February 2008 One thing that I have found with publication deadlines is that they are always BEFORE an election, decision, or event that I need to report to you. This time is the Primary Election on February 5th. Since I’m writing this way before February 5th, I’ll make some “crystal ball” predictions on the outcome. As a Permanent Absentee Voter, as I’ve encouraged all of you to do, I received my Ballot on January 7th, voted and mailed it back on January 8th. Permanent Absentee Voters now make up a full 27% of the eligible Statewide voter base. There are 15,527,234 registered voters in California; 4,293,236 are Permanent Absentee Voters. Just as a short background, any voter can register for Permanent Absentee Voter (“PAV”) status, you receive your official ballot about a month before the election, and can vote by mail any day up until election day. For all the REALTOR® folks, that means that you do not have to take a minute out of Tuesday CARAVAN DAY to stop at the polls. Vote by mail and get on with your business! Unfortunately (or fortunately for us PAV people), the high-priced campaign consultants are not in tune with this change in voter habits. With over one-quarter (and increasing) of the voters registered as PAV, you would think that the campaigns would be making major outreach efforts to over 4 million voters. However, I did not receive a phone call or anything in the mail this election season yet. Now, I can put a recycling bin under my mailbox and drop in all of the campaign materials that I WILL receive in the 10 days leading up to February 5th. The only TV advertising has been by the tribes promoting the compact changes on the ballot (Props. 94-97). I’m not going to reveal my predictions for the California Presidential Primary (at least not here), but I will go out on a limb on the Ballot Propositions: THEY WILL ALL FAIL! Proposition 93 to “change” term limits at the State level. Until the legislators start dealing with the problems facing California and NOT with how long they can stay in power, there is no reason to change the current, but flawed, system. Measure S in the City of Los Angeles. I wrote about this deceptive measure last month. The City of Los Angeles gets caught charging an illegal 10% tax on phone service and is ordered to stop. City (City Council & Mayor), having already spent that money for the next few years, put a measure on the ballot for a 9% tax on all phone services (may include text messaging and other unknown innovations yet to come)…but you get to vote on the tax this time. I’m predicting that Los Angeles voters are smart enough to see through this one! On to the current issues. Los Angeles is still pursuing the Baseline Mansionization Ordinance. The Planning and Land Use Management (“PLUM”) Committee of the City Council moved the item to the City Council. At the PLUM meeting in January, the Chief Legislative Analyst office submitted a report recommending an economic study be performed on the proposal. This is great news for anyone in the housing business. In addition to the potential lost value to a homeowner, there is also a potential for lost revenue to the City based upon on lower sales prices and lower property tax assessments. Now, in my opinion, the City Council is not really concerned about the loss in potential value to the homeowner, but when you start talking about less revenue to the City coffers, then “Houston, we have a problem” (see above paragraph about the dollars already spent). Councilmembers Weiss & Huizar responded publicly to the REALTOR® position by directing staff to report back on the potential impact on lower-income homeowner neighborhoods, and on the social and cultural impacts to the diverse population. The Brentwood Coldwell Banker offices have opened a great dialogue with the Councilmembers on this subject. Councilmember Rosendahl has been very responsive to the concerns and is in the process of some zone changes in Brentwood. The PLUM Committee, passed the ordinance without a final written version. Staff, in clear violation to the Brown Act, submitted changes to the ordinance at the meeting without Public input since the Public Hearing had been closed. One of the changes Staff submitted was to integrate “Green Building” standards into the ordinance as a way for a homeowner to build a larger home. Great idea, but it has nothing to do with HEIGHT & MASSING. Councilmembers also added some verbal direction such as; enabling a community to adjust the baseline FAR, allow for Administrative Adjustments for minor FAR changes, and report back on the equity of requiring RE20 & RE40 zones to comply with the plan. The Council, at this point, is proposing a one-size-fits-all plan that does not reflect the diverse character of Los Angeles. Many thanks to Ellen Bergeron and Mary Lu Tuthill for submitting written testimony, getting the message out to the REALTOR® community, and sitting through many meetings down at Los Angeles City Hall. Finally, I wish our departing CEO Kathy Hartman the best in her new journey. She will be heading the Santa Cruz Association of REALTORS® beginning in early February. During this transition time while the Board of Directors searches for a new CEO, I welcome back Roxann Burdick, former CEO of BHGLAAR, who will act as Interim CEO. James W. Litz Government Affairs Director