City officials are about to pawn public parking lots, appearing to have figured another way around being accused of publicly financing an arena. They so desperately want a new sports arena in Sacramento, they are willing to make a really stupid deal, similar to many government “business” deals.

The latest scheme Sacramento is proposing would cut a 30-year lease deal with a private company for all of the city’s parking, in order to get a quick infusion of cash.

“The parking monetization concept has the potential to yield substantial upfront cash to pay for a significant portion of a new Entertainment Sports Complex,” a recent city report stated. “At its core, the monetization of the City Parking System would be a trade; the City would give up exclusive control of certain parking operations and revenue in exchange for an upfront lump sum payment, regular payments over time, or a combination.”

It’s always about upfront cash. The city is planning on pawning the publicly owned parking lots for $175 million to $245 million in cash, despite “strong cash flows generated by public parking systems,” according to the report.

The city explained its motive: “A standard approach of of issuing long term debt to fund requires a very large amount of annual debt service payment and ESC revenues are insufficient to cover both operating costs and debt service.  In order to reduce the annual debt service, the ESC financing effort has focused on potential equity contributions to the project.  Equity contributions could come from the Sacramento Kings team owners, an arena operator, the City, and other regional partners.  Parking monetization has been suggested as a source for the City’s equity contribution to the ESC.”

Sacramento not only cannot afford to build an arena, the taxpayers have already voted down two ballot measures to pay for a new arena. So instead, city officials schemed and came up with a plan to pawn its parking lots, together with the future revenue they generate, in order to get a big enough chunk of change to be able to play in the big leagues.

The city of Sacramento will contribute between $170 million to $245 million to the arena deal, that it will collect in exchange for future parking revenue, less $52 million in remaining debt that it has yet to pay off on its parking garages. Estimates to build a new sports arena have come in at $406 million.

Despite a one time parking deal, the city has no idea where future revenues are coming from to pay for the arena.

But the city has not addressed the issue of the land – the parking structures are on land that belongs to the people of Sacramento.  Sacramento taxpayers have paid for the land. Leasing the parking lots to a private company to pay for an arena is just another way to get taxpayers to fund the arena. Shouldn’t residents be able to vote on the deal?

If Sacramento parking structures are so profitable, why doesn’t the city keep them, and use the revenue to fund crucial services that benefit everyone.  The city has cut police, closed community centers, cut back on garbage pickups, let the parks rot, and desperately needs to upgrade its utilities and sewer system.

With threats of nearly 20 percent utility rate increases, any city taxpayer funds spent on an arena does not resonate with city taxpayers. But the scheme is even more complex – city officials appear to be planning to impose higher utility taxes, which will be triggered by the proposed rate hikes in sewer and water services, to plug the $9 million hole created by leasing the parking lots.

I understand the parking company’s motive: They will pay $200 million for a parking system that already has revenues of $9 million per year. With a 50-year lease,  they are looking at $450 million, at the minimum. The private parking company can and will raise rates, and is looking at much more than $450 million in the next 50 years – estimates are coming in at more than $650 million.

It’s a city-sponsored shell game. Many believe that the city will find a way to stick taxpayers with the arena, which will lose money, while the parking company will make money for 50 years from downtown parking. It’s another typical government deal.

FEB. 5, 2012

According to the Declaration if Independence, America consists of “Free and Independent States”; 13 originally, 50 today.

Except that the centralized tyranny in Washington, D.C. owns 45.3 percent of the land in California. That’s better than the 84.5 percent in Utah or the 69.1 percent of Alaska.

But it’s much worse than the mere 1.6 percent of Alabama or the 0.4 percent of Connecticut.

The Feds should sell off all that property and use the proceeds to pay down the $15,338,276,445,417.43 national debt. But they won’t. They love enslaving us.

Here’s the chart of the whole country:

Feb. 3, 2012

Hat tip to LewRockwell.com.

Precedence is always easy to pursue when someone else is paying the attorney’s fees.

Steinberg, of Sacramento, and Perez, of Los Angeles, have sued state Controller John Chiang, claiming that Chiang’s June decision to withhold lawmaker’s pay for not approving a balanced budget by the constitutional deadline, violated the constitutionally mandated separation of powers.

Pffft.

Chiang rightly said that he will stand by his decision and “welcomes” the judicial review.

Steinberg and Perez say they are seeking legal answers to the “important constitutional questions raised by the controller’s action,” after Chiang withheld two weeks of pay last June, determining that the budget they passed was not balanced.

The controller’s decision stems from ballot initiatives Propositions 25 and 58. Prop. 25 withholds legislators’ salary and expenses if they fail to pass a budget by California’s constitutional deadline, June 15.

Prop. 58 requires the Legislature to pass a balanced budget. For legislators to get paid, both requirements must be fulfilled.

“The issue before us is not the role of my office, but how to enact the will of the voters,” Chiang said in a written statement. “It is noteworthy to point out that the Legislature’s budget proposal was not only vetoed by the Governor for not being a ‘balanced solution,’ but it was determined by the Treasurer to not be financeable, and would have, within months of its passage, led to the issuance of IOUs.

“While nothing in the Constitution gives me the authority to judge the honesty, legitimacy or viability of a budget, it does clearly restrict my authority to issue pay to Legislators when they fail to enact a balanced budget by the Constitutional deadline of June 15.”

Where things get a little odd is with the involvement of retired Court of Appeals Justice Arthur Scotland, who is representing Steinberg and Perez in the lawsuit. There are whispers among members of the legal community questioning Scotland’s representation of the legislators, in what some say could be a conflict of interest.

Steinberg said that he and Perez sued Chiang to protect future Legislatures from “mischief.” Perez, responded that the suit is not personal, but “about ensuring a clear budget process for the people of California.”

“Protect future Legislatures from mischief?” Pot, meet kettle.

“One has to acknowledge the moxie of Steinberg and Perez,” Jon Fleishman of The Flash Report wrote.  “In essence, they are leading the charge for the idea that if the legislature wants to say that a budget isn’t balanced, and pass it anyway, that they should have the right to do so without any interference from Chiang or anyone else who is not in the legislature.”

Fleishman is right. Perhaps Steinberg and Perez use another definition of “mischief.” But the correct use of the word would involve the synonyms, “transgressions, misconduct, misbehavior, and sabotage.”

Steinberg said, “Neither the governor nor any other member of the executive branch can brandish the threat of withholding pay because they disagree with decisions made by legislators.”

Don’t the voters, also known as taxpayers have a say? And in fact, didn’t voters pass both propositions demanding a timely and balanced budget? I am confident that the message from voters is clear.

Maybe this lawsuit is a good idea. It’s a chance for voters to see just how their elected representatives game the system. Chiang, also an elected official, seems to be the only adult in the room willing to do his job.

JAN. 30, 2012

A new Brookings Institution study shows just how far out of touch Sacramento is economically, with the rest of the country and major cities around the world.

Out of the 200 metropolitan areas surveyed, Sacramento dropped to 196 from 179 over the previous four years. It was the lowest rank for any American city on the list.

Even Las Vegas is ranked higher, moving into in Sacramento’s old ranking at 179.

San Francisco is ranked at 187, Riverside is ranked 170 and San Jose jumped from 158 to 61. Wow.

Averaging the previous 15 year period, it is painfully evident just how far Sacramento has fallen. Between 1993 and 2007, Sacramento had the 60th strongest economy of any metro area in the world – how far the state Capitol has fallen.

Memo to the Sacramento Mayor, city council, & supervisors… consult some real economists and pay attention. Any business owner in the private sector could confirm these results with first hand experience.

The study found that the largest 200 metropolitan economies examined account for 14 percent of world population and employment, but generate more than 48 percent of global GDP.

At the bottom of the 200 cities was Athens, Greece. “Western Europe’s other troubled peripheral economies—Portugal, Ireland, Italy, and Spain—also populated the bottom economic performers. Lisbon, Dublin, Seville, Madrid, Naples, Barcelona, and Valencia were among the 10 lowest-ranked metro economies,” the study found.

But the weakest-performing U.S. Metro areas, including Sacramento, “reflected a mix of places hamstrung by poor housing market conditions (e.g., Riverside, Las Vegas, Atlanta), and concentrated in state government services that faced steep cuts in 2011 (e.g., Richmond and Sacramento).”

Sacramento is overburdened with city, county, state and federal government employees. Too much government “business” is not good for the private sector. Whenever government has to make budget cuts, Sacramento is impacted more than other areas of the state. But the biggest problem is the ever-expanding government competing with the region’s private sector and industry. And too many local businesses have become dependent on government contracts, regardless of the arcane and unaccountable business and spending practices of government agencies.

Growth in cities was attributed to manufacturing increases. “Manufacturing-oriented metro areas also posted above-average income gains in higher-income countries. The economic growth of areas such as Stuttgart, Rochester, Milwaukee, and Hamilton in 2010-2011 largely reflected the rebound of their manufacturers,” the report found. “Manufacturing industries not only seemed to boost growth in metro areas specialized in that sector, but also drove economic expansion in 2010-2011 in a wider array of places.”

But California’s answer is to drive businesses away with tax increases, crazy nanny laws, strangling regulations and by increasing government competition with the private sector.

After enjoying rapid growth from 1993 – 2007,  the study found, “Sacramento suffered declines in employment and output in 2007-2008, and steeper losses in 2008-2009. Unlike the nation, however, recovery continues to elude the metro area.”

The Brookings Institution warned that Sacramento will need to focus on industries that are growing elsewhere, in order to recover economically. Sacramento is nearly devoid of manufacturing.

But the Brooking study totally gets it wrong when they claim, “One hopeful indicator is that between 2003 and 2010, Sacramento added 13,857 jobs in the ‘clean economy,’ placing it seventh among the 100 largest U.S. metropolitan areas.” Wrong. The “clean economy” is going to fall like a house of cards one day soon – nothing built entirely on government subsidies and phony woo-woo science lasts.

JAN. 20, 2012

I’m going to live-blog Gov. Jerry Brown’s State-of-the-State address, at 10 am on Jan. 18, 2012. Assuming the technology works. You can watch his address online here.

Let’s blog!

9:43 am: A minister is leading a prayer. I thought the U.S. Supreme Court banned religion in government buildings in America? I guess it’s OK, though, because the minister attacked “individualism.” Translation: Stop opposing the tax increases Gov. Brown will be asking for!

9:45: Some mundane business of the Assembly.

10:02: The governor is late. Typical for this state.

10:03. One good thing. At least Arnold isn’t here conjuring up his fantasies about how everything is “fantastisch!” in “Kauliphornia!” even as he was destroying the state.

10:06: Assembly Speaker Perez says he’s appointing an escort for the governor. Six minutes late. Can’t he escort himself?

“Waiting for Jerry” sounds like a Hollywood flop, the kind of stinker they release in January because they know it’s no good.

Brown Arrives — Late

10:08: Enter Brown, to applause. The legislators are eager for him to call for increasing taxes so they can pay for the massive pensions of their string-pullers in the government-workers’ unions.

Brown’s wife is introduced to applause.

10:09. Lt. Gov. Newsom is introduced, to less applause, then Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris and the other state officers. Supreme Court justices.

10:11: Darrell Steinberg, president pro-tem of the Senate. Like Perez, he’s a union hack. He calls for “positive achievements.”

10:12: The Internet signal to Brown’s Web site went down. Brown’s office can’t even get a streaming video to work. I checked my computer. It’s fine.

Brown: “Increase Taxes”

10:16. Brown talking about shrinking a $20 billion structural deficit last year. Problem now 1/4 of last year: $5 billion.

Laments 4 Republican votes were lacking to put tax increase on the ballot in 2011.

“Again, I propose cuts and temporary taxes. Neither is popular, but both must be done.”

He talks about the economic problems in Europe. Which — he doesn’t say — were due to government profligacy like California’s.

He says he’s determined to go ahead with spending cuts and tax increases, which would be half of the tax increase (Arnold’s) in place in 2010.

Brown says, in the long term, more substantial tax reform is needed. But such reforms only happen during a crisis, like now.

Says California is not a “failed state.” Yes it is. His governorship is proof.

The recession was bad, he says, but economy now is growing. He doesn’t mention that the growth occurred after Arnold’s 2009 tax increases expired in 2011 — and were not re-imposed.

Dream Act Great

He lauds the Dream Act, which gave special subsidies from tax dollars to illegal alien students at California’s government universities and colleges. But if Brown and the Legislature don’t follow the law, why should we?

10:21: California has problems, but opportunity. He dreams: fix the delta, build high-speed rail (he’s stuck on that), reduce greenhouse gases, etc. He’s in full Moonbeam mode.

New GoBiz office promotes business. Another bureaucracy. But what’s really needed is cuts in taxes and regulations.

Our state keeps demanding more efficient energy. Actually, it’s the government forcing us.

Talks about climate change — disproved by the climategate scandal.

Talks about 33 percent mandate for renewable energy. But some estimates say that will double energy costs. Why should he care? He’s rich.

Green jobs, he says, are in their infancy, like computers were decades ago. Wrong.

AB 32 means California “stepped out” — yes, into lala land. It uses “market incentives” instead of mandates. Not for industries leaving the state because the “incentives” are just crony capitalism to fund hucksters like Al Gore.

10:25: High-Speed Rail new biz plan soon. Will start building the first phase. Obama behind it. “Without hesitation, I urge your approval,” he says. Good. This will become the poster boondoggle for the anti-tax increase forces in November.

If you believe CA is in decline, you’ll “shrink back from such an undertaking.” But, he insists, CA still is the “gold mountain” the Chinese immigrants called it in the 19th century.

“Critics of high-speed rail aboud.” Yes, because it’s a boondoggle.

I need a drink. Too bad I’m at work.

“The critics are… wrong now. We’re going to build the first phase” because its $2 billion cost is worth it, and will pay for itself. Moonbeam!

Water project. Dual goals: restoring Delta ecosystem, ensuring a reliable water supply. Great. But he’ll mess it up.

Schools

10:29. Schools. “Have a profound effect on our future,” he said. A good reason to be a pessimist.

6 million students, 300,000 teachers (whose union owns him), “Some humility is called for.”

“Thoughts”: responsibilty must be clearly delineated between the various levels of power. Don’t concentrate decision making at the federal or state level. Too late, Jerry. The Feds run everything.

Will he mention the key “level of power”: parents? No, he doesn’t mention them. Parents are irrelevant to him.

Budget, he says, replaces categorical spending with “more authority to local school districts… create transparency… reduce bureaucracy.” Good luck on that one.

He says we need to “devote more tax dollars” to education. “Schools will be in a much stronger position.” No they won’t. The tax money will just go to pensions.

Too many tests, he said, with the results coming too slowly. Need fewer tests, with numbers available fast. Good luck on that one, too.

Wants more supervision of teaching.

Pensions

10:33: Pensions. “I put forth my 12-point proposal. Examine it. Improve it.” We did, here. His reform is pathetic.

He says it’s a real problem. “Three times as many are retiring as are entering the workforce.” He seems to be talking about retirement in general, not just government-worker retirements.

Prison alignment: We’re just beginning. Cooperation is remarkable. “But we have much to do.”

10:34: “The declinists of Calfironia are wrong. We’re on the move. We’re on the mend. Let’s get it done.”

For some reason that reminds me of Ringo’s comment in “A Hard Day’s Night”: “I’m not a mocker. I’m a rocker.”

Brown’s finished. Blessedly, a speech of only about half an hour.  About middling in effectiveness as these speeches go. He’s optimistic about the state. He’s pushing reforms. He wants a lot more of your tax money. He’s still Moonbeam dreaming of a future of bullet trains and renewable energy.

But his dream is California’s nightmare.

The Sunshine Review, a nonprofit organization dedicated to government transparency, released its first state government salary report today, which analyzed public sector employee salaries in 152 local governments spanning eight states.

Taking data from the last four years, Sunshine Review investigated benefits information as well as information on government perks like car fleets and cell phones for public sector employees in California, Pennsylvania, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Texas and Wisconsin.

California had 1332 employees making more than $150,000 annually. Illinois followed in second with 867 employees, and Texas is in third with 194.

Read the entire report HERE.

Condoleeza Rice spoke to a packed house last night at the Sacramento Speaker Series at the Community Center.

Knowing that Rice played such a large role in history, her biography lasted more than five minutes.  She is best known as the secretary of state under George W. Bush during his first term, and the National Security adviser during his second term.

Rice is currently a professor of political economy in the Stanford Graduate School of Business, and serves on multiple boards and is involved in many activities.

When asked by the moderator, “How shall I address you? Secretary? Professor?”  Rice answered, “Condi.”

Even those who may or may not be a fan of George W. Bush would have come away from the speech impressed.

Rice launched into discussing the challenges we are facing and how different it is to be out of government.  “When I read the paper and see the headlines, it is interesting and I no longer feel responsible for what’s in the news,” she said.

Three Great Shocks

Rice said that the international system experienced three great shocks, forever changing the way we think about the world.

According to Rice, the first great shock, 9/11, forever changed our idea of physical security.  Especially when it only cost the attackers about $300,000 dollars.

On Sept. 11, 2001, the president was on a four-hour trip to Florida. Normally, the national security adviser would be with him.  But that day, since he would be gone for only a short time, it was decided that Rice would not go.  She said she yelled at the president on the phone when he insisted on returning.  She yelled, “Stay where you are, we are under attack.”

She said the second great shock was the financial crisis. Rice said that, when you have an economic crisis, it rearranges the pieces on the chessboard.  Rice explained that the Europeans have not come through well.  Europeans are on a single currency but do not have a single policy.  And frankly, “The Greeks have cooked the books and unity has suffered.” She was speaking about the unity of the European Union.

The third shock was the Arab Spring of 2011 and how reform did not come early enough in the Middle East. Rice said that many of those countries have to choose to govern, or be ideologically pure.

Mentioning the “basket cases” of this region — Libya, Syria and Yemen, with Iran whose desire for nuclear weapons is a great threat — Rice said that we are about to see some real confrontation.

She told interesting and witty stories about meeting with former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Moammar Gaddafi, the late Lybian leader, who apparently had a crush on her, as well as some dignitaries from Russia.

The other country she discussed extensively was China, and how they are an economical miracle.  She said that hundreds of millions of people are now out of poverty. But there are millions to go, with increasing labor unrest due to low wages.  And they have a serious demographic problem. China’s one child policy has lead to missing baby girls, and 30 million Chinese men can’t find dates.

Rice added that we are yet to see if China will lead a knowledge-based revolution.

She talked about her concern for Mexico and the violence leading to thousands of murders and killings.

Rice’s Background

After the discussion of world affairs, Rice gave the audience a look at her background.

Since I hadn’t read any of her books, it was interesting to learn she grew up in a segregated Alabama.  Even though her parents tried to shield her from it, she lost a childhood friend in the 1963 Birmingham church bombing.  Even with this, Rice was not allowed to see herself as a victim.

Her family taught her that racism was the racist’s problem — not her problem. She never felt others controlled her fate.  Rice said that we live in a country where we can right our wrongs.  “It didn’t matter where you came from; it matters where you are going,” said Rice. “More than any other country, you can come from lower means and achieve great things.”

During the Q & A, there were several questions asking if Rice would consider a vice president slot on the Republican presidential ticket. She stated clearly that she is not a politician but a policy person.

She was also asked what advice she would give to Gov. Jerry Brown.  Rice said she would tell the governor, or anyone who asked, that the foremost solution to helping this state is to find a way to keep industry in California and bring it back. “You can’t keep jobs if you don’t have manufacturing,” Rice said.

She addressed California’s tax structure and, lastly, education. She said we should pay good teacherswhatever we can and applauded the state University system.

The event was the first time I attended the speaker series at the Sacramento Community Center. I was not disappointed. Rice is a living testimony to having faced great challenges and having achieved great things. Coming from segregated Alabama, to becoming a Soviet specialist, to secretary of State was an amazing path.

Jan. 12, 2012

Almost like the diligent vampire hunter who kills the eery bloodsucker at the end of the scary movie, Harkey has authored Assembly Bill 1455, to halt state debt funding for the high-speed rail project.

Vampire Hunter

Harkey says that so far, HSR has been in the works for three years and the cost keeps climbing. But there is nothing to show for the $800 million already spent – expect perhaps in the bank accounts of the many consultants tied to the High-Speed Rail Authority.

And at this moment, high speed rail is projected to cost California taxpayers more than $98 billion. Many say that is just the financial launching point for only one leg of the system from Bakersfield to Fresno, and costs can and will escalate.

Harkey said that a recent statewide Field Poll revealed that nearly two-thirds of the voters surveyed would like to re-vote on the issue. By nearly two to one, voters would reject the $9.95 billion bond to fund start-up costs for HSR.  The reality is that even those that originally supported the concept know they were deceived; Californians do not support high-speed rail at any cost.

That sounds like affirmative approval from the state’s voters that the plan should be put down, permanently.

But it’s more about having sour grapes – or lemons – now, once we discovered all of the escalating costs for the rail system that won’t seem to die. Californians were totally duped into voting from Proposition 1A by some really crafty campaign people, and have we paid for it.

Harkey’s office provided information about the controversial process to even get the High Speed Rail ballot initiative onto the ballot. The courts ruled that the analysis of the bond measure, Proposition 1A, was misleading, written in promotional language.

Who allowed the language on the ballot? Attorney General Jerry Brown, who clearly provided a title loaded with positives:

Ballotpedia reported that the ballot title was:

Summary

The official summary provided to describe Proposition 1A said:

• Provides long-distance commuters with a safe, convenient, affordable, and reliable alternative to driving and high gas prices.
• Reduces traffic congestion on the state’s highways and at the state’s airports.
• Reduces California’s dependence on foreign oil.
• Reduces air pollution and global warming greenhouse gases.
• Establishes a clean, efficient 220 MPH transportation system.
• Improves existing passenger rail lines serving the state’s major population centers.
• Provides for California’s growing population.
• Provides for a bond issue of $9.95 billion to establish high-speed train service linking Southern California counties, the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley, and the San Francisco Bay Area.
• Provides that at least 90% of these bond funds shall be spent for specific construction projects, with private and public matching funds required, including, but not limited to, federal funds, funds from revenue bonds, and local funds.
• Requires that use of all bond funds is subject to independent audits.
• Appropriates money from the General Fund to pay bond principal and interest.

It sounded as if the perfect rail system couldn’t fail.

In addition, the original price tag of $33 billion has now escalated to $98.5 – $117 billion for Phase I construction. That’s more than inflation at work on those numbers.

We are talking about BILLIONS to build, and then billions to operate every year.

Cha-ching. Only the cash register is empty.

“Phase II promised from Anaheim to San Diego is not even being discussed, and neither is the cost to operate whatever is actually built. The voters were assured there would be “no state operating subsidy” and that the riders would pay for the system.  However, the analysis failed to mention hefty “construction costs” would be excluded, require financing, and repayment from the state’s General Fund (or tax-payer subsidy),” Harkey’s analysis showed.

Two More Blows Into The Heart

The CHSRA Peer Review Group is now advising the authority not to fund.

A December hearing in Washington, DC confirmed that Congress will not rescue California HSR plan if we are determined to become the Greece of the nation.

Constantly searching for strategies to improve our state’s dire financial situation that fall within the Legislature’s purview, Harkey wrote that she discovered:

 Article XVI of the California Constitution authorizes the Legislature, at any time after the approval of a general obligation bond act by the people, to reduce the amount of the indebtedness authorized by the act to an amount not less than the amount contracted at the time of the reduction or to repeal the act if no debt has been contracted.

“To recap, the voters were deceived; the project lacks sufficient private, public or debt funding to complete even a requisite operating segment, as required under Proposition 1A; the Environmental Impact Report is incomplete; California is struggling with long term deficits and debt; the Governor claims to need more taxes; our existing infrastructure is in dire need of extension and repair; and voters are suffering from buyer’s remorse,” Harkey reported.

What’s unclear? It’s time to drive the final stake through the heart of the boondoggle High-Speed Rail plan. If not, it could bankrupt California.

If Gov. Jerry Brown is already talking about automatic trigger cuts which will go into effect and cut K-12 school spending by $4.8 billion, state university spending by $400 million, and the state’s courts by $125 million, if he doesn’t get his ballot tax increase passed, how dire is the state spending? Why Brown keeps talking about his support of HSR is a mystery, but one mystery we may seen resolved is during the campaign for his ballot tax increase plan when it becomes clear to voters that as long as the High-Speed Rail is in existence, tax opponents will point to it as the Poster Boondoggle for government waste.

It is. In fact, it’s a gross example for boondoggle government waste, and will undoubtedly  now cast a pallor on even some of the more clever government waste plans. We can hope.

JAN. 10, 2012

“I accept responsibility and I offer apologies, not excuses,” the Bee reported that Hayashi said in a written statement. The title of their story, Mary Hayashi Apologizes For Unintentional Shoplifting, told the story.

The first reports after the shoplifting incident reported that Hayashi’s spokesman blamed the theft on her cell phone use at the time, which caused her to forget to pay. Now he says it might be a brain tumor.

Prosecutors said that Hayashi, who represents the 18th California Assembly District east of San Francisco, was caught on a security camera walking out of the store on Union Square with a shopping bag full of items she didn’t pay for.

Hayashi’s hired spokesman said she had been inside of Neiman Marcus in Union Square, and walked out of the store while using two cell phones. But she took three articles of clothing with her, dropped into a shopping bag that she brought with her into the store.

This is where details get a little fuzzy. I know that I’ve never unintentionally or intentionally put any articles of clothing into another shopping bag before walking out of a store, much less three pieces of clothing. And I have been known to talk on the phone while I shop.

“Hayashi was stopped by Neiman Marcus’ security detail shortly after leaving the store around 12:15 p.m. Tuesday with a shopping bag that included three items worth $2,450 that she hadn’t paid for when she checked out at the register, the district attorney’s office said,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported on Oct. 29. Hayashi allegedly stole leather pants, a black skirt and a white blouse worth $2,450.

Investigators say store security was tracking Hayashi after a saleswoman told security guards that she suspected the Assemblywoman of stealing a dress the week before.

The Bee reprinted Hayashi’s prepared statement:

Interestingly, the judge assigned to her case reduced her felony grand theft charge to a misdemeanor. Hayashi’s husband is Alameda County Judge Dennis Hayashi.

But the tumor defense was not used in court yesterday, when Hayashi pleaded no contest to the reduced charges. The  court was given nothing indicating that Hayashi had or has a brain tumor.

The tunor defense, similar to the Twinkie defense,  only came up after she plead guilty to the charges. And it was after leaving the court room that her attorney mentioned it for the first time- late on Friday.

Prior to yesterday’s court appearance, Hayashi had been saying that she was innocent and her attorney  told everyone in the media that this was a “silly case.” Hayashi spokesman Sam Singer has called the incident “a mistake and a misunderstanding.”

Her attorney and spokesman have stated that she had intended to pay for the items but became distracted by a cellphone call and a snack at the cafe and inadvertently left the store without paying. “According to sources close to the case, a week before the Neiman bust, a store saleswoman noticed that a dress was missing after a woman matching Hayashi’s description tried it on. The saleswoman did not know who Hayashi was, but when Hayashi showed up Oct. 25, the clerk alerted store security and they began tracking her with surveillance cameras,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

Drudging up the Carole Migden defense, Hayashi’s attorney, now says that a “brain tumor” is the real culprit. In 2007, Migden smashed her state-issued SUV off a concrete median on Interstate 80 and nearly ran other motorists off the freeway before slamming into the back of another vehicle. Former State Sen. Carol Migden, D-San Francisco, said she was reaching for her official cell phone when the wreck occurred. But many of the other motorists said that she had been driving erratically for miles. And 9-1-1 tapes proved it. Migden claimed she was under medical treatment for leukemia, and the medication she was on caused her to crash.

But amazingly, she was cured of the dreaded disease and back at work in no time. Midgen subsequently lost her reelection attempt.

A medical excuse is actually brilliant because no doctor will release medical records to prove or disprove it. It’s the same as running into a church for refuge.

However, Hayashi’s case of forgetfulness doesn’t remotely ring true. She doesn’t just casually stop by Union Square on her way somewhere. Hayashi had to make the 30 miles drive from her home in Castro Valley, cross a bridge, and find parking in Union Square, in order to shop at Neiman Marcus. She brought her own shopping bag with her into the store.  And it was reported that store employees said they were already on the look out for Hayashi because they suspected she had shoplifted from that store only weeks before.

Now, the “brain tumor” PR campaign is in full swing. But her attorney said she’s out of the woods and has a clean bill of health.

Several years ago, Hollywood actress Winona Ryder was caught shoplifting at Saks Fifth Avenue in Beverly Hills. Ryder was ordered to pay restitution, and had to serve hundreds of hours of community service. The judge told her that if she was ever in his courtroom again, he’d send her to jail.

Many are questioning why Hayashi has not been asked to take a leave of absence from the Assembly.

But Hayashi’s charge was miraculously reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor. She now only has to pay a $200 fine, and did not receive any community service time as a punishment. But the biggest gift to Hayashi with the misdemeanor charge is that she does not have to give up her Assembly seat. A felony would have required her resignation.

That’s too bad – if she had resigned, Gov. Jerry Brown could have provided her a soft landing and appointed her to the new state department he created to manage California’s mental hospitals – the Department of State Hospitals.

JAN. 7, 2012