Connect with us

Business

Column: This ballot measure promises help for taxpayers, but it’s actually a handout to real estate developers

Published

on

Column: This ballot measure promises help for taxpayers, but it’s actually a handout to real estate developers

One can’t actually blame large enterprise for launching yet one more anti-tax marketing campaign.

In spite of everything, it’s what they do: Complain incessantly in regards to the poor degree of public providers, whereas taking steps to make them even poorer.

One can blame them, nevertheless, for taking these steps deceitfully.

It might undermine voters’ rights and create main loopholes for firms to keep away from paying their justifiable share.

Nicolas Romo, League of California Cities

Advertisement

That brings us to the “Taxpayer Safety and Authorities Accountability Act,” a proposed initiative co-sponsored by the California Enterprise Roundtable. The Roundtable is accumulating signatures as we write to put the measure on November’s poll.

You won’t be shocked to study that the initiative wouldn’t do something like what its title suggests. It wouldn’t shield taxpayers, besides the large companies lurking behind it — significantly large actual property builders. It wouldn’t make authorities extra “accountable,” however much less so.

The initiative’s common aim is to make it tougher for native governments to impose or increase taxes and costs.

It might prohibit advisory votes on the spending of native taxes showing on the identical poll because the tax measure. That’s an underhanded manner of discouraging the passage of will increase in gross sales and use taxes: Many municipalities present for such nonbinding measures so voters can get a say on how they need their cash used.

Advertisement

Metropolis officers say that depriving voters of that voice makes them extra more likely to vote in opposition to the taxes. In fact, this provision is the antithesis of the transparency that the Roundtable says it values so extremely.

Each tax would require a sundown date, which means extra votes, extra administrative burden, extra expense. Native taxes that beneath present legislation could be handed by a majority would require a two-thirds vote.

“That is very, quite simple and really easy,” says Robert C. Lapsley, the president of the Roundtable.

Advertisement

He’s blowing smoke. The reality is that it’s hopelessly complicated and so imprecise in a lot of its provisions that it’s sure to foment authorized challenges that may land municipalities in court docket, on the expense of the taxpayers the measure purports to guard.

“Our concern is with the anomaly within the measure,” says John Gillison, town supervisor of Rancho Cucamonga. “Lots of issues are simply not clear, which creates a pathway to extra authorized challenges.”

Even penalties for wrongdoers — violators of housing codes and nuisance abatement orders, for instance — could possibly be topic to limitation and authorized problem.

Lapsley additionally assured me that the initiative would apply solely to “future taxes” — presumably these collected after election day, Nov. 8. Besides that it features a retroactivity provision that might apply to any taxes enacted beginning this previous Jan. 1 —that’s, current taxes.

A fiscal evaluation accomplished for the League of California Cities estimated that tons of of tens of millions of {dollars} in tax and bond measures beforehand enacted by native voters may fall beneath the supply.

Advertisement

The League is clear-eyed in regards to the goal of the initiative. “It might undermine voters’ rights and create main loopholes for firms to keep away from paying their justifiable share,” Nicolas Romo, a income and taxation knowledgeable on the League, informed me.

That’s as a result of the measure goes past what folks usually consider as “taxes,” and would apply to charges and expenses imposed by native governments for using municipal property or for contract providers by companies corresponding to waste haulers, cable corporations and utilities.

The measure would require that these expenses, that are typically set at market charges, be “cheap.” That customary is undefined by the textual content, which clearly makes it topic to authorized assault; in follow, it is going to imply “minimal” — successfully a lower in enterprise charges.

Earlier than delving deeper into the textual content, let’s check out who’s bankrolling this marketing campaign. Superficially, it’s the Enterprise Roundtable and the anti-tax Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. They’re the key sponsors listed by Californians for Taxpayer Safety and Authorities Accountability, the marketing campaign committee, based on public filings.

They’re additionally the one contributors to date to the marketing campaign, which is operating mainly on $1.6 million from the Roundtable’s Points Political Motion Committee, or PAC.

Advertisement

The place did the Roundtable get the cash for its contribution? That’s the place the story will get fascinating.

The overwhelming majority of the PAC’s funding since final July got here from three large actual property corporations: In line with marketing campaign finance filings with the Secretary of State, they’re Los Angeles-based Kilroy Realty, Santa Monica-based Douglas Emmett Properties and Irvine-based Western Nationwide Group (principally by its chairman and CEO Michael Hayde).

Kilroy Realty contributed $1 million to the Enterprise Roundtable PAC in two installments of $500,000 every on Dec. 29 and Dec. 30. Douglas Emmett Properties and its affiliated entities contributed $1 million to the PAC in seven separate chunks, all dated Dec. 29. Hayde contributed $1,109,100, virtually all of it dated June 28.

Not one of the corporations responded to my requests for remark. However their funds constituted about 91% of the $1.76 million in contributions the Points PAC acquired from July 1, 2021, by Feb. 3. On that date, the PAC contributed $1.6 million to the tax proposition marketing campaign committee.

If you happen to’re adhering to the outdated investigator’s principle to “observe the cash,” it actually appears to be like as if the cash has flown from three large actual property builders to the initiative marketing campaign, with a short layover on the Enterprise Roundtable PAC.

Advertisement

A coalition of public worker unions alleges that this can be a subterfuge designed to hide who is de facto funding the initiative. In a criticism filed final month with the state’s Truthful Political Practices Fee, they name it “marketing campaign cash laundering plain and easy.”

State legislation requires the donors to an initiative marketing campaign be absolutely disclosed, a aim plainly confounded if marketing campaign donors can take refuge behind one other group.

This isn’t the primary time that the Enterprise Roundtable has been accused of serving to to hide the large cash behind an initiative marketing campaign.

The backers of Proposition 21, a 2020 hire management measure that was defeated after going through well-financed opposition by the Roundtable and different enterprise pursuits, alleged that the Roundtable’s Points PAC masqueraded as a “common goal” political motion committee whereas truly elevating tens of millions to defeat particular poll initiatives.

That constituted “a prima facie case of undisclosed earmarking,” based on the plaintiffs. In a tentative ruling issued Feb. 24, nevertheless, a Sacramento choose rejected that declare.

Advertisement

One may ask why actual property builders particularly have been so desirous to contribute to the Roundtable’s PAC in latest months. Lapsley intimated that the true property corporations simply occur to be displaying their public spirit sooner than different contributors.

“It’s an extended marketing campaign forward,” he informed me. “You’ll see a number of contributors to the marketing campaign — we’re simply getting began.” He added, “We make the most of our subject PACs appropriately.”

But an in depth have a look at the initiative might supply a clue why it could be a precedence for the true property business.

Amid all of the ambiguities the measure would inject into the revenue-raising course of for native governments, one particular prohibition stands out: “No levy, cost, or exaction regulating or associated to automobile miles traveled could also be imposed as a situation of property growth or occupancy.”

Automobile miles traveled, or VMT for brief, is a manner of calculating the environmental influence of latest developments that’s gaining new consideration from municipal planners.

Advertisement

The thought is to calculate the space of a brand new residential growth from city facilities or transit traces and impose a price to encourage extra building in already densely populated areas and fewer within the exurbs. Actual property corporations detest VMT as a result of it raises the price of constructing new developments out on the horizon.

The VMT provision is so particular, in actual fact, that it makes the proposed initiative look mainly like a tool to outlaw VMT, with lots of different anti-tax provisions tossed in for good measure.

The requirement of repeated voting on revenue-raising measures would make it far harder, maybe even inconceivable, to promote municipal bonds for infrastructure-building and enchancment, the consumers of which anticipate to be assured of a gentle stream of income to pay principal and curiosity.

Rancho Cucamonga, for instance, has began planning for its position because the Southern California terminus of a high-speed rail line to Las Vegas, scheduled to launch building subsequent 12 months.

New parking constructions, doable street widenings and different initiatives will likely be mandatory, which town hoped to finance by new assessments on property close to the positioning.

Advertisement

“This measure calls all that into query now,” Gillison says. “We’re undecided whether or not that’s going to be topic to problem now.”

Some communities might take a serious hit. Azusa officers calculate that town might lose $15.8 million a 12 months as a result of initiative. “That’s 30% of our finances,” says Metropolis Supervisor Sergio Gonzalez. “That will imply cuts to packages throughout the board—no division can be immune.” Meaning impacts on native roads, police, fireplace and emergency providers, and extra.

The promoters of this initiative assert that they’re simply making an attempt to shut loopholes opened in Proposition 13 by judges and politicians. Their pitch relies on the persistent declare that voters don’t have a say in how they’re taxed, that by some means these levies are concocted by shadowy unelected bureaucrats.

That is and has all the time been a lie. Taxes and costs are imposed by voters, both straight on the poll field or by the election of neighborhood leaders who could be voted out of workplace.

It’s the promoters of the brand new initiative who’re working within the shadows. They’re not telling you who their moneybags are. They’re actually not explaining how the measure will profit their large donors on the expense of residents, who anticipate first rate native providers and are susceptible to the siren music that they’ll get all of the providers they want with out paying for them.

Advertisement

The so-called Taxpayer Safety and Authorities Accountability Act is only one extra instance of how particular pursuits love to assert that they’re getting authorities off the backs of the folks, when their actual aim is to saddle up themselves.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

If your kid wants skin-care gifts for the holidays, here are some risks to consider

Published

on

If your kid wants skin-care gifts for the holidays, here are some risks to consider

As parents rush into malls for the final days of Christmas shopping, many will be armed with wishlists full of beauty products for their children.

Skin care is a fast-growing phenomenon among Gen Alpha, typically defined as those born from 2010 and on. Dubbed “Sephora kids,” the tweens and teens have been buying up products from buzzy brands including Drunk Elephant, Bubble and Glow Recipe and diligently following multistep, antiaging skin-care routines popularized on social media.

With kids becoming a powerful segment of the booming $164-billion global skin-care industry, brands have been catering to them with new products packaged in colorful, eye-catching bottles and jars.

Dermatologists say getting children into the habit of taking care of their skin is a good thing, but they’re urging parents to exercise caution as they splurge on holiday gifts.

“For pediatric dermatology, we always say to be very mindful and wary of active ingredients that are in products,” said Dr. Jayden Galamgam, a pediatric dermatologist at UCLA Health. “A lot of the time, simple is better.”

Advertisement

What products are OK for my kid to use?

A gentle cleanser, a hydrating moisturizer and a good sunscreen are recommended and appropriate for any age.

“You don’t need to be using all these products; you don’t need a 10-step routine,” Galamgam said. “Use three products. Most don’t need anything more than that.”

Look for broad-spectrum sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or higher; it should be worn daily and reapplied every couple of hours.

What products should I avoid?

Anti-wrinkle serums, exfoliants and peels are not appropriate for children. Avoid products containing potent alpha hydroxy acids, beta hydroxy acids and retinol, Galamgam said.

“I would definitely try to stay away from those, because they can cause a lot of irritation for kids,” he said.

Advertisement

Social media trends often encourage tweens to experiment with cosmetics that are inappropriate for their skin type or age, so parents need to look carefully at ingredient labels before buying, said Sam Cutler, founder of Beverly Hills-based tween skin-care brand Petite ’n Pretty.

“We want to caution parents about the growing trend of products marketed as ‘kid-friendly’ due to their bright, playful packaging, which can be misleading,” she said. “Many of these products are formulated for adults and contain harsh ingredients, such as hydroxy acids, retinoids and artificial fragrances, which are too aggressive for young, delicate skin and can cause irritation or long-term damage.”

My kid wants antiaging products anyway. What should I say?

You can talk to them them about the potential harmful side effects, and about the risks of following the advice of online “skinfluencers.”

“There are a lot of teens that are using these products inappropriately due to misinformation or wanting to fit in with their friends based on what they’re seeing on TikTok,” said Dr. Carol Cheng, a pediatric dermatologist and an assistant clinical professor of dermatology at UCLA.

“They’re easily susceptible. A lot of them don’t realize that these influencers are probably being paid to promote certain products.”

Advertisement

Is anything being done to protect kids from potentially harmful skin-care products?

In February, California Assemblymember Alex Lee introduced legislation to ban the sale of antiaging products to kids under the age of 13, but the bill failed to pass in the California Legislature.

Continue Reading

Business

Ivan Boesky Was Seen as Greed Incarnate, and Never Said Otherwise

Published

on

Ivan Boesky Was Seen as Greed Incarnate, and Never Said Otherwise

Before the answers to life’s questions fit in our pocket, you used to have to turn a dial. If you were lucky, Phil Donahue would be on, ready to guide you toward enlightenment. In a stroke of deluxe good fortune, Dr. Ruth Westheimer might have stopped by to be the enlightenment. He was the search engine. She was a trusted result.

Donahue hailed from Cleveland. The windshield glasses, increasingly snowy thatch of hair, marble eyes, occasional pair of suspenders and obvious geniality said “card catalog,” “manager of the ’79 Reds,” “Stage Manager in a Chevy Motors production of ‘Our Town.’” Dr. Ruth was Donahue’s antonym, a step stool to his straight ladder. She kept her hair in a butterscotch helmet, fancied a uniform of jacket-blouse-skirt and came to our aid, via Germany, with a voice of crinkled tissue paper. Not even eight years separated them, yet so boyish was he and so seasoned was she that he read as her grandson. (She maybe reached his armpit.) Together and apart, they were public servants, American utilities.

Donahue was a journalist. His forum was the talk show, but some new strain in which the main attraction bypassed celebrities. People — every kind of them — lined up to witness other people being human, to experience Donahue’s radical conduit of edification, identification, curiosity, shock, wonder, outrage, surprise and dispute, all visible in the show’s televisual jackpot: cutaways to us, reacting, taking it all in, nodding, gasping. When a celebrity made it to the “Donahue” stage — Bill Clinton, say, La Toya Jackson, the Judds — they were expected to be human, too, to be accountable for their own humanity. From 1967 to 1996, for more than 6,000 episodes, he permitted us to be accountable to ourselves. 

What Donahue knew was that we — women especially — were eager, desperate, to be understood, to learn and learn and learn. We call his job “host” when, really, the way he did it, running that microphone throughout the audience, racing up, down, around, sticking it here then here then over here, was closer to “switchboard operator.” It was “hot dog vendor at Madison Square Garden.” The man got his steps in. He let us do more of the questioning than he did — he would just edit, interpret, clarify. Egalitarianism ruled. Articulation, too. And anybody who needed the mic usually got it.

The show was about both what was on our mind and what had never once crossed it. Atheism. Naziism. Colorism. Childbirth. Prison. Rapists. AIDS. Chippendales, Chernobyl, Cher. Name a fetish, Phil Donahue tried to get to its bottom, sometimes by trying it himself. (Let us never forget the episode when he made his entrance in a long skirt, blouse and pussy bow for one of the show’s many cross-dressing studies.) Now’s the time to add that “Donahue” was a morning talk show. In Philadelphia, he arrived every weekday at 9 a.m., which meant that, in the summers, I could learn about compulsive shopping or shifting gender roles from the same kitchen TV set as my grandmother.

Advertisement

Sex and sexuality were the show’s prime subjects. There was so much that needed confessing, correction, corroboration, an ear lent. For that, Donahue needed an expert. Many times, the expert was Dr. Ruth, a godsend who didn’t land in this country until she was in her late 20s and didn’t land on television until she was in her 50s. Ruth Westheimer arrived to us from Germany, where she started as Karola Ruth Siegel and strapped in as her life corkscrewed, as it mocked fiction. Her family most likely perished in the Auschwitz death camps after she was whisked to the safety of a Swiss children’s home, where she was expected to clean. The twists include sniper training for one of the military outfits that would become the Israel Defense Forces, maiming by cannonball on her 20th birthday, doing research at a Planned Parenthood in Harlem, single motherhood and three husbands. She earned her doctorate from Columbia University, in education, and spent her postdoc researching human sexuality. And because her timing was perfect, she emerged at the dawn of the 1980s, an affable vector of an era’s craze for gnomic sages (Zelda Rubinstein, Linda Hunt, Yoda), masterpiece branding and the nasty.

Hers was the age of Mapplethorpe and Madonna, of Prince, Skinemax and 2 Live Crew. On her radio and television shows, in a raft of books and a Playgirl column and through her promiscuous approach to talk-show appearances, she aimed to purge sex of shame, to promote sexual literacy. Her feline accent and jolly innuendo pitched, among other stuff, the Honda Prelude, Pepsi, Sling TV and Herbal Essences. (“Hey!” she offers to a young elevator passenger. “This is where we get off.”) The instructions for Dr. Ruth’s Game of Good Sex says it can be played by up to four couples; the board is vulval and includes stops at “Yeast Infection,” “Chauvinism” and “Goose Him.”

On “Donahue,” she is direct, explicit, dispelling, humorous, clear, common-sensical, serious, vivid. A professional therapist. It was Donahue who handled the comedy. On one visit in 1987, a caller needs advice about a husband who cheats because he wants to have sex more often than she does. Dr. Ruth tells Donahue that if the caller wants to keep the marriage, and her husband wants to do it all the time, “then what she should do is to masturbate him. And it’s all right for him to masturbate himself also a few times.” The audience is hear-a-pin-drop rapt or maybe just squirmy. So Donahue reaches into his parochial-school-student war chest and pulls out the joke about the teacher who tells third-grade boys, “Don’t play with yourself, or you’ll go blind.” And Donahue raises his hand like a kid at the back of the classroom and asks, “Can I do it till I need glasses?” Westheimer giggles, maybe noticing the large pair on Donahue’s face. This was that day’s cold open.

They were children of salesmen, these two; his father was in the furniture business, hers sold what people in the garment industry call notions. They inherited a salesman’s facility for people and packaging. When a “Donahue” audience member asks Westheimer whether her own husband believes she practices what she preaches, she says this is why she never brings him anywhere. “He would tell you and Phil: ‘Do not listen to her. It’s all talk,’” which cracks the audience up.

But consider what she talked about — and consider how she said it. My favorite Dr. Ruth word was “pleasure.” From a German mouth, the word conveys what it lacks with an American tongue: sensual unfurling. She vowed to speak about sex to mass audiences using the proper terminology. Damn the euphemisms. People waited as long as a year and a half for tickets to “Donahue” so they could damn them, too. But of everything Westheimer pitched, of all the terms she precisely used, pleasure was her most cogent product, a gift she believed we could give to others, a gift she swore we owed ourselves.

Advertisement

I miss the talk show that Donahue reinvented. I miss the way Dr. Ruth talked about sex. It’s fitting somehow that this antidogmatic-yet-priestly Irish Catholic man would, on occasion, join forces with a carnal, lucky-to-be-alive Jew to urge the exploration of our bodies while demonstrating respect, civility, reciprocation. They believed in us, that we were all interesting, that we could be trustworthy panelists in the discourse of being alive. Trauma, triviality, tubal ligation: Let’s talk about it! Fear doesn’t seem to have occurred to them. Or if it did, it was never a deterrent. Boldly they went. — And with her encouragement, boldly we came.

Wesley Morris is a critic at large for The New York Times and a staff writer for the magazine.

Continue Reading

Business

Party City to shut down after nearly 40 years in business

Published

on

Party City to shut down after nearly 40 years in business

Party City, the party and costume supply chain with more than 70 locations in California including several in Los Angeles, is shutting down operations immediately and laying off its employees.

In an online meeting Friday viewed by Bloomberg News, Party City Chief Executive Barry Litwin told corporate employees that it would be their last day of work. CNN reported that employees would not receive severance pay.

“That is without question the most difficult message that I’ve ever had to deliver,” Litwin said in the video. The company will be “winding down” immediately, he said.

The chain, which has been in business for nearly 40 years and has around 700 locations, according to its website, could not handle a decrease in consumer spending triggered by everyday high prices, Litwin told employees.

Going-out-of-business sales began Friday, just 14 months after the company emerged from bankruptcy and four months after Litwin began as chief executive. The company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2023 with about $1.8 billion in debt and emerged from the restructuring process under a plan meant to ensure its viability.

Advertisement

The company, however, continued to struggle and was considering reentering bankruptcy earlier this month, Bloomberg reported. The New Jersey retailer was falling behind on rent at some locations and running out of cash, according to the report.

Several retailers and fast-casual restaurant chains have struggled this year amid rising operating costs and inflation-wary consumers, including Big Lots, which is preparing to sell its stores, and Red Lobster, which filed for bankruptcy in May. Bricks-and-mortar locations in particular are scrambling to keep up with online retailers and big-box chains.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending