Discussion of California Ballot Initiatives

[Morrigoon]

Rather than fill up the Sooo thread, I thought we'd take the discussion here.

All I've really heard much about are the propositions regarding term limits and Indian Gaming agreements. Does anybody have any opinions or serious info about either of these or any other propositions on the ballots?

[BarTopDancer]

From what I understand (and I could be wrong), the money that comes in from the increased revenue will go to the state AND the poorer tribes. The only people with the big issue are some Vegas Casino owners.

The one I need to do more research on is the community college fees. Gray Davis doubled them, and they have gone up and down since. I need to see how they can lower the costs without raising taxes (and hitting other programs since the state subsidizes the fees).

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

The one I need to do more research on is the community college fees. Gray Davis doubled them, and they have gone up and down since. I need to see how they can lower the costs without raising taxes (and hitting other programs since the state subsidizes the fees).

That's getting a big, fat No from me. It isn't resolving the issue that caused community college tuition to be raised in the first place. There was also a proposition passed several years ago for maintenance and upkeep of the community college campus (this prop said it would allocate funds for that).

[innerSpaceman]

Ever since I drove out to Palm Springs and past the Morongo Resort (is that the one?) with GIANT ROOFTOP DISPLAYS BEGGING FOR PASSAGE OF THOSE INITIATIVES, I've been suspicous of them.

Who knows the deal?* Because unless I find out something concretely positive about them, I'm voting against them. Claims that they will send millions into the state coffers sound like pure spin to me.





*(Not intended as a casino pun)

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Ever since I drove out to Palm Springs and past the Morongo Resort (is that the one?) with GIANT ROOFTOP DISPLAYS BEGGING FOR PASSAGE OF THOSE INITIATIVES, I've been suspicous of them.

I don't know why it'd make you "suspicious", it's pretty obvious that it would benefit the casino. "Hmm, they want me to pass this for some reason, what could it be??"

Each of those would bump a specific Indian Band's number of slot machines allowed from 2,000 to 5,000 for two of them, and from 2,000 to 7,500 for two others.

Payments to the gov't would increase - by a lot. In the instance of prop 94, Pechanga currently pays $29 million to the state, but if this passes, they'll pay at least $42.5 mil, and there are additions to this minimum.

The props include environmental impact requirements, required audits, operating guidelines, etc.

I'm having trouble finding a reason to oppose them - especially because I don't live with one of these tribes in my backyard. I'm sure I'd feel differently if I lived there. But if I did, I'd probably move. I'm not a fan of gambling and the environment it engenders, but people love it, and I prefer letting people be free, as long as I have the option of being away from it. And yes, the gov't should get their chunk.

[Morrigoon]

Agreed. And if they're going to willingly (claim to) toss millions of dollars into State coffers, then what are they getting in return? Makes me terribly suspicious.

[blueerica]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

Agreed. And if they're going to willingly (claim to) toss millions of dollars into State coffers, then what are they getting in return? Makes me terribly suspicious.

They're willing to toss millions of dollars at the State because, clearly, they're making a lot more than that. I don't know what their revenues are, etc, but I'd be willing to guess millions might not be all that much.

[Alex]

91 - Voted no. I don't support sequestering revenues into lockboxed uses. For good or ill we should rely on the legislature to disburse incomes as they see fit. Inidivual lockboxes always sound like a grand idea but ultimately the mass of them end up creating problems.

92 - Voted no. Again tries to create mandatory spending and lockboxes. Also, this is a setting of priorities that should be handled legislatively.

93 - Voted no. I don't support term limits. If the people want to elect the same person to an office for 203 years, even if that person lives out of the jurisdiction and is 12 years old and hates all ethnic minorities, then they should be allowed to do so. Protecting an electorate from a pre-conceived notion of "stupidity" isn't a good idea in my opinion. So, this initiative tweaks with the specifics of term limits and ultimately might be preferable but the only reason it is happening is to reset the terms clock that would otherwise turn Don Perata and Fabio Nunez (those currently in office have their term count reset to zero). So, since it is really just a bald power play I vote no again.

Indian gaming proposals - Talked about those in the So thread but I voted yes on all four. I'd be amused though if two fail and two succeed: further evidence of why initiative process is stupid.

[Kevy Baby]

I have a standing policy against any ballot initiative that involves spending my money.

[€uroMeinke]

Hmmm - I voted the same way Alex did