Email

Complaints

User Account

Login/Logout

Search

Talk Back

Tools

Information about Public Policy Institute of California Public Policy Institute of California 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94111 Phone: (415)291-4400     Fax: (415)291-4401 http://www.ppic.org Rank: No ranking. Summary: Homeowners and advocates report that they are a corporate interest propaganda group attempting to "advise" the California goverment. • Convoluted study finds residential water crisis where none exists - Dan Walters - July 23, 2006 Tracy M. Gordon, a researcher they empolyed in 2002 wrote a report on homeowner associations. She published the attached report - titled "Planned Developments in California: Private Communities and Public Life" . It is a summary of information by industry and government consultants and contains no consumer or public input from homeowner advocates and pro-homeowner experts. Advocated reported they had contacted her but were ignored. Other Information: The Public Policy Institute of California is a think tank and non-profit organization founded by David W. Lyon (President - CEO) and Raymond L. Watson (Chairman of Board - Vice Chariman of the Board of Irvine Company - developers and major land holders.). It is financed by a donation of $125 million given in 1994 and 1996 from William R. Hewlett. The organization states that it's objective is to provide information to state leaders so they can understand issues in order to better make public policy decisions. They focus their writings on population, economy, governance and public finance, using information on education, health care, immigration, income distribution, welfare, urban growth, and state and local finance. David W. Lyon - President and Chief Executive Officer- (415) 291-4430

5. Public Policy Institute of California Communications and Promotions     Communications (415) 291-4436 Abby Cook - Director - Communications. Been with the Institute since 1996 through 2004 overseeing PPIC's media, state and federal government, and outreach efforts. Victoria Pike Bond - associate. Was a communications consultant for Caltrans, the City and County of San Francisco, and the U.S. Surface Transportation Board's Section of Environmental Analysis. She also promotes the institute's work to state and national media, policymakers and their staff, state agencies, and the public. She produces communications pieces news releases, website information, and organizes, and manages events and briefings featuring PPIC researchers and their work and oversees the institute's media database. She holds a B.A. in political science from the University of Minnesota. Posted Aug 26 2005 4:03PM CEST     Username withheld , California   4. Misleading survey premise and press release by Public Policy Institute     The following is a quote from an article in Chron.com by David Katz . David Katz questions the premise of a survey and a press release by pollster Mark Baldassare, the research director of the Public Policy Institute and criticizes an article about the survey by the San Francisco. Chrnonicle's political writers Wildermuth and Herel . Chronicle Political writers Wildermuth and Herel's latest fails Journalism 101.- David Katz -, September 03, 2002 Following are portions of the article: The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is a private, non-partisan foundation created in 1994 and substantially endowed by the late Walter R. Hewlett of Hewlett and Packard. Arjay Miller, past dean of the Stanford business school, and Walter B. Hewlett (Walter R's son) sit on the Institute's board. Mark Baldassare, Senior fellow and the survey's author, has been at the PPIC since 1998. Prior to that, he was a professor at UC Irvine, 1981-2001, including stints at the School for Social Ecology and as holder of the Johnson Chair for Civic Governance and Public Management. Apparently, Professor Baldassare ran a side business (1986-1997) as a pollster for major California newspapers including the San Francisco Chronicle. While there is nothing ominous about this, these facts show a single family, Silicon Valley – Stanford dominated organization with a life long academic as pollster. The premise that voters see the election as a lose-lose proposition comes from one question out of 58 asked on the PPIC survey. Instead of reading the survey and drawing their own conclusions, reporters Wildermuth and Herel of the S F Chronicle appear to merely restate the first sentence of the PPIC's own press release. "Facing gloomy economic times, Californians are intensely interested in the race for governor but not inspired by their choices, according to a new survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California" Comparing this to Wildermuth and Herel's lead sentence, "Hammered by stock market losses and an anemic economy, Californians are pessimistic about the state's financial future and don't believe either of the major candidates for governor will be able to pull the state out of its hard times." It's surprising that the Chronicle didn't have the Public Policy Institute of California write their entire article. Wildermuth and Herel do not present the PPIC's track record for accuracy in gubernatorial elections. They don't present other surveys from other organizations. Their argument is incomplete and unbalanced. Additionally, the writers don't even investigate the ramifications of this assumed pessimism for the election. Instead of presenting facts or building their case, they present three similar "man on the street interviews" which add little to the article's content or credibility. In total, the case presented by Chronicle political writers reduces to one question on one survey by one organization. The conclusion of "Voters see the race as lose-lose situation" appears based more upon assumption then fact. Its argument is untrustworthy and a critical reader would do well to disregard it. The article and its writers suffer, justifiably, from lack of credibility. John Wildermuth and Suzanne Herel's August 29th article "Voters see the race as lose-lose situation" fails journalism 101 because it rambles without direction and substitutes restating a press release for research. Posted Apr 22 2004 1:18AM CEST     Username withheld San Juan Capistrano, California   3. Public Policy Institute of California     Chronicle Political writers Wildermuth and Herel's latest fails Journalism 101. Posted by David Katz Tuesday, September 03, 2002 Chronicle Political writers Wildermuth and Herel's latest fails Journalism 101. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/08/29/MN113301.DTL) Chronicle political writers John Wildermuth and Suzanne Herel's August 29, 2002, above the fold article, "Voters see the race as lose-lose situation" rambles without direction and restates a press release instead of providing facts or building a credible case. In "Voters see the race as a lose-lose situation" the front page editors state their premise, "Little confidence in Davis, Simon to revive the economy, polls finds." While in the first paragraph, the writers state their premise, "Hammered by stock market losses and an anemic economy, Californians are pessimistic about the state's financial future and don't believe either of the major candidates for governor will be able to pull the state out of its hard times." Other than this tortured lead-off sentence, the writers spend their front page presence rambling through economic sentiment. The reader is left to figure out which of these issues, economics or politics, is the article's subject. Wildermuth presses ahead with gloomy statistics: fifty five percent of respondents think California's in a recession; seventy three percent of Bay Area residents think there's a recession; and twenty six percent of respondents think the situation is serious. Wonderful as this information is, it doesn't address the premise that neither candidate polls well. Given that the article is titled "Voters see the race as a lose-lose situation", one would expect to read about the governors race. We have to wait until page A15 before this subject is broached. The grist of Wildermuth's argument on both gubernatorial candidates is summed up in one conjoined sentence fragment, "But 54 percent of those surveyed said that they aren't satisfied with either man." A critical reader's next logical question would be "says who?". Unfortunately, Wildermuth and Herel neglect to present the reader with anything other than cursory information about the survey, the sponsoring organization, or Mark Baldassare, its author. Wildermuth and Herel do cite that the survey was taken between August 14 and 21, 2002 and included 2,014 California adults of which 993 were listed as "likely voters" by the survey. Additionally, the survey lists a 2.5 percent margin of error. This is the sum total of Chronicle presented information about the survey, its' author and the sponsoring organization. Given the Chronicle's lack of facts and low regard for its readers, ChronWatch has to put the survey in context. The survey was conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) which is a private, non-partisan foundation created in 1994 and substantially endowed by the late Walter R. Hewlett of Hewlett and Packard. Arjay Miller, past dean of the Stanford business school, and Walter B. Hewlett (Walter R's son) sit on the Institute's board. Mark Baldassare, Senior fellow and the survey's author, has been at the PPIC since 1998. Prior to that, he was a professor at UC Irvine, 1981-2001, including stints at the School for Social Ecology and as holder of the Johnson Chair for Civic Governance and Public Management. Apparently, Professor Baldassare ran a side business (1986-1997) as a pollster for major California newspapers including the San Francisco Chronicle. While there is nothing ominous about this, these facts show a single family, Silicon Valley – Stanford dominated organization with a life long academic as pollster. A picture Wildermuth neglects to present. The writers also neglect their statistics. The survey samples 2,014 adult respondents in both English and Spanish. Of that total, 1,549 were registered voters and from those 1,549 registered, 993 were listed as "likely voters". Of the 2,014: 35% were Democrats 26% were Republicans 34% were either independent, not registered or don't know 4% were other party Of the 34% who were independent, not registered or don't know: 46% thought of themselves as closer to the Democratic party 27% thought of themselves as closer to the Republican 20% thought of themselves as Neither 8% Don't know If you add this back into the initial breakdown of respondents, you get a survey of: 50.64 % Democrat or with Democrat association 35.18 % Republican or with Republican association 14.18% Neither, don't know or other party Consequently, the survey starts with a sample at 50% Democratic or with Democratic association, 35% Republican or Republican leanings and 14% other. The sample is not balanced and is majority Democrat. This puts the 41% level of respondents who said that they would vote for Governor Davis in a new light. Governor Davis polled, roughly, 9 percentage points below the sample's level of voters inclined to vote for him. Bill Simon polled 5 points below the level of voters inclined to vote Republican. The premise that voters see the election as a lose-lose proposition comes from one question out of 58 asked on the PPIC survey. Instead of reading the survey and drawing their own conclusions, Wildermuth and Herel appear to merely restate the first sentence of the PPIC's own press release. "Facing gloomy economic times, Californians are intensely interested in the race for governor but not inspired by their choices, according to a new survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California" Comparing this to Wildermuth and Herel's lead sentence, "Hammered by stock market losses and an anemic economy, Californians are pessimistic about the state's financial future and don't believe either of the major candidates for governor will be able to pull the state out of its hard times." It's surprising that the Chronicle didn't have the Public Policy Institute of California write their entire article. Wildermuth and Herel do not present the PPIC's track record for accuracy in gubernatorial elections. They don't present other surveys from other organizations. Their argument is incomplete and unbalanced. Additionally, the writers don't even investigate the ramifications of this assumed pessimism for the election. Instead of presenting facts or building their case, they present three similar "man on the street interviews" which add little to the article's content or credibility. In total, the case presented by Chronicle political writers reduces to one question on one survey by one organization. The conclusion of "Voters see the race as lose-lose situation" appears based more upon assumption then fact. Its argument is untrustworthy and a critical reader would do well to disregard it. The article and its writers suffer, justifiably, from lack of credibility. John Wildermuth and Suzanne Herel's August 29th article "Voters see the race as lose-lose situation" fails journalism 101 because it rambles without direction and substitutes restating a press release for research. http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=231&catcode=13 Voters see race as lose-lose situation Little confidence in Davis, Simon to revive economy, poll finds John Wildermuth, Suzanne Herel, Chronicle Staff Writers Thursday, August 29, 2002 Hammered by stock market losses and an anemic economy, Californians are pessimistic about the state's financial future and don't believe either of the major candidates for governor will be able to pull the state out of its hard times. A new poll by the Public Policy Institute of California showed that 55 percent of Californians are convinced their part of the state is in a recession. The mind-set is even gloomier in the Bay Area, where 73 percent of the residents say there's a recession going on and 26 percent say the situation is serious. While politicians keep talking about a long-awaited economic recovery, 51 percent of those surveyed see financial tough times ahead in the coming year. That's up from 46 percent in a January poll. "There's a lot of concern about the direction of the state," said Mark Baldassare, the survey's director. "But the voters don't think the major-party candidates have the answers." After hearing six months of partisan attacks and seeing millions of dollars worth of stinging TV ads, California voters have decided they don't really like any of the contenders for governor. The poll gives Democrat Gray Davis a 41-to-30 percent lead over Republican Bill Simon among likely voters. But 54 percent of those surveyed said they aren't satisfied with either man. Take June Morris, 63, a registered Democrat from Castro Valley who participated in the poll. "I'm waiting for a dark horse to come out of the crowd," said Morris, who cleans homes and offices for a living. "If I have to, I'll vote for Davis again. But I think we can do better." Morris' attitude reflects that of other respondents, Baldassare said. "Voters are saying that they're really not enthused about the two candidates," the pollster said. "Simon hasn't been able to take advantage of the fact that the public isn't feeling positive about the governor's performance on issues that mean the most to them." The survey is bad news for both candidates. Simon has stumbled seriously since a PPIC poll in February had him running just four percentage points behind the governor at 44 percent to 40 percent. Davis, however, has been unable to take advantage of Simon's well- publicized business and financial problems. Despite spending more than $16 million to flood California's airwaves with TV attacks against the Republican businessman, the governor has seen his own numbers drop. Although political pundits believe voters generally don't pay much attention to elections until after Labor Day, California voters appear to be riveted by this year's race. With the election still more than two months away, 74 percent of likely voters say they already are following news of the governor's race either very closely or somewhat closely. A month before the March primary, only 56 percent of the voters were paying the same amount of attention. INTEREST IN GOVERNOR'S RACE "It isn't that people aren't tuned in to the governor's race," Baldassare said. "They are." Education, jobs and the economy, electricity and the state budget are the top four concerns for California voters. Republican voters add taxes to the mix. Carolyn Glendenning, 39, a Democrat from Novato, is particularly troubled by the state of the economy. The new mother was laid off from her job with a technology company when she was six months pregnant. Now she does consulting from home. She will vote for Davis, but grudgingly. "It's kind of a default thing. He doesn't seem to stand for anything, but the alternative is even more wretched," she said. "It's hard to muster the enthusiasm to go in there and pull the lever for Davis. I'm worried about the choices he's going to make about the economy, the things that are going to get cut, like education." Likely voters prefer Davis over Simon, 50 percent to 29 percent, as the man who would do a better job on education issues. Davis also had a slight 42 percent to 39 percent edge when voters were asked who could best handle state budget and tax issues. Simon got the nod, 43 percent to 34 percent, when it came to dealing with energy policy; the two were dead even on the question of the economy. Bob Burman, 74, a Republican from Martinez, is soundly behind Simon. He concedes that he doesn't know much about Simon -- except that he's conservative. But that's reason enough, said the retired music teacher. "This whole power mess wasn't handled very well," Burman said of last summer's energy crisis. "Davis is going to cost us for years to come, literally and figuratively." BRUISING ADS HURTING SIMON Davis' relentless stream of attack ads appear to be hurting Simon's image. By 43 percent to 28 percent, voters say the governor would do a better job of maintaining high ethical standards in government than Simon. Voter dissatisfaction with Davis and Simon hasn't translated into a surge for any of the minor party candidates. Peter Camejo of the Green Party and Libertarian Gary Copeland each received support from 4 percent of those surveyed. In the Bay Area, Camejo was at 7 percent, not that far below Simon's 16 percent. Among third-party and independent voters, Simon and Camejo are virtually tied, with Davis running well ahead of both of them. "It may turn out as the election year goes on that a minor party candidate could catch on," Baldassare said. Robert Lee McMurrian Jr., 61, of Oakland, is one voter who won't be backing Simon or Davis. A VOTE FOR JESSE JACKSON "Neither of them suits me at all. As a black man, they don't show any interest in me whatsoever," said McMurrian, an independent voter and retired truck driver. "I'm going to write in a name -- Jesse Jackson." What the poll shows, Baldassare said, is that Davis and Simon "are getting a lot of money, a lot of attention and a lot of concern, but not a lot of support." The poll was based on telephone surveys of 2,014 California adults, including 993 likely voters, between Aug. 14-21. The margin of error is plus or minus 2.5 percent for registered voters, and 3 percent for likely voters. Posted Apr 22 2004 12:55AM CEST     Username withheld San Juan Capistrano, California   2. Peter Schrag - contributing Editor of the Sacramento Bee     It is very interesting isn't it that Peter Schrag, Contributing Editor of the Sacramento Bee is on the Advisory Council of the Public Policy Institute and the Sac Bee has recently been questioned for its weak coverage of the increased risk and liability to the HOA homeowners? By the way, Tracy Gordon, do you live in an HOA? Have you EVER lived in an HOA? Posted Apr 21 2004 9:15PM CEST     Username withheld , ot   1. Board of Directors - Advisory Committee - 2004     Board of Directors Raymond L. Watson - Chairman Vice Chairman of the Board - Irvine Comany Edward K. Hamilton Chairman - Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Auschuler, Inc. Gary K. Hart Founder - Institute of Education Reform - California State University - Sacramento Walter B. Hewlett Directory - Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities David W, Lyon - Center for Public Policy Institute of California Vilma S. Martinez Partner - Munger, Tolles & Olsen LLP Cheryl White Mason Chief - Civil Liability Management - Los Angeles City Attorney Arjay Miller Dean Emeritus - Graduate School of Business - Stanford University Ki Sum Park Design and Managing Pertner - Gruen Associates Constance L. Rice Co-director - The Advance Project Thomas C. Sutton Chairman & CEO - Pacific Life Insurance Company Cynthia A. Telles Department of Psychiatry - UCLA School of Medicine Carol Whiteside President - Great Valley Center Advisory Council Mary C. Daly Research Advisor Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Clifford W. Graves General Manager - Department of Community Development - City of Los Angeles Elizabeth G. Hill Legislative Analyst - State of Calfiornia Hiliary W. Hoynes Associate Professor - Department of Economics - University of California, Davis Andres E. Jimenez Director - California Policy Research Center - University of California - San Bernardino Associated Governments Daniel A, Mazmanian C. Erwin and Ione Piper Dean and Professor School of Policy Planning and Development - University of Southern California Dean Misczynski Director - California Research Bureau Rudolf Nothenberg Chief Administrative Officer (Retired) - City and County of San Francisco Manuel Pastor Professor, Latin American & Latino Studies - University of California, Santa Cruz Peter Schrag Contributing Editor - The Sacramento Bee James P. Smith Senior Economist - RAND Corporation Posted Apr 20 2004 4:29PM CEST     Username withheld San Juan Capistrano, California

Return to 'Public Policy Institute of California' | Submit a comment

Forums