Editorial: Help is on the way for low-income workers

By Toni G. Atkins

The state Legislature just wrapped up the 2015 legislative session. And working together, the Assembly, Senate and Gov. Brown have achieved some real successes for the people of California.

One of the highlights of the year was our balanced, on-time budget that invested heavily in public schools and higher education while also strengthening our rainy-day reserves and paying down debt.

But the achievement that fills me with the most pride is the establishment of a new state-level Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).

The state EITC will provide desperately needed relief for roughly 2 million workers. It will lift 50,000 people out of poverty and another 50,000 out of deep poverty. It could help as many as 150,000 San Diegans with very low incomes.

Before this year, there had been at least seven attempts to create a state EITC since 2002. In 2015, we finally did it, joining 25 other states (plus the District of Columbia) that supplement the federal EITC with an additional state-level benefit for low-income working families and individuals.

Families that earn incomes up to $13,870 will qualify for the tax credit. Depending on the level of income, families can qualify for credits worth up to $2,653. Workers with no dependents who make up to $6,580 will qualify for credits worth up to $214.

A refundable credit — meaning it helps people who have an income from work but no tax liability — the EITC is money placed directly in the pockets of very low-income working people, and it will immediately be pumped back into the economy as recipients spend it on groceries and other essential goods and services.

Statewide, the EITC gives individuals and families an extra $380 million. Economists tell us that when we give low-income workers an additional credit of $1, the multiplier effect is worth $1.50 to $2. That means our new EITC will benefit local economies to the tune of $570 million to $760 million.

We must always remember that whenever we talk about widespread poverty, we’re talking about kids — nearly half of all children in California live below or near the poverty line. Poverty severely reduces our children’s chances for success later in life. Anything we can do to help their parents make ends meet is an investment in their — and, collectively, our — future.

The Earned Income Tax Credit is a proven way to fight poverty, give children a fighting chance and encourage employment. But it doesn’t work unless those who are qualified claim it when they file their tax returns. That’s why it’s important to get the word out and make sure that all workers in California who are eligible for this new credit claim it next year when they do their taxes.

As we educate Californians about the new state EITC, it also gives us an opportunity to remind workers about the federal EITC. The federal EITC is available to even more Californians — families earning nearly $50,000 a year can qualify for the benefit.

In 2013, the average federal credit was $2,373 in California. But participation rates are too low, ranging in recent years from 71 – 78.6 percent, depriving Californians — and our economy — of more than $1 billion per year in federal credits.

I’ll be working with community organizations and helping them disseminate the information so that we reach as many people as possible, and I’m encouraging other public officials to do the same.

The more people who claim the EITC, the better it is for us all.

—Assembly Speaker Toni G. Atkins (D-San Diego) represents the 78th District.

Editorial: Understanding the Jack in the Box issue: a simple explanation

By Omar Passons

For those who want the main points up front, here they are: First, in 2000, the city made it illegal to have a drive-through at 30th and Upas streets so that over time the intersection would be more desirable for families and pedestrians rather than car-intensive businesses. The lawsuit against Jack in the Box and the city is about protecting the integrity of that choice, not about NIMBYism.

Second, every business has development rules it has to follow. Those rules vary depending on the property, but allowing one business not to follow the applicable rules disadvantages all of the other businesses that do follow the rules.

If you’ve ever volunteered at the encouragement of the city in any community across San Diego, this issue matters. It is not just about making the city follow its own rules, it is also about not wasting community members’ time away from their family and friends by ignoring the very decisions in which the city asks us all to engage.

Many people only know the Jack in the Box issue in some vague way and it is easy to misunderstand why some of our neighbors have given so much of their personal time and resources on this. For those that don’t know, here are the basics:

The city has a rule that says if it changes the law to make what you are doing no longer legal, with a few exceptions, if you were already doing it at the time the law passed, you get to keep doing it. Most people know this as “grandfathering in” a type of use.

One exception to this rule is that if you were doing something but you tear down all or most of your building, then you lose that grandfathered right unless, in this instance, you obtain a Neighborhood Development Permit. You may have heard the often-retold misconception that leaving one wall standing automatically allows you to do whatever else you want with the rest of the building. This is one of those persistent myths that as a land-use attorney I wish would just go away. There are times when something like this “one-wall” idea is true, but it isn’t always true and is not at the heart of the Jack in the Box situation.

The Jack in the Box at 30th and Upas in North Park has been around since 1961.   In 2000, at the community’s urging, the city changed the rules at 30th and Upas to encourage pedestrian-oriented uses. The point is that communities evolve and North Park was evolving into a place that favored safe areas to walk and less auto traffic in that part of the community. Since Jack in the Box was already there, it got to continue operating its drive-through as long as it didn’t stop the use or make major changes to the building without first getting a Neighborhood Development Permit.

The reason for the lawsuit is that many members of the community – and more than a few lawyers – believe that Jack in the Box would not have been able to get approval for that permit because of the change in 2000. In fact, the Planning Commission actually rejected the very major type of major reconstruction Jack in the Box ultimately undertook because of the 2000 change.

Nevertheless, in 2013, the city chose to approve a modification to Jack in the Box’s building permit that, had it been handled correctly, would have forced the company to get special approval before continuing a drive-through use. To understand the situation, imagine that you went in for a permit to put in a new electrical panel and instead you knocked down your house and built a new one from the ground up. In my view, the city’s position is essentially that the same permit that applies to your electrical panel ought to apply for everything else you do.

As an active member of our community, I encourage my neighbors, friends and local business owners to read the background information available at the link below before making a final opinion. Members of our community filed a lawsuit to protect what the city already said is important — eliminating car-oriented uses at that intersection over time — and I think that’s what you’ll find that lawsuit is really all about.

—Omar Passons is a land-use and construction attorney and former president of the North Park Community Association. You can read more, including source documents, at a site affiliated with the North Park Preservation Coalition at bit.ly/1P9MJir.

Cartoon