of the tax revenue which comes from these types of taxes, the greater the overall tax burden will appear to be on the lowest income groups.

Furthermore, the author of the report from which Hiltzik draws his numbers fails to provide any reference for where he came up with his statistics. As a result, we can’t double check his facts. In addition, the author parses his numbers in such a way as to make it appear that the rich are under taxed. If you examine the report, you’ll notice that the author compares groups of taxpayer in 20% increments, until he gets to those making over $94,000. At that point he divides the last 20% into smaller divisions with the final group being the top 1% of earners. So, we’re really not comparing apples to apples. Why not divide the numbers into equal 20% increments? One suspects that the reason is clear – it would likely be more difficult to prove his point. There are possibly other problems with this report as well. Low income households rely heavily on government transfer payments such as food stamps, aid to families with dependent children, etc. Whether or not these types of income are included in the household income figures for the lower taxpayer groups is unknown. My suspicion is that they are not.

Finally, this whole attempt to vilify higher income taxpayers as deadbeats is predicated on the idea that how much an individual pays as a percentage of income is a statistic that tells us something useful about whether someone contributes their fair share to society. It doesn’t. Here’s an alternate figure to consider: For the 2004 tax year, the top 3 percent of tax returns, those reporting incomes exceeding $200,000, paid about 60 percent of all state taxes. We’ll take a more detailed look at what it means to “pay your fair share” in another post, but for now, all you really need to do is cast a skeptical eye on the numbers being bandied about in his article to see that Michael Hiltzik has an agenda. He believes we should raise taxes, especially on the wealthy, and he’ll use whatever statistics he can find in an attempt to mislead his readers into agreeing with him.

What Conclusions Should We Draw?

Hiltzik makes three suggestions on how we should solve our budget problems – and all of them are nonsense.

Once again, Hiltzik calls for the elimination of the two-thirds legislative requirement to pass a budget or raise taxes. As I pointed out in my previous post, the two-thirds rule is not the source of our problems, unless you think that our problem is that our taxes are too low. And the results of last Tuesday’s election shows that few if any real taxpayers think that’s the case. Because the Republicans in our state legislature are in the minority, and they generally favor lower taxes and less spending, the two-thirds rule does give them more power than they would otherwise have. This is a good thing, because it prevents a simple majority of politicians from overspending and overtaxing. At least it’s supposed to work that way. However, in the last decade, a handful of republicans have shirked their fiscal responsibility and joined the Democratic majority in an orgy of increased spending that has now brought us to the brink of insolvency. But let’s suppose that the Republicans were the in majority and Democrats were using the two-thirds rule to prevent them from passing a budget with massive cuts to social welfare programs. Do you think Michael Hiltzik would be calling for the elimination of the two-thirds rule? Of course not. He’d be hailing it as the saving grace of the underprivileged.

Hiltzik then calls for an end to term limits, under the assumption that highly entrenched career politicians would do a better job managing our state’s fiscal health. But Hiltzik offers absolutely no logical explanation as to how or why this idea would make any difference. He simply claims that state government hasn’t gotten any better since term limits were imposed, implying that instead, it’s gotten worse. State government may have gotten worse, but there’s no proof that term limits are the reason or that term limits haven’t prevented government from being worse than it otherwise would be.

Finally, Hiltzik calls for a revision of Proposition 13, the 1978 ballot initiative that brought an end to skyrocketing property taxes. Again, Hiltzik takes aim at this voter imposed constitutional provision because he wrongly believes that the rich just aren’t paying enough. But Prop 13 mostly protects middle income taxpayers from having their major investment, their homes, taxed so highly as to make ownership impossible. It also protects the elderly on a fixed income from being forced out of the homes they’ve lived in for decades, a regular occurrence prior to the passage of Prop 13. Hiltzik claims that Prop 13 renders property tax “useless as a revenue device”. Yet he fails to give any evidence for this outlandish claim. In 2007, California collected over $2.3 billion in property taxes. I’m not sure how Michael Hiltzik defines “useless”, but to me, something that brings in over $2 billion in taxes annually wouldn’t be it. Furthermore, because of the way Proposition 13 was written, property taxes provide a steady source of revenue rather than fluctuating with the economy. As we have seen during this economic downturn, when tax revenue is subject to the vagaries of the economy, governments can find themselves with huge unforeseen deficits. This is exactly what is happening now in California. Altering Proposition 13 so property owners are taxed on the fluctuating values or their property would only make such a situation worse. Too bad Michael Hiltzik can’t take the time to research this economic principle or he might understand the concept a little better.

So what’s the lesson we should take away from the public’s stunning repudiation of Propositions 1A-E?

It’s not, as Michael Hiltzik claims, that

California’s voters have been trained for too long to think they can have roads, schools, universities, clean air and other amenities without paying their true cost.

It’s that we can have these things. We just have to reign in our spending in other areas; we need to prioritize. We must make sure our elected officials don’t get us into long term union contracts and other financial obligations that are unsustainable, especially in an economic downturn. We need to stop passing ballot initiatives that earmark more and more of our tax revenue for pet projects. We need to eschew the idea that we can tax ourselves into prosperity.

The voters have made it plain that they want the State to cut spending, not raise taxes; that they expect the State to live within its means. This message was obviously lost on Michael Hiltzik. Hopefully, our representatives in Sacramento heard it loud and clear.

Related posts:

1. PROP 5 – Vote YES
2. PROP 6 – Vote NO
3. PROP 7 – Vote NO

Local Races

City Attorney – Vote for Carmen Trutanich. His opponent, Jack Weiss, was our council member and was pretty much the worst representative you could imagine. He’s in bed with all the political elites in City Hall and has waged a deceptive smear campaign against Trutanich. Don’t reward him. Trutanich will be an independent prosecutor and work best for the people of Los Angeles.

Council District 5 – Vote for David Vahedi. Between Vahedi and his opponent Paul Koretz, there is no doubt that Vahedi is the better choice. Koretz is a career politician and would simply be a continuation of the status quo. He moved into the district just so he could run for the open council seat being vacated by Jack Weiss. I’ve listened to both men at various candidates forums and I’m convinced that Vahedi will be a much more independent voice and bring the possibility of real change. I also believe he will be more open to input for the constituents. He’s also a real grass-roots candidate having served on his local neighborhood council for many years.

Here’s what you need to know about the Propositions

Vote NO on all

Prop 1A – This purports to impose a spending limit on the budget process. However, unlike a “real” spending limit, Prop 1A ties spending to prior revenue. That means that as long as the legislature raises taxes, they can keep adding to the budget. That’s no limit at all. California needs a spending limit imposed on the budget, but this is not it This prop would also extend the taxes already imposed during the last budget crisis. Taxes in California are already the highest in the nation by far. We don’t need higher taxes, we need to cut the budget and impose some spending restraints.

Prop 1B – This prop only takes effect if 1A also passes. It would funnel revenue back into school funding, but at an increase to the current levels. Much of the problem from school funding in California is a result of the outlandish benefits we are obligated to pay to retired teachers and other support personnel. These benefits are way above the benefits received by workers in the private sector. The reason our schools are starved for funds, is not because we don’t spend enough on education, it’s because of all the other obligations that siphon off money that would otherwise go to the classrooms.

Prop 1C – Allows the legislature to borrow against future lottery earnings. This is another smoke and mirrors move to cover up our huge deficit. The money will eventually have to be paid back with interest. We don’t need more debt.

Prop 1D – Siphons money from a dedicated account into the general fund. Another smoke and mirrors move to cover up our huge deficit. It’s just more creative bookkeeping so our politicians don’t have to make the hard choices and they can punt the problem into the future.

Prop 1E – Pretty much the same as Prop 1D but with a different dedicated account.

Prop 1F – This is a cynical attempt by one politician, Abel Maldonado, to make it appear as though he’s doing something to help the budget crisis, but it’s a sham. Abel Maldonado was the final republican vote to raise taxes during the recent budget crisis. He previously made a pledge when he was running for office that he would not vote to raise taxes. In some back-door wheeling and dealing, Maldonado switched his vote for personal gain. One of the things that he got was this proposition put on the ballot so he could have some political cover. The proposition would never actually do anything and is simply one of those “let’s pretend we’re on the side of the people” deceptions. Don’t fall for it.

Related posts:

1. PROP 5 – Vote YES
2. PROP 6 – Vote NO
3. PROP 7 – Vote NO