Youth jobs are focus of proposed ballot measure

A measure to provide funding for jobs and other services for young people in Sacramento has been proposed for an upcoming ballot. The funding for youth would come from a $29 annual tax on parcels of property in the city, which would be paid by property owners.

The Youth Jobs and Opportunity Act is endorsed by the Sacramento Central Labor Council, said Bill Camp, the council’s executive secretary. The proposal was filed with the City Clerk’s office Dec. 22.

“We’ll come out of this recession,” Camp said. “The point is: Do we come out of it with young people prepared to go after the jobs that are going to be created in this new economy?”

The proposed initiative aims to deliver services to young people ages 11 to 25. The funding would be split into three categories. Jobs and job training for young people would receive at least 40 percent of the funding. At least 20 percent of the funding would be paid to programs that help students with their academic progress. Services for at-risk youth would receive at least 20 percent of the dollars.

After-school programs, apprenticeships and street outreach efforts, among other programs, could be eligible for funding.

“In order to remain competitive in today’s changing global economy, Sacramento’s young people must be provided with the support, experiences and opportunities that will prepare them to thrive in the workforce and make positive contributions to the community,” the proposal states.

Camp noted that the proposed initiative includes a tax exemption for low-income property owners.

The City Clerk’s office expects to receive a ballot title and summary for the proposed initiative from City Attorney Eileen Teichert by Jan. 6, according to assistant city clerk Stephanie Mizuno.

Read the proposed initiative here.

The city’s process for a ballot initiative is outlined here.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue. RSS Feed

January 1, 2010 | 11:21 AM

This initiative is a sound public investment to ensure the future private producitvity of our region.

January 3, 2010 | 7:37 PM

So your saying public funding of private enterprise?

January 1, 2010 | 11:48 AM

Another property tax, great.

Why don’t they tax everyone instead of just a small population of people who pay property taxes? In doing that they would raise more money and all the people voting for this measure would be affected by the tax. This measure also pits those who have to pay property taxes against those who don’t care because someone else will be taxed and not them.

Lame…. vote NO.

January 1, 2010 | 12:15 PM

This would appear to create another bureaucracy for implemention, which means at least 15% if not more of the funding would go to staff, premises, overhead. etc.

These services can and should already be incorporated into existing programs administered by education (where haughty administrators there look upon “work” as being a dirty word), SETA and EDD and County Dept of Human Services. Were the county funds for TANF totally eliminated? DHA’s mission on its website still reads “fostering self-sufficiency among those it serves touches every facet of daily life, from employment . . education . . .”

No youth should have to pay to learn vocational skills in a two-year college as they do in California, but not in many other states.

An existing major problem with current programs is the failure to include parents for those 18 and under 18 to ensure parental support.

tab
Avatar of tab
January 2, 2010 | 3:07 AM

Right on advocate. This should be handled by the money we pay for education or get it from the lottery. More taxes BS. besides the kids would probably never see none of this money, bit it would go to line the political criminals for jet trips to all parts of the world. This is a bunch of political crap

January 2, 2010 | 8:30 AM

The Unions shut down public school vocational training. They want to control all forms of vocational training.

January 1, 2010 | 1:28 PM

Let me see…the Sac Labor Council is behind this. So guess he would get all the free (I mean training) labor??

Perhaps if kids actually stayed in school, studied and prepared themselves through the innumerable courses available through the high schools, community colleges and private colleges, they would be prepared to enter the labor market. After all isn’t this a function of the schools??

This sounds like something Darrel Steinberg would dream up… which means ist bound to appeal to the yahoos on the city council.

January 1, 2010 | 5:17 PM

Its a scam b y the unions to get your tax dollars

January 1, 2010 | 11:13 PM

Jim, you must be paranoid about or had a very bad experience with unions. They didn’t shut down vocational training in California high schools–educators who believed that every student should go to college did that years ago.

Unions have known for decades that cooperation with Voc Rehab, private skills training schools, apprenticeship programs and in other states high schools with shop and vocational training courses and trade tech schools is to their and industry’s advantage. Such courses produced excellent candidates to be hired for OJT and trades by various businesses and industries.

It was also the labor union members whose efforts and sacrifice, often in lives, gained momentum and support against tremendous robber baron odds in the 1800′s which finally created a blue collar middle class in this country.

Rhys02: What are those “innumerable” shop and vocational classes in Calif high schools? More mechanically gifted students would probably stay in school if they were allowed to acquire skills which enabled them upon graduation to enter into jobs which paid a reasonable wage to earn a living.

January 2, 2010 | 8:26 AM

Oh really Dale? Where you in the meetings with unions?

Dale you have probably never been in a union in your life… In fact when was the last time you even had a job?

Stop commenting on something you have no experience or knowledge of. UNIONS fight tooth and nail to shut down ALL non union training programs….

February 3, 2010 | 12:21 PM

this jim knapp chap has obviously had a sad life. dont let his negativey stop you from giving youth a great oppurtunity in the comming years. this bill provides prevention instead of intervention. i mean if you wanna spend more money on jails and cops in the future rather than biting the isue in the but now… i mean then agree with this chap. but lets be honest knappy – you dont know what your talking about and your ignorant comments are just propaganda that scew the thoughts of others. keep that to your self.
please and thnak you
xoxo

January 2, 2010 | 8:41 AM

I noticed there’s a tax exemption for low-income property owners. If you own property in this day and age, you can afford the $29 bucks. Sounds like more take from the responsible and give to the irresponsible. In other words, Obama/Steinberg/Bass socialism/unionism at its worst. The country is fed up with this crap. Vote NO!

January 2, 2010 | 1:07 PM

Sorry, you are wrong all counts, Jim. Yes, I was in meetings with unions. And yes, I have belonged to a union and yes I was in contract employment (that is a job, you know) until three years ago.

You are the one who should stop making accusations and commenting on things you have little factual knowledge of.

January 3, 2010 | 12:42 AM

Then YOU are a part of the problem Dale… Unions want to control ALL forms of training… and if you were actually in a union you would know this.

January 3, 2010 | 1:12 PM

While I oppose this tax proposal, you are just plain WRONG WRONG Jim when you write “Unions want to control ALL forms of training.” I could give you several reasons and examples but I conclude from your past comments on this and other topics that once you have stated your position, you don’t want to be confused with facts that don’t support you position.

January 2, 2010 | 10:16 PM

Maybe I missed it but reading through the text of the act, I didn’t see any figures as to how much the city is expected to collect a year. Also in section F (2), it claims annual audits are mandatory, sounds great but it lacks breadth and guidelines. On top of the $29 tax ruse the text of the act notes the average costs too incarcerate a youth is $92,000 a year, the per capita GDP in the US stands at $46,900. Sounds as if The Sacramento County Office of Probation is being audited with just as strict auditing measures.

February 3, 2010 | 12:16 PM

Lets be honest here. First of all my dad – jay Schenirer – has not funded any of this project. this is not a

June 9, 2010 | 4:19 PM

This is nothing more than a ploy by the “Obamahood” lefties to “ground and pound” more of our hard earned money from our piggy banks… I’m SICK and tired of bleeding heart liberals looking through the lazy, zero initiative taking, ignorant, excuse making teen/adult – standing right in front of them – and only seeing the pocket books of the hard working, self made American’s who did what they were suppose to do, when they were younger. This is about giving a stage to the weak minded, lazy, morally corrupt, “Johnny Come Lately” who instead of standing on a street corner and begging have found a liberal attorney who has half a brain to type out an initiative petition… Anyone out there who has the pride in their Country, as I do… And who has struggled to achieve a better life for themselves and their families, please join me in boycotting each and every store that you see these carpetbaggers begging for signatures… Just a couple would include Wal-Mart and Riley’s…

Leave a Reply