An intense 18-month battle ended in the final hour of the 2009-2010 session of the California state legislature when the Assembly defeated a bill that would have mandated surgical sterilization of most dogs and cats.  Sponsored by state Senator Dean Florez (D-Shafter), Senate Bill 250 received only 28 of the 41 votes required for passage.

Assembly offices were flooded in a barrage of calls and letters about SB 250 from Californians. Frustrated lawmakers protested as supporters pushed SB 250 through repeated 'do-over' votes.  SB 250 failed to pass the Assembly for the third time since 2009.

In his closing remarks before voting against SB 250,  Assembly Majority Leader Charles Calderon (D-Montebello) said, “I can't understand that this bill is about euthanasia -- yet it just won't die."

Like AB 1634, sponsored by Assemblymember Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys) in 2007-2008, SB 250 sharply divided the community of animal lovers.

Supporters of SB 250 pointed to municipal animal control costs that total a quarter billion dollars a year in cash-strapped local governments across California, and hundreds of thousands of cats and dogs that are killed in California’s animal shelters – most of them needlessly.

                                        

Former governor Jerry Brown met with union members from across the state at a breakfast in downtown Los Angeles Monday, rallying some of his base supporters.  Representatives from some of Brown’s key independent expenditure supporters also attended the breakfast, including Working Californians, who recently launched a heavy ad campaign in support of Brown.

Brown faces Republican Meg Whitman in November. Whitman recently surged in the polls, with a Rasmussen report released Aug. 26 giving the former eBay CEO an eight-point lead.  Field poll results in July had given Brown a one-point margin over Whitman.

Brown supporters were undeterred by the poll numbers, with one labor representative predicting the election results would leave Whitman broke and empty-handed.

"If we do our job right we are going to drive Meg Whitman so far out of politics that she will have spent all of her money,” said Maria Elena Durazo, in an interview with the Los Angeles Times. Durazo is the executive-secretary treasurer of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor.  “After the election, don't be surprised if we see [Whitman] in an apron asking people if they want fries with their burger," she said.

Brown released his first television ad on Monday, although he told the crowd in Los Angeles that he “[is] not an advertisement.”

After attending the Los Angeles event with Brown, incumbent U.S. Senate candidate Barbara Boxer attended several Bay area events over Labor day weekend, including attending a small picnic in Sonoma County and a larger rally in Oakland.

In her speech at the Sonoma County Democratic party’s barbecue, Boxer criticized opponent Carly Fiorina. She also referenced the Republican’s microphone gaffe, where a tape caught the former CEO of Hewlett Packard calling Boxer’s hairstyle “so yesterday.”

“[Fiorina’s] policies are really what’s ‘so yesterday,’” said Boxer. “My politics are for today and tomorrow.”

Fiorina spokeswoman Andrea Saul disagreed. "Barbara Boxer's failed economic policies are so ineffective she can't even save the jobs of her biggest supporters: big labor," Saul told the Los Angeles Times.

Whitman and Fiorina did not attend any political events on Monday.  A Fiorina spokesman said the candidate was traveling abroad over the holiday weekend.

                                        

MR: When do you expect Governor Schwarzenegger to sign the bill?

NF: We think it will be soon, possibly, and this could change a hundred times.  It could possibly be next week, but constitutionally, it has to happen within next thirty days, so at some point during September.  We would like the governor to come to San Diego to sign the bill.  It would mean a great deal to the community and the Kings, but he’s obviously fairly busy right now.

MR: You’ve been quoted as saying the bill is “more than we wanted – it’s stronger and broader and more comprehensive today than it was when it was introduced.”  Can you explain what's different about the current, passed legislation from the version you introduced?

NF: In a nutshell, when we introduced Chelsea’s law, it was mainly focused on enforcement.  Life in prison without parole for violent offenders, lifetime parole for offenders against young, and limits on offenders’ access to parks.  These provisions all remain intact in the bill.  But we added to them significantly by including a complete reform of parole system and fundamental, structural change as to how we deal with sex offenders. 

                                        

As explained in this space on Friday by Councilmember Carl DeMaio, one of only two doughty alderman to oppose the measure, city officials want to impose a five-year, $500 million tax increase on San Diegans without offering any accountability as to how the money will be spent or whether any fiscal reforms of substance will accompany it.

In DeMaio’s words, we should “expect increased tax revenues to be diverted to the city’s financially-troubled pension system rather than to restore city services.”

Plus, the fictive reforms promised by the politicians add up essentially to nothing, as taxpayer subsidies for pension costs will remain in place, while managed competition wouldn’t come any closer to becoming a reality.

Former U-T editor and current News Room contributor Bob Kittle characterizes the proposed reforms as mere “window dressing” and claims they’ll “have a negligible impact on the city’s fiscal crisis because they do not address the core problem, which is the pension plans.”