Tonight’s election results had absolutely no surprises; the turnout for the election was decent for a summer deal.
California Propositions
Prop. 98: Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property. Constitutional Amendment. failed with 2,091,890 (61%) NO votes to the 1,342,655 (39%) YES votes. Rent control remains intact.
Prop. 99: Eminent Domain. Acquisition of Owner-Occupied Residence. Constitutional Amendment. passed with 2,129,247 (62%) YES votes compared with 1,282,763 (38%) NO votes making things a little bit more difficult for the government to take homes using eminent domain.
Read more…
I was 8 for 10 in my last election predictions, so I am feeling pretty good about my predictions for the coming June 3, 2008 election.
California Propositions
Prop. 98: Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property. Constitutional Amendment.
Proposition 98 will make it tougher for the government to take property under eminent domain and phase out rent control.
Vote: No
Prediction: No
Prop. 99: Eminent Domain. Acquisition of Owner-Occupied Residence. Constitutional Amendment.
Proposition 99 would restrict the government from taking residential homes under the eminent domain flag.
Vote: Yes
Prediction: Yes
Read more…
Why must the government be so confusing? Proposition 98 and 99 are related on the subject matter yet have slight differences. If proposition 99 passes, proposition 98 would not take into effect and vice versa.
Proposition 99 is less confusing than 98 and does not have the added issue of rent control. Proposition 99 would prohibit the government from taking a single-family home or condominium through eminent domain and transferring the property to another private owner.
Of course there are some caveats.
Read more…
Along with the propositions proposed by cities across the state of California, there are actual California propositions on the ballot which could effect anyone living in said state.
Proposition 98 proposes two amendment changes.
The first change has to do with how eminent domain is handled. The amendment states that property can only be used for a stated public use. If the government changes its mind and wants to use the taken property for a different purpose then they would first have to offer the original property owners a chance to purchase the property.
Read more…
Shall it be unlawful for City elected officials, candidates or political committees they control to solicit or accept campaign contributions from contractors who are prohibited from making contributions to these elected officials, candidates and political committees because the contractor has a pending contract or a recently approved contract before the official or the Board on which the official or an appointee of the official sits?
Proposition H is a pretty open and shut case.
Read more…
Shall it be City policy to encourage timely development of a mixed-use project in the Bayview on Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Shipyard, including a new 49ers stadium or a non-stadium alternative; shall the City be authorized to transfer park land in Candlestick Point for non-recreational use if the land is replaced with new public parks or open spaces of at least equal size and the transfer meets the measure’s policy objectives; and shall Propositions D and F, approved by the voters in June 1997, be repealed?
Proposition G lays out guidelines the developer must follow to meet the conditions to develop the Candlestick Point and Bayview Hunters Point area. The proposition is asking for the public’s approval to move forward on completing the agreement with the developer funding the ballot measure, Lennar Corp.
Read more…
Shall it be City policy that any mixed-use development plan the City approves for Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Shipyard require 50% of all new housing units developed in the area be affordable, give preferences for the rental or purchase of new affordable housing to families of low and moderate income, and, if Alice Griffith housing is rebuilt, replace the units on a one-to-one basis; and shall the City be prohibited from selling, conveying or leasing any City-owned land at Candlestick Point unless the Board of Supervisors finds that the mixed-use development plan for this area incorporates these policies?
Currently, state law requires any new mixed development to include at least 15% affordable housing.
Read more…
Shall the City set qualifications for members of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and change the process for appointing members to the PUC by requiring a majority of the Board of Supervisors to approve the Mayor’s appointments to the PUC?
Proposition E gets an emphatic Yes vote from me.
The Public Utilities Commission handles construction, management, supervision, maintenance, extension, operation, use and control of all water and energy supplies and utilities of the City. They also handle the financial assets under their jurisdiction. In other words, the PUC hold sole dominion over doling out contracts upwards into the billions to retrofit the City’s utilities. A current example would be the $4.3 billion seismic retrofit of the City’s Hetch-Hetchy water system.
Read more…
Shall it be City policy that the membership of City boards and commissions reflect the interests and contributions of both men and women of all races, ethnicities, sexual orientations
and types of disabilities and that City officers and agencies support the nomination,
appointment or confirmation of female, minority and disabled candidates to fill seats on those bodies?
WordPress does not have the emoticon to express the exasperation I felt after reading Proposition D.
Read more…
Shall the City prohibit San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System members who are convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude in connection with their employment from receiving any retirement benefits funded with employer contributions?
At first glance, Proposition C looks like an open-and-shut case. Employees who are convicted of committing fraud or stealing from the City should not receive any benefits from the City.
Read more…