OCCUPATION: THE NEW HOOVERVILLES?

These are excerpts from the Inside Opinion blog by Press Democrat editorial writers Paul Gullixson and Jim Sweeney:

Occupy Santa Rosa passed its first significant test, abandoning claims that any bargain with the city would undermine their message. The next challenge may be organizational: managing the 100-tent encampment without losing focus on their larger objectives.

Or will the ongoing existence of the camp itself stand as a message?

During the Great Depression, hundreds of shantytowns popped up around the country. Dubbed Hoovervilles, they were a powerful political symbol. And in some cases, they became community nuisances, with authorities burning the tents and scattering the residents.

Santa Rosa Councilman Scott Bartley, who cast the deciding vote to allow the local Occupiers to stay for now, told me he was impressed by how quickly they responded to concerns raised about safety and sanitation at Tuesday's council meeting and by the apparent unity of the demonstrators. "We didn't have the 99 percent splitting into 60-40," he said.

By agreeing to a permit system, the Occupiers abandoned claims that civil disobedience was central to their cause. And they appeared to agree on some core issues -- income disparity, the care of the homeless, and the corrupting influence of money in politics -- that should resonate with much of the public.

A few of the Hoovervilles lasted until the early 1940s. As we head into the wet winter months, it'll be interesting to see how long the Occupiers keep up their vigil.

-- Jim Sweeney

If you write about public employee pension programs, it's not unusual to be accused of "pension envy." After perusing the state legislative analyst's report on Gov. Jerry Brown's reform plan, I may understand why. "While there have been some reductions in benefits recently, some California governments still offer the most generous defined pension benefits available anywhere in the United States public or private labor market today."

OK, it's a cheap shot.

But the report does provide some valuable analysis that gets beyond counting how many people are collecting six-figure paychecks for not working.

One common theme I hear goes something like this, "How am I supposed to make my house payment and pay my kid's tuition with less than a full paycheck?" As the analyst's report points out, retirement has traditionally implied that houses are paid for and children educated. With reduced expenses for travel and work attire and a lower tax bracket, the report notes that most people can maintain their standard of living with 65 percent to 75 percent of their working income. Academic research backs that conclusion. "In many cases," the report says, "California public pension benefits for career employees -- couple with other sources of retirement income -- can replace far more than the 65 percent to 75 percent income-replacement ratio."

The report also shoots down one of the most common and most misleading arguments against pension reform. That is, with an average benefit of about $25,000 a year, pensions aren't excessive. The trouble with that number is it masks the significantly larger benefits being paid in recent years. The average CalPERS benefit for an employee with 25 to 30 years of service who retired in 2003-04 was $39,600 - well above the overall average. And by 2008-09, as enhanced benefits took hold, the figure had increased 34 percent to $53,100 a year. An added factor, not addressed in the report, is that the enhanced benefits adopted since 1999 generally have included a younger retirement age as well as bigger payments. With people living longer, that adds up to a lot of money. And taxpayers are on the hook for too much of it.

-- Jim Sweeney

One of the hot topics of discussion by Santa Rosa's Charter Review Committee is whether to repeal Santa Rosa's binding arbitration provision which voters adopted 15 years ago. This is slated to be the main agenda item at committee's next meeting on Thursday.

But Palo Alto is one step ahead. Voters there went to the polls on Tuesday and decided it was time to take away that provision. Binding arbitration is essentially a guarantee that any impasse between the city and police and fire unions over pay, benefits and other issues will go to an outside arbiter who will decide who is right based on benefits offered in comparable cities.

Measure D in Palo Alto, calling for repealing of binding arbitration, won by more than a 2-1 margin.

Public safety unions vigorously support binding arbitration, but critics contend that it's one reason pay and benefits have escalated so rapidly -- because cities are wary of going through the expense and complication of such a process. Opponents also contend that it unfairly steers public spending toward police and fire at the expense of other departments. Proponents of Measure D in Palo Alto noted that spending on public safety had increased 80 percent in the past decade while spending on other departments has been essentially flat.

Santa Rosa voters approved binding arbitration in 1996. Only about 5 percent of California cities have the provision. San Luis Obispo overwhelmingly voted to repeal it on Aug. 30.

Santa Rosa could be voting on something similar a year from now.

-- Paul Gullixson