Cities fooled too often by state

Tom Harman

Cartoonist Charles Schulz made famous a routine where, every year,

Lucy would entice Charlie Brown to kick the football with promises

that her behavior would change and Charlie would come out a winner.

She would faithfully promise not to pull the football away at the

last second as Charlie raced forward to kick it. Substitute

California cities for Charlie, and state government for Lucy, and you

have the situation where, every year, the state promises to behave

better, only for cities to find that hope dashed once again. While

there were some direct hits for cities in this year’s legislative

session, there were also some near misses.

One bill with a huge cost impact is Senate Bill 796, which allows

any “aggrieved employee” to act as a “private attorney general” and

file a civil action on behalf of himself and all other current or

former employees to recover civil penalties for any violation of the

Labor Code. If enacted, Senate Bill 796 will expose local agencies to

frivolous lawsuits and create a new litigation cottage industry for

trial attorneys. By way of example, if a city with 500 employees made

one simple inadvertent violation of the Labor Code, it could result

in civil penalties of a million dollars or more. Such lawsuits will

no doubt drive up costs to local governments and thereby further

California’s reputation for having an unfair legal system. At this

writing, the governor has yet to sign or veto Senate Bill 796.

Assembly Bill 421 was destined to be a short-term version of an

earlier bill -- Assembly Bill 1221 requiring cities to swap sales tax

revenue for property tax revenue -- but this time effective for the

duration of the “triple flip” deal. It would have allowed cities and

counties to choose, effective for 2005-06, whether or not they wanted

their base amount of property tax received in 2004-05 under the

triple flip to grow by their sales tax growth rate (as under current

law) or assessed valuation growth. The choice would have been

voluntary for cities and counties -- they could stick with the sales

tax growth, or choose property tax growth, for the duration of the

swap. Cities were wary of the proposal because it was never a part of

the original triple-flip deal, and could have been a harbinger of a

more permanent swap. Worse, before a city could exercise the option,

it would have to be in compliance with its housing element.

Fortunately, it was defeated in the waning days of session.

Another “near miss,” Assembly Bill 1160, proposed a slew of

“one-size-fits-all” zoning measures that would have seriously eroded

cities’ land use control. For example, it would have required a city

to grant a 25% reduction in parking standards, and a 33% reduction if

the project is within one-quarter mile of a rail station or the

intersection of two or more major bus routes. This measure was

defeated in committee.

When the Legislature reconvenes in January next year, I would

encourage all Orange County cities to remain ever vigilant as I am

sure that “Lucy” will again try to pull the football away from the

cities at he last moment.

* EDITOR’S NOTE: Tom Harman is Huntington Beach’s assemblyman.