Eye on Sacramento Issues Report on Darrell Steinberg’s Strong Mayor Ballot Measure


For Immediate Release
Date/Time: September 10, 2020, 5:00 a.m
Contacts: Craig Powell, President, Eye on Sacramento
Phone: (916) 718-3030
E-mail: craig@eyeonsacramento.org
Chris Jones, Policy Analyst, Eye on Sacramento
Phone: (484) 340-0709
E-mail: chrispatrick.jones@gmail.com

Eye on Sacramento Issues Report on Darrell Steinberg’s Strong Mayor Ballot Measure

Eye on Sacramento, Sacramento’s local government watchdog group, released today its “Report on Measure A,” a comprehensive review of Mayor Darrell Steinberg’s ballot measure that would restructure city government and grant him “strong mayor” powers. The Report is viewable here and an Executive Summary is viewable here.

The EOS Report includes the following findings and conclusions:

  • Strong Mayor Was Exhaustively Debated and Settled by Voters in 2014
  • The Frenzied Rush to Place Measure A on the Ballot is an Affront to Democracy
  • Most of the Signers of the Ballot Arguments in Support of Measure A Have Potential Financial Conflicts of Interests
  • City Governance Should Not Be Overhauled Without Good Cause
  • Real Accountability Means Being Held to Account for Performance, Which Measure A Would Undermine Rather Than Assure
  • Measure A Would Reduce the Influence of Councilmembers, Citizens and Neighborhoods
  • Measure A Would Likely Reduce the Efficiency & Effectiveness of Government Operations, But Would Have Likely Little Impact on Major City Policies
  • The Sweeteners Included in Measure A Are Unvetted, Vague, Illusory and/or Legally Suspect
  • Measure A’s $40 Million Annual Spending Mandate Would Create Endless Financial, Legal and City Service Problems
  • Measure A’s Ambiguous “Reauthorization” Provision is Not a True Sunset
  • Studies Show That Municipal Corruption Convictions Are Strongly Correlated with the Executive Mayor Form of Governance


Sacramento Battles Over Homeless Shelters … Council majority runs roughshod over opponents of low barrier homeless shelters open to drug abusers

By Craig Powell

California Globe Published on Wednesday, 10 September 2019

If anyone wants to know why “low barrier” homeless shelters of the type being pushed by Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg and his allies on the city council are a failed idea, I urge you to visit the Sacramento city clerk’s website and watch the August 26th council meeting video of Councilwoman Angelique Ashby’s comprehensive and devastating critique of the now closed city homeless shelter in North Sacramento, as well as her indictment of proposed low barrier shelters in Meadowview and in North Oak Park. It was a virtuoso display of passion, moral authority and basic common sense.

A “low barrier” shelter is one where no one is screened for criminal convictions, no one is excluded for being high on drugs or drunk, and no one is precluded from bringing in aggressive breeds of dogs. Ashby recounted the numerous phone calls she received from women staying at the North Sacramento shelter who told her that they’d been sexually assaulted inside the shelter. She recounted the broken city promises to keep the area around the North Sacramento shelter clean and safe – the same promises the city is now making about its proposed shelters in Meadowview and Oak Park. She noted that on the day she toured the North Sacramento shelter she counted 90 pit bulls (yes, you read that correctly) inside the shelter.

Her observations matched the anecdotal reports Eye on Sacramento received from several residents of the shelter. We had no chance to independently verify the reports because the city studiously barred the media from ever entering it. The exterior of the shelter, however, was a menagerie of social pathology: open drug dealing and drug use, open intoxication, surrounded by homeless encampments and the public health dangers they entail.

Read the Rest

California Globe Copyright © 2019. All Rights Reserved

Eye on Sacramento Releases its “Blueprint for a Post-Measure U Sacramento: Beyond Our ‘Pay More, Get Less’ City Government”


For Immediate Release
Date/Time: October 16, 2018, 2:30 p.m.
Contact: Craig Powell, President
Eye on Sacramento
Phone: (916) 718-3030
E-mail: craig@eyeonsacramento.org

Eye on Sacramento Releases its “Blueprint for a Post-Measure U Sacramento: Beyond Our ‘Pay More, Get Less’ City Government”

Local government watchdog Eye on Sacramento issued its “Blueprint for a Post-Measure U Sacramento” this morning at a press conference outside of Sacramento City Hall. The report, subtitled “Beyond Our ‘Pay More, Get Less’ City Government,” includes 22 detailed recommendations for how the City of Sacramento could reduce its general fund spending by more than $125 million annually – without any reduction in the levels of its core city services.

EOS President Craig Powell said, “Sacramento is at a critical inflection point. Will we be a city that delivers the highest and best value for its citizens’ hard-earned tax dollars while preserving and improving core public services, or will we be a city that caters to politically influential special interests at the ever growing, and increasingly unaffordable, expense of Sacramento residents?”

“Our Blueprint provides an a la carte menu of sound, prudent budget choices for the Sacramento City Council to select from to reassert control over the city’s serious and growing budget problems, which are driven first and foremost by a projected $62 million annual hike in its pension bill from CalPERS. If Measure U is approved by voters, the looming $62 million legal claim of CalPERS would vacuum up every dollar of the nearly $50 million in new taxes Measure U would produce and the city would be back to voters in two years’ time to ask them to approve yet another tax increase.

“Our Blueprint offers a different direction. If the bulk of its recommendations are adopted by the City Council, it would free up more financial resources for high-priority city services and projects than the $50 million in higher taxes that Measure U would produce – and would do it without inflicting financial pain on Sacramento’s modest-income families, seniors on fixed incomes, the poor and the homeless who lack the discretionary income to absorb the regressive sales tax hike. Our approach also wouldn’t drive down the sales of Sacramento’s small businesses or endanger the livelihoods of their employees as Measure U would.

“We’re very appreciative of the work of Blueprint co-author Ms. Marcia Fritz, CPA (Inactive), whose three decades of experience in auditing local governments and her respected work in helping state and local governments reign in escalating pension and other labor costs has assisted us greatly in preparing this report,” Powell concluded.

Measure U is a proposal on this year’s general election ballot that would double an expiring ½% sales tax hike in the City of Sacramento adopted in 2012. It would also replace the temporary 2012 tax hike with a permanent one.

Below are links to the 39-page Blueprint and a 5-page “Summary of EOS’s Cost-Savings Recommendations.”

Click Here to view/download the Blueprint for a Post-Measure U Sacramento: Beyond Our ‘Pay More, Get Less’ City Government

Click Here to view/download the Summary of EOS’s Cost Savings Recommendations

Proposed City-Wide Project Labor Agreement Mandate: Look Before You Leap

Dear Mayor Steinberg and Councilmembers,

We write to urge you to postpone consideration of the proposal to mandate that all city projects of $1 million or more include a project labor agreement, which appears on your agenda for tomorrow evening.

The consideration of such a measure with zero public awareness and no opportunity of the public to adequately express their views would be an affront to any concept of open, transparent government or inclusive public engagement. Slamming this proposal through the city council without adequate time and opportunity for real public input would further undermine the public’s already attenuated trust in city government and city leaders.

This is not the way a participatory, inclusive democracy behaves. This is the way slick politicians who want to sneak things past the public behave. We trust that you wish to count yourselves among the former and not the latter.

The proposed mandate would have a huge and as yet unknown impact on the city’s budget and on the burdens of city taxpayers. We all know that project labor agreements serve to effectively restrict city contracts to union-only contractors, thereby reducing the number of eligible bidders on city contracts, thereby needlessly driving up city and taxpayer costs by 10% to 20%, according to the studies of independent analysts.

Such cost spikes will likely drive up taxpayers costs by tens of millions of dollars each year in Sacramento, depending on the volume and magnitude of city capital improvement projects each year. Over a 10-year span, such a mandate could drive up costs by as much as $200,000,000, all for the sake of benefiting a narrow special interest, the construction trades unions, while unfairly cheating the 90% of skilled trades workers who are not union members out of the opportunity to earn a living.

It would also especially harm minority and women-owned businesses, the great majority of whom are non-union businesses.

We also note that Sacramento residents will vote this fall on your proposal to double and make permanent the temporary Measure U one-half percent sales tax hike that expires in March.

As chair of the campaign to defeat the double-the-tax Measure U, it would behoove me to remain silent and even encourage you to approve such a budget-busting PLA mandate on city projects as it would hand our No on Measure U campaign a vivid example of how our city government is shoveling millions of dollars out to back door of City Hall into the pockets of politically connected special interests at the expense of average Sacramentans.

But I also happen to be a citizen who deeply cares about the long-term fiscal health of our city. I cannot stand idly by while the proponents of this deeply flawed proposal drive the city’s financial future into a ditch.

We urge you to do the right thing and direct staff to do a comprehensive, independent fiscal analysis of the long-term impacts of the proposed PLA mandate on future city budgets, non-union workers and minority and women-owned Sacramento businesses. If you are serious about restoring trust in city government, you must provide the public a reasonable opportunity to learn about this proposal, study it and then communicate with their representatives their views on it.

If you wish to discuss this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.


Craig Powell, President
Eye on Sacramento
Phone: (916) 718-3030

cc: Media Distribution List

Eye on Sacramento’s Position on Mayor’s Effort to Double Measure U Sales Tax Hike


For Immediate Release

Date/Time: July 31, 2018, 6:00 a.m.
Contact: Craig Powell, President,
Eye on Sacramento
Phone: (916) 718-3030
E-mail: craig@eyeonsacramento.org
Website: www.eyeonsacramento.org


Eye on Sacramento’s Position on Mayor’s Effort to Double Measure U Sales Tax Hike


Below is a link to a letter that was sent today by Eye on Sacramento President Craig Powell to Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg regarding EOS’s position on the Mayor’s effort to double the Measure U one-half percent “temporary” sales tax hike in the City of Sacramento.

Measure U will be on the agenda of two Sacramento council meetings today, July 31st, one at 2:00 p.m. and a second meeting at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Powell will be available for interviews both before and after the 2:00 p.m. council meeting.

Letter to Mayor Darrell Steinberg


Is Steinberg Being Reckless? … Mayor wants to double a ‘temporary’ sales-tax hike

By Craig Powell

If all you knew about the performance of Mayor Darrell Steinberg in office was what you read in the pages of The Sacramento Bee, two things would be apparent. First, you’d think Steinberg was that rarest of creatures: a politician incapable of making a misstep or a bad policy choice. Second, you’d be woefully ill-informed about the potential downside consequences of his policies—and some of the cynical political calculations behind them.

Since the June primary, the mayor has been a man on fire. His first salvo was to publicly press the City Council and city voters to support his campaign to double the “temporary” one-half-percent sales-tax hike known as Measure U, which was approved by voters six years ago as an emergency response to city service cuts in the Great Recession. He seems not to care that Measure U was sold to voters as a temporary tax designed to fill the coffers of a recession-battered city.

Neither the mayor nor The Bee bothers to point out that city revenues have fully recovered from the recession. City revenues have risen 16 percent over the past two years and were up 6 percent last year. The mayor and The Bee have also failed to mention that the city’s labor costs soared 8.5 percent last year on the heels of pricey new city union contracts and soaring pension costs. How pricey? Under the new police contract, officers with more than four years on the job were given 17 percent pay raises (not counting the impact such raises have on city pension costs), while average annual increases in the CPI were less than 1.3 percent over the past four years.

view/download … Is Steinberg Being Reckless? … Mayor wants to double a ‘temporary’ sales-tax hike.PDF

InsidePublications.com Copyright © 2013. All Rights Reserved

Budget Checkup … City Hits List of 20 Most Financially Distressed U.S. Cities

By Craig Powell

After devoting my last two columns to Sacramento’s homeless crisis, I figure we’re due for a review of the city’s financial situation since Darrell Steinberg became mayor.

Among the more than 3,300 issue files that Eye on Sacramento (the civic watchdog group that I head) maintains on municipal issues is one that is often whimsical: our city rankings file. We track every time a study or publication ranks Sacramento against other cities on everything from its appeal to millennials to the quality of our coffeehouses. (There’s considerable crossover there.) But the latest ranking, published by JPMorgan Chase, is anything but whimsical. It’s disturbing.

Since JPMorgan Chase manages about $90 billion in municipal bonds, it’s pretty concerned about whether cities will be able to pay back their bond debt. So it created what one financial analyst calls a comprehensive guide of “which municipalities haven’t the slightest hope of surviving their multi-decade debt binge and lavish public pension awards”—i.e., Chicago, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Cleveland.

view/download … Budget Checkup … City Hits List of 20 Most Financially Distressed U.S. Cities

InsidePublications.com Copyright © 2013. All Rights Reserved

The San Antonio Way … Haven for Hope Focuses on Transforming Lives of the Homeless

By Craig Powell

I first learned about Haven for Hope, a unique homeless facility in San Antonio, Texas, from a close friend, Jill McDonnell. Jill is a professional photographer in Sacramento who doubles as the official photographer of the Land Park Volunteer Corps. Jill rides “shotgun” with me on our monthly park work days in William Land Park. We distribute copious amounts of cold water to hardworking park volunteers and thank them for their indispensable help.

Jill’s overriding passion, however, is capturing extraordinary images of Sacramento’s homeless people. Her photography is reminiscent of the remarkable work of Dorothea Lange, the photographer famous for chronicling the desperation on the faces of struggling migrants during the Great Depression. Jill’s photos of homeless people have been displayed in the photo gallery in the lobby at Sacramento City Hall and other local galleries. We occasionally display her work at the Corps’ Base Camp, a reminder to park volunteers of the struggles the homeless in our midst face. Her pictures of our park volunteers are often featured in this publication.

Jill is no softheaded bleeding heart. She has a steely-eyed realist’s view of the complexity of human nature, both its positive and negative elements. She’s also closely attuned to the players, policies and politics involved with homeless issues in Sacramento. Because she has an abiding human compassion and innate common sense (an all-too-rare combination, I’ve found), I sought out her perspective when I began studying the city’s stumbling responses to the homelessness problem. She had one unwavering piece of advice: Go to San Antonio.

view/download … The San Antonio Way … Haven for Hope Focuses on Transforming Lives of the Homeless

InsidePublications.com Copyright © 2013. All Rights Reserved

Sacramento Streetcar Project Hits Major Speed Bump … Properties Owners, Resident Sue To Invalidate Streetcar Tax Election


For Immediate Release

Date/Time: August 24, 2017, 7:00 a.m.
Contact: Steven Bourasa, Chair
Transportation Committee,
Eye on Sacramento
Phone: (916) 889-6657
E-mail: stevenbourasa@hotmail.com
Website: www.eyeonsacramento.org

Erick J. Benink, Esq.
Krause, Kalfayan, Benink & Slavens, LLP
Attorneys for Petitioners
Phone: (619) 232-0331
E-mail: eric@kkbs-law.com


Sacramento Streetcar Project Hits Major Speed Bump

Properties Owners, Resident Sue To Invalidate Streetcar Tax Election


Last week, two Central City property owners and a registered Sacramento voter filed a lawsuit against the City of Sacramento that seeks to invalidate the results of a recently held city-sponsored Mello-Roos tax election. The suit seeks to halt the levy of a special tax on Central City property owners that is designed to raise $2 million annually to cover a portion of the operating costs of a proposed Sacramento/West Sacramento streetcar project. The petitioners claim that the special tax was not approved by a two-thirds majority of the registered voters of Sacramento, as required by the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 and the California Constitution, and should be invalidated by the court.1

City Ignores Vote of City Residents

Just two years ago, registered voters in Downtown and Midtown rejected a similar Mello-Roos streetcar tax (Measure B) by a wide margin. Instead of respecting the clear and democratically expressed will of the voters, Sacramento city officials have spent the past two years concocting a second illegitimate and illegal streetcar tax election plan (Measure S) intended to disenfranchise city voters and ignore the will of the people. In the second streetcar tax election, which concluded in June, city officials denied the vote to all registered voters and allowed only carefully selected property owners to vote, in violation of the law.

The city further manipulated the Measure S election by weighting the vote based on parcel size and including the massive Downtown Railyards in the proposed tax district. The Downtown Railyards alone represented over one-third of the collective voting power in the election. By cheery picking voters and egregiously gerrymandering the district, city officials assured themselves that they would secure the two-thirds majority vote required to pass the tax.

City of Sacramento Ignored Legal Warning in April

On April 20, 2017, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association sent a letter to Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg and the Sacramento City Council warning that a “special tax approved in an election where only owners and lessees of land were allowed to vote was invalid” and unconstitutional under California law. 2 City officials ignored Howard Jarvis’ warning and mailed out streetcar tax election ballots to only landowners on May 30, 2017.3

City officials have estimated that the streetcar project will cost $5.1 million each year to operate. However, Eye on Sacramento’s nationally recognized transit expert, Professor Emeritus Gregory Thompson of Florida State University, estimates that the streetcar’s actual annual operating costs will most likely be between $6 million and $8 million. The Measure S special streetcar tax was expected to raise $2 million annually, but is now under a very major legal cloud.

Who will pay the enormous looming operating deficits of the streetcar project, which may be as much as $5 million annually? The answer is: no one knows. Are the participating cities of Sacramento and West Sacramento prepared to tap their already hard-pressed general funds to cover the uncertain operating deficits? Without an identified, adequate and committed funding source, the streetcar project is likely to be stalled indefinitely. Or, worse, the project may get built, but will have only enough funding to operate sporadically, killing any chance of it developing a level of ridership that could justify the $200 million taxpayer cost of building the project.

As Professor Thompson puts it, “The Sacramento streetcar project is little more than an amusement ride for tourists and will do virtually nothing to improve mobility or reduce automobile use.”

3 https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Clerk/Elections/3-Measure-Information


Billion-Dollar Budget … City spending to increase 25 percent over five years

By Craig Powell

First, there’s the headline number: The city is poised, for the first time in its history, to spend more than $1 billion in the fiscal year that begins on June 30. Total general-fund spending (which pays for police, fire, etc.) is set to hit $450 million next year, while “enterprise” spending (primarily, the utilities department) consumes $584.2 million.

The city expects to employ 4,552 people next year, a slight increase over the current year, but an increase of 720 positions from five years ago. The city expects to employ 130 fewer people than it did in 2008.

City officials are forecasting that the budget will sink into major deficit beginning in just two years, when a general-fund operating deficit of $11 million is expected to grow to $26 million by 2022. You would expect that a city manager, facing the prospect of such red ink, would propose a city budget for next year that calls for major cuts in spending to head off the coming fiscal ditch. But you would be wrong. Fiscal discipline is a very foreign, even suspect concept at City Hall these days. In fact, city manager Howard Chan’s recently released budget forecast anticipates sharp increases in general-fund spending on city operations over each of the next several years, rising from $412.9 million this year to $515.9 million in 2023, a 25 percent increase in operations spending over five years—a spending pace that’s more than twice the inflation anticipated during that period.

view/download … Billion-Dollar Budget … City spending to increase 25 percent over five years

InsidePublications.com Copyright © 2013. All Rights Reserved