Governor Brown agrees to sign AB-1839

[Jeff Wexler]

This is very important to all of us who have made California our home (and for some of us California is our home state) and for the State which used to be the movie capital of the world. As many know, I am NOT in favor of ANY of the incentive programs that subsidize one of the most profitable industries in the world (and the industry that we have relied on for employment for all these years, those of us with really long careers), but it looks as if it is the only way that we can have jobs come back to our state.

 

***** Governor Brown agrees to sign AB-1839 *******

This morning Governor Brown has agreed to sign AB-1839 with a annual budget of 330 million for 5 years. Not only does this more than triple the current annual amount it removes certain restrictions that have limited who could apply for the tax incentive. This is a huge step to bring meaningful work back to California. Below is the press release from Governor Brown's office. 


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Contact: Governor's Press Office
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
(916) 445-4571

Governor Brown, Legislative Leaders Strike Deal on Film and Television Tax Credit

SACRAMENTO – Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr., Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins, Senate President pro Tem-elect Kevin de León, Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, Assembly Republican Leader Connie Conway and Senate Republican Leader Bob Huff today announced a deal to expand, extend and improve California’s Film and Television Tax Credit Program.

“This law will make key improvements in our Film and Television Tax Credit Program and put thousands of Californians to work,” said Governor Brown.

Today’s agreement increases the tax credit to $330 million a year for five years beginning with fiscal year 2015-16 and replaces the currently flawed and arbitrary lottery system with a more competitive and accountable system.

“Today, we're one step closer to premiering a statewide Film and TV Tax Credit that is smart and strategic – with a renewed laser-focus on creating good, new jobs for Californians. This is a crown-jewel industry that provides jobs and opportunity for middle-class families in every region of our Golden State. We're sending a powerful signal today that we are 100-percent committed to keeping the cameras rolling and bright lights shining in our state for years to come,” said President pro Tem-elect de León.

“Not only does extending the Film Tax Credit keep cameras rolling in California, it will keep costumers designing, craft services catering, and carpenters hammering. It’s just common sense – when California hosts more production, we get more jobs and more revenue – two things our state can always use. I’d like to thank the co-stars of this effort, Assemblymembers Raul Bocanegra and Mike Gatto, President pro Tem-elect Kevin de Leon – and, of course, Governor Brown for ensuring the final scene is a good one,” said Assembly Speaker Atkins.

“In the last fifteen years, film production has dropped nearly 50 percent in California. In 2013, 21 of the 23 new prime time series were filmed outside of California. When that happens, it’s the ‘behind the scenes’ workers who take a hit, as well the ancillary businesses that serve the production sites and teams. If California is going to get these jobs back, we must compete with other states and nations who are clamoring for that big movie business. It’s one of the reasons why I am a co-author of AB 1839, and I want to thank the governor for his leadership to get a bill that keeps these jobs in California,” said Senate Republican Leader Huff, a co-author of the legislation.

“For too long, film and television productions have been leaving California for other states and countries. With California's legacy as home to an entertainment industry that generates billions for our state's economy, lawmakers must do everything we can to lure back these productions and the jobs associated with them. Assemblymember Wilk and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have worked hard to reach agreement on this important legislation. I applaud its passage and our efforts to grow our economy and create and retain good-paying jobs,” said Assembly Republican Leader Conway.

The current film tax credit allows the California Film Commission to allocate up to $100 million of income tax credits a year to limited kinds of productions made in California. A lottery is used to award the credit. The new tax credit program eliminates the lottery system and applicants will instead be ranked according to net new jobs created and overall positive economic impacts for the entire state.

The legislation, AB 1839, is authored by Assemblymembers Mike Gatto (D-Los Angeles) and Raul J. Bocanegra (D-Los Angeles).


Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr.
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814

[taylormadeaudio]

Wow,

That's good news (sort of)... maybe I'll be moving back to L.A. : /. I do miss the palm trees... and the smell of jasmine.

~tt

[Eric Toline]

Nothing wrong with shopping for the best deals to save money, we've all done it. States have offered deals to businesses for years. We just don't like it when it affects us.

[old school]

While the bill doesn't directly affect my commercial world in LA, I am thrilled for all the TV n Film biz friends of mine who have had to work out of town so much for the last 10 years. It's good for California business, so it is good for all of us out here. Like JW, I wish this weren't the game, but it is. I'm sure the political divide will raise its yammering head about this, but that is nothing new

CrewC

[Jeff Wexler]

Nothing wrong with shopping for the best deals to save money, we've all done it. States have offered deals to businesses for years. We just don't like it when it affects us.

Not the whole story, Eric, and it is not nearly as simple as "shopping for the best deals" as it applies to our industry. I will discuss this in greater detail at a later date. 

[Jeff Wexler]

While the bill doesn't directly affect my commercial world in LA, I am thrilled for all the TV n Film biz friends of mine who have had to work out of town so much for the last 10 years.

I wish the impact of the whole incentive state, tax rebates and so forth, only amounted to more things going "on location" out of (my) town or where I live. Then it would be my own personal choice whether I wanted to take a job that was going to be shooting a distant location. The impact, as you probably know, has been much deeper than that --- simplest example is the number of productions that will not hire a crew member from the West Coast and will only consider those that they can hire at their location (which is actually an "in town" job for the locals who are being hired. There are a lot of other things going on that I think ultimately are going to bring down everyone's wages and working conditions, even as things come back to California.  

[old school]

The downward pressure on wages and conditions in LA have been gaining strength since the 80's.. Our big mistake was relenting to this as a way to keep business in town IMO. NY didn't and look at them now. Granted they have big incentive package's but their wage n conditions are mostly intact.

CrewC

[Will Youngman]

I wish the impact of the whole incentive state, tax rebates and so forth, only amounted to more things going "on location" out of (my) town or where I live. Then it would be my own personal choice whether I wanted to take a job that was going to be shooting a distant location. The impact, as you probably know, has been much deeper than that --- simplest example is the number of productions that will not hire a crew member from the West Coast and will only consider those that they can hire at their location (which is actually an "in town" job for the locals who are being hired.

On the flip side. I know how much it sucks to have a production come to the city that I live in and they say that they aren't hiring any locals except for pa's because they are flying everyone in from California.

[Jeff Wexler]

I understand the frustration, Will, but you have to remember that when I started out and for the first 10 years or more of my career in sound, most all jobs that originated in California never hired ANY key crew people when on location. This is why the majority of veteran (old) crew people began their careers in one of the only 3 major centers: Los Angeles, Chicago and New York.

[studiomprd]

JW: " Then it would be my own personal choice whether I wanted to take a job that was going to be shooting a distant location. "

well sure, but your cherry picking... productions can go out of town, but they have to take Hollywood crews...  that ship has sailed.

[Jeff Wexler]

About that "sailing ship" --- that's what I am talking about. 

[taylormadeaudio]

Shouldn't people be able to hire whoever the hell they want to hire?

I know in some ways this type of rhetoric is fuel on the fire, but when it comes down to it, I would certainly take issue with someone telling me who I can or can't hire - especially if it's simply based on where that person chooses to call home.

I've been on both sides of that coin at various times - having grown up in L.A., and then moving to the NW prior to starting my career as a Soundie... either way, I just think people should be able to hire whoever they want for the job.

~tt

[Jeff Wexler]

Shouldn't people be able to hire whoever the hell they want to hire?

 I just think people should be able to hire whoever they want for the job.

~tt

Well, that is the way it used to be, but now producers, production managers and studio directives are insisting that a production hire locally --- that is, hire a local (union if it is a union job) person at the prevailing rates in that local and a crew person that the production is not contractually required to pay travel, per diem and lodging. So, if someone high up on the food chain, a producer or the director, does not want to hire locally, they have to have a battle with the studio, the budget, to hire the person they want to hire.

[taylormadeaudio]

It's ridiculous - and I would think somewhat insulting (it is for me, anyways) to know the only (or main) reason I got a job was because the ASA essentially says I'm worth less than a mixer who lives in L.A. State incentive programs just seem to reinforce the idea.

And then to force that on a production - basically telling them who they have to hire... it just doesn't seem right.

Anyhow, I'm reminded of this:

Maybe when EVERY state has an incentive program, then they'll all agree to "disarm" and go back to how it used to be: you shot where you shot because that's where the story took place... you hire who you want to hire because they're who you want to hire.

~tt

[Jeff Wexler]

"Maybe when EVERY state has an incentive program, then they'll all agree to "disarm" and go back to how it used to be: you shot where you shot because that's where the story took place... you hire who you want to hire because they're who you want to hire."

 

The people (crew) who are getting these jobs because they live in a certain state don't really care and I'm sure they do not feel insulted --- pleased to have work when previously they might have had nothing (why hire a sound mixer who lives in Atlanta when you want to hire the guy you've always used).

 

I don't think it will ever go back because there is so much money involved, not just the incentive and tax rebate programs but all the side "business" of brokering the selling of tax breaks, corruption in the state controlled film commissions, etc., etc. And of course the "incentive wars" where every state (and foreign countries) will always try to out do the others by offering even more favorable terms.

 

Money is dictating everything (globally) and in terms of directors and producers choosing how they want to do things, it's not really up to them anymore.

[taylormadeaudio]

You're absolutely right Jeff. My idealism sometimes gets the best of me. I'm actually one of those people who "benefit" from the incentive program in my state - to a degree. I'm thankful to be on the tail end of a scripted episodic production shooting in my home town this season - it's been fairly lucrative. I just can't help but "fantasize" a bit about what my rate might be on this thing if it was the same rate mixers are getting in L.A. or NYC...

Not complaining though. Like everyone here, I just want to work and provide for my family.

I jokingly refer to myself as a "carny with dental" when asked what I do for a living, but all in all, it beats a desk job, hands down.

I'm grateful to be doing what I love - wherever it takes me : )

~tt

[studiomprd]

tt: " Shouldn't people be able to hire whoever the hell they want to hire? "

well, of course... er... kinda... it depends!

If I offer you a reward for playing in my sandbox, and the more you use my toys, and the less you bring your toys, the bigger the reward will be... if you want to play with your toys in my sandbox, OK, but I don't have to reward you...  that is how rewards work; there is nothing wrong with JW's scenario: whoever is paying the bills wants to maximize their rewards.

" And then to force that on a production "

actually it is coercion...

 

" it's been fairly lucrative. I just can't help but "fantasize" a bit about what my rate might be on this thing if it was the same rate mixers are getting in L.A. or NYC.. "

but, if "they" had to pay those high LAX/NYC union rates, then you would not have gotten that lucrative work, but maybe JW would have.

[old school]

We  (states, taxpayers, workers) all are being played against one another for the benefit of very successful corporations that hire Harvard MBA's by the dozen dozens.... That is the game we all are in for better or most likely worst. I think many see the final score.

CrewC

[Henchman]

You're absolutely right Jeff. My idealism sometimes gets the best of me. I'm actually one of those people who "benefit" from the incentive program in my state - to a degree. I'm thankful to be on the tail end of a scripted episodic production shooting in my home town this season - it's been fairly lucrative. I just can't help but "fantasize" a bit about what my rate might be on this thing if it was the same rate mixers are getting in L.A. or NYC...

Not complaining though. Like everyone here, I just want to work and provide for my family.

I jokingly refer to myself as a "carny with dental" when asked what I do for a living, but all in all, it beats a desk job, hands down.

I'm grateful to be doing what I love - wherever it takes me : )

~tt

We'll, if you want LA or New York rates, then move there.

[Philip Perkins]

Somewhat absent in this discussion (which is mostly about location sound work as opposed to post) is the change in the concentration of skills (at least in prod sound) and the barriers to entry into the field.  The truth is that there are a lot more really good soundies working in places that are not LA, due to the filmmaking diaspora (for whatever reason it happened) and the internet as a resource for info (of which this forum is the beau ideal).  The equipment isn't quite as expensive as it was, and there isn't the need (or even the desire) to have a perfect mono mix made on site for each scene--a deskilling of the craft some will say, but there it is.  So since it is very possible to get an adequate job done by a local who might have a few credits and who will work lo budg, that's what gets done.  I don't think anyone pretends that the results will be the same as if Jeff W or one of the other LA "Greats" did the film, but it will be good enough for the task at hand (and the money is saved).

 

Meanwhile, in post-production, I've lost 3 features so far this year due to subsidies offered in the filmmaker's home state (not CA), people I had been working with for years in some cases.  So that subsidy thing can be felt in post as well….

 

philp

[Henchman]

Its definitely been felt in post as well.

Which is why I am expecting the next 5 years to be a big boom in LA.

[studiomprd]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/28/like-ardent-bachelors-on-a-tv-reality-show-cities-/

[Jeff Wexler]

We'll, if you want LA or New York rates, then move there.

...and try and get a job! Staying put in one of the states that are getting all the work, you will have twice as much work possibly, but at half the pay rate!

[taylormadeaudio]

We'll, if you want LA or New York rates, then move there.

Maybe you didn't read my first post - in any case, I'm fully aware that there are choices in life. I grew up in L.A., completely enamored by the film business from the moment a crew showed up on my block decades ago. Perhaps that's why I wound up in the business anyway despite the fact that I moved out of L.A. as a teen.

There are parts of SoCal I absolutely love (and miss)... having a family, and trying to negotiate life's challenges with and for them makes it a little more complicated than the simple "then move there" solution you advocate.

I understand it worked out fairly well for you, Mr. Hensley, and kudos to you for that - it shows initiative and bravery; a calculated risk.

Believe me, I'm calculating - and if I ever reach a point in my career where I feel my family will be better served by such a migration / homecoming, rest assured it will happen ; )

~tt