Rent Increase Survey

Have you submitted your latest rent increase data to the rent increase survey?

Vote No on Proposition 42 (2014)

A letter from Action Alameda News Publisher David Howard…

Proposition 42 eliminates state subsidies to local agencies to help them comply with open meetings and public records law, in return for very little.

Local agencies are often un-cooperative in producing public records, especially when the news media or other members of the public use those records to publicize wrong doing or incompetence.

Transferring the cost of open meeting and public records compliance from the state to local agencies is likely only to give these agencies more excuses to refuse records requests and keep open meetings closed.

Adding a requirement to the state constitution that local agencies comply with the California Public Records Act and the Ralph M. Brown Act (open meetings) is a meaningless, symbolic, gesture – these laws are already, well, the law, and agencies must comply.

If the proponents of Proposition 42 were serious about pressing local agencies to comply with these laws – and not just looking to download costs from the state budget – they would strengthen the limited remedies that members of the public have when agencies don’t follow the law. Right now, forcing compliance requires costly civil litigation, something that few members of the public can afford.

But Proposition 42 proponents offer nothing of the sort in return for transferring potentially tens of millions of dollars of costs to local agencies which in many cases would prefer not to spend the money, not to disclose public records, and not to hold open meetings.

Vote No on Proposition 42.

Comments are closed.

  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,