COURTS SHOULD NOT DEMAND TAX SUPPORTED PUBLIC SCHOOLS HONOR RELIGIOUS HOLIDAYS        

A week or so ago I responded by a letter to the editor to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle. The article reported that an Islamic organization was going to sue the San Francisco school district to demand that they reinstate a discarded plan to schedule a school holiday for the religious holiday of Eid at the end of Ramadan.

       I wrote:

“No religious group should force a public entity to declare a religious holiday by threat of a lawsuit.

The San Francisco school board should read the First Amendment (and the 14^th).  It prohibits passing a law, 'respecting establishment of religion.'  Public schools, as tax-supported entities, should be secular."

The paper’s article had sharply reminded my of my discomfort,  back in the sixth grade with a school activity singing a medley of Christmas songs, because my Jewish/skeptic soul simply could not let me voice phrases like “round yon virgin…holy infant”, “born is the king of Israel”, or about “to save us all from Satan’s power when we have gone astray”.   This wasn’t stuff, or anyone in my family believed.  They weren’t provable statements. And as concepts, I don’t think they’ve had a notably beneficial effect on the world.

Joe Scanlon, of Oakland responded with a letter to the editor a day later:

"Regarding “Public schools should be secular.  Don’t force religious holidays on them” (Letters to the Editor, SF Chronicle.com, March 13):  While I appreciate the sentiment behind Peter Liederman’s letter, which makes sense on the surface, what about Christmas?  That’s a religious holiday if ever there was one.

 I suppose he would like to see public schools declare December 25 to be a regular school day: And what about Christmas vacation?  A lot of schools let kids out for a couple of weeks of vacation because of Christmas.

The same question applies to Ramadan.  To be consistent, public schools should either cancel all Christmas-related holidays or declare the 10 days of Ramdan to be school holidays as well.  Likewise, if public schools are going to have Christmas holidays, they should also allow seven days of holidays during Passover.

   And there are a lot more religions that those three.”

 

  To quibble, per Google, Ramadan lasts 29-30 days; Orthodox Catholicism (with its different calendar for holidays) is with Judaism, Taoism, and Islam four, not three, religions.  And the winter break in most public schools runs approximately from the winter solstice  till the first work day of the New Year.  Also, there is a difference between having school holidays that includes someone’s religious holiday, and having school holidays that honor a particular religious holiday.

       A third writer, Maw Choi, chimed in two days later:

“…I propose that we make all schools adopt a year-round calendar (some schools have this are [sic] already).  There are many benefits to this.

Students will have more school days, and the district can accommodate all religious holidays without negatively affecting meeting curriculum standards.  Teaching about the various holidays can serve as one of the academic goals that would enrich student understanding of culture and history.”

While a course on comparative cultural holidays may be useful in our more globalized world, learning about such things does not require actually taking off those days.  Breaks at the changes of the seasons are good.   Kids need to get out and stretch their legs and breath outside air.  Liberal opportunities should be given for kids and families to whom religious practice is important to take leave from secular schedules. 

Further, the two Christian holidays that are included during public schools Spring and Winter breaks are scarcely faith-based.  Nobody much over age five believes in Santa Claus.  Decorated trees, colored lights, and presents, and Coca-cola drinking Jolly St. Nick kissing mommy under the  mistletoe, isn’t the sort of religion that brought about the Spanish Inquisition, the 30 years war, or the holocaust. 

And as for Easter holiday, most children know it as a pretend celebration of colored-egg laying bunnies, with parents being part of the game. Christians view it as the celebration of the miraculous renewal of the life of Jesus.  Historically, it is the current iteration of a equinox and spring-renewal holiday that probably predates Jesus, Moses, and maybe Abraham.  Adolescents and college students know it as Spring Break, a time to go somewhere warm, drink, and maybe get laid.  

Legally, the notion that governments should be separate from religion has been rather shredded by the U.S. Supreme Court.   The last case I know of that actually evoked the “establishment of religion” clause was a strange case out of New York, Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet  in 1994, when a 6-3 split court ruled that a Hassidic Jewish community could not create a school district whose boundaries carefully wrapped around the geography of their community.  Curiously, the alleged purpose was not to espouse or deny any religious belief, but to allow establishment of a school for children with special needs, receiving state funding, on the theory that the kids, who dressed in Hassidic fashions and often spoke Yiddish, would get tormented if in a school with many children from the broader population.  The Court thought that the state of New York was establishing a religion.    

       Lately, however, the second part of the religious freedom clause “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” has overwhelmed the prohibition on establishing religion almost as badly as the “right to bear arms” has eclipsed its predicate condition of a “well organized militia”.

      Espinosa v. Montana Dept. of Revenue (2020) required Montana, which provided aid money for education from secular sources, to cease excluding religious education options. 

In 2021, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia the Supreme Court held that Philadelphia could not discontinue its contract with Catholic Social Services (CSS) for the provision of foster care services.  The city wanted to discontinue the agreement because CSS refused to certify same-sex couples as foster parents based on a religious objection to same sex marriages.  The court said Philadelphia thus violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.  When Philadelphia said they had a blanket rule against such discrimination, with some discretion allowed, the court ruled that the City was withholding its exemption so as to limit CSS’s free exercise of religion. 

In 2022, the Court in Carson v. Makin dropped the pretense about possible exemptions, ceased mentioning the establishment clause entirely, and held that a Maine state law accrediting only non-sectarian schools for tuition support in districts lacking a public school violates the “free exercise” clause.   

        In these cases, unlike others in which individuals and corporation heads have been given the right to discriminate against people for such heretical practices as marrying persons with similar genitals or using contraception, the public’s civic institutions have repeatedly lost the right to keep their funds from promoting particular religions.  Even so, a Public school acts with fiscal prudence, educational purpose, and respect to its students by scheduling school breaks without reference to the religions of their parents. 

                                      Peter Liederman

                     PROPOSED RULES FOR REPLACEMENT OF GAS-HEAT AND WATER HEATERS UNDERSTATE EXPENSE AND IMPOSITION 

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is proposing Rules[1] that would require any household replacing its gas powered space heater or even water heater with an electric powered heat pump device. 

Supposedly the purpose is to reduce emissions of Nitrogen Oxcides (NOx) a respiratory irritant, though greenhouse gas reduction is also obviously a good purpose.

In fact, a couple of years ago, wanting to do my small bit reducing methane and CO2, I hired a contractor to tell me the cost of  converting a smaller part of my duplex to all electric.  The small unit now serves as an office, but it has its own gas heat and electric supply, kitchen and bathroom. It is 110 mostly non-grounded, knob and tube wiring that would not support an induction electric stove top of more than one burner.  The contractor said I would need a new service panel.  But the new service panel would have to be bigger.  But I could not enlarge the panel because it would then be too close to a window.  So I would have to rebuild that part of the house.  To do any of it I would need a city permit.   I would be looking at far more than $14,000 before even considering buying the new electric heater, stove, and water heater.   

       This last October at an environmental law conference  I first learned of the proposal to enforce all-electric on homeowners replacing broken equipment, or in another proposal to require this whenever property changes hands,  The proponents proudly described their success converting homes in generally poor sections of the central valley.  I questioned about the burden they were prepared to impose in places such as the east and south bay, dense with older housing wired for pre-1970 demands.  They did not seem to have considered the economic burdens seriously.  In the central valley communities, the owners hadn’t minded the change, substantially because they did not have to pay for it, the heat pump systems would also be used to provide air conditioning, and often the service being replaced was propane.

   BAAQMD published a report by Applied Development Economics, an Oregon entity headquartered in Walnut Creek, that does not appear to have a working website, entitled: “Socioeconomic Impact Analysis of Proposed Amendments to Regulation 9, Rule 4: Residential Central Furnaces; and Regulation 9, Rule 6, Natural Gas-Fired Boilers and Water Heaters”.  

       The most concise, if not accurate statement they make is:

“This combined cost of equipment to comply with both Rule 9-4 and 9-6 is estimated at $10,851 of which $8,027 is for space heating and $2,824 is for water heating.  This is about $3,783 more expensive than equivalent gas powered appliances.  In addition, older homes would need to upgrade their electric service, at a cost of $4,256 for single family units and $2,744 for multi-family units. “   

     So one gas to electric conversion is $15,100 in yesterday’s dollars.   That is if you don’t have to modify the structure of the dwelling, if you don’t count the permit fees that the local government will charge, if your taxes don’t get reassessed, and if you don’t have to move out while the work is being done.  Moreover, it assumes the market for installers and equipment will not rise when these suppliers discover they have a market forced by law to make the purchases to keep their dwelling habitable.

       Also, if I am reading the AEM report correctly, the $2824 water heater cost was from a Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory study that for some reason included in its calculation the much less costly replacing at least some existing heat pump equipped electric water heaters.  So the real average figure will be higher.

       In addition, the study predicts that “distributers and construction trades will see an increase in the cost of doing business for higher priced appliances, but this will be offset by higher prices to the customers for the equipment.”   It does not mention that for many such customers the replacement will be an emergency necessary to keep a home habitable.  Careful  shopping will not be an option.

        Yet more: “In addition, the appliance costs can vary considerably depending on the performance characteristics of the particular model chosen by the consumer…In general, electric heat pumps operate with a lower heating capacity than comparatively priced gas-fired furnaces.”   In other words, you will get what you pay for, but it will buy less warmth and comfort.

       The offsetting savings are exaggerated.  The report paraphrases a study by a San Francisco consultancy  Energy Environmental Economics “E3”, that a heat pump user who now uses air conditioners would save $600 per year in utility bills.   That however is for houses served by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District where air conditioning is going  to be used most of the summer.  For the Bay Area, the prediction is an annual savings of $100 to $400 for a single family home, and only $10 to $90 for multi-unit dwellings. The costs net out to a loss.  

       The Report suggests that landlords will simply pass their net increased costs onto their tenants.  The report doesn’t mention how this will work in rent control jurisdictions.  

       The report mentions that the proposal will probably increase the cost to users of gas appliances as the user base for gas decreases.  Increasing the supply of electricity will also cost:   “The CA Independent System Operator (CAOSO) is planning $11 billion in transmission capacity projects over the next 20 years, which covers 80 percent of the entire state service area, and PG&E is planning to spend $400 million per year on distribution projects.” It opines that solar generation capacity would need to be added along with battery storage at a combined cost of $1.95 billion. “It is possible that these investments will result in some future rate increases, which would reduce the cost savings to households from converting to all electric appliances.” 

        “It is possible”?.  Well really it is certain, if you will notice that PG&E always seeks to translate any increase in capital or operating costs into higher rates.  The paragraph adds: “Air District staff may report on rate changes as part of its Implementation Working Group and interim reporting process to the Board of Directors.”  Translation: After this mandate is imposed, we “may” ask for a report on what it really costs the people on whom we have imposed the requirement to replace your water heater or furnace.  

       Much of the remaining economic analysis in the report is based on a theory that water heaters must be replaced every seven years, and furnaces every 18 years, and so if you smear out these costs over these time periods they don’t look so bad, especially given the purported, if unlikely, savings in utility costs.  But the report’s data suggests that 44.5 percent of Bay Area households make less than $100,000, and so a one time expenditure of more than $15,000 is a profound hit, particularly at the lower income levels.      

       A more benign approach would require studying how codes, permits, and electrical service itself might be modernized to make service upgrades quicker and less expensive.   A cost benefit analysis should be applied to put some reasonable balance on the scale as to whether this substantial non-progressive “tax” on unlucky building owners and their tenants, is really the best health and environmental benefit for the dollars involved.

       Finally, BAAQMD should build in flexibility for changing technology.  Around fourteen years ago my wife and I installed a new bathroom.   The light fixtures required by the city demanded use of a particular compact florescent bulb with two prongs for the unique socket.  This was, I presume, environmentally friendly, but the technology immediately became obsolete, and the compact fluorescent bulbs are now considered energy-wasting hazardous waste.   LED bulbs are better in every respect and use regular screw-in sockets.  I hate to think how many City of Berkeley person-hours would be needed to legally change the socket to screw in a different lightbulb. 

It is predictable that 17 years from now, in 2040, our 2023 cutting edge technology will be obsolete.   The bureaucracy now making expensive and intrusive demands on Bay Area households, should be prepared to alter course as soon as appropriate.     

 

 

---

[1] Regulation 9 Rule 4 and Regulation 9 Rule 6

RECOMMENDATIONS ON CALIFORNIA BALLOT CHOICES

 How I view California's ballot choices:  

With only three hours to go before the polls close:

President:  Joseph Biden

    Because Donald Trump must be defeated.  If he returns to the presidency, the earth will have to absorb a possibly fatal dose of greenhouse gas, environmental poisons and generally an evil one-party government led by a narcissistic bully.

As for vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris, she’s good for identity politics and would step into the presidency if needed with knowledge as a senator.

 

Propositions:

14:   Bonds for stem cell research program

        No, the previous bonds really haven’t produced much, and there simply are more desperate health issues at the present including protecting workers from COVID and the populace from homelessness.   Hopefully the U.S. government and private industry will fund this work.

 

15:   YES!   Splitting proposition 13 properties to allow current assessments of commercial property:    

Commercial properties are subject to numerous ways of evading a sale that would permit reassessment.  Commercial properties should pay for themselves including a reasonable level of taxation.

 

16:   Allows some degree of affirmative action for minorities.   

YES, the need for remediation of the harm from  a history of prejudice is still needed.

 

17:   Restores right to vote for felons who  may be on parole. 

No, but a tossup.  I generally do not feel released felons to be either likely to be thoughtful voters, or society to owe them back full citizenship until their terms are completed.  The outcome either way is unlikely to affect the outcome of any election.    

 

18:  Permits 17 year olds to vote in primary elections.  

No.  Among other reasons, primary elections may also address many other matters, while the rationale is that 17 year olds should help pick the candidates they can vote in or out when they are 18.   Probably a level of maturity and responsibility theoretically reached at 18 years is not a bad requirement for the right to vote.  

 

19:  Revises Proposition 13 to exempt from reassessment more property if seniors and some others move to equal or cheaper homes.  It also allows reassessment for property tax purposes of property (worth over $1 million) inherited by children, or grandchildren, who do not live in the property and merely rent it out.

YES.  The transferability of the reduced assessment for long-term residents would probably result in more “right-sizing” of dwelling units as people age, and the reassessment of rental property upon the death of the owner would be a step toward progressive taxation of families to reduce unearned accumulation of wealth.

 

20:  Restriction of early parole release of certain convicts.  

No:   Generally, this seems to be yet another full employment for correctional officers effort.  There is also no particular reason to ask the electorate exactly how particular offenses should be treated.  That’s why we hire politicians and have courts and parole boards.  

 

21:  Expand various opportunities for rent control. 

No.  Living in the Bay Area, Oakland, Berkeley, San Francisco, Richmond, and other communities have passed strict rent control.   We have homelessness, a politics that is all about how much tenants may take advantage of landlords, and no one in their right mind would want to build rental housing or go into the business if they could be prohibited from ever making money.   We need higher wages, more market rate housing, and a lot more highly subsidized housing, paid for by progressive taxation, not more imposition of restrictions on the people willing to provide or invest in housing for others. 

 

22:  Exemption of certain delivery and ride share drivers from wage and hour provisions. 

Yes.   These are not jobs for which the precise, inflexible, wage and hour rules and draconian and one-sided means of enforcement in California labor laws are appropriate.  Laws should be designed to appropriately protect people who choose flexible hours. not force every type of employment into one size fits all box.

 

23:   Rules re kidney dialysis:

No.  This is a medical issue it is a mistake to ask the general public to decide.  We are likely to either get it wrong or make it vastly more expensive.

 

24:  Data privacy:   

No.  This may (or may not) be a good law, though it is very similar to what is already on the books.  The on-line descriptions indicate it is extremely detailed, but rules in the initiative may not work as technology changes.   The California ACLU opposes it but apparently only because they think it does not go far enough.  The industry has been on the sidelines which probably means they want it to pass.   

 

 25:  Replacement of money bail system

YES!.  Although there probably will be flaws in the new system, the existing bail system simply benefits the wealthier and connected (and the bail bond industry) and damages the poor and isolated regardless of their ultimate guilt or innocence.