The topic: reforming California government.

For this week's pieces, see the links on the right under "latest stories."

With disgust toward state government rising to new levels, it's a good time to ask if the moment has arrived for fundamental reform in the way California does business.

I've written the lead piece, an overview of the situation and a quick look at three possible approaches to enacting comprehensive change in California government. We've also got four writers opining on three of those potential avenues of reform.

Jim Wunderman, president of the Bay Area Council, advocates a constitutional convention. The Bee's Stu Leavenworth also takes a look at the mechanics of how such a confab might work.

Bill Hauck, president of the California Business Roundtable, was chairman of California's most recent constitution revision commission. He discusses the potential and pitfalls of that approach.

Steven Hill, director of political reform for the New America Foundation, writes on the idea of a Citizens Assembly.

I've also compiled a summary of ten possible reform ideas that might find their way into a package of comprehensive change submitted to California voters.

Thanks for reading.

Does California government need fundamental reform? If so, what kind?

Please join the conversation by commenting below.

With a peak oil conference in Sacramento this week and the 100th anniversary of the first mass-market automobile coming up, it's a perfect time to re-visit our relationship with that most ubiquitous icon of the American (and California) Dream: The Car.

Ford's 1908 Model T didn't just mark the start of widespread private automobile ownership. It heralded the complete restructuring of America around petroleum-powered cars and trucks. By mid-century we had discovered massive oil fields in Texas and the Middle East, and World War II had effectively modernized our industrial base. The stage was set for the true mass consumption of the car, a shift that would fundamentally change our economy, our landscape and even our culture.

These days it's pretty well accepted that we can't all drive everywhere. California was home to some of the earliest suburban sprawl, so its metropolitan areas experienced early on what happens when everyone tries to drive everywhere: unending congestion (despite more and bigger highways), more sprawl and overall greater dependence on oil.

For years we've tried to limit sprawl and promote transit, bicycling and walking - first in the name of conservation and quality of life, more recently to fight global warming. Today peak oil (the looming high point of global oil production) and the end of cheap oil make it more urgent than ever to reduce our dependence on cars.

There's a problem, though. We're stuck with the landscape we've built over the past 60 years, much of which is literally uninhabitable without a car. Trying to make our communities less car-dependent simply by adding more buses, streetcars and light rail is like trying to make a bowl of chicken soup vegan simply by picking the chicken out. It's just not that simple: like the chicken broth in my chicken soup, car dependence is an inherent property of nearly every city, town and suburb in this country and especially so in car-loving California.

To read the rest, go here.

Adopting a policy objective to reduce automobile use would be poor public policy, reflecting little more than a knee-jerk political reaction to a long-term environmental problem.

True enough, the passenger automobile is an important source of carbon emissions, but it's not the most important contributor. Industry takes that spot. More importantly, cars emit carbon because of the fuel they use, and that fuel source will likely change dramatically over the next several decades even without interventions from government.

Electric hybrid technologies already have the capability of cutting carbon emissions in half within certain classes of vehicles (e.g., four-door sedans), and more than 65 hybrid models will be available on the American auto market by 2010. Plug-in electric technology is close to becoming commercially viable at today's energy prices, and an electric power system that relies increasingly on nuclear energy, wind, and hydroelectricity means we can reduce carbon emissions without sacrificing the mobility provided by the automobile.

More fundamentally, public policy focused on significantly reducing automobile use in favor of other travel modes - whether it is mass transit,bicycling, or walking - betrays a stunning naivete about travel or a brazen disregard for the needs of everyday Californians.

To read the rest of Sam's comment, go here.

There's an easy, inexpensive way for Sacramentans to experience car-free streets. It's called a "ciclovía," or "cycle way" in Spanish. Every Sunday, Bogota opens up 81 miles of its streets to pedestrians and cyclists. It's a healthy exercise in open-air democracy: Families from the city's richest to its poorest neighborhoods mingle together in this year-round event.

Bogota pioneered the event 30 years ago as a way to promote public health. With record levels of obesity in the U.S., it's welcome news that the ciclovía is starting to gain a foothold here. This summer Portland, New York, and San Francisco have all had their own ciclovías, each one six or seven miles long, with Chicago and Baltimore ready to follow suit.

Imagine folks from Meadowview, the Pocket area, Curtis Park, and Land Park enjoying a car-free Freeport Boulevard, linked to midtown, and pedal-powered folks in east Sacramento cruising down Folsom Boulevard. The U.S. ciclovías have generally steered away from a "street fair" approach, avoiding the vendors that can take business away from neighborhood shops and restaurants. Instead, they've emphasized free activities for adults and kids - including free tango, yoga, and bike repair classes.

To read the rest of Tim's comment, go here.

"Calorie sticker shock." That's what people are experiencing in New York City since a new ordinance went into effect there in July requiring chain restaurants to post calorie information on menus and menu boards. For the first time people can easily see, for example, that a cheeseburger and large fries at McDonald's has fewer calories than a blueberry muffin and a Venti Mocha Frappucino at Starbucks.

Californians will see that same simple, straightforward information at fast food and other chain restaurants if Gov. Schwarzenegger signs SB 1420. Right next to the price on the menu board, customers will be able to compare the calorie content of their food and beverage choices.

In recent years a number of fast- food chains have begun to promote healthier items. Requiring calorie information on menu boards will support those marketing efforts and allow consumers to make informed choices. Chains that sell good-tasting, lower-calorie foods will thrive; chains that don't will watch their sales decline. That's how the free market is supposed to work.

Read the rest here.

The latest deployment in the war on obesity is upon us. SB 1420, sponsored by state Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Los Angeles, will require California fast-food restaurants to post the amount of calories in every item on their menu boards. SB 1420's backers believe that when we're forced to see the numbers, we'll do the math and change our eating habits.

Two scholars at the University of California, Berkeley, put on their rose-colored glasses and concluded that SB 1420 could cause California to avoid 50 million pounds of extra weight a year. That best-case scenario includes people who eat fast food seven times a week losing 5.4 pounds a year. Earth to Berkeley: Someone who eats at Burger King seven times a week is not going to pay attention to these numbers.

SB 1420 is likely more about junk lawsuits than junk food. The trial lawyers have been busy developing a business strategy to profit from fast food since an infamous New York case five years ago, where a couple of obese girls sued McDonald's.

Read the rest here.

Last year Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed a similar bill. But he is expected to sign SB 1420 because the restaurant industry has joined the coalition backing the proposal. Read his veto of last year's bill here.

Should the government require restaurant to post calorie information for every menu item?

The American Heart Assn. was listed as a supporter SB 1420 in the final Senate staff analysis before the vote, but a rep for the association tells me that the group now opposes the bill as it sits on the governor's desk. Here is why: 

"While we are indeed champions of menu labeling, I write to inform you that we recently pulled our support and now oppose the bill.

As one of the original co-sponsors of SB 1420 it was difficult for us to remove our support, but amendments taken during the final week of the session prompted us to make this decision.  Specifically, the preemption language mentioned in your article "This prevents local governments from implementing their own local provisions," caused us to change our position.

We have learned from our long history with tobacco legislation that local preemption is bad policy and cannot be permitted to take root in state law.  To have a flawed bill used as a model to be replicated over and over with preemption language was something the American Heart Association decided that it could not condone. It was our vision all along that SB 1420 would be a floor, and not a ceiling, that would preclude local governments from implementing potentially stronger menu labeling laws in the future.

Join the Conversation by commenting here now.

To comment now, click here.

This week's topic: gang violence.

San Jose has found some success with a community-based program focused on reaching kids where they live, go to school and hang out. The city awards about $4 million in grants each year to two dozen or more non-profit community groups that offer counseling, education and intervention programs.

The program might be an alternative to the $50-million a year tax increase proposed by some Sacramento leaders, or it could be a model for how to spend a big chunk of that money.

You can read my piece on this program here.

A Sacramento youth organizer and a drug and alcohol counselor offer their views here.

For what it's worth: San Jose, while twice the size of Sacramento, is a far safer place:

UPDATE. I just got this response from Don Meyer, the president-elect of the Calfiornia Probation Officers Assn:

The Chief Probation Officers of California (CPOC) has supported and continues to support rehabilitative programs that work effectively to reduce re-offense.  So it was with great appreciation that we read your August 24, 2008 article, Gang Violence and the way in San Jose, which acknowledges our collective experience:  evidence based programs with measurable outcomes, delivered with fidelity and fiscal accountability reduces recidivism.

Of particular interest was the data supplied in the article "About 20 percent of the youths served were gang members, an additional 31 percent were gang supporters and the rest were described as 'high risk'."  There is ample scientific evidence that several programs, when delivered with fidelity, reduce recidivism in both delinquents and adult offenders. Some examples are Aggression Replacement Training (ART) and Functional Family Therapy (FFT), to name a few. A great deal of research on correctional programs has been conducted over the past thirty years that validates effectiveness of some programs and destructiveness of others.  Significant and encouraging information can be reviewed at the Washington State Information of Public Policy website (WSIPP), which confirms my previous statements. 

We know the following:  Risk to reoffend is directly related to at least eight criminogenic indicators.  These include a history of anti-social behavior, anti-social personality pattern, anti-social attitudes, anti-social associates, family/marital issues, education/employment issues, substance abuse, unproductive use of leisure/recreation time. 

For a community to address crime (including gang issues), research indicates you must adhere to three principles.  Risk principle:  To maximize effect on recidivism, treatment should be targeted toward higher risk, rather than lower risk offenders and the population of treatment groups should not be aggregated by risk (one size does not fit all).  Need Principle:  Treatment should be targeted toward dynamic risk factors, also known as criminogenic needs.  These are risk factors that can be changed (e.g. substance abuse, gang involvement, anti-social thinking) as opposed to those that are static (e.g., prior record) Responsivity Principle:  Treatment should use behavioral and structured social learning rather than unstructured, nondirective, or "getting tough" approaches. 

One of the ongoing sources of frustration for community corrections has been the lack of a dependable revenue source, funds that are held hostage by budget crises, and a general lack of understanding about how to address crime reduction scientifically and effectively.  It is clear that consistent funding needs to be provided to local community corrections which includes probation, community-based organizations, treatment providers, jails, juvenile institutions and the entire law enforcement component. 

What is also increasingly clear is that the community and the taxpayers should demand accountability and results for the funding it provides. 

That $4 million program stands in contrast to the the $50 million-a-year anti-gang program that some Sacramento leaders propose, which would be financed by a quarter-cent increase in the sales tax.

Please return to this space Sunday for links to my piece and other comments on this topic, and to join the conversation.

Thanks.

Include your name and hometown if you would like your comment to be included in next Sunday's print edition. 

This week's Conversation is about local food -- and why so little of what we eat is grown near where we live.

The Bee's Stuart Leavenworth writes the main piece.

Other views include:

UC Davis Professor Daniel Sumner, who says eating locally is not necessarily best for the environment, the poor or the farmers.

Shawn Harrison, co-founder of Soil Born Farms, an urban farming operation in Sacramento that promotes local and urban agriculture.

Jennifer Cliff, publisher of Edible Sacramento, who says she has devoted herself to increasing public awareness of the need to eat locally.

Some food for thought:

31,900- Number of jobs involved with food production, processing, support and distribution in the Sacramento region as of 2004.

1,300 - Number of jobs lost in these industries since 2001.

2.5 million - Number of acres of farmland in the Sacramento region, as of 2005.

277,226 - Number of acres lost to development and other uses since 1988.

2.2 million - Tons of rice produced in the Sacramento Valley in 2007.

242,000 - Estimated tonnage of California rice sold to California consumers each year.

Sources: California Economic Strategy Panel; Sacramento Area Council of Governments; California Rice Commission.

Here are some links to other sources of information on this topic.

SacBee interactive link to local farmer's markets 

Sacramento Area Council of Governments Rural-Urban Connections Strategy 

Community Alliance with Family Farmers 

Slow Food Sacramento 

100 Mile Diet 

Ecovian -- Resource for local food and products 

In this week's Conversation, we want to know where, if anywhere, you'd cut state spending.

Over the past five years, California's population has grown by 7 percent, and inflation has been 17 percent. But general fund spending has increased by about $26 billion, or 33 percent during that same period.

Here is some additional background, and the views of four citizen-observers.

Join the Conversation by commenting below. Let us know where you would cut, or if you'd cut at all. Thanks!

UPDATE. Here is a graphic I produced for an earlier column showing the growth in state spending by category during the past five years.

We'll provide a little background on the growth in state spending over the past five years, overall and by major category.

We'll share some one-line descriptions of spending cuts that are already on the table, and offer the ideas of four citizen-observers from around the state to get the discussion going.

And then we'll turn it over to the readers and ask, Where would you cut?

See you Sunday.

Click here to comment on this week's topic.

UPDATE: Thanks to everyone who has commented so far! We at the Bee are still finding our way with this new undertaking, and it's pretty evident that our packaging this morning was not conducive to getting a conversation started. People are commenting on each of the pieces, which is great, but those comments are then segregated from each other rather than part of one big discussion. So I have gone into those pieces and copied the comments to the bottom of the blog here. I hope that helps. --Daniel


Are Sacramento planners trying too hard to force the region's residents to live in small homes in densely populated neighborhoods? What's your vision for the way the region should grow in the years ahead? Comment below.

In this week's Conversation, urbanist Joel Kotkin suggests that Sacramento's regional planners are too focused on forcing suburban residents out of their single-family homes and into smaller houses or condos in densely packed urban neighborhoods

An excerpt:

Although a healthier downtown with reasonable density is good for the entire region, the high-density focus does not make a good fit for a predominately middle class, family-oriented region such as Sacramento. Unlike an elite city like San Francisco, Sacramento's growth has been fueled by an influx of educated, family-oriented residents - the populations that have been fleeing such high-priced places where the housing supply is constrained.

Long-term demographic trends, and perhaps common sense, suggest that most people do not move to Sacramento to indulge in a "hip and cool" urban lifestyle. If someone craves the excitement, bright lights and glamorous industries of a dense city, River City pales compared with places like San Francisco, New York or Los Angeles.

The fact Sacramento has fared far better than these cities over the past 15 years suggests the region's recent problems lie not in a lack of downtown condos and nightlife, but with a housing market that, as in much of California, has been totally out of whack. Once a consistently affordable locale, by the mid-1990s Sacramento's housing prices jumped almost nine times income growth, an unsustainable pace seen in a few areas such as Riverside, Miami and Los Angeles.

As a result, the refugees from the coastal counties who had been coming to Sacramento for affordable housing stopped arriving. Net migration to the region, more than 36,000 in 2001, fell to less than 1,000 in 2006.

Ultimately only a housing market correction will again lure the people who have come to Sacramento seeking single-family houses - the type of home favored by about 80 percent of Californians - back to the region. Evidence that these people, or current suburbanites, might flock back to the core city is thin at best. The failures of such high-profile projects as The Towers and the region's stagnant rental market do not suggest a seismic shift toward denser living.