A Constitutional Convention presents a double-edged sword for both California Democrats and Republicans. Once the politicians stop using code words, the two shibboleths in the room, whether elephant- or donkey-sized, are Proposition 13 and 98. These are the prickly issues that get stuck in the throat of any call for reforming the fiscal mess that California budget and finance has become.

On the one hand Republicans could place Prop 98 on the table claiming it locks in unreasonable spending requirements, while Democrats would counter by placing Prop 13 on the table to match, saying it’s a stranglehold on much-needed revenue.

This is the classic unstoppable force v immovable object dilemma and Gordian Knot all rolled into one Constitutional nightmare brought on by plummeting revenues and ever growing expenditures.

Could there be a compromise that pares back education spending to some acceptable baseline and rewrites Proposition 13 as a realistic tax on business property? These are the heavyweight issues standing in the middle of the ring.

Conservative Republicans will still squawk about unchecked spending and Democrats will bemoan the failure of Republicans to “compromise on taxes” but never opt for compromise themselves on spending. And round and round it will go.

California needs to find a Solomon or some other adult in the room that can lead the all Californians to some breakthrough before truly Draconian measures must be put into place.

C.30 SUPPORT Proposition 99, a ballot measure that will prevent governments from using eminent domain to take an owner-occupied home to transfer to a private party; and OPPOSE Proposition 98 a competing measure that will eliminate rent control and other renter protections, threaten development of public water projects, stymie local land use planning and impair environmental protection, as recommended by the County Administrator. (All Districts)

This smells like a typical John “Igor” Gioia weasel tactic that attempts to cover up government actions rather than offer voters transparency. No doubt, some League of Cities sock puppet will say that hiding crucial votes in the Consent Calendar is a time honored trick of crooked politicians that cannot stand challenge or debate. Beside, they will say, it’s legal if they don’t discuss the issue beforehand.

Excuse me? There was no discussion? How did it get on the agenda unless there was a head count before hand? It had to be discussed in committee, no? How could it get to the consent calendar then if there was no discussion in committee?

To sneak around and pass “official” County pronouncements concerning upcoming ballot propositions without benefit of full promulgation of committee reports, and without public notice, and without public debate is a violation not only of the spirit and letter of the Brown Act, but a clear violation of the trust of the electorate.

The San Francisco Tenant’s Union, using typical Marxist class-struggle slogans, has planned a demonstration to “fight back” against Prop 98 for March 15. They claim Prop 98 will end rent control for hundreds of thousands of poor folks in San Francisco and other deteriorating communities elsewhere in California.

This I know, there are two sure ways to create less affordable housing while increasing substandard housing and that is to subsidize housing and/or establish rent controls. Take profits away from builders or landowners and they walk away from improving property. Overtime, as in Manhattan and San Francisco, such policies create a dumb bell society of ghetto dwellers too poor to leave and the tuxedoed super rich who can afford to step over the homeless on their way to the opera on Van Ness.

For a good primer on how this works read America’s Trillion Dollar Housing Mistake, by Howard Husock.

Fasten your seatbelt. The agitprop being drummed up by the developer-supported redevelopment community to confuse eminent domain and defeat Prop 98 will be intense.