CA Ballot Propositions 2008
 

Anyone read their booklet yet?

I still am divided regarding bond measures in general. Sometimes, it seems like the only way to get things done. Others, it seems like we should just put more pressure on lawmakers to get these things paid for.

So far, I'm digging the high speed rail idea. Seems worth it.

Humane treatment of farm animals - I'm a recent convert and would like to see this pass.

Hospital bond, meh. Waiting period and parental notification for abortions, no. I have to read the drug offenses one more, because it may have some interesting loopholes. Prop 6 (more money for law enforcement programs) seems like something the gov't should delegate on its own.

Prop 7, on forcing utilities into renewable energy generation, looks pretty good to me. The argument against seems to be that small solar/wind companies may be priced out of the market.....which doesn't sound too bad to me, really.

Prop 8, um, no. :)

Prop 9 seems unnecessary. Prop 10 is mostly about natural gas which seems another drilling speed bump on the way to renewable energy, so no thanks.

Prop 11 is interesting - who do you trust to draw districts, "politicians and bureaucrats" or "people who aren't held accountable and don't face a vote" (citizens)? Hmm...


Opinions subject to change without notice.

I didn't get a booklet! I call shenanigans! Mail fraud! It's a conspiracy!
:D

I did register though.

Your local library should have them.

Got it today and haven't looked at it yet. But unless there is something absolutely compelling my vote will be NO on each of them.

Got mine yesterday, haven't looked at it yet. The ones I know how I will vote are 1A (YES) and 8 (NO). My default position on initiatives and bond issues is NO, and that's reinforced every time I get my property tax bill and see how much of my money is going to the failed school district. I do support infrastructure bonds if they're well-constructed.

Just got the booklet. I guess they're saving paper by only sending one per household? Probably not a terrible idea, but since the bf and I have different surnames, seems they should have sent two.

I'll have to look into the high-speed rail thing, what are they proposing (ie: where?)

8 is a no, that's my main motivation for making it to the polls this November.

If it's the one I've been hearing about, SD to SF through LA.

FINALLY a train from SF to (okay, thru) LA? Awesome. Totally for that, esp. with airfare these days.

I only want high-speed rail if it's L.A. to Vegas.




And are you meaning to tell me there's ballot propositions other than Prop 8???

That's a different proposal, not so far advanced as of yet.

Don't hold your breath for it being much cheaper than flying.

You mean liberry! Yeah, I been to mine to rent me up some movies.
:D


In all seriousness, I'm going to pick one up. I want to read up on them all.
:)

They may be deduping by address only

I'm pretty sure they are. My parents only got one book. Same last name, both registered voters.

BTD, that makes no sense. They have the same last name. Goonie is wondering about people with different last names who share the same address.

They are probably deduping by address only.

This means that they only send one booklet to each address.

Don't know if this matters, but when I hit voting age, our booklets were address to me and my dad as if we were married, since my mom isn't a citizen (green card). It was creepy. We did have the same last name then, of course.

The claim made by the proponents is that it would cost $50, and that driving it costs $87 in gas alone. Wonder what all that is based on.

Supposedly - The fact-finding has all been done and this would go directly towards building the thing.

Flying's already cheaper than driving LA to SF.

(Only doing the math because I was curious.)

It is 409 miles from Disneyland to Ghirardelli Square. On the road, my car averages 23 MPG (if I slowed down, it would be better, but I just can't do that). This means that a one-way trip to San Francisco would require approximately 17.783 gallons of gas. I use regular unleaded and I filled up last night at $3.499 per gallon.

17.783 gallons x $3.499 per gallon = $62.22 Fuel cost for a one-way trip

Obviously, several factors are going to vary, but I think that $60-$65 for gas for a one-way trip to SF is a fair assumption. And of course, wear-and-tear on your car (not to mention your car burning to the ground and spawning an annual tradition) is not included.

I don't know if the $50 cost is one-way or round trip, so I am not sure if the comparison is accurate. But I am suspicious of that figure as an actual (non-subsidized) fare - when was the last time a sell value presented in the planning stages was anywhere near the reality once the project was completed?

Google takes a stand on Prop 8. Note that it was posted by Sergey himself.

Awesome.




Hey, I finally got my booklet in the mail yesterday. Maybe I'll look inside and see if there really are other propositions, or if y'all are just pullin' my leg.








Oh, and if it costs $126 to drive to San Francisco and back, it might cost ten bucks more to fly. You won't have a car when you get there, but you get there in an hour.




And you don't really want a car in San Francisco anyway. ;)

No, really, you don't. If you need one to get out of town, rentals are all over the place.

Besides, in SF proper, gas is still about $3.85 (or higher if it's Shell).

Historically, I tended to drive when at all possible. I just couldn't stand being without a car (even in the Bay area). Besides I like to drive, so the extra time was not a big deal for me.

However, that was back when gas was under $2.00 per gallon. I am not sure I would make the same decision today.

Ya gotta love Google.
:)

Ok, I actually looked at them in detail. My positions.

1A - High Speed Rail
No. I like the idea, but I don't believe this will ever really be built.

2 - Standards for Confining Farm Animals
No. I also support this idea, but I do it with my spending and don't think it should be legislated. Also, if it should be legislated this is a matter for the legislature and falls under my general distaste for the proposition process.

3 - Children's Hopital Bond Act.
Iffy no. Will spend more time looking at the history of this. But this is the second children's hospital bond prop in 4 years because they've already blown through the money given last time.

4 - Waiting period and notification before minor abortion (constitutional amendment)
No. While I support abortion rights I actually have little issue with parental notification requirements for minors. I understand the need for sensitivity but in the end I think parental responsibility for the child trumps most issues. However, I can't support this particular amendment because of the "other adult notification exception" (it should be legal guardian or court, not whimsical "other") and I also can't support the civil penalties section.

5 - Nonviolent drug offenses, sentencing, parole and rehabilitation
No. Again, I am very much in support of the ideas in this complex proposition. I just feel it is the proper jurisdiction of the legislature not the proposition system. I also really don't approve of dictated budget set asides as they are a big source of our state budget problems.

6 - Police and Law Enforcement Funding
No. Purely a fixed budget set aside. Don't approve of such.

7 - Renewable Energy Generation
After 30 minutes of reading I still don't think I understand what it is doing. So, unless I can be shown clearly why this is such a good idea it should be taken out of the legislature's hands, I'll vote No.

8 - Same sex marriage
No. I agree with the supreme court finding, have no issues with same sex marriage (or any other combination between consenting adults) so an easy no.

9 - Victims Rights. Parole
No. Most of the stuff in this one should not be in the state constitution.

10 - Alternative Fuel Vehicles
No. T. Boone Pickens can pay for these himself.

11 - Redistricting
Yes. This plan is significantly flawed but not nearly so flawed as the current method of redistricting. Yes, this prop would ideally be handled by the legislature but they've shown themselves so unwilling to deal with it that I'm holding my nose.

12 - Veterans Bonds
Yes - Historically these bonds have been self-funding and at $900MM I think the credit risk is acceptable.

Woo! Finally remembered to apply for my absentee voter stuff today, meaning I don't have to vote in Utah for this election! WOO!

Now, to catch up on Cali politics while not having to watch the stupid commercials. I win!

But Utah's a red state, you could be helping it be blue....even though it's not going to be blue :)

But she can vote no on Prop 8.

The prop 2 commercial makes me want to be vegetarian again.

My landlady and my friends next door received their absentee ballots today. I did not! Should I be worried?

I came home yesterday to find a Yes on 8 sign posted in the lawn of a vacant house. By lawn, I mean the portion of grass that is between the street and the sidewalk - not the direct front yard.

Trees that grow in this area are pruned by the city. My sprinklers water the grass of this area on front of our home.

Is it ethical to remove the sign? Say, when I left for work in the morning about 5am. I'm guessing not.

Sure. If the house is vacant then it's littering. It's not unethical to remove trash.








(double entendres intended)

Who's going to object?

Ooh, hmm. It's a good idea though. I wonder how many empty foreclosures there are in my neighborhood that need "No on 8" signs? :evil:

that reminds me... I came home from work the other day to find Bill had plastered the front windows of our house with "No on 8" signs. I told him, "Honey, this is Belmont Heights... You're preaching to the choir."

Yeah, but with the polls showing it disturbingly close, it doesn't hurt to remind the choir that there's a reason to cast a ballot.

While I cannot readily find the documentation, I am pretty sure that it is illegal to remove election signs, etc. - even if you don't agree with it. I am sure there are exceptions (such as possibly if someone put it on your private property without your permission), but I believe that you removing the sign is not legal.

And I personally believe it is unethical. I know I wouldn't want somebody removing a No on 8 sign.

I only said sure because it's on the property of a vacant house. So some random person put it up. Unless the house is a rental and the owner put it up.

I say put up a No on 8 sign next to it.

I am pretty sure it would still be illegal. Probably more so since you would be removing it from private property (that isn't yours).

When the last "anti-gay" ballot measure rolled around California a couple of years ago, a neighbor put several signs up in favor of it (we live in a condo complex and the signs were on community property). I was tempted to tear them down (one was almost right in front of our place out on the street), but I decided not to. Not only because it would have been illegal, but also because of the Golden Rule.

Now THAT'S a good idea!

Good points Kevy. I withdraw my suggestion and support Brad's.

Kevy, you're right. Esp. the possibility of the owner putting it up if it's just a vacant property.

OTOH, if it's a bank-owned foreclosure property, perhaps you could pressure the bank to remove it, lest they appear to be supporting the measure :evil:

Just add to the sign, "...if you are fueled by fear and hatred."

CP's suggestion rules.

Found an article about Prop 2: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27105137/

So, what is it with these local elections, where the candidate doesn't even bother to add their paragraph to the Sample Ballot? If you can't make a simple deadline with a simple paragraph, why the hell should I vote for you?

Regarding Prop 7, the alternative energy prop. I think I've decided to vote against it. The biggest reason being that it requires 20 years agreements. That just seems too limiting. If better technologies come along in the meantime, seems to me that would act as a deterrent to healthy competition. I understand that what they want is stability for the alternative-energy providers that do currently exist to be sure they have the confidence to grow their output and meet the demand necessary to reach the 50% mandates in the prop. But 20 year just doesn't sit well with me.

That and it doesn't appear to very accurately define what they mean by "50% of the power generated". We buy electricity from out of state as well as generate our own, yes? So couldn't the providers reach the target percentages simply by generating less of their own and buying more?

I'm voting against it since it is essentially a proposition written for the sole purpose of making T. Boone Pickens richer.