CA Ballot Propositions 2008

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

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 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.

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

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

Now THAT'S a good idea!

[BarTopDancer]

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

[Morrigoon]

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

[Cadaverous Pallor]

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

[innerSpaceman]

CP's suggestion rules.

[Morrigoon]

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

[Cadaverous Pallor]

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?

[Ghoulish Delight]

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?

[Alex]

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