There’s too much to summarize here. Good luck to California voters in June and November 2010:

Get Me Rewrite! Does California need a new constitution? – coauthored by Robert Stern (head of the Center for Governmental Studies and one of tomorrow’s panelists) – in California Lawyer, November 2009.

Nonpartisan California Forward Action Fund Reform Initiatives Built on Lessons Learned from Other States – Yahoo Finance, November 3, 2009.

Do Californians Want Another Car Tax? – California Beaches Blog, November 4, 2009 warns of a possible $18 per vehicle tax initiative to support state parks.

Public pension reform initiatives are filed for 2010 ballot – Orange County Register, November 6, 2009. The online news story has links to two versions of the initiatives.

Pension Reform Is On The Way – Friends for Fullerton’s Future, November 7, 2009, lauds the pension reform initiatives, and concludes “Democrat Bill Lockyer has admitted that the state will go bankrupt without serious changes to the pension system”.

This Hot Air link to a Bill Lockyer address shows him telling California legislators they are to blame for the budget and pension mess because they are beholden to union interests.

Lobbyists sue to block campaign-finance ballot measure – Sacramento Bee, November 7, 2009. A novel idea: have lobbying firms taxed to support state political campaigns! Lobbyists are suing to have it removed from the ballot. The initiative’s goal is to cut the link between the California Secretary of State, lobbyists, and election financing.

Governor says state can handle debt service on $11.1B water bond – Fresno Bee Opinion Talk, November 6, 2009 – says Governor Schwarzenegger is confident voters will approve this November 2010 initiative.

Initiatives target the initiative process – Monterey County Herald, November 7, 2009 – mentions the organizations California Forward and Repair California and a local League of Women Voters’ forum on 2010 state reform ballot initiatives.

For our love affair with the automobile, GM’s and California’s pension obligations, the monthly mortgage and other bills of laid-off GM lobbyists, and the paychecks and benefits of legislators and government bureaucrats who should be well on their way to figuring out how to create millions of high-wage 21st century jobs in the United States.

CTIA, the wireless telecom industry lobby, petitioned the FCC back in July 2008 to rule as follows:

1. To set a 45 or 75-day “shot clock” on local action on certain wireless facility applications. If the deadline isn’t met, the local authority will have violated Sec. 332(c)(7)’s requirement that a locality act on the application within a reasonable period of time.
2. If a locality fails to act within the shot clock deadline, the wireless carrier’s application will be deemed granted. Alternatively, failure to meet the shot-clock deadline would establish a presumption in any Sec. 332(c)(7) litigation that the wireless carrier is entitled to an injunction ordering the locality to grant the application unless the locality can justify the delay.
3. To clarify that Sec. 332(c)(7) bars any local zoning decision that prevents a wireless carrier from offering service in an area where another wireless carrier is already providing service.
4. To rule that Sec. 253 preempts any local zoning or state laws that impose unique requirements on wireless applicants vis-à-vis other kinds of land use applicants, such as local or state laws that require all wireless siting applicants to
seek a variance.

Glendale Organized Against Cell Towers (GOACT) found out about this petition too late to submit a public comment (the period for public comments expired on September 29, 2008). The National League of Cities had warned its members in this September 2008 report about the issue and urged them to contact the FCC. Bloggers like this one who have followed the issue for awhile posted extensive background information and urged readers to look into the matter.

The legal adviser Glendale retained to provide expert counsel on cell tower siting is Jonathan Kramer, who assisted SCAN NATOA (California and Nevada Chapter of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors) in drafting this paper in opposition to the CTIA petition. Among other points, it points out that

There is no reasonable doubt that that Congress intended that the normal, locally-based zoning process control for wireless siting. The lack of ambiguity in Congress’s intent makes it clear that the Commission has no legal authority to usurp the local process, and the timing associated with that local process.

The Commission is explicitly excluded by Congress from interceding in local zoning issues and that is exactly what the CTIA’s Petition would have the Commission now do.