CA: Prop 11 – Voters FIRST Act

Proposition 11 will change the people who govern the boundaries of districts used to elect public officials every ten years. Proposition 11 will create an unnecessary process to give 3 democrats, 3 republicans and 3 independents the power to choose the people who will oversee the distribution of boundary lines.

Rather than going through the whole process of picking those favoring the party views, we should just leave it to the legislature to complete the task. The legislature is chosen by the people to follow through on their interests. We don’t need a group of nine chosen by one office to decide our interests.


CA: Prop 10 – The California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act

Proposition 10 will create a five billion dollar fund to help subsidize consumers who purchase alternative energy vehicles. Yes, you heard it right. The state will pay people to buy cars.

*golf clap*

We all want to jump off the petreoleum bandwagon and into the clean and renewable energy cycle, but the state shouldn’t have to give us an incentive to do so. The decision to purchase a clean car should be up to the individual. They should calculate the cost of fuel and maintenance of a regular car compared to the clean car to decide whether or not to make the purchase.

The fund is not limited to subsidizing car owners; a quarter of the fund will go towards companies researching ways to produce clean vehicles with no expectation of return to taxpayers. Another twenty-five million will go towards educating people about the wholesomeness of purchasing clean vehicles.

Proposition 10 will basically fund the research, production, sale and marketing of car companies pimping their new product.


CA: Prop 7 – The Solar and Clean Energy Act of 2008

Currently, the state requries public utilities to use renewable sources of energy of up to 20% of their capacity by 2010. Proposition 7 is hoping to tack on two more deadlines to the current deadline–40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025.

The opponents of Proposition 7 argue this measure was hastily thrown together to be voted on the November ballot. I agree with them. Tacked at the end of the measure, there is power given to the Energy Commission to sell or lease property to private bidders for generation and/or transmission of renewable energy. Whose property is this and why only to private bidders?

There is just too much information to digest right now. The original deadline has not come to pass yet; in two years, we can revisit this topic again.


CA: Prop 6 – Safe Neighborhoods Act: Stop Gang, Gun, and Street Crime.

Proposition 6 will set aside one billion dollars to be spent on state and local justice programs. The proposition also calls for harsher penalities to gang-related crimes, methamphetamine sales, and vehicle theft.

A billion dollars is needed for this proposition? Really?

So it would cost us a billion now to extend the penalties and five hundred million later to rectify our mistakes (see Proposition 5). Why should it matter if a crime is done when in a gang or not? Each person should be treated accordingly on an individual basis. A murder is a murder no matter if it is gang-related or not.


CA: Prop 5 – Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act of 2008.

Proposition 5 will shorten the prison terms for certain drug offenses. There is a rehabilitation program thrown in there somewhere and a creation of a panel to oversee the changes. Oh, it will also cost taxpayers $460 million annually to support this program.

I am a firm believer of the saying, “if you do the crime, you do the time.” Everyone has a choice when confronted with drugs. They could choose to use the drugs with the knowledge that they will become addicted and may go to prison or they could not. I am not paying to fix their problems if they choose poorly.


CA: Prop 3 – Children’s Hospital Bond Act of 2008

Proposition 3 asks of the California populace for permission to sell general obligation bonds up to $980 million in order to construct, expand, remodel, refurnish, and equip children hospitals. Seeing as how I just wrote a post to vote no on the animal cruelty proposition, it would be horrible for me to vote no on this one as well. But, I will be voting no. The reason?

On November 2004, voters passed Proposition 61 which sold $750 million worth of general obligation bonds for the same purpose. It has taken four years for roughly $400 million to be awarded to eligible hospitals. There is still $300 million sitting somewhere in the coffers collecting dust. Why do we need to add on another $980 million to the surplus when the state is already in debt? When they run out in three years, they can put this proposition back on the ballot.


CA: Prop 2 – Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act.

Proposition 2 will require farmers to provide enough space for a pregnant pig, veal bovine and an egg-laying hen to lie down, stand up, turn fully around and stretch all its limbs without touching its enclosure at the risk of a fine up to $1000 and/or 180 days in jail.

My carnivorous spirit cringes at the amount of concessions we provide an animal that will be consumed in the near future. Don’t get me wrong, I do not support the actions of certain farmers that beat their livestock or carve them up for fun. But, really. The sole purpose of the livestock is to be food for us. They are not pets (which I think is cruel unto itself). There are already enough state laws covering the cruelty of animals.


SF: Prop R – Renaming the Oceanside Water Treatment Plant

Shall the City change the name of the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant to the George W Bush Sewage Plant?

Someone is wasting tax dollars putting this proposition on the ballot. Everyone already knows President Bush has done a poor job in the Oval Office, but do we really need to resort to elementary school attacks? His performance will already be recorded in the annals of history.

Vote No on Proposition R and restrict access for whoever submitted this proposition from ever doing this again. Total waste of time and money and since time equals money, it costs twice as much.


SF: Prop O – Replacing the Emergency Response Fee with an Access Line Tax and Revising the Telephone Users Tax

Shall the City replace the Emergency Response Fee with an Access Line Tax at the same rates and with the same exemptions, and revise the Telephone Users Tax?

That $2.75 fee seen in the phone bill for landlines is currently used to support the 911 service. But a court ruling found fees in general to be more of a tax than a fee. So now the only way the City can keep the fee in the bill is to make it into a tax. Although the revenue from the tax will not necessarily go towards supporting the 911 service. Instead, the revenue generated will go into the general fund where it can be distributed to other services. That sounds like a bad thing.

The proposition is also looking to revise the Telephone Users Tax to tax any future forms of communication whether it be VOIP or some other undiscovered form.

Vote no on Proposition O. Keep the fee until the court says otherwise and when the time comes, the voters can decide whether or not a tax is needed to fund the 911 service.

Pages:  1 2