General Assembly Post-Game Wrap-Up/Pre-Game Show: Thurs., June 23, 2011
Take a good look at how your Delaware State Senate performed yesterday. You can expect a lot more of this if the Senate redistricting plan goes through: Bully-boy Tiny Tony DeLuca kicking sand in the face of would-be opponents, regressive votes on gun bill legislation, and a pathetically timid opposition.
Let’s make it real clear. Tony DeLuca was Tom Sharp’s hand-picked successor to become…Tom Sharp. And DeLuca has performed like Tom Sharp on steroids. Having been through two redistrictings with Sharp, I can tell you that Sharp never would have drawn such a blatant set of maps. For all of his faults, Sharp would never have placed other Democratic senators at risk like this. If the Governor and/or the Democratic State Committee choose not to intervene, the R’s will have a legit chance to take control of the Senate some time during the upcoming decade. The D’s could easily face the loss of three seats in 2012 alone: Bunting, Katz, and Sokola. Make it four if/when Venables retires. In any reasonable plan, neither Bunting or Sokola would be in serious jeopardy, and Cathy Cloutier would. And Dori Connor would be out of a district entirely. Never thought I’d make a plea to the so-called Democratic Party establishment: Save the Senate from their would-be leaders. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
As to yesterday. Tony DeLuca’s mockery of an open government bill, SB 4, passed with the minimum 11 votes. Allow me to quote the Napoleonic Martinet, courtesy of Chad Livengood’s News-Journal article:
“You’re either on the clock when you’re here or you’re off the clock when you are here,” said DeLuca, an administrator of labor law enforcement at the Department of Labor.
Except that Tony DeLuca refuses to provide proof as to whether he’s on the clock at DOL even though such proof is readily available, his ridiculous claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Until he releases his DOL card swipes for the six years he’s ‘worked’ at the Labor Department, he is both a liar and a hypocrite. SB 4 is merely his attempt to change the subject, and he has 10 other sheep willing to follow the Sicilian Shepherd. And then there’s Dori Connor, who owes her district to DeLuca, who can’t even decide how to vote. While I suspect that the House will bury this, the latent anarchist/yippie in me kinda hopes that they pass it. Lawsuits, recriminations and frivolity will likely ensue, and that will assuredly provide me with great subject matter for quite some time.
My fellow blogger Delaware Dem has written a great piece on the defeat of SS1/SB 29(Henry), which would have made it illegal for individuals to possess firearms outside of their homes while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. 10 yes, 7 no, 4 not voting. Read the piece, then hold your Senators accountable. Flood Senators McBride’s, Hall-Long’s, and McDowell’s offices with calls and demand to know why they didn’t support this bill. Feel free to let them know that you won’t support them for reelection either.
The Bond Bill Committee approved an additional $50,000 annually for each legislator’s Community Transportation Fund (CTF), which would bring each Honorable’s discretionary ‘street’ money from the existing $175,000 to $225,000. That represents an additional $3.1 million for road repair. Nice, but kinda small. I hope that the Bond Bill Committee will dedicate more money to worthy ‘shovel-ready’ projects. That has a lot more direct impact on jobsjobsjobs than paying blackmail to the banking industry. Here’s a full report on yesterday’s Bond Bill deliberations.
Let’s now all pause and take a look at yesterday’s Session Report.
The Senate confirmed Leo Strine to be the new Chancellor of Chancery Court. He will begin serving a 12-year term in that position.
Rep. Short’s HB 144 passed unanimously. Sen. Katz presumably kept his mouth shut. Time to move on.
The Senate also defeated legislation that might have had the impact of limiting rental increases in manufactured housing communities. While that might seem like a slam-dunk, I sorta understand a ‘no’ vote, as an ‘advisory’ body would have been given discretion to determine whether the proposed increase is appropriate. I don’t see how an advisory body can issue edicts that have the rule of law.
The House passed several bills discussed yesterday, including SB 70 and HB 163, both unanimous; SB 63, with one inexplicable ‘no’ vote from Rethug auto dealer Willis; and SB 125, which got 12 no votes from those climate change deniers.
The House Administration Committee released HB 210 (Schwartzkopf), the redistricting bill, to the entire House. I was surprised not to see it on today’s House Agenda.
Nevertheless, today’s major action is all in the House, almost certainly the meatiest agenda we’ve seen all year.
We’ve got the Budget Bill, the fast-tracked Bloom Energy bill, and legislation to prevent the Reach Academy embarrassment from ever happening again. All this, plus lotsa leftover bills from yesterday’s agenda. Look for the House to go deep into the night tonight.
I find today’s Senate Agenda less compelling, but YMMV. However, I send out this Urgent Alert to Dana Garrett. The anthropecentric hubris legislation to which he refers is third on today’s agenda. Me? I’m thinking of relocating to Athens, GA, and starting up a band called ‘Anthropocentic Hubris’. Not merely good, but a great band name.
HJR 3, which gives the telecom industry the chance to revise its own tax laws, also appears to be racing through the Senate. No doubt soon to be followed by campaign checks from Verizon and Comcast. The Delaware Way at its worst and most predictable.
Which means we go out the same way that we came in. The Delaware Way at its worst and most predictable.
210 (Schwartzkopf), the redistricting bill is on the ready list:
http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/lis146.nsf/House%20Ready%20List?OpenView&Start=1
The Newark Post has a link to newly reconfigured Senate Maps. How about them apples. They “fixed” Dori Connor’s district and paid some attention to the Hispanic voting block, evidently:
http://delawareway.blogspot.com/2011/06/frank-sims-writes-state-senate-revises.html
ElSom–any thoughts on SB97’s inability to pass the Senate? This bill, to mandate justification for above-inflation increases in rent for those in manufactured housing had NO votes from Cloutier & Conner (no surprise, they’ve been on the wrong side or absent all session), but also surprising NO votes from Henry and Sorenson, and in addition Blevins was absent, and Katz and Peterson did not vote. Any one of these seven could have voted for it and had this legislation pass.
This is a serious head-scratcher.
PBaumback, the defeat of SB97 had some serious land-owner backing. Really serious.
Paul, here’s my analysis:
“The Senate also defeated legislation that might have had the impact of limiting rental increases in manufactured housing communities. While that might seem like a slam-dunk, I sorta understand a ‘no’ vote, as an ‘advisory’ body would have been given discretion to determine whether the proposed increase is appropriate. I don’t see how an advisory body can issue edicts that have the rule of law.”
In other words, I think there was a legit potential legal reason for not supporting this. They should be able to fix it, and I think a substitute bill could pass. But maybe not until January.
ElSom,
With all due respect, that is a bogus excuse for no votes and abstentions. There were supportive Senators who were as shocked as I was when I heard that roll call last night. Probably not as angry but close to it.
Let any of those no/absent/abstain votes say that was their reason and I will level the challenge that they are being disingenuous at best and flat out untruthful at worst. This bill weighs in at ten times the progressive value of any HB 75 and no excuse making analysis will change that fact. There was and is a powerful, well financed group engaged here (Strines and Tunnels) who have absolutely no regard for the plight of the poor and elderly living on a fixed income. Anyone pretending to have a sympathetic, progressive view of reality who did not support this bill have very questionable credentials indeed.
John Kowalko
Since when do legislators from Wilmington even understand manufactured housing?
ElSom,
With all due respect, that is a bogus excuse for no votes and abstentions…Let any of those no/absent/abstain votes say that was their reason and I will level the challenge that they are being disingenuous at best and flat out untruthful at worst…
John Kowalko
Wow. These are the exact words that I would use to attack your lack of support for HB 75. I heard you on Al Mascitti’s show & I couldn’t believe my ears. I was really glad he called BS on your lame “reasons” for voting against it.
Let the Manufactured communities rent increase their way out of having tenants. They’ve already started. Tunnell is effin ridiculous down in Long Neck. It’s peak season and half of his Potnets are empty, precisely because he raised rents to crazy levels.
Baywood, for instance, have half a million dollar houses that pay a mortgage, plus over $2k/month lot rent.
The mofo has lost his mind.
The manufactured home lot owners have demonstrated in spades through their exorbitant and cruel rent increases that they are hostile to the public good and cannot be trusted to regulate their own industry. Outright rent control is the only equitable solution and, I suspect, the inevitable one.
I would ask Brian, “What does he care?”. Tunnell is one smooth character. He oversaw the implosion of Wilmington Trust as a board member who took advantage of his post with unethical and risky personal business loans. Delaware tax payers are keeping up the mortgage payments of some of his speculative land holdings through the DelDOT “113 Reservation payments”.
This bill may not have been perfect but I do wonder how several progressives could vote against it. I am sorry I missed the debate. I might have a clearer idea of why this was voted down.
Nancy..you missed the debate because the committee hearing was only ten minutes due to time constraints. There is, in my opinion, something inherantly wrong with rent control. The bill doesn’t address the fact that more than 40% of the mobile homes in Sussex are 2nd homes. It’s pretty hard to cry poor me when you have another house to go home to. As for the poor and elderly on fixed incomes, there is already a fund in place to provide them with rent assistance. Mr Kowalko is in no position to question anyone elses credentials. I heard him on WDEL defending his withdrawal from HB 75 and, quite frankly, it was about the most lame explanation I’ve ever heard. Just because everyone doesn’t jump on John’s bandwagon, it doesn’t make them bad people. Get over yourself, John!
part of the sausage-making that is legislating is improving bills. HB75 unamended gives the 10 double-dipping legislators a free-ride, a grandfather clause. How much courage does it take to write and support it?
As I understand them, the two amendments introduced by Rep. Jacques brings all legislators, present and future, under its scope, and while not preventing holding a second job, it makes those (who earn over $15,000 a year) subject to an annual audit of their timeslips at their second state job (whether in the merit system or not).
These amendments make a well-intentioned, but only partial-solution bill much more worthy (and WAY better than DeLuca’s inane SB4, which Rhonda Graham crucifies in today’s Wilmington NewsJournal at http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20110624/OPINION1802/106240327/Bill-time-sheets-state-senators-second-jobs-useless?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Opinion|p).
AMENDED HB75–now that’s some good sausage.
I don’t usually read blogs or respond to them — but when I received a copy of John Kowalko’s postings regarding SB97 (Rent “Justification”)I felt compelled to respond.
First, I put a lot of time and thought into how I will vote on legislation. SB 97 was no different — except that I spent more time on it than most other bills.
Second, I voted for a mobile home rent control bill in 2003 — four years before John was elected to the Legislature. That bill was sponsored by Sen. George Bunting — the legislator who has actually been working on this issue for years. My vote in 2003 was a knee-jerk reaction to the stories told by a handful of mobile home park residents. I have since come to realize that the passage of such a bill had dire unintended consequences that would have actually hurt the people we were purporting to help. A rent control bill could result in mobile home park owners converting their land to more profitable uses. Why would the owner of waterfront property continue to operate a rent-controlled mobile home park when he could use the land for townhouses and condominiums? How does that help the “poor people?”
Third, I have four mobile home parks in my district. Not one constituent asked me to vote for the bill.
Fourth, tying the rent controls to the Consumer Price Index made no sense since that measures the price of goods and services — but not the value of land.
Fifth, the proposal to have a non-governmental body make decisions on rent increases was shaky at best (legally).
Sixth, I don’t think that the government should tell private businesses how much profit they can make(unless, of course, it’s a monopoly — which mobile home parks are not). We wouldn’t think of passing a bill telling Sears how much they can charge for washing machines!
Seventh, claims that residents of Sussex County’s mobile home parks are mostly “low income” is not true. Nearly one-half of the Sussex County mobile homes are vacation homes — and only 3% of Sussex County’s mobile home owners qualify as “low income.” We (the General Assembly) created a fund to assist them with their rents and that program is working as it was designed.
Last — but not least — SB 97 received only 9 (of 21) votes in the Senate. That should tell you that the bill had some serious flaws.
Sen. Karen Peterson
a quick timeout
I think that it is great to live in a state where some of our state legislators are so available to constituents to share considerations behind past and future votes.
That is a Delaware Way that I can support!
Thanks for coming by to explain your vote on this Senator Peterson — that was a helpful response.
This has been a good discussion, but Karen P. brought up a point that’s been bugging me for a couple of years now.
Back when Bob Valihura was leading these discussions, it was explained to me that rents “had” to go up because the value of land was rising. If rents didn’t increase, that meant landowners weren’t getting as large a return on their investment as they could by cashing out and investing the money elsewhere.
Fine. But that land has dropped in value over the last couple of years. Have rents decreased appropriately? Anyone? Bueller?
Karen,
A very fair and honest explanation of your concerns with SB 97. I apologize to you for making you feel that I was singling you out for your vote. My disappointment in the outcome stems from the last time (4 years ago when) I was co-prime on a rent justification bill with Rep Blakey and without warning watched him strike the Bill from the floor. That bill was constructed with the help of a good departed friend, the late Chris White and I have been anxiously waiting ever since to move forward with this initiative.
Again my apologies to you personally and publicly because you are one of the true stalwarts of progressiveness and I think we see more or less eye-to-eye on many issues. I know that we will always continue to work together on behalf of all the people of Delaware.
Respectfully,
John Kowalko
anon40, HB 75 has not yet been voted on, so no legislator could have voted “no.” As I understand it, some legislators took their name off as co-sponsors because they were unsure of the bill as it is unamended. Taking your name off a bill is not the same as voting “no,” and it is too bad you were not able to gather that from the conversation between Al and John.
“Comment by John Kowalko on 23 June 2011 at 11:09 pm:
Let any of those no/absent/abstain votes say that was their reason[‘advisory’ body would have been given discretion to determine whether the proposed increase is appropriate.] and I will level the challenge that they are being disingenuous at best and flat out untruthful at worst. … Anyone pretending to have a sympathetic, progressive view of reality who did not support this bill have very questionable credentials indeed.
John Kowalko”
.
.
.
“Comment by Karen Peterson on 24 June 2011 at 11:21 am:
… the proposal to have a non-governmental body make decisions on rent increases was shaky at best (legally).”
.
.
.
.
“Comment by John Kowalko on 24 June 2011 at 2:05 pm:
Karen,
… you are one of the true stalwarts of progressiveness …
John Kowalko”
.
.
.
.
.
.
EXCUSE ME?? Come again, Rep. Kowalko? Which is it?
Phil,
My point has always been that some issues are much more important to progressive politics than others and those most progressive are usually the issues that can disaffect and hurt those most vulnerable. However, let me say it again Phil, one issue or position on an issue does not a progressive make nor does it disqualify one as a progressive. Senator Peterson has taken many a courageous stance on progressive issues and I have always supported and publicly applauded that. That does not mean that I agree with any, some, or all of her reasons on this particular subject and therefore I issued the apology to her because I never intended to single her out or impugn her progressive integrity. You are certainly excused for not understanding some of the complexities of the discussion between Karen and me.
John Kowalko
Don’t attempt to condescend to me. You are the one desperately trying to win back your Progressive bona fides, after shamefully pulling your support for HB75, by wrapping yourself in the Progressive banner on this issue and calling out anyone who disagreed with you as not Progressive. You are the one who said, “ANY [Representative].” As soon as one of those colleagues responded, you couldn’t possibly back peddle any faster. “Oh, Karen, I didn’t mean YOU, of course!”
Please, that’s the kind of posturing-double speak we need LESS of in Dover. How about this: From now on, you say what you mean, and mean what you say. period. No puffery, or pandering or double talk. Be straight with us every time, and even when we disagree with you, we’ll remember that at least you are a man of integrity. And THAT matters way more to me at the ballot box than whether we agree 100% of the time.
Phil, if you honestly think that John has to win back his “Progressive bona fides” because he has taken his name off of a single bill (that almost everyone agrees would need amendments), then I seriously question your “criteria” for progressivism. I would further question your “criteria” in light of the fact that HB 75 currently has the support of 3 House Republicans and only 6 House Democrats (and 1 Senate Democrat). How exactly is this a progressive bill when 1/3 of its support in the House comes from Republicans and less than 1/4 of House Democrats are co-sponsorship?
Maybe you should spend less time attacking progressives like John who seek to speak their mind in an open and accessible manner (although that may sometimes result in statements that are more forceful than they should have been), and actually try to work on those issues that will make a difference (considering HB 75 will do very little to the state budget, unlike the ridiculous amounts of tax breaks the legislature has given back to banks and the rich). Did you attack every progressive who voted for those budget items and accuse them of no longer being progressive? I might be more inclined to support you on that one, but right now, your position that HB 75 sets the standard for progressivism seems incomprehensible to me.
i haven’t accused anyone of not being progressive, unlike rep kowalko has. ask around here, he lost a little of his shine in this whole HB75 thing.
“You are the one desperately trying to win back your Progressive bona fides”
That seems much stronger than “he lost a little of his shine.” It seems that you and John have both made initial statements more forceful than intended (although I do not know if either truly counts as back-peddling).
The whole reason I have commented a few times recently, however, was because of my complete disbelief that HB 75 is being touted around here as a progressive bill, and that progressives are being attacked for not being progressive enough because they are not supporting it. I believe it was a good bill, but it’s certainly not progressive (while I believe SB 97 is an example of a progressive bill). And to say that a progressive such as John as lost any of his progressive credentials because of HB 75 (which has not even gone up for a vote yet) is ridiculous. Maybe you disagree with John taking his name off as co-sponsor (although there seems to be no discussion of all those who never put their name on in the first place), but with a bill such as HB 75, that does not reflect on his progressiveness at all from where I’m standing.
Besides the fact, there are far more important issues than HB 75, which would have little to no practical effect (especially as written, since it applies only prospectively). I would suggest that more of the progressives on this site focus on the budget bill, which does not look like a bill prepared by Democrats who control both Houses and the Executive (almost $7 million for personal income tax cuts for the well-off?). Unfortunately, I’m sure that many of the progressives on this site will once again remain largely silent, just as they did 2 years ago.
Now, WAITAMINNIT!
Rarely does a column go by when I don’t mention the tax cuts to the Fortunate Few. To claim that we have been anything close to silent on that is intellectually dishonest. It’s discussed practically every day here.
HB 75 HAS to apply only prospectively. Courts have long held that you can’t change the rules in the middle of the game for those already playing. Yes, there are problems with HB 75 that can easily be addressed by amendments. But it’s also intellectually dishonest to suggest that taking one’s name off the bill means next to nothing. In this case it does b/c Kowalko and others have stated that it reflects their change from being supportive of the bill to NOT being supportive of the bill. Remember the whole thing about adjunct professors/bus drivers/coaches?
SB 97 is well-intended, but has a litany of legislative problems aside from its intent. It may be progressive, but the bill as written is a disaster. I like Kowalko a lot, but when he goes drama queen on us, as he did here, he does himself and the progressive community a disservice. I’ve written about this before, and JK has gotten a lot better, but every now and then…
Finally, a memo to ALL LEGISLATORS: It’s time to stop calling out other legislators publicly. To those of us not deep in the bowels of Leg Hall, it looks like whining and unbecoming of elected officials. For once I agree with Colin Bonini: Who cares?