The Frying Pan

L.A. Bans Single-Use Plastic Bags

Rosemary Jenkins — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:34:18 +0000

On Tuesday the Los Angeles City Council voted, nearly unanimously, to implement a ban on all single-use plastic bags. Plastic bags have become an eyesore around our neighborhoods, but more importantly, they have been costing the City millions of dollars in clean-up. Despite these efforts, many still wind up in our sewer systems, with all too many flowing to the sea where marine life is harmed and various waterways themselves become polluted.

The ban has been in the works since current Councilmember Ed Reyes introduced the idea nearly 10 years ago. This last year many hearings were held over many months, during which time stakeholders passionately presented the measure’s pros and cons. If it were not for the commitment of Councilmembers José Huizar and Paul Koretz, this ordinance would never have succeeded.

The most significant aspects of this measure are as follows:

Beginning January 1, 2014, single-use plastic bags will no longer be available in large supermarkets and box stores.The smaller, independent, mom-and-pop stores will have extra time to roll this in.

The City will provide (free of charge) more than a million reusable canvas-type bags to be distributed in the more disadvantaged neighborhoods. Many supermarkets will give them away during a transition period. Markets, which will be able to charge 10 cents per bag, will use the money to defray costs to educate the public and to provide free bags to WIC recipients. (Many other vendors and organizations already give such bags away.)

The reusable bags will be labeled with a reminder to clean them regularly so that bacteria cannot grow. (Studies indicate, however, that their use has never produced a significant health hazard for users.)

At a press conference held immediately after the vote, Councilmembers Huizar, Koretz, Richard Alarcón, and Tom LaBonge thanked all those who were responsible for the motion’s success. Koretz warned that our society has created a “throw-away culture.” We must respond to his counsel by educating ourselves. Instead of looking at these changes with skepticism, the consumer should cultivate a new perspective that views these changes in a positive light, as transformative and beneficial.

(Rosemary Jenkins is chair of the Northeast Valley Green Alliance.)

Obamacare and the Low-Wage Work Crisis

Richard Kirsch — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:11:39 +0000

One of the biggest issues that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is meant to tackle is the lack of health coverage among low-wage workers. While there is good news for many low-wage workers in the new law, many others will still find themselves locked out of access to affordable coverage. Solving their concerns will be one more part of the huge challenge of confronting the power of mammoth low-wage employers in the new economy.

There has been a lot of coverage about the potential for fast food chains and other employers to cut the hours of some of their employees to under 30 a week in order to avoid having to offer them health coverage. To the extent that employers do cut back hours, it will accelerate a long trend toward part-time low wage work; part-timers increased from 17 percent to 22 percent of the workforce just from 2007 to 2011.

The surge in part-time work is one aspect of the broader increase in low-wage work. Most of the jobs coming out of the recession are low-wage, which has hastened a trend going back 30 years of a growing number of low-wage jobs with no health benefits. The powerful eroding of good jobs is the greatest threat to broadly-shared economic prosperity. It destroys any promise of people living a middle-class life style, creates a two-tiered society, and undercuts the consumer buying power needed to move the economy forward.

The low-wage economy means more than just low wages. Post-World War II jobs, which came with employer-provided health coverage and a pension, are fast disappearing. Now more than four-in-ten workers do not get health coverage on the job. This includes many employees of small businesses, which do not offer any health coverage. It also includes millions of employees of large businesses, who either are not offered health coverage or can’t afford the premiums.

Enter Obamacare. The good news in the ACA for low-wage workers who work for small employers (those with fewer than 50 full-time workers) is that many will have access to affordable health coverage for the first time through the new health insurance marketplaces. They will be able to sign up for subsidies that limit how much they pay in premiums to a percentage of their income and get plans with good benefits and moderate out-of-pocket costs. Those with incomes below 133 percent of the federal poverty level (about $15,000 for an individual) will be eligible for Medicaid in states that agree to expand coverage.

But for those who work for bigger employers – and some two-thirds of minimum wage jobs are at employers of 100 or more – it is not clear whether the ACA will deliver on its promise of affordable coverage. Ironically, part-time workers may come out ahead, with a much better chance of affordable coverage, while full-time low-wage workers may find coverage out of their financial reach.

Millions of people who don’t work more than 29 hours a week for any one employer will be eligible for affordable subsidized coverage through the new marketplaces. And even if employers trim back some workers’ hours to get below the 30-hour mark, those workers may end up better financially and gain affordable coverage for the first time.

There will also be some employers who increase the hours of part-time workers to above 30 a week, as the Cumberland Farms stores, which employ 4,500 full-time workers and 2,700 part-timers, plan to do. Noting that full-time workers stay with the business three to four times longer than part-timers, the Cumberland Farms CEO explains, ““Longer-tenured workers deliver a better experience for the customer.” According to the payroll-processing firm ADP, other businesses are also likely to encourage more workers to become eligible for employer coverage.

But it is not at all clear that full-time low wage workers for bigger employers will be able to get affordable coverage. That is because the big business lobby exercised its muscle in shaping the ACA in the Senate Finance Committee. All the law requires is that employers offer individual employee health coverage that does not cost more than 9.5 percent of an employee’s income in order for the business to escape paying a $2,000-to-$3,000 penalty. In addition, the ACA allows employers to offer plans with very high out-of-pocket costs.

Make no mistake about it; 9.5 percent of wages is a lot for anyone to pay for health insurance, and it is a huge amount for low-wage workers. By comparison, an employee who makes $12 an hour and works a 35-hour week would pay about six percent of his or her income on health insurance in the new marketplaces, for coverage which is almost certain to have better benefits and lower deductibles and co-payments.

And here’s the kicker: As long as a worker is offered the less-than-9.5-percent-of-income coverage at work, that worker is not eligible for the much better coverage in the marketplace. And if the worker decides that she can’t afford the premiums, she will be have to pay a penalty for not being insured.

The big outstanding question is, what will the bigger low-wage employers do? They could choose to offer affordable coverage to their employees. But the big fast food chains, retail giants, and box stores have a history of offering several levels of coverage to their employees, including bare-bones plans targeted at their lowest paid workers.

Putting this all together, here is what health coverage for low-wage workers may look like after a couple of years of implementation of Obamacare: Good coverage for those who work for smaller businesses and who don’t work more than 29 hours a week for any one employer, but either no coverage or coverage that is costly to buy and to use for many people who work more than 30 hours a week for the biggest low-wage employers in the country.

Seen in this light, Obamacare is one more step toward both improving and exacerbating the low-wage work crisis in the nation. The movement away from employer-provided health coverage is a huge step forward in creating a more just health care coverage system. But justice for low-wage workers at big businesses will mean confronting the power of companies like Walmart, McDonald’s, and Bank of America (with its low-wage tellers). This is the same challenge we face in taking the other steps needed to modernize labor standards for the 21st Century: a higher minimum wage indexed to inflation, paid sick days and family leave, and overhauling labor laws so that workers’ rights to form unions are restored. It is fast becoming central to the fight for a new economy that works for all Americans.

(Richard Kirsch is a Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, on whose Next New Deal blog this post first appeared. Republished with permission.)

Unlevel Playing Field: How Taxpayers Foot Walmart’s Bills

Allison Mannos — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:00:50 +0000

Walmart’s expansion strategy for Los Angeles and other urban areas has been to avoid public oversight by choosing real estate that doesn’t require public review – and, where possible, to secure public subsidies, often with little public scrutiny.

This is exactly what happened in both Covina and Cathedral City. In 1993, Walmart negotiated an intricate deal with the City of Covina’s redevelopment agency that resulted in the company making a tidy profit of $4.1 million. Walmart made a $10.8 million loan to the CRA to purchase several plots of land for the corporation, which was then sold back to Walmart at the discounted price of $6.7 million. In this way, Walmart effectively received a $4.1 million subsidy from taxpayers to develop the land. Similarly, in 1995, Walmart was reimbursed by Cathedral City for $850,000 for “infrastructure improvements,” but on the day that taxpayers recovered this subsidy, the company promptly closed its store and opened that same day two miles away, just across city boundaries in neighboring Palm Springs.

More recently, the City of South Gate was awarded $12.7 million for public improvement projects related to a proposed Walmart in the new Azalea Retail Project along Atlantic Avenue. While a jobs agreement was rumored to have been signed by the city and the developer, the scale of the subsidy should have prompted local leaders to fully assess what it was getting for its investment and how residents would benefit. South Gate is actually forking over much more than one subsidy for this project, which will include a Walmart Superstore as its anchor: Future Walmart employees who receive public assistance will also be subsidized by taxpayers, at about $1 million annually, or roughly $5,815 per employee.

Since the 1990s, some cities, like Los Angeles, San Jose and Sacramento, have passed legislation to make these types of deals more transparent. In Inglewood, after voters beat back a Walmart-funded initiative that would have given the company carte blanche to build whatever it wanted, the city adopted a superstores ordinance.

These local laws notwithstanding, most cities do not have the tools to ensure transparency and a means of assessing what the impact of a superstore will be. A big box bill, AB 667, passed the state Assembly and is now pending in the state Senate. It takes its cue from Inglewood and other cities which have passed similar laws. The bill would require developers to provide cities with more information for projects receiving public subsidies. By requiring similar economic impact reports as the Inglewood ordinance, the law would enable the public to assess what impacts the supercenters would have on taxpayers, small businesses and other affected groups.

To date, Walmart has chosen, more often than not, to forego the economic impact reports; one must question why there is hesitation to demonstrate impacts when the company itself often claims that it benefits communities.

Stay tuned for more updates on Frying Pan News about AB 667.

High Court Upholds Picketing Rights

Rebecca Band — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:00:26 +0000

There’s power in the picket line. And employers know it.

That’s why, in 2008, Ralphs Grocery Company sued to have union picketers removed from the front of one of its non-union stores. But California has explicit laws to protect labor-related speech, and the court denied the request by Ralphs.

But that hasn’t stopped the grocery chain from continuing its courtroom battle to silence workers – even though they’ve lost just about every case. Last December, California’s Supreme Court upheld the ruling in favor of the picketers. Speaking for the California Supreme Court’s 6-1 ruling in the Union’s favor, Justice Joyce Kennard wrote that the 1975 state law and follow-up legislation passed in 1999 are

“. . . justified by the state’s interest in promoting collective bargaining to resolve labor disputes, and the understanding that the area outside the entrance of the targeted business often is the most effective point of persuasion.”

And last week, California working families scored a huge and decisive victory when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the employer’s appeal on the constitutionality of labor-related speech on private property.

UFCW 8 (United Food & Commercial Workers Union) President Jacques Loveall:

“This decision is a clear victory for our union and all working families [in] our state. While we are glad to achieve this decisive legal victory, it is troubling to witness a long-time union employer taking a hostile stance toward workers’ rights to express themselves freely. Educating shoppers and workers about their basic rights to a decent wage, good health care, dignity in retirement and respect on the job should not result in lawsuits and appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Through its YourBreadAndButter.com campaign, UFCW 8 continues its efforts on behalf of employees at Walmart, Fresh & Easy, Nugget, Target, Whole Foods, WinCo, Vallarta, Trader Joe’s and other retail chains known as failing to meet industry standards in wages and benefits.

Said Loveall:

“Our members are prepared to do whatever it takes to ensure all workers have access to the good pay, health care, pensions and job security provisions enjoyed by union members.”

(Rebecca Greenberg Band has served as California Labor Federation Communications Organizer since 2007. Her post first appeared on Labor’s Edge and is republished with permission.)

Students Graduate into Debt

Joelle Gamble — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:00:20 +0000

“Work hard. Get good grades. Go to a good school and you will be successful.” Our generation has been told time and again that through hard work and dedication, we will be able to live happy lives, have secure jobs, and start families built on comfortable finances. But on the day of action around student debt, it [was] clear we need more than these easy answers to help Millennials cope with the growing burden of education costs.

I come from a middle class family. Both of my parents served in the Marine Corps and got good jobs. My father works in law enforcement, and my mother is a teacher. They taught me that if I put in hard work, I would reap the results. So, I graduated at the top of my class in high school and went to a top (public) university. I worked all four years of college and graduated on time. Two days after graduation I started working at a good job.

By all measures, I did everything “by the book.” I even saved up some money to make early down payments on the student loans that I accrued during school. Over the past four months, I have paid off more than was required by law, and currently I am paying more on the principal than on the interest. One would think that I would be in pretty good shape.

But with $26,000 in debt, only slightly above average, I will still be making these payments for the next decade of my life. They will be as regular as my electric bill and rent. They will be considered before I think about how and when to start my family or buy a house.

I am one of the lucky ones: employed with enough spare cash to make student loan payments. So many other recent college graduates are not in the same position.

Student loan debt is one of the biggest economic and social justice issues this nation faces today. An entire generation of young, educated workers is being saddled with financial burdens that will follow them for the foreseeable future.

Recognizing this, the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network joined with the United States Student Association to make proactive recommendations for addressing the student loan debt crisis. Our report, A New Deal for Students, offers policies by students and for students, past and present.

In this report, students outline their arguments for a better system for financing higher education. Policy recommendations range from tax incentives for students committed to staying in their home states to raising the federal minimum range to supporting new graduates to teach in rural areas.

What we want is a real debate and, above all else, action by our lawmakers on this critical financial issue affecting millions of young Americans.

(Joelle Gamble is the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network’s National Field Strategist. Her post first appeared on the institute’s ND2.0 blog and is republished with permission.)

Supreme Court Blocks Industry Bid to Kill Clean Truck Program

Jon Zerolnick — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:00:48 +0000

The trucking lobby wins on two minor elements, but Port of L.A.’s successful program to cut pollution and set standards for trucking survives.

Last Thursday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a case that had the potential to impact millions of people in Southern California – people who have been breathing cleaner air thanks to the Port of L.A.’s Clean Truck Program. The Clean Truck Program is an innovative policy that has been successful in reducing port-related truck emissions by as much as 90 percent. But it has enemies, most notably the trucking companies who profited from the dirty, unregulated system as they worked on behalf of Walmart, Target, and every other big importer.

The national trucking lobby, on behalf of these firms, sought to kill the program by challenging it in court. As we passed environmental and public health milestone after milestone, the trucking industry filed legal motion after legal motion, and the case bounced between all levels of courts. But Thursday was the big one—the highest court in the land finally weighed in on the legality of the program overall. This ruling would be the culmination of almost five years of litigation filed by the industry (not the truck drivers), litigation that was filed even before the Clean Truck Program went into effect in 2008. And while many of us had been waiting for this ruling for a long time, when it finally came down, it was, frankly, pretty unremarkable.

But then the industry declared victory.

Huh? I quickly re-read the complete ruling, and then re-read it again.

Sure, the Supreme Court had thrown out two minor provisions on parking and listing phone numbers (more below). But the heart of the Clean Truck Program was intact. The trucking lobby had attempted to kill the program in the courts, and they failed. Today we are right where we were on Wednesday, before the ruling. The Port of L.A. has a successful program cutting lethal pollution, and there is still serious work to be done in order to sustain those gains.

An Innovative Program

The Clean Truck Program was developed by the Port of L.A., based on input from the Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports – some 40+ Southern California organizations including environmental, public health and environmental justice groups; immigrant-rights, faith-based, and community groups; unions and worker groups. We were all concerned about a failed port trucking system that provided crappy jobs, failed to mitigate its impacts on the community, and literally killed three people every week from excessive tailpipe emissions.

So the port developed a set of standards for the industry, and required accountability from trucking companies. Hundreds of companies would have to upgrade a fleet of over 12,000 trucks to meet more stringent emissions standards. And those companies would have to sign contracts with the port (“concession agreements”), agreeing to a set of operational standards and port oversight. The idea of port oversight didn’t sit well with the trucking companies, who wanted the basic framework of these agreements thrown out, claiming that the port had exceeded its authority.

Five years later, as the trucking industry continued to fight the program, we’ve managed to reduce truck emissions by 80 to 90 percent.

The Supreme Court Rules

Victory for the trucking industry? Yes, two provisions in the concession agreement were thrown out. The Port of L.A. had required trucking companies to develop a plan for off-street parking, so that local residents would not have to deal with big rig trucks parking in neighborhoods. And the port had required companies to affix a placard on each truck with a phone number, so that community members could call the port if they saw a truck involved in something unsafe. The Supreme Court found that the parking and “How’s My Driving” placard provisions were preempted by a Federal law (the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, or the F4A if you want to sound cool). It is disappointing that these program elements will not be available to residents and other community members affected by the trucking industry.

(A third provision – that would have required trucking companies to hire drivers as employees rather than so-called “independent contractors” – was already struck down in a lower court.)

But the real news is that despite the industry’s crowing, they failed to get what they really wanted: a return to unaccountability. The Supreme Court declined to change the basic structure of the Clean Truck Program: the concession agreement itself. This is the heart of the environmental program, and it remains intact. The Port of L.A. may continue to require that cleaner, less polluting trucks serve the port, that the trucks be properly maintained, and the port remains able to bar trucks that do not comply.

Let me put it like this: It is disappointing to lose the two minor provisions, but there is no way the industry would have invested millions of dollars and taken litigation to the Supreme Court simply to preserve on-street parking and avoid a few “How’s My Driving?” placards.

Where Now?

The problem for the Clean Truck Program today is the same problem we’ve had since day one: the misclassification of truck drivers as “independent contractors.” As many as 90 percent of America’s port truck drivers are misclassified as “independent contractor drivers,” beholden to a single trucking company, paid by the load, but saddled with lease payments and operating costs for trucks they don’t own, and with high self-employment taxes. With no ability to control the fees drivers receive for the containers they haul, there is rarely money left at the end of the month to properly maintain the trucks. This results in trucks that are poorly maintained and are more likely to produce malignant fumes that affect the air quality in the ports and the neighboring communities.

In other words, we’ve done a great job at getting old trucks off the road and new trucks in service, but we haven’t yet solved the problem of sustainability. As one port driver recently said, “I cannot afford to maintain the new truck I drive. We just aren’t paid enough to buy diesel, insurance and tires, and to maintain our trucks to clean air standards. This rig is pretty new, but it’s already falling apart because I can’t afford to fix it. Something has got to change.” Most drivers take home around $30,000 a year; annual maintenance costs exceed $8,500 on these newer trucks.

This is why the Port of L.A. wanted trucking companies to hire drivers as employees: to shift the responsibility for truck operations and maintenance from individual drivers to the trucking companies themselves, which can ensure the trucks are properly maintained.

But there’s more than one reason to address the employment status of drivers. Namely, that – despite what the companies call them – drivers are not truly independent contractors in the first place. Drivers understand that with this bogus label, companies are stealing from them. So drivers have been taking action on their own: filing hundreds of claims with the state Labor Commissioner, and filing lawsuits against the companies they work for, seeking to be recognized as the employees they truly are. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in judgments have already been levied against companies that have inflated profits by pocketing payroll taxes, denying benefits, and pushing maintenance costs onto the drivers.

The Coalition will continue to work with drivers to address the problem of misclassification. And we will work with the port to ensure that, with the litigation in the rear-view mirror, robust enforcement will begin. With these two elements in place, we can shift the Clean Truck Program from the great start it is into the truly transformational program it needs to be.

Nuns on the Bus Tour to Reach San Francisco Today

Brad Wong — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:00:39 +0000

A group of nuns began their 6,500-mile bus journey late last month in New Jersey with a view of Ellis Island. Since then, their brightly-decorated blue bus with images of hands raised — to show support for families and immigration reform — has rolled for more than 5,000 miles down Eastern Seaboard roads and into the South. This week marks the California leg of the “Nuns on the Bus” tour supported by NETWORK, a national Catholic social justice group. The nuns’ goal during this 15-state, 40-city whirlwind event which ends on June 18: “Standing with immigrants, faith-filled activists, and Catholic Sisters who serve immigrant communities.”

Last Wednesday, the nuns were scheduled to speak with community groups in Nogales, Arizona and federal lawmakers in Phoenix. After the meeting with government leaders in Phoenix, they joined immigration groups to discuss the tour, the importance of family unity and citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country, organizers said.

The “Nuns on the Bus” tour is another sign of the coalition of grassroots, labor and religious groups that is willing to speak about families who want better lives, said James Garcia, spokesman for Promise Arizona, an organization that supports immigrants.

“The first thing is that this speaks to the faith community’s involvement in this issue. We’ve heard in recent months of support from evangelicals and the Jewish community. Recently, the Catholic Church issued a statement of support,” he said.

“We, as immigrant rights organizations here (in Arizona), may have felt like a minority voice a year or two ago. Now, we feel like we’re part of that majority voice.”

Gina Sanchez, an immigrant from Mexico who volunteers with Promise Arizona, called the nuns’ visit inspiring and said it is the right time to fix what she views as a flawed immigration system.

On their regularly-updated blog, the intrepid group of nuns is filing dispatches about meeting deferred-action students, refugees, labor leaders and fellow members of the faith community. During their tour stops, the nuns are talking about an immigration policy that reflects “our values, not our fears.”

Sister Elaine Betoncourt posted a June 4 blog post about the thoughts that flooded her mind when the tour visited Birmingham, Alabama. She walked through Kelly Ingram Park, near the site of the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing in 1963, in which four children died during the civil rights movement.

Also that year, in the park, was a mass demonstration in which police and firefighters attacked people standing up for their civil rights.

“Reading the accounts in the park of the horrendous actions that happened here in 1963 brought the feeling of walking on holy ground, the sacred place where on May 2, 1963, 600 children crusaders were savagely hauled off to jail for protesting segregation and standing for justice,” Betoncourt writes.

She quickly makes a parallel to this year’s immigration effort and push by activists and community groups to stop the estimated 1,100 daily deportations of undocumented immigrants from the country.

“We hear repeated stories of children living daily in fear of their parents being stolen away by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and more deportations taking place than in past years,” she writes.

Earlier, the nuns were in Texas and New Mexico. And Arizona has been no stranger to the issue of immigration in recent years – and recent weeks.

In late May, a federal judge ruled that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his deputies singled out Latinos during law enforcement actions, especially in regards to immigration. Grassroots immigration groups, such as Promise Arizona, called Arpaio’s actions “racial profiling.”

From Arizona, the nuns take their tour to California. Just as they are ending, another tour highlighting immigration will start.

Grassroots activists affiliated with Border Network for Human Rights and Reform Immigration for Texas Alliance are launching a bus trip – which will cover 3,000 miles and include 16 cities in Texas. That caravan starts on June 17 and ends on June 27.

As the bus tour activists travel the country, similar to caravans earlier this year, lawmakers in Congress will continue to debate changes to what would become — if approved — the most sweeping immigration reform bill in more than 25 years.

(Brad Wong is assistant news editor for Equal Voice News, where this story first appeared. Reposted with permission; some slight edits reflecting schedule updates have been made.)

Governor Brown Outlines Plan for Good Jobs

Steve Smith — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 14:20:03 +0000

In How Enterprise Zones Are Killing the California Dream, Frying Pan investigative reporter Gary Cohn looked at the impact of the controversial program, including workers who lost their jobs while their former employers received tax breaks for hiring lower-paid replacements. He also reported on two strip clubs revealed to have benefited from the secretive program. Other media have picked up the story as well, building momentum for an overhaul. A more detailed overview of the Governor’s plan can be found here. The following post first appeared in the blog Labor’s Edge.

To some politicians, economic development means giving hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to strip clubs, fast food joints and retail giants like Walmart. Gov. Brown, thankfully, has a better idea. Today, the Governor announced a broad coalition of labor, business and others in support of his good jobs plan that will flip the broken enterprise zone program into real incentives for creating quality, middle-class jobs.

Gov. Brown:

California’s 30-year-old Enterprise Zone program is not enterprising, it’s wasteful. It’s inefficient and not giving taxpayers the biggest bang for their buck. There’s a better way and it will help encourage manufacturing in California.

Study after study has shown that the enterprise zone program is a waste of taxpayer dollars. The California Labor Federation has been sounding the alarm on this broken program for several years, and now there’s strong momentum for reform.

California Labor Federation leader Art Pulaski:

The Governor’s plan wisely targets our tax dollars to good jobs that build the middle class and strengthen communities. California workers stand with the Governor in his efforts to create good jobs that will spur our state’s economic growth.

The Governor’s plan directs tax credits to businesses that are actually creating new, quality jobs — something the broken enterprise zone program has failed miserably in achieving. The Governor outlined his program today in a release to media:

The Governor’s plan, proposed in the May Revision, builds on the framework of existing, targeted programs by redirecting approximately $750 million annually from the current flawed Enterprise Zone program to three new economic development programs:

Sales tax exemption: A statewide sales tax exemption on manufacturing equipment or research and development equipment purchases by firms engaged in manufacturing or biotechnology research and development. The proposal is estimated to provide sales tax exemptions worth over $400 million annually.

Hiring credit: A hiring credit targeted to businesses located in areas with the highest unemployment rate and poverty. This credit will be available for the hiring of long-term unemployed workers, unemployed veterans and people receiving the federal earned income tax credit. The credit will only be allowed to taxpayers who have a net increase in jobs. The proposal is expected to provide approximately $100 million annually in hiring credits.

Investment incentive: The California Competes Credit based on specified criteria including the number of jobs to be created or retained and a set job retention period. This component of the proposal is expected to provide between $100 million and $200 million per year in tax credits.

Five Poems the Next Mayor Should Read

Staff — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 14:17:29 +0000

Words of Fire, the Frying Pan’s new poetry section debuted this week with a series poems the new mayor should read.

These five poems by some of L.A.’s finest poets are intended to help Mayor-elect Eric Garcetti look closely at our city and listen with care to its diverse voices, from janitors to sidewalk fruit sellers to donut shop insomniacs. They are also an antidote to the platitudes of the campaign trail, and a reminder that the best political speech – and acts – can tap into people’s deepest emotions and aspirations.