Pride Cometh Before the Fall
Sometimes hubris can bring together strange solutions which never existed before. Is Altadena a chance to rethink the dynamics in Sacramento and potentially bring in new funding?
I previously wrote about the Politico piece about Dave Regan and the effects his “Billionaire Tax Act” or BTA will have on California.
In particular, I am critical of the ability of Silicon Valley to fight off the BTA direct the way they are structured and with the tactics they have used thus far.
One thing said previously about our Substack is “you do not just talk about the problem, you bring an out of the box solution to the table” and “that makes you different.”
Okay, thanks to those who say those words. Let’s go out of the box and maybe help ourselves here in Altadena.
I will land the plane.
An early lesson I learned in politics is “do not make someone choose between two deserving groups,” which was said by Diane Feinstein’s staff to me on an issue I was advocating on. What it really said to me was, “figure out a different way to fight the issue versus head on.”
Head on is what Labor wants Silicon Valley to do with the BTA. It is what they expect. It is what they are prepared for. Billionaires are an easy target as they are perceived. It is what they know what respond with.
Right now, Silicon Valley has followed the script they wanted. They ran one of their own for Governor. He says the right things, but he misses the “electricity” needed to go to the voters, something Labor knew. Their tactics are also head on, right out of central consulting. They are fighting on their rear legs. They are bringing “clever responses” like alternate ballot measures. They have money. They have hired the usual consultants, saying the usual things, doing the usual responses. Everything is “going according to plan.” The “chessboard” is what was expected.
But, sometimes you create a situation which invokes the law of unintended consequences, especially when there are people out there who look at the problem through a different paradigm. Blow up the chessboard. Who cares what has been done. How can you change the conversation and Power dynamic?
I always tell people, Power is positional and fluid. What looks Powerful from one perspective can be weak from another. Playing the Power Game is an interesting one. You have to be ready to fight, but if you take the battle, you have to keep it up, and it will be longer, more expensive, and more difficult than you expect. Still, you can win, especially when you can be creative and nimble.
While Labor and its associated groups in Sacramento look strong, they are also constrained by their strength. It is the age old innovators dilemma.
If you can start to chip away at them, create a perception of weakness, things begin to change. They cannot move like you can, though they can punch harder than you. 22 years is a lot of time to build favors and relationships, but it also creates a lot of weight in those relationships.
Strength can also bo weakness.
What does all this mean?
What if instead of the government funding our rebuild in our capital stack presented to the Administration, Silicon Valley raises the $3-$5 billion (which they can easily do), as the downpayment? They can create a nonprofit to do the work (or multiple). If so, get this, we are not bound by work rules, prevailing wages, et cetera giving Labor effectively a seat at the table. In other words, what if Silicon Valley went right at the heart of the rebuild deal everyone has been holding out for, the tens of billions of dollars which people are counting on are shifted away and the void left by Congress gets filled by Silicon Valley, thus hitting at the heart of Labor? What does Lorena Gonzalez say about that one? She is the entire California Federation of Labor, not SEIU-Healthcare Workers West.
There is enough philanthropic dollars up there alongside investors to pull this off.
It would destabilize the Sacramento ecosystem in a way nobody ever thought possible. It will definitely “rock some people back” to say the least.
The biggest deal for Labor in California currently could be undermined by a portion of Labor. How “unified” will Labor be at that point?
In fact, the Trades would likely do something to push back against the push of SEIU, creating a fissure and negotiation. Looks like Newsom is trying to get the same with other issues. What if Altadena begins to fracture Labor? What if Silicon Valley backs off if SEIU drops the BTA?
If not, what if we could do major projects with a revolving fund in California without the Labor hammerlock? Two can play at this game. What happens thereafter? Does this model start to shift the veto Labor has? Does it begin to build on the weakness Labor felt after the last election in 2024?
I know, it is way outside the box. However, once you begin to challenge the lock by Labor, once you raise money in a way that says, “if you want it, we are going to do it our way,” then you can say, “fine, we will build, say, affordable housing, LIHTCs (and associated prevailing wages) be damned.” CEQA is removed for those types of projects anyhow.
Rebuild Altadena and the Palisades without Labor mandated in California? What about their philanthropies? Go around them. Create your own. You can then use the same model Labor did with philanthropy to push your agenda. They want to protest and sabotage? Really? Are they about the people anymore? Are they about the voters?
Regan wanted this fight.
He calculated the opposition would do the same. Lorena Gonzalez laid it out too. She said, “Silicon Valley does not understand the voters,” which is true from a certain perspective.
But, what if they went a different direction and got done what cannot get done by our government and its associated interest groups?
If people are in the way because they are tied to Labor, then Labor is a problem not a solution, which voters will also notice. They want the job done. If it can get done cheaper, if it can be done without raising taxes, if we can rethink some of these dynamics, does that not fit the broader voter desires?
Who does not understand the voters now?
Growth and economic development is what people really want. They want wealth. Listen to Ruben Gallegos- “Embrace Wealth.”
Voters want to work their job, provide for their kids, have them educated, live in a house, and enjoy their life. It is not all this advocacy drama. They do not want drama. Also, they do not want to be trapped in “affordability.” They do not want to be held hostage whenever teachers are not getting enough even with huge budget increases and reduced students. They do not want to have to deal with healthcare workers chasing our most productive out of the State because 50% increases is not enough for them.
However, to get to that point, you have to show something different, change the perception from strength to weakness. You have to use their own points against them.
Labor built their beachheads and they know them well. They are unidimensional however. They cannot fight an insurgency. They are vulnerable in that they are bound by the System they created. They can pound on you, but only if they can hit you.
Silicon Valley is about blowing up the System, or so they say. Move fast. Break things. I heave heard these terms before.
If you want to do it, if you want to keep your system, then blow it up.
But understand, you have to do it right.
You have to do it for the long-term.
You want a platform? Look at Altadena.
Forget the Trump/Gavin dynamic.
This is about a new way- it is the Old California versus the New. Dave Regan picked this fight.
You did not start it, but you can certainly shape it. Go for it. It is what gentlemen do- they do not start the fight, but they certainly know how to finish it.