Tag Archive for www.CalWatchdog.com

Project Labor Agreement on Planned New Sacramento Kings Arena Comes Back to Bite: Contractors Fund “Voters for a Fair Arena Deal”

On October 15, 2013, a new organization called “Voters for a Fair Arena Deal” held a press conference at Sacramento City Hall to announce a new campaign to collect voter signatures on petitions to place a fiscal accountability ordinance on the ballot in the City of Sacramento.

October 15, 2013 press conference at Sacramento City Hall announcing formation of "Voters for a Fair Arena Deal."

October 15, 2013 press conference at Sacramento City Hall announcing formation of “Voters for a Fair Arena Deal.”

The “Voter Approval for Public Funding of Professional Sports Arena Act” states the following:

The City of Sacramento shall not use or redirect, undertake an obligation to pay, or bond or borrow against monies intended for or from the City general fund for the development and/or construction of a professional sports arena without the approval of a simple majority of voters.

Leaders of the organization are making a deliberate attempt to distance themselves from another organization called “Stop Arena Subsidy” (STOP), which qualified the petition but then made some poor strategic decisions about its name, message, and sources of funding.

Contractors opposed to the union deal to impose a Project Labor Agreement on construction of the proposed new Sacramento Kings arena (the “Entertainment and Sports Center”) are funding the signature-gathering efforts of “Voters for a Fair Arena Deal.”


If you are a registered voter within the boundaries of the City of Sacramento, you can obtain a petition and instructions to help place the Voter Approval for Public Funding of Professional Sports Arena Act on the ballot:

On the “Voters for a Fair Arena Deal” web site: http://ourcityourvote.com/petition/

On the “Stop Arena Subsidy” web site: http://www.stoparenasubsidy.com/signature-petitions/

Documents from “Voters for a Fair Arena Deal”

October 15, 2013 - Voters for a Fair Arena Deal - Lectern Logo

October 15, 2013 – Media Advisory – Voters for a Fair Arena Deal – Sacramento Kings

October 15, 2013 – Press Release – Voters for a Fair Arena Deal – Sacramento Kings

October 15, 2013 – Ten Principles – Voters for a Fair Arena Deal – Sacramento Kings

October 15, 2013 – Campaign Code of Conduct – Voters for a Fair Arena Deal – Sacramento Kings

Opposition Response

www.DowntownArena.org – Supporting the Arena Is Sponsored by Region Builders, Inc.“Lipstick on a Pig” – October 15, 2013

News Coverage

New Group Forms to Combat Kings Arena Subsidy – Sacramento Bee – October 15, 2013

New Kings Arena Draws Fan Attention – and New Opponent – Sacramento Bee – October 16, 2013

Sacramento’s Arena Deal Has a New Playerwww.CalWatchdog.com – October 16, 2013

Voters for a Fair Arena Deal Forms Today to Gather Initiative Signatures, Change Tone of Arena Discourse – Sacramento News & Review – October 15, 2013

New Group Emerges in Campaign for Public Vote on Arena Deal – Fox News 40 (KTXL) – October 15, 2013

New Sacramento Arena Group to Help Force Public Vote: Group Will Help STOP Gather Signatures – CBS News 3 (KCRA) – October 15, 2013

Sacramento Leaders Think Kings Basketball Team Will Make It the Zip City – Zeal, Zest and Zowie

The writers of the Sacramento-based www.CalWatchdog.com have long criticized Sacramento’s political, business, and community leaders for spending so much time, effort, and money in trying to keep the city hosting its one major league professional sports team, the Kings of the National Basketball Association.

Sacramento Has Sister CitiesThey especially detest the apparently sincere ambition reflected in public relations campaigns (such as Think Big Sacramento – Defining a World Class City) to define Sacramento as a “world-class city” because it has a professional sports team.

Some people agree: there is a Facebook page Ban The Phrase “World Class City” in Sacramento. The Sacramento Bee has published some nasty letters to the editor mocking the world-class dream. (Arena Bust Ends Search For World Class City Status; Teams Do Not Make A City World Class). And in yet another excellent example of how the anti-Establishment Left and Right can meet, Sacramento News & Review political reporter and commentator Cosmo Garvin makes the same observation in his December 23, 2010 column Spurn a Phrase.

A major league professional sports team surely brings intangible marketing and community benefits to a city, and there’s nothing wrong with pointing that out. But civic leaders compromised the credibility of their message with their silly talk about Sacramento as a World Class City.

Be honest with yourself and others: good advice for Sacramento, as well as Stockton, Fresno, Bakersfield, Riverside, San Bernardino, and other California inland cities coveting the glitter of San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Below, I compile various commentaries from Steve Greenhut and Katy Grimes of www.CalWatchdog.com about Sacramento’s fatuous ambition to be a world-class city.

California Bill Would Create a New Construction Trade Classification for Final Cleanup and Janitorial Work

UPDATE: An article posted on January 11, 2013 in www.CalWatchdog.com reveals how some company officials in the California construction industry illegally handle the $45 per hour state-mandated wage rate for construction cleanup laborers. I’m quoted in the article. See Prevailing Wage Scams Steal from Taxpayers.

My article California’s “Prevailing Wage” – Floor Vacuuming at $45.93/Hour was posted on January 8, 2012 in www.UnionWatch.org.


An article in the January 2, 2013 San Bernardino Sun (Assemblyman Curt Hagman to Introduce Bill on Prevailing Wages for Final Cleanup Workers) reports that Assemblyman Curt Hagman (R-Chino Hills) will be introducing a bill to establish a new trade classification for the purposes of setting state-mandated construction wage rates (so-called “prevailing wages”) for low-skilled cleanup work on taxpayer-funded construction in Southern California.

Here is the draft summary of the bill to establish a construction cleanup prevailing wage rate in California.

Here is the draft text of the bill to establish a construction cleanup prevailing wage rate in California.

The article reports that the state requires contractors working on public works projects in Northern California to pay at least $12 per hour to laborers engaged in janitorial or final clean-up work for construction. Meanwhile, the state requires contractors working on public works projects in Southern California to pay at least $45 per hour to laborers engaged in janitorial or final clean-up work for construction, because Southern California lacks a janitorial work or final cleanup trade classification.

A decision in 2009 (Harbor Construction Co., Inc.) from John Duncan, Director of the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) during the Schwarzenegger Administration, stated that “final cleanup” work was subject to state-mandated construction wage rates when such work was included in a contract between a construction company and a public agency. That “final cleanup” included “vacuuming, dusting, cleaning and polishing windows, walls and floors” for a project of the Antelope Valley Union High School District in Los Angeles County. Harbor Construction hired Baron Cleaning Services for a cost of $8,721.00 to perform clean-up work, and Baron Cleaning Services paid the workers for a total of 619 hours as if they were doing private janitorial work. The labor compliance program at Antelope Valley Union High School District concluded that this was construction work to be paid at the applicable state prevailing wage rate, and the DIR agreed.

So how are contractors able to pay $12 to janitors who perform final cleanup work on public works projects in Northern California?  I’m not sure.

In California, “prevailing wages” for construction trades are almost always based on the employer payments in the applicable collective bargaining agreement for a geographical region: see Section 1773 of the California Labor Code and Title 8, Subchapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations.

In Northern California, the state-mandated wage rate for Laborers Group 4 trade classification applies to “Final cleanup on building construction projects prior to occupancy only. Cleaning and washing windows (new construction only), service landscape  laborers (such as gardener, horticulture, mowing, trimming, replanting, watering during plant establishment period) on new construction.” But the straight time hourly wage for that classification is $39.02 ($20.58 basic wage + fringe benefits and “other”) in the San Francisco Bay Area and $38.02 ($19.58 + fringe benefits and “other”) in other counties of Northern California. These wages are based on the collective bargaining agreement negotiated between the Northern California District Council of Laborers and Associated General Contractors (AGC) of California.

For Southern California, the Department of Industrial Relations sets the “prevailing wage” for the Group 1 classification of “Laborer, General Cleanup” at $45.93 ($28.09 + fringe benefits and “other”) This matches the claim made in the San Bernardino Sun article. This amount is based on the collective bargaining agreement negotiated between the Southern California District Council of Laborers and three contractor associations – Associated General Contractors (AGC) of California, Building Industry Association (BIA) of Southern California, and the Southern California Construction Association:

In San Diego County, the state-mandated total straight time hourly “prevailing wage rate for a journeyman in the Group 1 classification of “Laborer, General Cleanup” for commercial building is $43.27. This amount is based on the collective bargaining agreement negotiated between the Southern California District Council of Laborers for San Diego County and Associated General Contractors – San Diego Chapter.

I can’t imagine that the Laborers Union would permit employers to pay $12 per hour when its collective bargaining agreements includes the same work at far higher wages. I wasn’t able to find an exception to this rule in the collective bargaining agreements.

California Public Utilities Code Sections 465-467 require public utilities to pay prevailing wage rates for labor of a custodial or janitorial nature, and therefore the California Department of Industrial Relations determines state-mandated wage rates for this kind of work. These wages are about $12 per hour, but this is not construction work.

Alternative Strategies for Accurate Prevailing Wages on Construction Cleanup

Assemblyman Hagman is bringing public attention to the need for reform of California’s prevailing wage laws, as Assemblywoman Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield) did in 2012 with her bills to reform the definition of public works (Assembly Bill 987) and the method of calculating state-mandated construction wage rates (Assembly Bill 988). Based on the comments posted under the San Bernardino Sun article, some readers were disgusted about how they pay taxes so people can vacuum floors at $45 per hour (including fringe benefits and “other”).

But there’s no way lobbyists for the Laborers Union and the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California are going to let this bill pass out of committee. (They wouldn’t even pass Assemblywoman Shannon Grove’s Assembly Bill 1958, which increased the project cost threshold from $1000 to $2000 to match the federal Davis-Bacon threshold.) It will be defeated in the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee on a party-line vote: Democrats opposed, Republicans in support.

Interested parties that want to establish a reasonable wage rate for “vacuuming, dusting, cleaning and polishing windows, walls and floors” may want to use the authority of California Labor Code Section 1773.4 (see California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 16302) and petition the Department of Industrial Relations for a prevailing wage determination on such work. The DIR could conduct a survey and/or refer to the wage rates set for janitors working for public utilities.

Another idea is for public agencies to narrowly define construction cleanup in their contracts with construction companies, so that the absurd $45 per hour straight time hourly wage applies to legitimate construction cleanup and not to vacuuming up dirt tracked in weeks later.

For more information on California’s state-mandated construction wage rate (“prevailing wage”) law, see Are Charter Cities Taking Advantage of State-Mandated Construction Wage Rate (“Prevailing Wage”) Exemptions? Also, see Assembly Bill 987 and Assembly Bill 988 – two comprehensive prevailing wage reform bills for California from 2012.

Foolishness That Won’t Be Stopped: California’s K-12 School Districts Use Borrowed Money from Bond Sales to Buy iPads and Other Technological Gadgets

The web site www.EdSource.org (“Engaging Californians on Key Education Challenges”) has an article today (December 18, 2012) entitled Districts Face Questions in Spending Long-Term Bonds for Short-Lived Technology. It’s a good summary of how some K-12 school districts in California are using language in Proposition 39 to justify spending borrowed money from bond sales to “equip” schools with computers and other technological products.

Money borrowed through bond sales is typically paid back with interest over a long period of time – much longer than the useful life of computers. Aren’t you glad you didn’t take out a 30-year bank loan to pay for your Radio Shack TRS-80?

Chris Reed had a short piece posted in the December 9, 2012 www.CalWatchdog.com entitled Will School Finance Scams Be Addressed? One of Two at Best. He predicts the California state legislature will restrict the ability of educational districts to sell Capital Appreciation Bonds (CABs), but will not prevent educational districts from using bond proceeds to buy technological products.

Proposition Z was and still is the Zombie Tax.

Proposition Z was and still is the Zombie Tax.

The most prominent recent controversy about California school districts using borrowed money from bond sales to buy technology occurred during the fall 2012 campaign to pass the $2.4 billion Proposition Z bond measure for the San Diego Unified School District. The San Diego County Taxpayers Association led the charge in pointing out how the school district was spending bond proceeds on iPads. In the October 9, 2012 article Is School Bond Money Going to iPads Over Repairs? Fact Check, Voice of San Diego reported the following:

As of mid-September, the district says it had spent more than $379 million of its Prop. S funds. About 11 percent of that has been used to buy iPads, computers and other technologies, according to figures released by school officials.

While the article never actually stated the amount, 11 percent of $379 million is $42 million.

In a subsequent October 25, 2012 article $2,500 iPads? Fact Check, Voice of San Diego reported these findings:

A display case at San Diego Unified School District administrative headquarters highlighting the Proposition S bond measure. The school board has not yet directed district personnel to enhance the display with the original signed Project Labor Agreement negotiated with union officials.

A display case at San Diego Unified School District administrative headquarters highlights the Proposition S bond measure.

The school district used some money collected under Proposition S, the bond approved in 2008, to invest in classroom technology upgrades, including more than 21,500 iPads and nearly 77,800 laptops. More purchases are planned next year…

The iPad purchases came in two phases. First, the district used a series of highly controversial 40-year bonds to buy 10,729 iPads. The district says each iPad cost $420 plus another $116.50 for three-year warranties and accessories. After reviewing bond documents, we calculated that the district will pay an average of about 7.6 times that amount once the final bill comes due. That means a single iPad will cost $4,077.

The district’s second purchase of nearly 10,800 iPads will be less burdensome. The next set of bonds came with a bill that’s an average of about 5.1 times the original cost. Our math shows the district can expect to pay about $2,731 per device for iPads purchased in the second wave.

San Diego voters didn’t care: 61.80% of them voted for Proposition Z on November 6, 2012 and guaranteed that the San Diego Unified School District will have the authority from the 2008 Proposition S and the 2012 Proposition Z to borrow millions of dollars more to spend on iPads.

Besides the bond investors, the people making money on this activity are investors in Apple, Inc. I tweeted the following about the www.EdSource.org article:

California school districts using borrowed $ from construction bond sales to buy computers. (What’s Apple’s position?)

Finally, Jack Weir, a member of the Pleasant Hill City Council and an activist in several community and taxpayer groups in Contra Costa County, emailed a provocative response to the leadership of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association in response to the www.EdSource.org article:

From:Jack Weir
Sent:Tuesday, December 18, 2012 9:26 AM
To: xxxx
Subject: Re: Should schools be using bond money for technology which is so short lived?

As Alicia Minyen, Anton Jungherr and other CalBOC board members have amply demonstrated, school bond programs are largely out of control – literally.  Mt. Diablo and West County districts have abused Prop 39 on a major scale, although there are far more egregious examples elsewhere in the state.  The new Mt. Diablo board is committed to address their Measure C issues, but will have little corrective latitude.  Dismantling the massive damned solar canopy won’t unring the bell.

There is a whole industry of bond counsels and consultants that work this field, operating in tandem with teachers unions and Democrat politicians that advocate milking the school construction programs to wring additional operational (compensation) funding from local property-owning taxpayers.

After ten years of wrestling with the problem of bringing public (government) education into the 21st century, it is clear to me that nothing short of a whole new paradigm is needed.  And, to get there, we should be asking broad future-focused questions, such as:

> Do we really need brick and mortar facilities dedicated exclusively to classroom teaching?  (Ditto brick and mortar “libraries.”)
> Does it make sense to continue to load ten year-olds with 50 back-breaking pounds of paper books*, when most have (or should have) access to digital devices and the internet?  Within five years, every bit of data and information needed for a good education will be available on the “cloud,” accessible only via digital devices.  Other countries (and states) will leap-frog traditional educational models and kick our economic asses.  Take a look at what India did to bring education into its remote rural villages 25 years ago, and now their kids are coming here to work on H-1B programs.
> Who should pay for K-12 education?  “Free” education ain’t; certainly not to taxpayers, who currently gain a pathetic return on their “investment.”
> What’s the right role for taxpayer advocates in the political forum going forward?

It’s time to start over.
Jack

Based on the results of the November 6, 2012 elections, Californians don’t want to start over. They like the current paradigm, in which the kids get to use “free” iPads.


* Note from Kevin Dayton: regarding the weight of paper textbooks, Assembly Bill 2532, signed into law by Governor Gray Davis in 2002, required the California Board of Education, on or before July 1, 2004, to adopt maximum weight standards for elementary and secondary school textbooks. The California Board of Education subsequently adopted regulations concerning textbook weight standards.

Bakersfield Becomes Latest of California’s 121 Charter Cities to Free Itself from Government-Mandated Construction Wage Rates (So-Called “Prevailing Wage”)

As I anticipated in my July 2, 2012 article Prediction: An Explosion of California Cities Freeing Themselves from Costly State-Mandated Construction Wage Rate Laws, the past three months have seen a flood of California cities seeking voter approval for charters, as well as existing charter cities establishing their own policies concerning government-mandated construction wage rates (so-called “prevailing wages”) for purely municipal construction (or private projects that receive government assistance only from the city).

These recent www.CalWatchdogs.com articles summarize what’s happening in California: Push for Charter Cities Enrages Unions and Cities Vying for Local Control on November Ballot.

Through its July 2012 decision in State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, ALF-CIO v. City of Vista, the California Supreme Court affirmed the right of California’s 121 charter cities to set their own prevailing wage policies for municipal construction and thereby free themselves from the costly, complicated, and nonsensical way that the State of California calculates state-mandated construction wage rates and defines public works.

For comprehensive information, see the 92-page guidebook Are Charter Cities Taking Advantage of State-Mandated Construction Wage Rate (“Prevailing Wage”) Exemptions?

Bakersfield is the latest charter city to establish its own policy concerning government-mandated construction wage rates. Hoping to sustain its economic boom and resist union-backed public policies dragging down economic growth and job creation in the state and other cities, the Bakersfield City Council voted 4-2 (with one city council member recusing himself) on October 17, 2012 to set its own policy. Here is the city’s agenda item description: Resolution exempting the City from prevailing wage requirements for locally funded public works contracts except where required by law.

Here’s a July 17, 2009 video report on KBAK Channel 29 (CBS) news featuring a comment from me about the need for the City of Bakersfield to free itself from state-mandated construction wage rates set based on collective bargaining agreements for urban areas: Prevailing Wage Wastes Tax Dollars in Bakersfield.

It was reported to me that unions brought busloads of people from Los Angeles to pack the council chamber, but the city council majority was not fooled and not intimidated. Here’s news coverage, with excerpts (bold highlights are mine):

Council Shakes Off Prevailing Wage Requirement – Bakersfield Californian – October 17, 2012

City staff also informally surveyed local contractors and were told that without the prevailing wage requirement, project costs could be cut by 3.5 percent to 30 percent

But just as many people spoke in favor of the resolution as against it, saying it would result in more efficient use of taxpayer money and wouldn’t lead to unfair construction wages or lower quality in projects.

“As a city council member, I have a fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers and the community to utilize funds with care and strive to provide the best value possible,” Weir said in an email earlier Wednesday. “With the approval of tonight’s resolution, we will be able to build better parks with more amenities, increase the amount of street repaving, and provide other benefits without additional cost to the taxpayers. To not pursue this opportunity would be a breach of my responsibility.”

Councilmembers added a late amendment to the resolution as a step to better protect against unqualified contractors bidding for city work. Before the resolution passed, projects valued at $1 million or more required that contractors be “pre-qualified” for their suitability to do the type of project at hand before being allowed to submit a bid. With the resolution, that threshold was lowered to $250,000.

Contractors, Unions Object to City Prevailing Wage Proposal – Bakersfield Californian –  October 16, 2012

City Manager Alan Tandy said savings for the city means more work can be done. Taking an example of 20 percent savings, he said, “If we save 20 percent on resurfacing a street, we can resurface 20 percent more streets. We have more that need resurfacing than we have money to resurface.”

Council Members Tackle High Speed Rail, Prevailing Wages in Heated Debate – KGET Channel 17 (NBC) news – October 18, 2012

Congratulations to the Bakersfield City Council. Under pressure and threats, they refused to payoff the unionsCalifornia Political News and Views – October 19, 2012

Will This Charter City Movement Lead to Genuine (or Any?) Prevailing Wage Reform?

Perhaps union officials in Bakersfield are realizing that “prevailing wage” as calculated under state law and “public works” as defined under state law are so outrageous that cities are intent on escaping them. Bakersfield’s own Assemblywoman Shannon Grove introduced two thoughtful and reasonable prevailing wage reform bills (Assembly Bill 987 and Assembly Bill 988) to make state-mandated government wage rates only apply to legitimate government projects and be more reflective of actual local market rates, but union lobbyists opposed these bills and Democrats defeated them in committee in January 2012.

In fact, as I reported in my April 20, 2012 article State-Mandated Construction Wage Rate Requirements Remain on California Projects Worth $1001 to $2000, union lobbyists and Legislative Democrats wouldn’t even support Assemblywoman Grove’s Assembly Bill 1958, which made two very modest changes to the state’s prevailing wage laws. That bill increased the project cost threshold for coverage from $1000 to $2000 to match the $2000 threshold set by the federal prevailing wage law called the Davis-Bacon Act. It also indexed the threshold to the same measure of inflation that the Democrats want to use for indexing the state minimum wage.

There WILL be a day when unions no longer control the California State Legislature and the Governor’s office. In the meantime, charter cities are exercising their own right to determine their economic destiny, and many of them don’t want to follow the direction of the State of California to inevitable bankruptcy.

California Local Election Report: Three Cities Seek Voter Approval for Home-Rule Charters

Today’s www.CalWatchdog.com (October 16, 2012) has a second article in a series about the 121 charter cities in California and the attempts of additional cities to enact charters and free their municipal affairs from the costly mandates of the California State Legislature. (See Are Charter Cities Taking Advantage of State-Mandated Construction Wage Rate (“Prevailing Wage”) Exemptions?) I am quoted in this article as well as in the first article.

Cities Vying for Local Control on November Ballotwww.CalWatchdog.com – October 16, 2012

But the biggest benefit, according to Kevin Dayton, CEO of Dayton Public Policy Institute, an employment and labor specialist and charter city expert, would be not having to pay prevailing wages on local public works projects. In a recent interview, Dayton said that labor union prevailing wage rates do not accurately reflect the actual industry rates, nor do they accurately reflect the construction industry in all areas within the state…

But the rational discussion about cost effectiveness has turned into an all-out assault. According to Dayton, unions have steamrolled right over smaller cities’ efforts to adopt charters. “Union leaders get very testy when someone points out that a charter city can establish its own policies concerning government-mandated construction wage rates,” Dayton said…

Also, see the first article in the series: Push for Charter Cities Enrages Unionswww.CalWatchdog.com – September 30, 2012

Three cities in California have proposed charters on the November 6, 2012 ballot for voters to approve. Two are medium-sized suburban cities and one is a small beach community. All three charters would give these cities the freedom to establish their own policies concerning government-mandated construction wage rates on purely municipal construction or private construction that gets any form of financial assistance from the city. Here’s the current status of each effort:

1. City of Costa Mesa (Orange County) – population 111,600

In November 2010, Costa Mesa voters elected a 4-1 majority on its city council that wanted to reduce the city’s budget deficit by cutting back on its workforce and contracting out services. Obviously this became a microcosm of the cataclysmic battle over the future of America: smaller government and lower taxes versus bigger government and higher taxes, or, to put it bluntly, free markets and minimalist government versus socialism. As the city council majority found its authority to manage municipal affairs continually suppressed by laws passed by the union-controlled California State Legislature, it decided to present a charter for voters to consider.

The city quickly earned national news media attention for taking on the public employee unions, which aggressively fought outsourcing. Its public meetings attracted every element of the Left intent on preserving and expanding the power and size of government. I have written about the Costa Mesa situation extensively; for more details, see Costa Mesa’s Bold and Meaningful Government Cost-Efficiency Plan on Hold Until November 6, When Citizens Vote on a Proposed Charter (Measure V) and for Three City Council Members.

2. City of Escondido (San Diego County) – population 146,032

Like in Costa Mesa, a 4-1 majority of the Escondido City Council wants to wrest the city from the costly mandates of the union-controlled California State Legislature and get more local control over the city’s budget issues. Opposing this move are unions and other leftist activists (see the Prop V section of the Escondido Democratic Club web site).

Unions tried a clever tactic to derail the charter proposal. As I wrote earlier, the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California engineered a lawsuit against the city based on the California Voting Rights Act of 2001; for more details, see Escondido City Council Votes 4-1 to Approve Proposed Charter for Voters to Consider on November Ballot and California’s Voting Rights Act of 2001: A Weapon for Unions.

3. Grover Beach (San Luis Obispo County) – population 13,275

City councils for a cluster of beach towns on the Central Coast (Pismo Beach, Arroyo Grande, and Grover Beach) have toyed with the idea of passing charters, but Grover Beach was the first to jump. As seen in Costa Mesa and Escondido, unions and certain factions of the Democrat Party are opposing Measure I-12.