For Elections About Which You May or May Not Care,
But Which You May Enjoy Reading About Nevertheless.
November 4, 2008
8th Edition
I hope everyone is doing well. With the financial crisis we are all facing it seems we have some important decisions to make in just a few days. Ever one to help, I have put together this unbiased guide to break through the misleading straight talk, provide controversy where there was none, get personal (whether it’s negative depends on your point of view) and get to the bottom of this whole “hope,” “change” and “moose f*@ing” election thing – oh, maybe it was “moose shooting.” There are a lot of important things about which we will talk, and I believe we have set a record for lack of brevity (unless you ever sat through a 1990 Bill Clinton speech). Grab a drink, get comfortable, and lets begin.
My Now-Obligatory Standard Intro:
For those of you receiving this for the first time, let me explain briefly that this is one more in an increasingly occasional series of election guides since 2000, wherein I discuss some of the interesting issues and individuals appearing on the ballot for your consideration and your determination. This voter guide began in response to the myriad ballot initiatives California citizens and legislators spawned over the last decade or so, accompanied by clever or stupid or misleading or devious, but certainly confusing campaign ads. Of course, if not for the folks who always called to ask how they should vote, this would never have started, so you can’t blame me. You know who you are.
President
Candidate Name: Barack Obama
Political Party: Democratic Party
This is a defining moment. Our nation is at war. Our planet is in peril. And for too many today, the American Dream feels as if it is slipping away. Because of these challenges, Americans are listening more than ever to what we say in this election. This is our chance to forge a new majority of Democrats, Independents and Republicans committed to our common purpose as Americans. America has always been at its best when we’ve led not by calculation, but by conviction; when we’ve had leaders who summoned the entire nation to a common purpose. That’s why I’m running for President. I’m running to tell special interests their days of setting the agenda are over. I’m running to close corporate loopholes and give a tax cut to middleclass Americans; to forge a bi-partisan solution and provide affordable, quality health care for all; to invest in renewable sources of energy and finally put an end to our addiction to foreign oil; and to ensure every American has access to a world-class education from birth through college. I will end this war in Iraq and bring our troops home, finish the fight against al Qaeda, and reinvigorate American diplomacy. I have spent my life bringing people together, solving tough problems and making a difference in peoples’ lives. I don’t want to refight the battles of the 1990s, or pit Blue America against Red America – I want to lead the United States of America. At this moment, let’s reach for what we know is possible.
Candidate Name: John McCain
Political Party: Republican Party
In war and peace, I have been a dedicated servant of our country. Whenever I faced an important choice between my country's interests, party politics or special interests, I chose our country. I will continue to put our country first by ushering in a new era of reform, prosperity and peace. If I'm elected President, the era of the permanent campaign will end. The era of problem solving will begin. Washington is broken, and I intend to fix it. All you've ever asked of government is that it stand on your side, not in your way. I will stand by your side to grow this economy, create more jobs and get America moving again. I will aggressively push to develop alternative energies while expanding our use of existing energy resources here at home. As President, I intend to provide future generations of Americans with a safer, more peaceful world than the one we inherited. We will achieve energy security and ensure that healthcare is affordable and available for all. It is incumbent on America, more than any other nation on earth, to lead in building the foundations for a stable and enduring peace. I will put an agenda of reform, prosperity and peace for America before any partisan interest or special interest. I will keep that promise every hour of every day I am in office.
Candidate Name: Alan L. Keyes
Political Party: American Independent Party
Blah …Blah … Blah … God …blah …blah …blah …. end legal abortion, outlaw human cloning … blah.. blah …blah …build a wall between the US ad Mexico and shoot to kill …blah … blah … blah pick judges who will interpret the Constitution as though it was still 1760 … blah .. blah …blah …. abolish income tax (I kinda like that idea) … blah … blan and blah!
Candidate Name: Cynthia A. McKinney
Political Party: Green Party
Cynthia McKinney served 12 years in the United States Congress. Whether she lost her marbles before, during or after serving is debatable.
Predictable litany of liberal (not BAD ideas, just … well … overly ambitious):
• Eliminate federal subsidies for corporations taking jobs overseas;
• Institute a national livable wage;
• Repeal the Military Tribunals Act;
• Provided for national forest protection and restoration (I guess that’s the “green” part)
• Eliminate the use of depleted uranium weapons (because their use by Border Guards
against Mexicans is getting out of control!);
• Deny federal assistance to law enforcement agencies violating human rights (uh, then who would be left to enforce the law … OUCH … no, don’t … ahhhhhh)
• Allow 9/11/2001 victims the right to participate in the Victims Compensation Fund and sue those responsible (serving Bin Ladin would be a bit difficult, but, sure, give it a try);
• Impeach Bush, Cheney, and Rice (why stop there?)
She successfully extended Agent Orange benefits an additional 25 years (too bad my dad died from Agent Orange poisoning in 1974 or he’d be very supportive).
She will continue her fight for minority farmers, conscientious objectors and she “asks us all to be willing to do some things we’ve never done before in order to have some things we’ve never had before.” (No pain, no gain).
Bobby Kennedy quote: “Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope; and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." (And they say Obama is overly loquacious!)
Candidate Name: Bob Barr
Political Party: Libertarian Party
Bob Barr served as a right wing Republican whacko for so long that now only the “whacko” remains.
We need another Congressman from Georgia with grandiose ideas (I actually miss Newt … is he still alive?)
Appeal to the right: “Bob will work tirelessly to cut taxes, reduce government spending and …
Appeal to the left: “… restore our civil liberties lost during the Bush administration.”
Having seen the true nature of government from inside and out, only Bob Barr has seen how sausage is made, and he enjoys doing it …
“ … he served as the vanguard of the Second Amendment …” He actually shot Cheney in the face!
“ … legendary New York Times columnist William Safire dubbed Bob “Mr. Privacy …” That’s way too much information about their relationship ...
Candidate Name: Ralph Nader
Political Party: Peace and Freedom Party
Corporate control of government, with wasteful spending and sweetheart deals, has taken the power away from average Americans. Power must be returned to the people, whose needs should be met before corporations. Our campaign and the Peace and Freedom Party propose a national, single-payer health care system for all; free college education; and repair of the crumbling infrastructure of our cities and schools, increasing jobs and quality of life.
Eliminate WTO and NAFTA, which drain jobs, and sharply increase the minimum wage. Tax such things as pollution, Wall Street securities speculation, and excessive corporate executive pay, instead of taxing labor. Eliminate all payroll taxes up to $50,000. Crack down on corporate crime. Cut the bloated military budget, with total corporate and military withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, and support real peace in the Middle East. Stop money control of politics with full public financing of elections. Defend voter and candidate rights with an election day federal holiday, nationwide same-day voter registration, and fair ballot access laws for all parties in every state. To solve the energy crisis, we must invest in renewable wind and solar energy, and adopt a carbon pollution tax, while halting fossil fuel subsidies. End attacks on civil liberties like the patriot act and the “war on drugs.” Abolish the death penalty and end private prisons. A free society must ensure that all Americans enjoy full and equal rights, socially, legally, and politically.
I still have a scar on my head from when a Tom DeLay staffer hit me with a wooden sign while in Florida during the recount in 2000. Nader is dead to me.
Analysis
McCain’s campaign was run as poorly as all the Democratic presidential candidate’s campaigns for a decade or so preceding and succeeding Clinton ’92 (including Clinton ’96) PUT TOGETHER.
Of course, compared to the precise machine that is the Obama campaign, anything would pale in comparison. Has anyone ever heard a Presidential candidate mention his/her campaign consultant in his/her nomination acceptance speech? Barack thanked Plouffe. And rightly so.
The guy (Plouffe) is amazing. What’s even more amazing is the candidate never left the reservation. Obama was 100% in from Day One. And, nobody freaked out when things started going a little sideways.
About a month ago, I was going to write a piece about how Pennsylvania and Virginia are the new Ohio and Florida. At that point, the Obama campaign was spending $40 million in Florida on field ops. McCain was almost 10 points up. I was going to argue that they should forget about Florida and (to a lesser extent) Ohio and put those resources into Virginia and Pennsylvania.
Luckily, I became otherwise distracted and let the article slide. Right now, Obama is more than 5 points up in Florida – and he has a $40 million field operation! That’s the kind of thing Plouffe has been doing for almost two years. Awesome.
I’d say that I want to be Plouffe when I grow up, but I’m older than he.
Let’s not forget Rick Davis and some of the other clowns that mishandled McCain, as well as their own dirty little secrets. As good as Plouffe, Axelrod, et. al. are, McCain’s consultants seem determined to go down in history with … you know, the guy that came up with Mondale’s “I WILL raise your taxes” strategy. Remember … what’s his name … It’s on the tip of my tongue … you know … well maybe not …
Please, someone tell me who advised McCain to attach himself at the hip with the worse President in history? I mean, didn’t he get the memo in 2006 when we kicked ass in congress by tying every Republican to Bush and Abramoff and by telling the middle class that their President sold them out?
Then he picked Bible Spice!
McCain was successfully bashing Obama over the head with the “inexperience” mantra and then undermined all the damage he had done by choosing the Governor of Alaska as his running mate.
Shortly after taking office as Mayor Wasilla, AK in October 1996, Palin consolidated the position of museum director and asked for updated resumes and resignation letters from some top officials, including the police chief, public works director, finance director, and librarian. Palin stated this request was to find out their intentions and whether they supported her. She required department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters, saying that they first needed to become acquainted with her administration's policies.
She was looking for the “Real America” ten years ago!
Palin fired librarian Mary Ellen Emmons and Police Chief Irl Stambaugh in January 1997, stating that she did not feel they fully supported her efforts to govern the city.
Sounds like our good friend, Mr. Rove …
During her second term as mayor, Palin introduced a ballot measure proposing the construction of a municipal sports center to be financed by a 0.5% sales tax increase.
Ya know, when you look at it another way, it’s not a real tax increase like that Commie-Socialist “spread the wealth” stuff (ya, that’s a baaad thing, doncha know?
Lobbyists are bad. Bad, lobbyist, bad. Sixteen work in the upper echelon of the McCain campaign. I have nothing against lobbyists. I was a lobbyist. Some of my good friends are lobbyists. Get rid of the lobbyists and everything will be better. We’re not really certain how, but …
Palin joined with nearby communities in jointly hiring the Anchorage-based lobbying firm of Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh to lobby for federal funds. The firm secured nearly $8 million in earmarked funds for the Wasilla city government, and another $19 million for other public and private entities in the Wasilla valley area.
Earmarks included $500,000 for a youth shelter, $1.9 million for a transportation hub, $900,000 for sewer repairs, and $15 million for a rail project linking Wasilla and the ski resort community of Girdwood.
Ted Stevens? Never Heard of Him …“From 2003 to June 2005, Palin served as one of three directors of "Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.," a 527 group designed to provide political training for Republican women in Alaska.”
“For the 2009 [state] budget, Palin gave a list of 31 proposed federal earmarks or requests for funding, totaling $197 million, to Alaska Senator Ted Stevens.
You really have to hand it to Rick Davis for telling the American people the truth
… “the facts don’t matter.”
Okay, so here’s my take:
McCain has been trying to live up to his father’s and grandfather’s military legacies all his life. The whole POW thing in a military family like his was a black mark on his name. A sailor goes down with the ship. You don’t get shot out of the sky. If you are shot out of the sky, you die. Hmm … sounds familiar …
Lieutenant Daniel Taylor: “Now, you listen to me. We all have a destiny. Nothing just happens, it's all part of a plan. I should have died out there with my men! But now, I'm nothing but a goddamned cripple! A legless freak. Look! Look! Look at me! Do you see that? Do you know what it's like not to be able to use your legs?”
Forrest Gump: “Well... Yes, sir, I do.”
Lieutenant Daniel Taylor: “Did you hear what I said?! You cheated me. I had a destiny. I was supposed to die in the field! With honor! That was my destiny! And you cheated me out of it! You understand what I'm saying, Gump?! This wasn't supposed to happen. Not to me. I had a destiny. I was Lieutenant Dan Taylor.”
Maybe McCain was a “maverick” once. Now, he’s just a bitter old Lieutenant Dan.
Congressional Districts 50-53
District 50
Democratic
Nick Leibham
Attorney/Small Businessman
www.picknick08.com
Republican
Brian P. Bilbray
United States Representative 50th District
www.bilbrayforcongress.com
Nick Liebham looks 12. How can anyone take this guy seriously? It kind of tells you how bad the GOP is doing when the DCCC spends so much on a nobody like Nick.
Regardless of the gain in Democratic registration in the district and the expected increase in Democrats turning out this election, the majority of the 50th district voters are genetically encoded to not vote for anyone with a “D” after their name.
Bilbray wins by about the same as when he beat … you know … uh … c’mon, she was like a Democratic celebrity for five minutes … the School Board lady … Bixby! That’s it. No, it was Busby! Francine Busby. How could I have forgotten? Is she still alive?
District 51
Democratic
Bob Filner
U. S. Congressman/Educator
www.bobfilnerforcongress.com
Republican
David Lee Joy
Business Owner
Libertarian
Dan Litwin www.FrodoForCongress.com Software Project Manager
(858) 565-7742 or frodo@peacemakersrock.com
The only interesting thing about this race is Libertarian Dan Litwin’s website. Check out www.FrodoForCongress.com .
I like what he has to say, and I’ve even ordered a Frodo for Congress bumper sticker. And his email address is awesome: Frodo@peacemakersrock.com. Rock on, dude!
Like most of the voters in the 51st, I have never heard of Republican Candidate David Lee Joy. Filner is a master of taking care of his constituents, and he will be a Congressman as long as he chooses. Juan who?
District 52
Democratic
Mike Lumpkin
Retired Navy SEAL
www.lumpkinforcongress.com
Republican
Duncan D. Hunter
Marine Corps Captain
www.hunterforcongress.com
It’s Mike Lumpkin the retired Navy SEAL vs. Duncan Hunter the Marine Corps Captain.
I could easily go for cheap laughs with that, so I’ll leave it alone.
They made a movie about this race with Eddie Murphy. It was about a beloved congressman who died and a con man (played by Murphy) with the same name. He got elected because his campaign literature only used his last name, and people thought they were voting for the dead guy.
I’m not saying Duncan Hunter the elder is dead (just his presidential aspirations.) However, folks out there in the East County have a GOP-inspired, almost Pavlovian response to the Hunter name, whether or not they know it’s not the same person.
Hunter wins easily. Lumpkin is called back up to the Seals and is shipped off to Afghanistan (the House Defense Committee will have something to do with it, but nothing will ever be proven …)
District 53
Democratic
Susan A. Davis
Member, United States House Of Representatives
www.susandavisforcongress.com
Republican
Michael Crimmins
Teacher/Military Officer
www.crimminsforcongress.com
Michael Crimmins is the Republican Sacrificial Lamb, but nobody told him …
Look at Crimmins’ website. There ought to be some quality control on candidate websites. Actually, it’s gone beyond that. Looking at www.crimminsforcongress.com will give you a headache. What we need is a constitutional amendment banning bad candidate websites. Look for it in 2010.
Oh, Susan wins (even though she keeps pissing labor off)
Statewide Ballot Propositions
PROP 1A: SAFE, RELIABLE HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN BOND ACT.
You gotta love these names they come up with! High Speed Rail For Children, Seniors And Fluffy Animals …
Authorizes $10 billion in bonds to begin construction of a 220 MPH train to connect San Francisco to Los Angeles via San Jose and Fresno. Trains will be powered by renewable electricity and create 160,000 jobs over the next 10 years.
Provides long-distance commuters with a safe, convenient, affordable, and reliable alternative to driving and high gas prices. Reduces traffic congestion on the state’s highways and at the state’s airports. Reduces California’s dependence on foreign oil.
Reduces air pollution and global warming greenhouse gases. Cures cancer. Establishes a clean, efficient 220 MPH transportation system. Improves existing passenger rail lines serving the state’s major population centers. Restores the polar ice cap. Provides for California’s growing population. Provides for a bond issue of $9.95 billion to establish high-speed train service linking Southern California counties, the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley, and the San Francisco Bay Area. Makes Viagra available for free …
Uh, how much?
Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal
Impact:
State costs of about $19.4 billion, assuming 30 years to pay off both principal ($9.95 billion) and interest ($9.5 billion) costs of the bonds.
When constructed, additional unknown costs, probably in excess of $1 billion a year, to operate and maintain a high-speed train system.
OKAY, THAT’S A LOT, BUT SURELY THE BENEFIT OUTWEIGHS THE COST …
This measure authorizes the state to sell $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds to fund (1) pre-construction activities and construction of a high-speed passenger train system in California, and (2) capital improvements to passenger rail systems that expand capacity, improve safety, or enable train riders to connect to the high-speed train system. The bond funds would be available when appropriated by the Legislature. General obligation bonds are backed by the state, meaning that the state is required to pay the principal and interest costs on these bonds.
FISCAL EFFECT???
The costs of these bonds would depend on interest rates in effect at the time they are sold and the time period over which they are repaid. While the measure allows for bonds to be issued with a repayment period of up to 40 years, the state’s current practice is to issue bonds with a repayment period of up to 30 years. If the bonds are sold at an average interest rate of 5 percent, and assuming a repayment period of 30 years, the General Fund cost would be about $19.4 billion to pay off both principal ($9.95 billion) and interest ($9.5 billion). The average repayment for principal and interest would be about $647 million per year.
Wait, there’s more!
If constructed, the high-speed train system will incur unknown ongoing maintenance and operation costs, probably in excess of $1 billion a year.
Supported by the Sierra Club, California Democratic Party, California League of Conservation Voters, California Federation of Labor, Calitics?*
Analysis
*What Does “Calitics” do? It’s a web site. “Members” are committed to (actually, they ought to be committed …)
“1) Building a progressive online community that will:
A) Provide individual Californians a place to discuss progressive issues.
B) Enable local and statewide progressive candidates and elected officials a platform for discussing issues and campaigning.
C) Be fun! I love politics, especially the crazy breed that is California politics.”
“Once you have signed up as a user, you will be able to do pretty much anything on the blog. You can post comments, recommend diaries, or even write your own diaries. You have a lot of control over this site, and if you don't like something that you can't change, I'll probably change it for you. I want everybody to find calitics.com a very user-friendly site. So, if you have a problem, just email me: brian (at) calitics (dot) com.”
Heck, they were really hard up for endorsers …
I’m 100% in favor of “a safe, convenient, affordable, and reliable alternative to soaring gasoline prices, freeway congestion, rising airfares, plummeting airline service …”
Jobs argument because of the economic downturn (aka depression):
“…Proposition 1A [will] … inject new vitality into California’s economy by creating nearly 160,000 construction-related jobs and 450,000 permanent jobs in related industries like tourism. These are American jobs that cannot be outsourced.”
Our friend, Jim Mills, former state Assemblyman and Senator, who still lives in Coronado, first pushed this idea over twenty years ago. But Mills’ name is conspicuous by it’s absence.
We need it ...
I love the idea of effective transport up to Northern California. The time has come. Our freeways have been an incredible asset and have connected the state economically, but they have served their purpose. They are crowded and no longer make sense for a vast majority of travelers, especially with high gas prices. So lets get this thing built...
On the other hand, we haven’t been in this big of an economic mess in a long time. The state is struggling to stay afloat, as are its citizens. We have a lot of other more pressing issues like balancing the budget. Our schools are getting less and less funding, healthcare for our children (much less ourselves) is becoming more and more important, and our water supply issues have not been solved
… maybe this project could be put on hold a few years until we can afford it?
On the other hand …
Governor Pat Brown is not as well recognized as he should be. Perhaps because his son Jerry and his daughter Kathleen have had such … interesting public service careers.
Pat Brown is largely responsible for an enormous water-resources development program (that later evolved into the California Aqueduct, which also bears his name "The Governor Edmund G. Brown California Aqueduct"), the enactment of the California Master Plan for Higher Education (that made the UC, Cal State and Community College system one of the best public education institutions in the world), fair employment practices, state economic development commission, and a consumers' council. He sponsored some forty major proposals and only five failed to pass the legislature: statewide minimum wage, regulation of unions, campaign finance, and an oil tax. He more than doubled the amount of state highways.
Then, Ronald Reagan came along …
California Republicans were impressed with Reagan's political views and charisma after his "Time for Choosing" speech, and nominated him for Governor of California in 1966. In Reagan's campaign, he emphasized two main themes: "to send the welfare bums back to work," and in reference to burgeoning anti-war and anti-establishment student protests at the University of California at Berkeley, "to clean up the mess at Berkeley."
In addition, Pat Brown, adhering to his Catholic faith, did not believe in the state killing people, opposed the death penalty and commuted death sentences. Reagan vowed to “fry them.”
One of Reagan's greatest frustrations was that his efforts to enforce the state's death penalty laws were thwarted when the Supreme Court of California issued its People v. Anderson decision, which invalidated all death sentences issued in California prior to 1972 (though the decision was later overturned by a statewide ballot proposition that changed the California constitution al amendment.
In Reagan’s first term, he froze government hiring and approved tax hikes to balance the budget, which was the beginning of the end of major public improvement projects in California.
Okay, here’s what we do.
When the state legislature can get it together and pass a deficit-free budget on time, bring this project back and we’ll approve it -- and then we’ll deal with the fact that hell froze over.
PROP 2: STANDARDS FOR CONFINING FARM ANIMALS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Requires that calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs be confined only in ways that allow these animals to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely.
Exceptions made for transportation, rodeos, fairs, 4-H programs, lawful slaughter, research and veterinary purposes.
Provides misdemeanor penalties, including a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment in jail for up to 180 days.
Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
Potential unknown decrease in state and local tax revenues from farm businesses, possibly in the range of several million dollars annually.
BACKGROUND
Beginning January 1, 2015, this measure prohibits with certain exceptions the confinement on a farm of pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. Under the measure, any person who violates this law would be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and/or imprisonment in county jail for up to six months.
FISCAL EFFECTS
Compared to current practice most commonly used by California farmers in the affected industries, this measure would require more space and/or alternate methods for housing pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens. As a result, this measure would increase production costs for some of these farmers. To the extent that these higher production costs cause some farmers to exit the business, or otherwise reduce overall production and profitability, there could be reduced state and local tax revenues. The magnitude of this fiscal effect is unknown, but potentially in the range of several million dollars annually.
Additionally, this measure could result in unknown, but probably minor, local and state costs for enforcement and prosecution of individuals charged with the new animal confinement offense. These costs would be partially offset by revenue from the collection of misdemeanor fines.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 2 (Edited slightly)
“Proposition 2 is a… measure. …Stop cruel and inhumane … animals… practice … cramming farm animals into cages so small the animals can’t even turn around … Voting YES … prevents … food safety… Preventing cruel… animals. … confine veal calves, breed … pigs, and egg… hens ... Calves are tethered by the neck and can barely move, pigs in severe confinement bite the metal bars of their crates, and hens get trapped and even impaled in their wire cages. …Force our pets to live in filthy, cramped cages for their whole lives, …force farm animals to endure … misery… crippled cows… slaughter … authorities … by … Cramming … thousands … into tiny cages “
WAYNE PACELLE, President, The Humane Society of the United States
DR. KATE HURLEY, D.V.M., M.P.V.M., Clinical Professor, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis
ANDREW KIMBRELL, Executive Director, Center for Food Safety
ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 2 (Edited slightly)
… AVIAN INFLUENZA, Salmonella contamination, and … farmers … housing … eggs… enhances the likelihood that … the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, …could mark the start of a global …food-borne … production in … Mexico… Proposition 2 HARMS …MEXICO. … ECONOMIC ACTIVITY will be … MORE EXPENSIVE. … Most food safety officials,… provide the best possible care for … disease. … California law ALREADY PROTECTS … BIRD FLU
DR. CRAIG REED, DVM, Former Deputy Administrator, Food Safety and Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
DR. TIM E. CARPENTER, Ph.D., Professor of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine and Epidemiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, UC Davis
DR. PATRICIA BLANCHARD, DVM, PhD., Branch Chief, University of California Animal Health and Food Safety Laboratory System
Mandates that farm animals such as chickens and pigs are given enough room in their cages to spread their wings, turn and move around, stand up or sit down.
SUPPORTING: Sierra Club, CA Democratic Party, CA League of Conservation Voters, Calitics
Call me a libertarian, but I am going to let the farmers decide on this one. If they want to raise their livestock humanely they should do so, and even tell the consumers. Enough public pressure in the form of dollars will turn the industry around.
I don’t think this is a big surprise, but this Proposition isn’t really about California anyway. Out-of-state interests are trying to get this one passed here because they know the nation will follow. We are supposed to set the precedent. The truth is, there are already laws for the humane treatment of animals that are enforced to varying degrees.
Besides, a recent study among Democrats found that Free Range chickens (and their eggs) taste better because they think they may have a chance, even the slightest possibility, of surviving.
I have taken the liberty of creating the much-needed logo for this campaign. If only they had hired me…
PROP 3 CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL BOND ACT
Authorizes $980,000,000 in bonds, to be repaid from state’s General Fund, to fund the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children’s hospitals.
Designates that 80 percent of bond proceeds go to hospitals that focus on children with illnesses such as leukemia, cancer, heart defects, diabetes, sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis.
Requires that qualifying children’s hospitals provide comprehensive services to a high volume of children eligible for governmental programs and meet other requirements.
Designates that 20 percent of bond proceeds go to University of California general acute care hospitals.
Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
State cost of about $2 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($980 million) and the interest ($933 million) costs of the bonds. Payments of about $64 million per year.
BACKGROUND
Children’s hospitals focus their efforts on the health care needs of children by providing diagnostic, therapeutic, and rehabilitative services to injured, disabled, and sick infants and children. Many children receiving services in these hospitals are from low-income families and have significant health care needs.
Proposition 61, which voters approved at the November 2004 statewide general election, authorized the sale of $750 million in general obligation bonds to provide funding for children’s hospitals. The eligibility criteria for hospitals to receive funds under Proposition 61 is the same under this measure. As of June 1, 2008, about $403 million of the funds from Proposition 61 had been awarded to eligible hospitals.
PROPOSAL
This measure authorizes the state to sell $980 million in general obligation bonds for capital improvement projects at children’s hospitals. The measure specifically identifies the five University of California children’s hospitals as eligible bond fund recipients. There are additional children’s hospitals that are likely to meet other eligibility criteria specified in the measure, which are based on hospitals’ performance in the 2001–02 fiscal year. These criteria include providing at least 160 licensed beds for infants and children.
The money raised from the bond sales could be used for the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing, equipping, financing, or refinancing of children’s hospitals in the state.
Or, it could be used to balance the state budget and get us out of debt. Although, approving this will create about $2 billion of debt we don’t yet have …
Eighty percent of the monies would be available to nonprofit children’s hospitals and the remaining 20 percent would be available to University of California children’s hospitals. The monies provided could not exceed the total cost of a project, and funded projects would have to be completed “within a reasonable period of time.”
As opposed to on time and within budget.
Children’s hospitals would have to apply in writing for funds. The California Health Facilities Financing Authority (CHFFA), an existing state agency, would be required to develop the grant application. It must process submitted applications and award grants within 60 days. The CHFFA’s decision to award a grant would be based on several factors, including whether the grant would contribute toward the expansion or improvement of health care access for children who are eligible for governmental health insurance programs, or who are indigent, underserved, or uninsured; whether the grant would contribute toward the improvement of child health care or pediatric patient outcomes; and whether the applicant hospital would promote pediatric teaching or research programs.
FISCAL EFFECTS
The cost of these bonds to the state would depend on the interest rates obtained when they were sold and the time period over which this debt would be repaid. If the $980 million in bonds authorized by this measure were sold at an interest rate of 5 percent and repaid over 30 years, the cost to the state General Fund would be about $2 billion to pay off both the principal ($980 million) and the interest ($933 million). The average payment for principal and interest would be about $64 million per year. Administrative costs would be limited to CHFFA’s actual costs or 1 percent of the bond funds, whichever is less. We estimate these costs will be minor.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 3
Over 1 MILLION times each year, California Children’s Hospitals treat children with the most serious illnesses and injuries. Children facing life-threatening diseases like LEUKEMIA, CANCER, HEART DEFECTS, SICKLE CELL ANEMIA, DIABETES, CYSTIC FIBROSIS, and countless other rare conditions are cared for at regional Children’s Hospitals every day, without regard to a family’s income or ability to pay.
… WILL ALLOW CHILDREN’S HOSPITALS TO PURCHASE THE LATEST MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES and special equipment for sick babies born prematurely, seriously underweight, or with defective organs.
HELP CHILDREN’S HOSPITALS BUILD MORE BED CAPACITY AND BUY ESSENTIAL EQUIPMENT TO ENSURE THAT ALL CALIFORNIA CHILDREN can get the same excellent care our children got.
ROBIN MEEKS, Parent
MINDY VAZQUEZ, Parent
DIANE GIBSON, Parent
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 3
… the direct beneficiaries are medical supply houses, pharmaceutical companies, hospital administrators, and other special interests. They will receive nearly $1 Billion of the taxpayers’ money after “investing” a small amount to qualify and campaign for this initiative. This is a terrible abuse of the initiative process.
… unspent funds from the earlier “children’s hospital bond” (Prop. 61 in 2004) are still available. Instead of spending the money that voters have already authorized, they are demanding more—even though our economy is struggling, and competition for those dollars is fierce.
Proponents claim: “Proposition 3 does not raise taxes.” Who would they have you believe pays the bill? The tooth fairy? This bond’s principal and interest (nearly $2 billion over 30 years) will be paid for by our children and grandchildren. Soon, either taxes will be raised or other state expenditures, such as schools, law enforcement, or parks, will be reduced. There is no “free lunch.”
LEWIS K. UHLER, President National Tax Limitation Committee
TED GAINES, California State Assemblyman
JAMES V. LACY, Director, American Conservative Union
ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 3
… But even if more bond debt were not an issue, this measure is badly flawed. This nearly $1 billion bond measure is another abuse of the initiative process in that it has been bought and paid for by the special interests (hospitals, their administrators, and staffs), who will benefit directly, personally, and monetarily from its passage.
And this is not the first time that these same special interests have turned to the initiative process. In 2004 they sponsored a carbon copy of this initiative for $750 million. They are back again, this time for even more. And yet hundreds of millions of dollars from the earlier bond (Prop. 61) remain unspent. Remember, these are not impoverished institutions. Several are part of the well-funded University of California system, and the others have substantial private and foundation support.
This gigantic spending initiative is framed as helping “children’s hospitals …” Yet a careful reading of the definition of “children’s hospital” reveals that 80% of the money may go to any acute hospital so long as it treats children, among other patients.
It appears that a driving force behind this measure is to provide a backdoor way of compensating hospitals for treating indigents (including illegal aliens) who don’t pay their way through the front door.
Any one of the acute general hospitals that qualifies under this measure may receive a grant of up to $98 million. Is it any wonder that the hospitals which stand to benefit directly from this measure have been eager to fund the signature-gathering and the campaign for this measure?
And remember who will pay the bill for the bond over the next 30 years: your children and grandchildren. If you really want to help them, don’t saddle them with more debt of this kind.
LEWIS K. UHLER, President, National Tax Limitation Committee
EDWARD 'TED' COSTA, President, People’s Advocate
JON FLEISCHMAN, Publisher, Flashreport.org
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 3
The opponents of our Children’s Hospitals say, “bonded indebtedness for anything but the most essential infrastructure is unwise.”
We ask you, what is more essential than investing in hospitals where over one million times each year California children are treated for traumatic injuries and illnesses like cancer, leukemia, heart defects, sickle cell anemia, and cystic fibrosis? What infrastructure is more vital than the technology and facilities for neonatal care and organ transplants for children?
Proposition 3 is an investment in the health of California children whose lives will be saved over the next 30 years.
These opponents cross the line when they attack the integrity of the people who have dedicated their lives to saving our children. These three men recklessly argue that the people who do this good work will “benefit directly, personally, and monetarily” from the bond. Their whole argument is mean-spirited, hypocritical, and untrue. Proposition 3 is a sound investment with a return that is . . . priceless.
ROBIN MEEKS, Parent
MINDY VAZQUEZ, Parent
DIANE GIBSON, Parent
I like children but I don’t like hospitals. I know they are necessary (both hospitals and children.) A bunch of doctors at a hospital saved my life (mostly).
As with the High Speed Rail, this can be tracked back to Reagan. (rant follows.) Pat Brown, probably the best governor in the history of the state of California lost to Reagan because he was Catholic. He could not support the death penalty while Reagan had his hand on the switch.
Before Reagan came along California was the envy of the nation. We had world-class universities open to all residents and an infrastructure that was unparalleled including our freeway system (which is nothing to sneeze at if you are from the East Coast. If you have ever driven the Jersey Turnpike you thank God for freeways as well as fresh air and gasmasks) and extensive aqueducts.
This was back when people actually expected good things from their government and Pat Brown gave it to them. Reagan’s policies as governor were the precursor to the failure of Reaganomics. I blame Ronald Reagan and Howard Jarvis (the man behind prop 13) for creating a situation where we have basic needs that ought to be provided by government just out of human decency and we can’t afford to do it.
As much as I would like to vote for hospitals and children, until things get straightened out in Sacramento, I am skipping anything that will put us further in debt.
PROP 4: WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR’S PREGNANCY
Changes California Constitution to prohibit abortion for un-emancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent or legal guardian.
Permits notification to certain adult relatives if doctor reports parent to law enforcement or Child Protective Services.
Provides notification exceptions for medical emergency or parental waiver.
Permits courts to waive notice based on clear and convincing evidence of minor’s maturity or best interests.
Mandates reporting requirements, including reports from physicians regarding abortions on minors.
Authorizes damages against physicians for violation.
Requires minor’s consent to abortion, with exceptions.
Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
Potential unknown net state costs of several million dollars annually for health and social services programs, court administration, and state health agency administration combined.
BACKGROUND
In 1987, the Legislature amended this law to require minors to obtain the consent of either a parent or a court before obtaining an abortion. However, due to legal challenges, the law was never implemented, and the California Supreme Court ultimately struck it down in 1997. Consequently, minors in the state currently receive abortion services to the same extent as adults. This includes minors in various state health care programs, such as the Medi-Cal health care program for low-income individuals.
PROPOSAL
This measure amends the State Constitution to require, with certain exceptions, a physician (or his or her representative) to notify the parent or legal guardian of a pregnant minor at least 48 hours before performing an abortion involving that minor. (This measure does not require a physician or a minor to obtain the consent of a parent or guardian.)
This measure applies only to cases involving an “un-emancipated” minor. The measure identifies an un-emancipated minor as being a female under the age of 18 who has not entered into a valid marriage, is not on active duty in the armed services of the United States, and has not been declared free from her parents’ or guardians’ custody and control under state law.
A physician would provide the required notification in either of the following two ways:
Personal Written Notification. Written notice could be provided to the parent or guardian personally—for example, when a parent accompanied the minor to an office examination.
Mail Notification. A parent or guardian could be sent a written notice by certified mail so long as a return receipt was requested by the physician and delivery of the notice was restricted to the parent or guardian who must be notified. An additional copy of the written notice would have to be sent at the same time to the parent or guardian by first-class mail. Under this method, notification would be presumed to have occurred as of noon on the second day after the written notice was postmarked.
Exceptions to Notification Requirements
The measure provides the following exceptions to the parental notification requirements:
Medical Emergencies. The notification requirements would not apply if the physician certifies in the minor’s medical record that the abortion is necessary to prevent the mother’s death or that a delay would “create serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”
Waivers Approved by Parent or Guardian. A minor’s parent or guardian could waive the notification requirements and the waiting period by completing and signing a written waiver form for the physician. The parent or guardian must specify on this form that the waiver would be valid either (1) for 30 days, (2) until a specified date, or (3) until the minor’s 18th birthday. The form would need to be notarized unless the parent or guardian delivered it personally to the physician.
Notice to Adult Family Member and Report of Abuse. The physician could notify an adult family member instead of notifying the minor’s parent based on the minor’s written statement that (1) she fears physical, sexual, or severe emotional abuse from a parent who would otherwise be notified, and (2) that her fear is based on a pattern of such abuse of her by a parent. The measure defines an adult family member as a person at least 21 years of age who is the grandparent, stepparent, foster parent, aunt, uncle, sibling, half-sibling, or first cousin of the minor. The manner of notice to an adult family member must be consistent with that required for parental notice. In addition, the measure requires the physician to make a written report of known or suspected child abuse to the appropriate law enforcement or public child protection agency. The physician would also be required to include with the notice a letter informing the adult family member about the report of abuse.
Waivers Approved by Courts. The pregnant minor could ask a juvenile court to waive the notification requirements. A court could do so if it finds that the minor is sufficiently mature and well-informed to decide whether to have an abortion or that notification would not be in the minor’s best interest. If the waiver request is denied, the minor could appeal that decision to an appellate court.
A minor seeking a waiver would not have to pay court fees, would be provided other assistance in the case by the court, and would be entitled to an attorney appointed by the court. The identity of the minor would be kept confidential. The court would generally have to hear and issue a ruling within three business days of receiving the waiver request. The appellate court would generally have to hear and decide any appeal within four business days.
The measure also requires that, in any case in which the court finds evidence of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse, the court must refer the evidence to the appropriate law enforcement or public child protection agency.
State Reporting Requirements
Physicians are required by this measure to file a form reporting certain information to the state Department of Health Services (DHS) within one month after performing an abortion on an un-emancipated minor. The reporting form would include the date and facility where the abortion was performed, the minor’s month and year of birth, and certain other information about the minor and the circumstances under which the abortion was performed. The forms that physicians would file would not identify the minor or any parent or guardian by name. Based on these forms, the department would compile certain statistical information relating to abortions performed on minors in an annual report that would be available to the public.
The courts are required by the measure to report annually to the state Judicial Council the number of petitions filed and granted or denied. The reports would be publicly available. The measure also requires the Judicial Council to prescribe a manner of reporting that ensures the confidentiality of any minor who files a petition.
Penalties???
Any person who performs an abortion on a minor and who fails to comply with the provisions of the measure would be liable for damages in a civil action brought by the minor, her legal representative, or by a parent or guardian wrongfully denied notification. The measure would require such a legal action to commence within four years of the minor’s 18th birthday or later, under specified circumstances. Any person, other than the minor or her physician, who knowingly provides false information that notice of an abortion has been provided to a parent or guardian would be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine.
Relief From Coercion
The measure allows a minor to seek help from the juvenile court if anyone attempts to coerce her to have an abortion. A court would be required to consider such cases quickly and could take whatever action it found necessary to prevent coercion.
FISCAL EFFECTS
The fiscal effects of this measure on state government would depend mainly upon how these new requirements affect the behavior of minors regarding abortion and childbearing. Studies of similar laws in other states suggest that the effect of this measure on the birthrate for California minors would be limited, if any. If it were to increase the birthrate for California minors, the net cost to the state would probably not exceed several million dollars annually for health and social services programs, the courts, and state administration combined. We discuss the potential major fiscal effects of the measure below.
Savings and Costs for State Health Care Programs
… This would result in unknown state savings for these programs.
This measure could also result in some unknown additional costs for state health care programs. If this measure results in a decrease in minors’ abortions and an increase in the birthrate of children in low-income families eligible for publicly funded health care, the state would incur additional costs. These could include costs for medical services provided during pregnancy, deliveries, and follow-up care.
The Medi-Cal Program alone is estimated to cost the state $14.1 billion in 2007–08.
State Health Agency Administrative Costs
The state would incur first-year costs of up to $350,000 to develop the new forms needed to implement this measure, establish the physician reporting system, and prepare the initial annual report containing statistical information on abortions obtained by minors. The ongoing state costs to implement this measure could be as much as $150,000 annually.
Juvenile and Appellate Court Administrative Costs
The measure would result in increased state costs for the courts, primarily as a result of the provisions allowing minors to request a court waiver of the notification requirements. The magnitude of these costs is unknown, but could reach several million dollars annually, depending primarily on the number of minors that sought waivers.
These costs would not be significant compared to total state expenditures for the courts, which are estimated to be $2.2 billion in 2007–08.
Social Services Program Costs
If this measure discourages some minors from obtaining abortions and increases the birthrate among low-income minors, expenditures for cash assistance and services to needy families would increase under the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program. The magnitude of these costs, if any, would probably not exceed a few million dollars annually. The CalWORKs program is supported with both state and federal funds, but because all CalWORKs federal funds are capped, these additional costs would probably be borne by the state. These costs would not be significant compared to total state spending for CalWORKs, which is estimated to cost about $5.3 billion in state and federal funds in 2007–08. Under these circumstances, there could also be a minor increase in child welfare and foster care costs for the state and counties.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 4
It’s time to close the loophole in California law that allows minor girls to be taken for secret chemical or surgical abortions by anyone—even an adult male who impregnated her—WITHOUT THE DOCTOR NOTIFYING ANY FAMILY MEMBER. These predators can even take girls out of school to hide their crimes.
BARBARA ALBY, Author, California’s “Megan’s Law” Child Protection Legislation
JOSEPH R. ZANGA, M.D., FAAP, Past President, American Academy of Pediatrics
THE HONORABLE TONY RACKAUCKAS, J.D., District Attorney, Orange County
ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 4
PROPOSITION 4 PUTS TEENS AT RISK.
The AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS, CALIFORNIA DISTRICT, The CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, The CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY PHYSICIANS, The AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS, DISTRICT IX, The CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, and parents throughout California urge you to VOTE NO on 4.
MANDATORY NOTIFICATION LAWS MAY SOUND GOOD, BUT, IN THE REAL WORLD THEY PUT TEENAGERS IN REAL DANGER. A SCARED, PREGNANT TEEN who can’t go to her parents can feel trapped and desperate. Instead of seeking the counseling and safe medical care she needs, she MAY CHOOSE AN UNSAFE, BACK ALLEY, LLEGAL ABORTION, GO ACROSS THE BORDER, OR EVEN CONTEMPLATE SUICIDE.
DR. MYLES B. ABBOTT, Chair, American Academy of Pediatrics, California District
DONNA GERBER, President, California Nurses Association
NANCY SCHUBB, President, California Association of School Counselors
OPPOSED BY: Planned Parenthood, CA Nurses Association, CA Association of School Counselors, SEIU CA, CA Medical Association, CA Democratic Party
In 1953, a state law was enacted that allowed minors to receive, without parental consent or notification, the same types of medical care for a pregnancy that are available to an adult. Based on this law and later legal developments related to abortion, minors were able to obtain abortions without parental consent or notification.
This has nothing to do with parental notification. It has everything to do with far right anti-abortion wackos. However, I watched the NO campaign’s commercials and couldn’t help but notice that the knocked up girl and the back alley abortion provider both look very ethnic. I don’t know what their polling said, but unplanned pregnancy and parents who are unapproachable occur among white upper to middle class teens as well, perhaps more so.
I don’t care how you feel about abortion. Quite frankly, I don’t understand how these right-wing extremist Christians can reconcile their opposition to abortion and their opposition to sex-ed. Do they really think that their teenagers our any different? So, get pregnant out of ignorance and go to hell. No, wait! Since Sarah Palin’s daughter’s little mistake, it’s now okay – so long as the 17 year old is willing to get married and raise the kid as a Christian. Then, things are okay.
No, things aren’t okay. The 17 year old doesn’t finish high school, gets a job at McDonalds, doesn’t make enough money to allow the wife and kid survive. He becomes an alcoholic and begins beating his wife and kid. You know the rest of the story.
For years these people have been saying “keep government out of our lives.” How ironic that they’re now trying to use government to force their religious beliefs on us.
I think it’s time to start a new movement. “Keep religious whackos out of … everything!”
We’ll have our first meeting after everyone votes “No” on this measure.
PROP 5: NONVIOLENT DRUG OFFENSES. SENTENCING, PAROLE AND REHABILITATION
Allocates $460,000,000 annually to improve and expand treatment programs for persons convicted of drug and other offenses.
Limits court authority to incarcerate offenders who commit certain drug crimes, break drug treatment rules or violate parole.
Substantially shortens parole for certain drug offenses; increases parole for serious and violent felonies.
Divides Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation authority between two Secretaries, one with six year fixed term and one serving at pleasure of Governor.
Provides five year fixed terms for deputy secretaries.
Creates 19-member board to direct parole and rehabilitation policy.
Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
Increased state costs over time potentially exceeding $1 billion annually primarily for expanding drug treatment and rehabilitation programs for offenders in state prisons, on parole, and in the community.
State savings over time potentially exceeding $1 billion annually due primarily to reduced prison and parole operating costs.
Net one-time state savings on capital outlay costs for prison facilities that eventually could exceed $2.5 billion.
SUMMARY
This measure (1) expands drug treatment diversion programs for criminal offenders, (2) modifies parole supervision procedures and expands prison and parole rehabilitation programs, (3) allows inmates to earn additional time off their prison sentences for participation and performance in rehabilitation programs, (4) reduces certain penalties for marijuana possession, and (5) makes miscellaneous changes to state law related mainly to state administration of rehabilitation and parole programs for offenders. Each of these proposals is discussed separately below as well as their combined fiscal effects on the state and local governments.
Background
It’s way too complicated and confusing.
FISCAL EFFECTS
This measure would have a number of fiscal effects on state and local government agencies.
This measure would eventually result in an increase in state costs, potentially exceeding $1 billion annually, mainly for expansion of drug treatment and other services provided for eligible offenders and related administrative costs.
This measure would eventually result in savings on state operating costs, potentially exceeding $1 billion annually, due mainly to reductions in prison and parole supervision caseloads. Specifically, this measure could eventually reduce the state prison population by more than 18,000 inmates and reduce the number of parolees under state supervision by more than 22,000. The reasons for these population reductions are discussed below.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 5
Our state prisons are badly overcrowded. Since the Legislature has been unable to solve the problem, we, the people, must do it with Proposition 5.
Prisons cost us $10 billion every year, but California spends little on rehabilitation.
That’s short-sighted. Young people with drug problems can’t get treatment. Too many nonviolent adults with addictions crowd our prisons. Tens of thousands cycle in and out, untreated.
Proposition 5, the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act, is a smart way to solve these problems by treating violent and nonviolent offenders differently. Prop. 5 reduces prison overcrowding safely, pays for itself annually, and over time saves California $2.5 billion.
Here’s what it does:
FIRST, Prop. 5 gives nonviolent youth with drug problems access to drug treatment.
SECOND, it reduces the number of nonviolent drug offenders going into prison by providing drug treatment programs with real accountability.
THIRD, it requires the prison system to provide rehabilitation to prisoners and parolees.
For at-risk youth, California now offers no drug treatment. Families have nowhere to turn.
Prop. 5 creates treatment options for young people with drug problems. They can be referred to treatment by family, school counselors, or physicians. Those caught with a small amount of marijuana will get early intervention programs. In this way, we can steer youth away from addiction and crime.
For nonviolent drug offenders, treatment works. Voter-approved Proposition 36 (2000) provided treatment, not jail, for nonviolent drug users. One-third completed treatment and became productive, tax-paying citizens. Since 2000, Prop. 36 has graduated 84,000 people and saved almost $2 billion.
Prop. 5 builds upon Prop. 36 and improves it. Prop. 5 offers greater accountability and better treatment for nonviolent offenders. People must pay a share of treatment costs. Judges can jail offenders who don’t comply with treatment, and give longer sentences to those who repeatedly break the rules.
For state prisons, Prop. 5 requires all offenders to serve their time and make restitution. After release, they’ll get help to re-integrate into society. Some will need education or job training, others drug treatment. Prop. 5 gives former inmates the chance to turn their lives around.
Prop. 5 holds nonviolent parolees accountable for minor parole violations with community sanctions, drug treatment, or jail time. For serious offenses they’ll be returned to state prison. Parolees with a history of violence, gang crimes, or sex offenses can be returned to prison for any parole violation.
Treating violent and nonviolent offenders differently is the smart fix for overcrowded prisons. Prop. 5 saves $2.5 billion within a few years, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst.
Prop. 5 makes sure that there will always be room for violent criminals in prison. It also toughens parole requirements for violent criminals.
JEANNE WOODFORD, Former Warden, San Quentin State Prison
DANIEL MACALLAIR, Executive Director, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
DR. JUDITH MARTIN, President, California Society of Addiction Medicine
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 5
Proposition 5 will increase crime.
So, as Karl Rove did to elect Bush and go to war … BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID! It’s …. Different … we’ve never done it this way before … I’m comfortable with not knowing … Grab a torch and meet the mob at the castle ….
LAURA DEAN-MOONEY, National President, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
STEVE Cooley, District Attorney, County of Los Angeles
SENATOR JEFF DENHAM, Co-Chair, People Against the Proposition 5 Deception
Drug rehab instead of prison
If you send somebody who is sick or chooses to use drugs to jail, you create a criminal. All this tough-on-crime shit espoused by the Republican Party has made things worse and this is an opportunity to undo the position that the right wing wackos put us in.
I agree with the League of Women Voters and the California Nurses Association (my mom is a nurse, and if she didn’t live out in the sticks in Virginia, she would vote for this).
Do as my mom would tell you. Vote “Yes.”
PROP 6 POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDING
Requires minimum of $965,000,000 each year to be allocated from state General Fund for police, sheriffs, district attorneys, adult probation, jails and juvenile probation facilities. Some of this funding will increase in following years according to California Consumer Price Index.
Makes approximately 30 revisions to California criminal law, many of which cover gang-related offenses. Revisions create multiple new crimes and additional penalties, some with the potential for new life sentences.
Increases penalties for violating a gang-related injunction and for felons carrying guns under certain conditions.
Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
Net increase in state costs that are likely within a few years to exceed $500 million annually, primarily due to increasing state spending for various criminal justice programs to at least $965 million, as well as for increased costs for prison and parole operations. These costs would increase by tens of millions of dollars annually in subsequent years.
This measure makes several changes to current laws relating to California’s criminal justice system. The most significant of these changes are described below.
Required Spending Levels for Certain New and Existing Criminal Justice Programs.
The proposal creates new state-funded criminal justice programs. The measure also requires that funding for certain existing programs be at least continued at their 2007–08 levels. In total, the measure requires state spending of at least $965 million for specified criminal justice programs beginning in 2009–10. This amount reflects an increase in funding of $365 million compared to the amount provided in the 2007–08 Budget Act.
Most of the new state spending required by this measure would be for local law enforcement activities, directed primarily to police, sheriffs, district attorneys, jails, and probation offices. The remaining new state spending would be provided for local juvenile programs, offender rehabilitation, crime victim assistance, and other state criminal justice programs. Specifically, the measure requires new state spending for such purposes as:
• Increased supervision of adult probationers by counties ($65 million);
• Juvenile facility repair and renovation and the operation of county probation programs for youth ($50 million);
• City law enforcement efforts to target various crimes, including violent, gang, and gun crimes ($30 million);
• Prosecution of violent, gang, and vehicle theft crimes ($25 million);
• The construction and operation of county jails ($25 million);
• Assisting county sheriff and mid-size city police agencies to participate in county, regional, and statewide enforcement activities and programs ($20 million);
• Programs to assist parolees in their reentry into communities ($20 million).
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 6
EVERY SHERIFF IN CALIFORNIA SUPPORTS THE SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS ACT—PROPOSITION 6. Proposition 6 is a comprehensive anti-gang and crime reduction measure that will bring more cops and increased safety to our streets, and greater efficiency and accountability to public safety programs. Proposition 6 returns taxpayers’ money to local law enforcement without raising taxes. It creates a special oversight commission to guard and protect tax dollars from waste and abuse. The California District Attorneys Association, California Police Chiefs Association, Crime Victims United, and organizations representing more than 45,000 law enforcement officers back Proposition 6 because it’s a balanced solution to California’s crime problem.
LEE BACA, Sheriff, Los Angeles County
BONNIE M. DUMANIS, District Attorney, San Diego County
HARRIET C. SALARNO, Chair, Crime Victims United of California
OPPOSING: CA Democratic Party, Cal Labor Fed, Ella Baker Center, ACLU, League of Women Voters, CA Nurses Association, SEIU CA
Massive prison expansion.
Forces thousands of juvenile offenders into adult courts, mandates longer prison sentences, and takes billions from the state budget for more prison spending at a time of historic budget deficits.
More prisons … just what we need.
Pete Wilson and friends created a growth industry around building prisons. Its our own little Military Industrial Complex, and it is going to bankrupt us. Let me say this again: putting people in jail makes them a criminal. Fewer jails = fewer criminals. You see? All of these problems have a simple, clear-cut solution.
I should write a book. (Wait, I’m writing a book …)
Vote no.
PROP 7 RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION
• Requires utilities, including government-owned utilities, to generate 20% of their power from renewable energy by 2010, a standard currently applicable only to private electrical corporations.
• Raises requirement for utilities to 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025.
• Imposes penalties, subject to waiver, for noncompliance.
• Transfers some jurisdiction of regulatory matters from Public Utilities Commission to Energy Commission.
• Fast-tracks approval for new renewable energy plants.
• Requires utilities to sign longer contracts (20 year minimum) to procure renewable energy.
• Creates account to purchase rights-of-way and facilities for the transmission of renewable energy.
Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
Increased state administrative costs of up to $3.4 million annually for the regulatory activities of the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission, paid for by fee revenues.
Unknown impact on state and local government costs and revenues due to the measure’s uncertain impact on retail electricity rates. In the short term, the prospects for higher rates—and therefore higher costs, lower sales and income tax revenues, and higher local utility tax revenues—are more likely.
In the long term, the impact on electricity rates, and therefore state and local government costs and revenues, is unknown.
Overview of Measure
This measure makes a number of changes regarding RPS and the permitting of electricity generating facilities and transmission lines.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 7
We can do better than dirty coal, nuclear power, and offshore drilling.
DR. DONALD W. AITKEN, Ph.D., Renewable Energy Scientist, Los Angeles County
JOHN L. BURTON, California State Senate, President Pro Tem (Ret.)
JIM GONZALEZ, Chair, Californians for Solar and Clean Energy
ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 7
Wind, solar, and other renewable power providers; environmental, consumer, and taxpayer groups; business and labor; and global warming scientists all OPPOSE Proposition 7.
Prop. 7—paid for by an Arizona billionaire with no energy expertise—is a deeply flawed measure that will … end the world as we know it.
SUE KATELEY, Executive Director, California Solar Energy Industries Association
TOM ADAMS, Board President, California League of Conservation Voters
TERESA CASAZZA, President, California Taxpayers’ Association
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 7
Three powerful utilities (Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric) are funding the campaign against Proposition 7.
I’m confused, you’re confused, even the League of Women Voters is confused. Nobody can figure out who benefits from this thing. But, as soon as I see PG&E, Southern California Edison, and SDG&E all agreeing upon something, I start to get suspicious.
Do you want to know what scares me the most? Both California Democrats and Republicans AGREE that it should be opposed. I don’t remember the last time the state parties have agreed on anything, including the color of the sky (or the future color of the sky in this case.)
Take a deep breath. Hold your nose. Vote … no … (I think).
PROP 8: ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY
• Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
• Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Screw all the “Pro” and “Con” stuff, this is serious.
Here’s my point of view on marriage generally. Except for purposes of taxation (which is tenuous at best) there is absolutely no reason for any government to be involved. It’s a religious thing. Or, a personal thing. But, it’s not a government thing.
If your religion says its ok, than its ok. If your religion says its not ok, than its not ok for you. We’ve been having religious arguments since the dawn of time. Enough people have died in the name of religion without government’s compounding the problem by bringing marriage into it.
ANY INDIVIDUAL WITH A THIMBLE-FULL OF GREY MATTER MUST VOTE NO.
PROP 9: CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. VICTIMS’ RIGHTS. PAROLE.
• Requires notification to victim and opportunity for input during phases of criminal justice process, including bail, pleas, sentencing and parole.
• Establishes victim safety as consideration in determining bail or release on parole.
• Increases the number of people permitted to attend and testify on behalf of victims at parole hearings.
• Reduces the number of parole hearings to which prisoners are entitled.
• Requires that victims receive written notification of their constitutional rights.
• Establishes timelines and procedures concerning parole revocation hearings.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 9
No pain is worse than losing a child or a loved one to murder . . . EXCEPT WHEN THE PAIN IS MAGNIFIED BY A SYSTEM THAT PUTS CRIMINALS’ RIGHTS AHEAD OF THE RIGHTS OF INNOCENT VICTIMS.
MARCELLA M. LEACH, Co-Founder Justice for Homicide Victims
Lawanda HAWKINS, Founder. Justice for Murdered Children
DAN LEVEY, National President, The National Organization of Parents of Murdered Children
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 9
Our hearts go out to the victims of violent crime and their families. Prop. 9 was put on the ballot by one such family whose family member was killed 25 years ago. But Prop. 9 is unnecessary and will cost taxpayers millions of dollars.
JEANNE WOODFORD, Former Warden, San Quentin State Prison
REV. JOHN FREESEMANN, Board President, California Church IMPACT
California is already one of the top states in terms of victims’ rights. They are trying different strategies, but the end result with Props 6 and 9 is more money in the pockets of the prison contractors. See my discussion on Prop 6 for more details.
Then vote no.
PROP 10: ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
• Provides $3.425 billion to help consumers and others purchase certain high fuel economy or alternative fuel vehicles, including natural gas vehicles, and to fund research into alternative fuel technology.
• Provides $1.25 billion for research, development and production of renewable energy technology, primarily solar energy with additional funding for other forms of renewable energy; incentives for purchasing solar and renewable energy technology.
• Provides grants to cities for renewable energy projects and to colleges for training in renewable and energy efficiency technologies.
Total funding provided is $5 billion from general obligation bonds.
Potential state costs of up to about $10 million annually, through about 2019, for state agency administrative costs not funded by the measure.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 10
You can take action today to reduce California’s dependence on foreign oil; reduce air pollution that causes asthma and cancer; and create new green technology jobs to strengthen our state’s economy—without raising taxes.
DR. ALAN HENDERSON, Past President, American Cancer Society, California Division
MIGUEL PULIDO, Governing Board Member, South Coast Air Quality Management District
ALLISON HART, Executive Director, Clean and Renewable Energy Association
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 10
Prop. 10 will cost taxpayers nearly $10,000,000,000 in long-term debt. Money that won’t go to schools, roads, health care, or public safety. Money that could go primarily to one company owned by the sponsor of this initiative. That’s not good public policy.
Proposition 10’s money would give taxpayer subsidies up to $50,000 each to buyers of trucks and other vehicles that run on a fossil fuel, natural gas. It is not about “alternative fuels.”
Despite proponents’ claims, Prop. 10 is craftily written to all but exclude hybrids, plug-in hybrids, electric cars, and other clean fuels. This well-concealed tilt to one fuel will chiefly benefit Proposition 10’s sponsor, Texas oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens. His company is a major supplier of natural gas for vehicles.
DONNA GERBER, Director of Government Relations, California Nurses Association
RICHARD HOLOBER, Executive Director, Consumer Federation of California
JUDY DUGAN, Research Director, Consumer Watchdog
ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 10
What do you call it when one company puts a measure on the ballot to put taxpayer dollars in their own pockets?
Special interest legislation. Corporate welfare. Ripping off the taxpayers.
That’s the truth about Proposition 10. One company, owned by Texas billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens, paid ALL the money for the signatures that put this measure on the ballot ($3,000,000!). And—surprise—they are first in line to get the lion’s share of the taxpayer dollars it would appropriate.
LENNY GOLDBERG, Executive Director, California Tax Reform Association
MARK TONEY, Executive Director, The Utility Reform Network (TURN)
MARTY HITTLEMAN, President, California Federation of Teachers
OPPOSING: Sierra Club, CA League of Conservation Voters, Cal Labor Fed, Union of Concerned Scientists, SEIU CA, CA Nurses Association
Oklahoma oil billionaire and funder of the 2004 Swift Boat ads against John Kerry, T. Boone Pickens, wants to take $5 billion from our stressed budget for his natural gas companies.
I like T. Boone Pickens and I think his heart (yes, I do believe he has one) is in the right place. He is a pragmatist. He looks around at all the politicians, lobbying groups, the auto industry, manufacturers, etc. and he thinks to himself, “I can do this better. He’s probably right.
Unfortunately (for all parties involved), old T got all mixed up with those “Swift Boat” folks. Now, his credibility is shot. And now, so is his renewable energy idea.
Join the crowd, vote no.
PROP 11: REDISTRICTING
• Changes authority for establishing Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalization district boundaries from elected representatives to 14-member commission.
• Requires government auditors to select 60 registered voters from applicant pool.
• Permits legislative leaders to reduce pool, then the auditors pick eight commission members by lottery, and those commissioners pick six additional members for 14 total.
• Requires commission of five Democrats, five Republicans and four of neither party.
• Commission shall hire lawyers and consultants as needed.
• For approval, district boundaries need votes from three Democratic commissioners, three Republican commissioners and three commissioners from neither party.
BACKGROUND
Every ten years, the federal census counts the number of people living in California. The California Constitution requires the Legislature after each census to adjust the boundaries of the districts used to elect public officials. This process is called “redistricting.”
Redistricting affects districts for the state Legislature (Assembly and Senate), State Board of Equalization (BOE), and the U.S. House of Representatives. The primary purpose of redistricting is to establish districts which are “reasonably equal” in population.
Typically, redistricting plans are included in legislation and become law after passage of the bill by the Legislature and signature by the Governor.
The measure shifts the responsibility for developing redistricting plans for legislative and BOE districts from the Legislature to a new Citizens Redistricting Commission. The measure imposes a number of requirements for the selection of commissioners and their drawing of district boundaries.
I Love this part. Real Concrete Stuff here. Somebody really thought this through.
Selection of Commissioners
The measure establishes a process to select the 14 members to serve on the commission. A registered voter in the state could apply to be a commissioner. The State Auditor, however, would remove applicants from the pool based on various conflicts of interest. For instance, applicants—or an immediate relative—in the past ten years could not have:
• Been a political candidate for state or federal office.
• Been a lobbyist.
• Contributed $2,000 or more in any year to a political candidate.
• In addition, applicants could not have changed their political party affiliation in the past five years.
• Applicants also must have voted in at least two of the last three general elections.
This is where it gets really fun
An Applicant Review Panel, comprised of three auditors employed by the state, would narrow the applicants down to 60. The panel would pick the most qualified applicants based on analytic skill, impartiality, and appreciation of California’s diversity.
(Ya see, they have this special room that you go in with all these sensors that measure your appreciation and your diversity separately, and then it plots them on a spectrum and aggregates the differences, giving an exact measure of how well you will do as a commissioner)
The leaders of the Legislature could strike up to 24 of these names (based on the vowel to consonant ratio in those names.) From the remaining names, the State Auditor would then randomly draw the first eight commissioners. These eight commissioners would select the final six commissioners (Using playground dodge ball selection rules, the last two who aren’t picked have to go play tether ball with the 5th graders). The commission would have five members registered with each of the state’s two largest political parties (Democrat and Republican) and four members registered with other parties or as independent voters. (That is, if you can find 5 Republicans in the state after this election.)
I hope they televise the whole thing – it will be like the NFL draft for Political Nerds. Reality Politics. It would be on right before “Who Wants to be a Senator.”
Approval Process
In developing a plan, the commission would have to hold public hearings and accept public comment. To approve a redistricting plan, the commission would need at least nine yes votes, including at least three yes votes each from members registered with the two largest political parties and three yes votes from the other members. Once the commission approved a redistricting plan, it would be used for the next decade. The process would be repeated every ten years, with a new 14-member commission for each future redistricting.
Funding
Commission members would receive $300 per day, plus reimbursed expenses, in return for their work on the commission. The measure specifies that the Governor and Legislature must make funding available in the state budget to support the selection of the commission, its work, and related costs. Funding would be established at the greater of $3 million or the amount spent in the previous redistricting cycle, adjusted for inflation. (The Legislature spent about $3 million in 2001 from its own budget, which is limited under the California Constitution, to adjust boundaries for all districts.) These funds could be used to establish the application review process, communicate with the public, compensate commissioners, and employ legal and other experts in the field of redistricting.
FISCAL EFFECTS
Having two entities—the Legislature and the commission—perform redistricting could tend to increase overall redistricting expenditures.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 11
It would create more business for me.
ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 11
I’m supposed to be a good Democrat and oppose 11 because we have a majority in the state house and we want to keep it . Nah-na-na-na-nah!
Must… not… use… term… Gerrymander…
Ok, that’s out of the way.
Redistricting is going to be biased no matter who does it. Redistricting is an integral part of representative democracy.
Don’t like your constituents? Take someone else’s! This legislation wants to turn that around. Put the power in the hands of the people who elected someone else to make these decisions in the first place. Don’t like your elected representative? Take someone else’s!
This proposition is about representation, and yet over-represents certain parties (begins with “rep” and ends with “ublicans”) and under-represents everyone else.
But wait, there’s more.
Even if the percentages of voters in the state change, their representation on this commission will not. This is a Grand Old Power-Play and is not the answer to redistricting woes.
Here is a little mnemonic device to help you remember how to vote on this one. When you think of 11, think of two thumbs down as the 1s.
You can even practice right now if you want, nobody is looking.
Also opposed by: CA League of Conservation Voters, Cal Labor Fed, CA Democratic Party, Mobilize the Immigrant Vote, Legislative Black Caucus and Legislative Latino Caucus, La Opinión
Vote no.
PROP 12: VETERANS’ BOND ACT OF 2008.
• This act provides for a bond issue of nine hundred million dollars ($900,000,000) to provide loans to California veterans to purchase farms and homes.
• Appropriates money from the state General Fund to pay off the bonds, if loan payments from participating veterans are insufficient for that purpose.
Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
Costs of about $1.8 billion to pay off both the principal ($900 million) and interest ($856 million) on the bonds; costs paid by participating veterans.
Average payment for principal and interest of about $59 million per year for 30 years.
BACKGROUND
Since 1921, the voters have approved a total of about $8.4 billion of general obligation bond sales to finance the veterans’ farm and home purchase (Cal-Vet) program. As of July 2008, there was about $102 million remaining from these funds that will be used to support new loans.
The money from these bond sales is used by the State Department of Veterans Affairs to purchase farms, homes, and mobile homes that are then resold to California veterans. Each participating veteran makes monthly payments to the department. These payments are in an amount sufficient to (1) reimburse the department for its costs in purchasing the farm, home, or mobile home; (2) cover all costs resulting from the sale of the bonds, including interest; and (3) cover the costs of operating the program.
PROPOSAL
This measure authorizes the state to sell $900 million in general obligation bonds for the Cal-Vet program. These bonds would provide sufficient funds for at least 3,600 additional veterans to receive loans. For more information regarding general obligation bonds, please refer to the section of this ballot pamphlet entitled “An Overview of State Bond Debt.”
FISCAL EFFECTS
The bonds authorized by this measure would be paid off over a period of about 30 years. If the $900 million in bonds were sold at an interest rate of 5 percent, the cost would be about $1.8 billion to pay off both the principal ($900 million) and the interest ($856 million). The average payment for principal and interest would be about $59 million per year.
Throughout its history, the Cal-Vet program has been totally supported by the participating veterans, at no direct cost to the taxpayer. However, because general obligation bonds are backed by the state, if the payments made by those veterans participating in the program do not fully cover the amount owed on the bonds, the state’s taxpayers would pay the difference.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 12:
On November 7, 1922, the people of California authorized the very first Veterans’ Bond Act for the Cal-Vet Home Loan Program. Over the past 85 years there have been 26 Veterans’ Bond Acts and Californians have consistently recognized the special debt we owe to those who have served our country in the armed forces by approving all of these bonds.
The Cal-Vet Home Loan Program enables veterans to obtain low-interest rate loans for the purchase of conventional homes, manufactured homes, and mobile homes without costing the taxpayers one cent. More than 420,000 California veterans, including those who served during World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and more recently, in Iraq and Afghanistan, have become homeowners under the Cal-Vet Home Loan Program.
All costs of the program, including all administration costs, are paid for by veterans holding loans. There have never been any costs to the taxpayers of California, so this is a fiscally sound way to assist veteran men and women as they return to civilian life.
The program is also good for the California economy because, in addition to helping veterans, Cal-Vet home loans generate thousands of housing industry-related jobs with millions of dollars in annual payrolls.
As these bonds are repaid by the veterans, new bonds must be authorized to continue this self-supporting program serving our veterans. That is the purpose of Proposition 12.
Approval of Proposition 12 will prove once again that Californians keep their promises to the men and women who perform the duty of defending our state and country. It is an appropriate expression of our appreciation for their service and sacrifice.
Your “Yes” Vote on Proposition 12 will enable more veterans to buy homes in California and help the economy at the same time, all with no direct cost to the state’s taxpayers.
SENATOR MARK WYLAND, Chairman, Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs
ASSEMBLYMAN GREG AGHAZARIAN
ASSEMBLYMAN TONY STRICKLAND
ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 12
While our national political leaders may not always be wise in directing the use of American military force around the world, we rightly honor military service—especially the service of enlistees who actually put their lives at risk in combat.
Enlistees should receive higher pay and benefits from the federal government. In the context of low pay and inadequate benefits from the federal government, state governments certainly are justified in stepping in and providing additional assistance.
The Cal-Vet Loan Program has provided low-interest farm and housing loans to veterans for many years. This measure would authorize the State to borrow more money (by selling bonds) to provide additional funds for the Program. The amount to be borrowed is $900 million.
Since funds are limited, the question is: WHICH VETERANS ARE THE MOST DESERVING OF ASSISTANCE?
Cal-Vet loans are limited to veterans who served in the time of a war—including the Korean and Vietnam conflicts and the current campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq.
There is no requirement for the veteran to have served in combat or even in a combat zone. A veteran who served in Germany or never even left the United States can apply for a loan. The veterans who actually served in harm’s way are most deserving of the limited assistance available under the Cal-Vet Loan Program.
California voters could reasonably insist that the Cal-Vet Loan Program be limited to veterans who served in combat or a combat zone before they approve more borrowing to fund the Program.
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 12
The opponents to Proposition 12 are wrong.
In fact, the Cal-Vet Home Loan Program helps all veterans who have served honorably with home loans. All veterans have served our country and have been given the responsibility to defend our nation no matter the circumstances.
Many who had to fight in combat did not know when they entered the service that they would be called upon to protect us in war, yet they did so with honor. Others who served our nation in peacetime also protected us and were willing to do so at any cost.
The least we can do to repay the brave service of the men and women of our armed forces is to assist them with home loans, which is the key to the American dream of homeownership.
The bonds to fund these loans cost taxpayers nothing because the mortgage payments from the veterans pay back the bonds and all other costs to administer the Cal-Vet Home Loan Program.
Over the past 85 years, the Cal-Vet Home Loan Program has helped over 420,000 veterans. Please help us to continue this worthy program.
SENATOR MARK WYLAND, Chairman, Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs
ASSEMBLYMAN GREG AGHAZARIAN
ASSEMBLYMAN TONY STRICKLAND
If my dad were still alive, he would be a veteran. Hmmm. Does that mean because he is dead, he’s no longer a veteran? Descartes and I will have to work that one out.
We’ve been helping these veterans for years, and the system is working. The argument against it is lame. The loans are paid back by the Veterans themselves. This is what citizens of the U.S. are supposed to all agree upon.
It’s supported by everyone. You are part of everyone. Therefore you must vote yes.
State Assembly Districts 74-79
District 74
Democrat
Brett Deforest Maxfield
Attorney
www.brettmaxfield.com
Republican
Martin Garrick
State Assemblyman
www.martingarrick.com
Unless Prop 11 passes, we have to remember that incumbents always win. In this case, it’s yet another Republican office holder easily crushing his opposition and winning re-election.
Live with it.
Besides, it’s North County. What do I care if they have an ineffective right-wing whacko? If they vote for him, the deserve him.
Sorry. Well, not really.
District 75
Democrat
Darren Kasai, Small Business Owner
Republican
Nathan Fletcher
Businessman
www.nathanfletcher.com
Quite frankly, this district deserves someone like Nathan Fletcher and vice versa. So long as they never ever, EVER elect Marie Waldron from Escondido, I’ll rest easy.
District 76
Democratic
Lori Saldaña
Assembly member/College Teacher
www.lorisaldana.com
Republican
Ralph Denney
Business Manager
www.voteralph.org
Oh, come on, Lori. When was the last time you set foot in a real school with real students? You’re better than this. You don’t need trumped up affiliations. You’re an incumbent now. You can rest easy.
Besides, my Art director is a neighbor of Mr. Denney. His opinion, which I generally trust is: eeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!!!!!!!!!! He’s icky! You know those neighbors that you really don’t want to know? Yeah, he’s one of them.
District 77
Democratic
Raymond Lutz, Engineer/Author/Administrator
Republican
Joel Anderson, Assemblyman
www.joelforassembly.com
It may be a blue tidal wave on Tuesday, but blue doesn’t wear well in the 77th. I don’t care if every registered Democrat and most independents voted for Lutz, he still will not have enough votes in that District to even come close.
District 78
Democratic
Marty Block
Board President, San Diego Community College District
martyblock.com
Republican
John McCann
Navy Officer/Businessman
www.johnmccann.com
Last time I saw John McCann, he was a Chula Vista City Councilmember. Did he recently join the Navy? Or, is he reaching just a little bit too far back in order to gain a nice ballot title?
And, the John McCann I knew would not savagely and erroneously attack Marty Block and misrepresent his positions like has been occurring.
It’s weird. The same thing happened when until-then nice former Chula Vista Mayor Shirley Horton (a former client) ran against Vince Hall. Granted, Vince made it easier for Shirley to win by airing a TV commercial that opened with a picture of him in a kilt as a kid, doing the Irish jig.
Oh, the fact that the Governator had a “thing” for Shirley helped a lot as well.
You can’t make this shit up.
Oh, vote for my friend Marty Block because he’s going to win or because he’s my friend or because he’s the best candidate.
But, I’m still holding a grudge that he didn’t choose the esteemed firm of Crotty Consulting Inc. as his consultant.
District 79
Democratic
Mary Salas
Member of the California State Legislature, Assembly District 79
Republican
Derrick W. Roach
Fraud Investigator/Educator
See Dist. 74, above.
City and County of San Diego Propositions
County of San Diego
Prop A: Regional Fire Protection Ballot Measure
To improve wildfire prevention and firefighting capabilities, shall the County of San Diego ordinance be adopted to establish a special fire protection parcel tax and provide for the establishment of a Regional Fire Protection Agency to coordinate expenditures and regional efforts including: Specialized emergency equipment such as helicopters and airplanes; Wildfire training programs for emergency personnel; Communications systems to improve response times; and, Brush clearing and other programs to help prevent wildfires?
Impartial Analysis from County Council
The County Board of Supervisors approved this ballot measure to be submitted to the voters. This ballot measure, identified as Proposition A, is a proposed County ordinance, entitled "An Ordinance to Improve and Enhance Firefighting Resources & Services by Adoption of a Regional and Local Fire Protection Parcel Tax." All voters in the entire County, including voters in all the cities and the County's unincorporated area, are asked to vote on Proposition A.
The purpose of Proposition A's proposed ordinance is to adopt a County special tax (known as the fire protection parcel tax) so that the tax revenues can be used to improve and enhance firefighting resources and services for regional and local purposes.
In addition, this proposed ordinance provides for the establishment of a countywide joint powers agency, which would be named the San Diego Regional Fire Protection Agency ("Regional Agency") that will manage, administer, and oversee the regional parcel tax funding for the deployment of regional firefighting resources and services.
A vote of two-thirds (2/3rds) of the voters voting on Proposition A is required to approve the ordinance. If approved, the ordinance would be adopted and a special tax applied to all real property parcels. The base rate of the tax would be $52/parcel per year. For large parcels, and large structures/improvements on parcels, this base rate would be increased by $1.00 for each acre in excess of 50 acres on a parcel, and 1¢ for each square foot in excess of 10,000 square feet of a structure/improvement. The maximum tax cannot exceed $1,000/year. The parcel tax would commence fiscal year 2009-2010 (beginning July 1, 2009), and would be due and payable at the same time as property taxes in December and April of each fiscal year. The tax rate and maximum tax are subject to an annual adjustment based on the local Consumer Price Index. The duration of the tax is limited to 30 years.
The tax revenues would generate approximately $50 million/year. Half the revenues would be allocated to the Regional Agency for regional purposes, and the other half to local agencies for local purposes. The local agencies include the County, all 18 cities, and all local agencies responsible for providing fire protection services within the unincorporated area. The local agencies are required to continue to spend a specified level of their own funds on fire protection in order to receive their full allocation of parcel tax revenues.
If this ballot measure is approved, the local agencies will enter into a Joint Powers Agreement that will create the Regional Agency. The Regional Agency's governing body includes 10 voting members: one member from the Board of Supervisors, the Mayor of the City of San Diego, four city council members from four of the remaining 17 cities, and four members from local agencies in the unincorporated area that provide fire protection services.
Arguments For Proposition A
We've all witnessed, first hand, the devastating impact on our community of two major firestorm in the past five years. All told, these fires claimed 27 lives, destroyed more than 4,000 home and led to one of the largest mass evacuations in American history.
Experts agree it is only a matter of time before another wildfire strikes our region again.
Passage of PROPOSITION A will dramatically improve our ability to fight future wildfires and significantly bolster day-to-day emergency services in every corner of our region.
Most importantly, passage of PROPOSITION A will provide necessary funding for the immediate acquisition of new fire trucks, new firefighting helicopters and aerial tankers - all to be used exclusively here in our local neighborhoods.
PROPOSITION A will provide the funds required to upgrade our emergency communication system, which will allow firefighters, police officers, dispatchers and other emergency responder to communicate with each other much more effectively.
PROPOSITION A will also strengthen local brush management and brush clearance programs reducing the very fuel that enables wildfires to spread.
PROPOSITION A provides for the establishment of Regional Fire Protection Agency to ensure better coordinated responses, resulting in quicker response times, and greater efficiency.
All of this can be accomplished with most property owners contributing only one dollar per week!
PROPOSITION A has strong taxpayer safeguards. It requires that proceeds be shared between rural fire districts and urban fire departments, ensuring that fire services in the entire region are improved. It also guarantees that funds cannot be diverted for other purposes or taken for use by either the state or federal government.
JERRY SANDERS, Mayor of San Diego
MARK BAKER, Fire Chief/President, San Diego County Fire District Association
WILLIAM B. KOLENDER, Sheriff
AUGUST GHIO, Fire Chief/President, San Diego County Fire Chiefs' Association
GREG COX Chair, Board of Supervisors Chair, San Diego County Unified Disaster Council
Arguments Against Proposition A
In the teeth of this recession, with record energy prices, soaring unemployment and plummeting home values, the county presents its solution - RAISE TAXES! What are they smoking?!
This tax is for fire protection, which should be a top priority for government. But we already pay plenty of taxes to provide firefighting.
If we need more money for this critical service, we should SHIFT funds from other less important government functions - such as the current policy of providing most thirty year county workers with two pensions that together far exceed their highest salary.
It's bad enough that politicians want to raise taxes. But this time they are after the poorest and weakest of our citizens.
This parcel tax charges the same $52 to almost all property owners - residential and business. Hence it is EXTREMELY regressive, hurting the working class and retirees the most. A two million dollar homeowner will pay the same parcel tax as a $200,000 condo owner.
Equally disturbing is that the county and local jurisdictions refuse to pursue more innovative, cost effective options to fight our infrequent but devastating brush fires.
Options such as:
Ask our thousands of firefighter-trained military to help fight the fires, especially in suburbia.
Form an emergency reserve volunteer firefighter brigade.
Train homeowners who want to stay and defend their homes - especially suburban homes - from the brush fire embers that cause most house fires.
In this recession, California politicians have gone tax crazy. Our state and local ballots will be filled with taxes and bonds galore. It's time to say no to ALL the tax increases.
And especially to this parcel tax. If this measure passes, count on more parcel tax propositions in future elections.
RICHARD RIDER Chairman, San Diego Tax Fighter
JOE SHEFFO, Candidate, Encinitas City Council
ALLEN P. HEMPHILL Newspaper Columnist
GARY PIETILA, Ranchita Homeowner
MICHAEL BENOIT, Chair, Libertarian Party of San Diego County
A $50 million tax on homeowners in San Diego ($52/ parcel) to establish a Regional Fire Protection Agency that would coordinate expenditures and regional efforts including:
• Specialized emergency equipment such as helicopters and airplanes;
• Wildfire training programs for emergency personnel;
• Communications systems to improve response times; and,
• Brush clearing and other programs to help prevent wildfires.
I defer to my wife when it comes to wildfires. First, she is like one. Next, after the 2003 wildfires, she was recruited to help fire victims.
Her qualifications? The ability to hug an ugly, sooty stranger and not think that it was “icky.” That began a two-year slog through the east county, hugging people, trees, bears, etc.
Once, she worked the crew of a submarine so hard that they were too tired at the end of the day to drink the beer I brought. Sailors. On a nuke. Too tired to drink? Yep. That’s my wife.
She says vote for this, it’s a good first step.
Next, we’ll talk about after-the-fire efforts – as in who’s there a year or two later when a family is still living in a trailer on their yet-to-be-cleared property because they were screwed by their insurance company.
San Diego Port Authority
Prop B: Marine Freight Preservation and Bayfront Redevelopment Initiative
Shall the San Diego Unified Port District's Master Plan be Amended by the Adoption of "The Port of San Diego Marine Freight Preservation and Bayfront Redevelopment Initiative?"
Impartial Analysis from County Council
Proposition B is an initiative that proposes to amend the Master Plan of the San Diego Unified Port District. The Port District has adopted a Master Plan that divides the Port's jurisdiction into planning areas, and then establishes how each area will be developed.
Proposition B concerns the uses of the Marine Terminal and Crosby Street Corridor planning areas. The Tenth Avenue Terminal is located within these two planning areas.
The current Master Plan limits uses in the Marine Terminal and Crosby Street Corridor planning areas to primarily marine oriented industrial and supporting transportation uses. One portion of the Crosby Street Corridor area is currently planned for public access to the waterfront with a 3.2 acre public recreation area adjacent to the bay. The Master Plan also "forsees continuation and intensification of cargo operations at the Tenth Street Terminal," and plans to include facilities for repair, servicing, berthing cargo handling for fishing, commercial and military vessels.
In summary, Proposition B, if approved, would amend the Port Master Plan, as follows:
Consolidates most of the Marine Terminal and Crosby Street Corridor planning areas into a new area entitled the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal Multi-Use Maritime District ("Terminal District"). An area near the Terminal District, the Railroad Yard, would be created with predominately heavy rail related uses.
Changes the uses authorized in the Master Plan for the Terminal District areas as follows:
Priority would be given to marine freight and storage activities, developing a new cruise ship terminal, improving access to the Tenth Street Terminal and waterfront, and constructing a parking facility and public recreation facilities such as parks and bike paths.
Adds language to the Master Plan permitting and encouraging development of the airspace above the Tenth Street Terminal for uses such as an aquarium, a venue for concerts and sporting events, hotels, restaurants and retail shops. The particular uses and their locations are to be determined through a consultative process with interested groups such as port tenants; labor organizations; environmental, community and business groups; and, visitor or convention groups.
Requires the Port District to select a private development entity within 60 days of the initiative's effective date and then negotiate an agreement with that entity to redevelop the Terminal District in accordance with the Master Plan as revised by this initiative.
Requires the private development entity to: ensure that concerns of marine freight tenants and their employees are incorporated into its redevelopment plan, consult with the Coast Guard and law enforcement agencies, and incorporate necessary and appropriate security measures in the redevelopment plan.
Prohibits using existing general funds or tax revenue from the Port District or any of its member cities. However, any new taxes raised as a result of the redevelopment may be use to implement the redevelopment plan.
Arguments For Proposition B
More than 62,000 San Diegans signed petitions (gathered by petition-gathers who were paid about $3 a signature) to put Proposition B on the ballot.
The initiative process in California was created in 1911 to wrest control of the political process away from special interests, especially the Southern Pacific Railroad, often called "The Octopus". "The Octopus" controlled the Legislature, the courts, even the press.
Today, in San Diego, a local version of the Octopus has repeatedly blocked proposals for improved public use of 97 acres of publicly owned waterfront land between the Convention Center and the Coronado Bridge, called the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal. Our local Octopus wants to protect its financial interests and those of their business friends.
More than 62,000 San Diegans signed petitions to open up these 97 prime waterfront acres for greater public use and to generate badly needed public revenue.
By conservative estimates, this property is worth $1 billion and can venerate tens of millions of dollars annually for cash starved local governments.
Proposition B guarantees existing maritime jobs at the 10th Avenue Terminal will be protected and expanded.
Proposition B calls for a visionary "decking" of the terminal, in order to permit cargo offloading, parking, and other commercial uses to continue at ground level while a pedestrian waterfront promenade and a variety of other public uses can be developed on the top deck.
Proposition B requires the Port District to seek proposals and public input to put the 10- Street Terminal to better public use. Among the ideas:
• A soccer/football stadium,
• Expansion of the Convention Center,
• A new cruise ship terminal,
• A new concert and sports arena,
• A world class aquarium, and
• 10,000 parking spaces for downtown, Petco Park and the Convention Center.
Proposition B redevelops the Tenth Avenue Terminal at no cost to taxpayers. Instead, Proposition B will generate public revenues.
FRANK E. GALLAGHER, Partner, San Diego Community Solutions
JOHN T. LYNCH, President & CEO, Broadcast Company of the Americas
SCOTT BARNETT, President, TaxpayersAdvocate.org
MARCOLM FRANKS, MBE, Retired CEO
KEITH BATTLE, Water Board Director
Arguments Against Proposition B
Don't be fooled by the Developers behind Proposition B and their phony-titled ballot measure.
Every Port Commissioner as well as military, labor, civic and business leaders strongly oppose Proposition B because it does nothing to preserve marine freight. Instead of the open spaces and bike paths promised in the measure, what it will really do is enable a 100-acre bayfront "land grab" that will ruin the economic viability of the waterfront with concrete, high-rise hotels, and a football stadium.
This is how the bait and switch would hurt the region:
Proposition B will allow Developers to cover the Tenth Avenue Terminal with a 100 acre concrete slab deck, high-rise hotels and a football stadium.
The loss of port capacity for cargo ships will result in the loss of more than 19,000 jobs for San Diego County.
The jobs that will be lost due to Proposition B are solid, good paying jobs, with sustainable salaries and benefits that help keep San Diego's middle class afloat.
The region would also lose over $1.8 BILLION in annual revenue during an economic downturn.
Proposition B would mean that over 245 ships every year couldn't dock in San Diego; On average, 379 semi-trucks would be needed to transport the goods and freight from each ship turned away! That's over 93,000 additional trucks driving through San Diego County annually - burning gas, causing pollution, clogging roads and freeways.
Proposition B would severely impact the environment and adjacent communities by causing more pollution.
Military experts agree that Proposition B would create a security risk for the port and could also mean that we would lose the Navy.
Is it worth losing thousands of jobs, adding more trucks to our highways, and risking our community's safety and the Navy for the benefit of Developers?
MICHAEL B. BIXLER, Chairman San Diego Port of San Diego
JOHN C. O'NEILL, Chair, San Diego County Taxpayers Association
TERRY E. MAGEE, President, SDMAC (San Diego Military Affairs Advisory Council)
LORENA GONZALEZ, Secretary-Treasurer/CEO San Diego Labor Council
DIANE TAKVORIAN, Executive Director, Environmental Health Coalition
My Take:
Frank Gallagher, the main proponent of the initiative that which would redevelop the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal, argues it would bring new businesses to the city, create new jobs and new revenue.
Opponents say that the new hotels and restaurants would be built at the expense of maritime trade and the military.
Who to believe?
The initiative would allow mixed-use development in an area currently zoned only for industrial uses.
The Port would be required to enter into an exclusive agreement with a private developer within 60 days, giving the developer air rights above the terminal.
Everyone assumes that means Gallagher, because he already has a plan. His plan is to build a deck over the active terminal. Now, many of the opponents claim that it is not explicitly stated there will be a deck, which would then open the doors for any old industrial development on the 96-acre terminal.
Gallagher has said he cannot possibly give even an estimated number of pillars necessary for the deck until he knows what will be built on top of it.
Therefore, it is assumed that he pillars for the deck will disrupt terminal operations. And, the argument goes, if business can’t go on below the deck, thousands of good-paying jobs will be eliminated. Further, the goods transported into San Diego would have to be moved to another port. And if General Dynamics NASSCO, located next to the terminal, cannot bring in the ship engines and roughly 30,000 tons of steel needed annually for building Navy and other government ships, its business could be forced out of San Diego.
That’s quite a few “what ifs.”
I have a few of my own: What if it passes and a deck is built? What if a deck can be built without interfering with military or maritime activities? What if they can do a deal with the Chargers to build a stadium ON San Diego Bay?
Unfortunately, as with many bold initiatives (anyone been to the airport lately), we’ll never know. The 600 people who run 98% of San Diego decided in their questionable wisdom that the plan was too go to be true and have enlisted the assistance of their wholly-owned subsidiary, the Republican party … with Labor saying “wait, let us on the bandwagon,” and spent a lot of money to kill Prop B.
“What if …” may serve as a more appropriate moniker than the Pete Wilson consolation prize phase “America’s finest City.”
City of San Diego
Prop C: Amends The Charter To Designate The Use Of Lease Revenue From Mission Bay Park
Shall the City Charter be amended requiring that annual lease revenue generated in Mission Bay Park exceeding $23 million initially and decreasing to $20 million after 5 years be appropriated 75% for capital improvements in Mission Bay Park and 25% for capital improvements in Chollas Lake, Balboa, Mission Trails, Otay River Valley, Presidio and San Diego River Parks; open space parks; coastal beaches and contiguous coastal parks; and future regional parks?
Summary:
Shall the City Charter be amended to require that annual lease revenue generated in Mission Bay Park exceeding $23 million initially and decreasing to $20 million after 5 years be appropriated 75% for capital improvements in Mission Bay Park and 25% for capital improvements in Chollas Lake, Balboa, Mission Trails, Otay River Valley, Presidio, and San Diego River Parks; open space areas; coastal beaches and contiguous coastal parks; and future regional parks for 30 years?
Fiscal Impact:
Beginning in fiscal year 2010 and continuing through fiscal year 2014, all Mission Bay lease revenues in excess of $23 million will be split 25% to the San Diego Regional Parks Improvement Fund and 75% to the Mission Bay Park Improvement Fund.
Beginning in fiscal year 2015 and each year thereafter, all Mission Bay lease revenues in excess of $20 million will be split 25% between the San Diego Regional Parks Improvement Fund and 75% to the Mission Bay Park Improvement Fund.
Based on projections of revenue for future years, beginning in fiscal year 2010 annual General Fund revenues of $2.8 million will be redirected to the San Diego Regional Parks Improvement Fund and Mission Bay Park Improvement Fund. This will grow each year based upon the growth in overall Mission Bay lease revenues.
Beginning in fiscal year 2015, an additional $3 million will be redirected to the San Diego Regional Parks Improvement Fund and the Mission Bay Park Improvement Fund.
Impartial Analysis from the City Attorney
The San Diego Municipal Code, section 22.0229, requires excess revenue from the lease of city-owned property within Mission Bay to be spent on capital improvements within Mission Bay and on capital improvements, planning, deferred maintenance, and land acquisitions for certain Regional Parks: Balboa Park, Mission Trails Regional Park, Otay River Valley Park, San Diego River Park, Multiple Species Conservation Program open space areas, coastal beaches and contiguous coastal parks. Excess lease revenue is defined as that annual revenue which exceeds $20 million. Excess lease revenue does not include Transient Occupancy Tax, sales tax, property tax, or any other revenue.
There is a $5 million annual limit on the allocation; apportioned $2.5 million to the Mission Bay Fund and $2.5 million to the Regional Park Fund. However, the Municipal Code also allows the City Manager to request that the City Council suspend the requirements of this section, should anticipated revenues be insufficient to maintain City services. The requirements of section 22.0229 terminate June 30, 2012.
The proposed Charter amendment would be in effect from July 1, 2009 until June 30, 2039. The amendment establishes a different sum for the excess lease revenues for the first five years: excess lease revenue is defined as annual revenue which exceeds $23 million beginning in July 1, 2009 and ending June 30, 2014. Starting July 1, 2014, excess lease revenue is again set at $20 million. The proposed Charter amendment also changes the apportionment of the excess lease revenue: 75% of the excess lease revenue shall be deposited into a Mission Bay Improvement Fund and 25% of the excess lease revenue shall be deposited into a San Diego Regional Parks Improvement Fund.
The funds in the Mission Bay Improvement Fund shall first be spent on specific priority projects. Upon the completion of those projects, the funds shall be used for capital improvements within the defined Mission Bay Improvement Zone as recommended by the Mission Bay Improvement Fund Oversight Committee and approved by City Council.
The excess lease revenue deposited into the San Diego Regional Parks Improvement Fund shall be spent for capital improvements in Chollas Lake Park, Balboa Park, Mission Trails Regional Park, Otay River Valley Park, Presidio Park, San Diego River Park, open space parks, coastal beaches and contiguous coastal parks, and future parks serving regional residents and/or visitor populations as may later be determined by ordinance of the City Council. The amendment no longer allows the funds to be spent on planning, deferred maintenance, and land acquisitions. The improvements shall be recommended by the San Diego Regional Parks Improvement Fund Oversight Committee and approved by the City Council.
If this proposition is approved, Municipal Code 22.0229 will be repealed. The Mission Bay Park Committee shall initially be designated by the City Council to serve as the Mission Bay Park Improvement Fund Oversight Committee. The Park and Recreation Board shall initially be designated by the City Council to serve as the San Diego Regional Parks Improvement Fund Oversight Committee.
Arguments For Proposition C
Mission Bay Park is a recreational and environmental asset for all San Diegans. The Park protects wildlife, provides for dozens of leisure activities and attracts tourists to strengthen our economy.
Unlike other parks, Mission Bay generates millions of dollars for the City through leases with hotels, Sea World, and other businesses. This money was originally used to pay for Mission Bay Park. Over time, it has been siphoned away to pay for other things.
FACT: Only 8% of Mission Bay lease revenue is spent improving Mission Bay; 92% is used elsewhere - mostly for "general" city expenses.
Proposition C increases the amount of lease revenue spent annually on projects to improve Mission Bay Park to approximately $4.4 million. This amount will increase as lease revenues increase. No tax dollars are used. No new taxes are needed.
Priority projects include:
• Expand wetlands and improve water quality.
• Restore water channels for boater safety.
• Complete bicycle and pedestrian paths and bridges.
• Increase wildlife preserves and delicate habitats.
• Improve security by installing sustainable energy lighting.
For:
COUNCILMEMBER KEVIN FAULCONER, Chair, Audit Committee
BOB OTTILIE, Past Chair, Mission Bay Park committee
COUNCILMEMBER DONNA FRYE, Chair, Natural Resources and Culture Committee
WILBUR SMITH, Chair, San Diego Park and Recreation Board
JERRY SANDERS, Mayor of San Diego
(No arguments against Proposition C were submitted)
Since Mission Bay is only receive 8% of Mission Bay Lease Revenues, the Council members representing the residents living near Mission Bay decided that they deserved 75% of all lease revenues.
How did they come up with 75%? Is that the amount that is proportional to the need?
Of course not. Why would we do something that reasonable and rational?
In past years, before the current “strong mayor” mistake, the Councilmember representing the Mission bay area would talk to all of the interested parties and figure out how much was needed. S/he would then go to the City Manager and do some old fashion horse-trading, and voila! The money would be recommended by the City Manager.
Of course, those in Mission Bay always would argue that they needed more money. So, the Councilman/woman would engage in very believable farce with the City manager, where they would shout and scream about how unfair it was to get “just” the amount o money that was actually needed. Constituents believe that their council person was fighting for them, but just couldn’t muster enough votes to override the big, bad City Manager. Everyone was happy.
No longer.
What was needed was a scalpel. What is proposed to be used is a chainsaw (you really didn’t think that they were only getting 8% and the need was 75%, did you?)
Oh well. It’s just our tax dollars. Actually, lessees tax dollars. And the Evans family (who own half the hotels in Mission bay) thanks us all very much.
City of San Diego
Prop D: Alcohol Consumption At City Beaches, Mission Bay Park, and Coastal Parks
Shall the People of the City of San Diego amend San Diego Municipal Code section 56.54 to make the consumption of alcohol unlawful at City beaches, Mission Bay Park, and coastal parks?
Fiscal Impact:
Fiscal Impact is unquantifiable at this time, due to the lack of applicable data and potential impacts such as changes in cost of enforcement levels, public safety & emergency response costs, sales tax and transient occupancy tax revenues, and other possible unknown consequences.
A violation of alcohol ban can be charged and prosecuted as either an infraction or misdemeanor.
Impartial Analysis from the City Attorney
Since 1977, it has been unlawful to consume alcohol in certain City parks and areas and on City beaches for various time periods (12, 16, or 24 hours) depending on location. The San Diego City Council has modified the law on many occasions to adjust time periods or to change locations subject to the alcohol bans.
Prior to January 14, 2008, drinking alcohol was unlawful at most City beaches, adjacent parks and sidewalks, and all land areas of Mission Bay Park for 16 hours a day (8:00 p.m. to noon).
Certain other beaches, coastal parks and areas were subject to either a 12-hour (8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m.) ban or a 24-hour ban on alcohol consumption. Alcohol consumption was permitted for special events, in sidewalk cafes, or on property leased from the City.
On January 14, 2008, a one-year 24-hour ban on alcohol consumption went into effect. The ban, approved by the City Council, prohibits alcohol consumption 24 hours a day on all City beaches, including Mission Bay Park and coastal parks south of Tourmaline Surfing Park. The temporary ban allows alcohol consumption on Mission Bay Golf Course, for special events, in sidewalk cafes, and on City-leased property. Other, mostly non-coastal, parks and areas remain subject to existing 12-, 16-, or 24-hour bans.
Proposal
This proposition, which would be effective January 15, 2009, asks voters to continue and to expand the temporary 24-hour ban on alcohol consumption at beaches, Mission Bay Park and coastal parks. The proposition makes alcohol consumption unlawful 24 hours a day at Mission Bay Park, all City public beaches, sidewalks, boardwalks, alleys, plazas, piers, jetties, seawalls, and all coastal access, view point and bluff rights-of-way. The proposition also lists the coastal public parks that will be included, some of which are new to a 24-hour ban. Alcohol consumption would be permitted at the Mission Bay and Torrey Pines golf courses; special events; sidewalk cafes; or by a City lease.
If voters approve the amendments described in the proposition, any future effort to repeal or modify these amendments will require voter approval. Voter approval of this proposition will not affect existing laws that regulate alcohol consumption in other parks and areas, so long as the existing laws do not conflict with the voter-enacted amendments.
If voters do not approve the proposition, the one-year temporary ban remains in place. When it expires, the law regulating alcohol consumption in Mission Bay Park, coastal parks and beaches will return to that existing before the one-year temporary ban.
The law would remain subject to modification by the Council, or by voters in future elections. Voters may obtain a copy of the law in effect before January 14, 2008 and the one-year temporary alcohol ban from the San Diego City Clerk.
Arguments For Proposition D
San Diego used to be the only major city in Southern California that permitted alcohol on the beach. Drunk and disorderly conduct had become commonplace year-round on city beaches.
This culminated in the 2007 Labor Day riot in Pacific Beach that required 70 police in riot gear to break up a mob of hundreds of drunks.
Earlier this year, an ordinance making our beaches alcohol-free began for a one year trial period. Lifeguards, police officers and families agree: The chance is like night and day.
San Diego families with small children have returned to the beach, no longer afraid their day will be spoiled by out-of-control drunks.
Lifeguards, firefighters and paramedics confirm it has created a safer environment, allowing us to focus on saving lives and keeping beachgoers safe.
Police officers confirm a reduction in beach area crime, freeing-up resources to better serve the City's neighborhoods.
The sand is no longer littered with piles of trash.
Senior citizens can safely enjoy an oceanfront walk.
Contrary to claims by liquor store owners who oppose attempts to solve this problem, safe and clean beaches have helped beach area businesses.
San Diego has now joined other major beach cities in offering world-class safe, clean and alcohol-free beaches.
TRACY JARMAN, San Diego Fire Chief
RANDY STRUNK, Business Owner, Surf Shop and Surf School
BILL NEMEC President, San Diego Police Officers Association
JULIE KLEIN, Beach Area Small Business Owner and Parent
KEN HEWITT, San Diego Lifeguard Chief
Arguments Against Proposition D
The government that governs least ... governs best!
But in San Diego a small group of wealthy, beach-property owners want to take away your right to enjoy your beaches. Taking away your rights and freedoms is easier than punishing the troublemakers, but it is the wrong solution.
Over 20 million people visit San Diego beaches every year. Here are the facts: * 99.9999 % of beach users DO NOT cause any problems;
San Diego beaches are routinely listed in national publications as the best vacation destination for families and singles;
Over 30 laws are in place to punish the troublemakers.
It is already illegal to: drink underage; be drunk in public; fight; or destroy property.
Taking away the rights of responsible citizens is NOT a solution.
Preserving your rights does NOT have to be all or nothing. Some other solutions besides a PERMANENT alcohol ban include:
Triple Fines for alcohol related offenses; " "Holiday" and "Overnight" alcohol bans ONLY;
Zero Tolerance police enforcement.
These policies punish those who cause the problem, not the responsible citizens of San Diego!
Proponents of the ban will say anything to get you to believe that the beach is better with a ban. Don't believe their hype! Here are the facts about the trial ban:
No decrease in crime at the beach. In fact, DUI's are UP 40% and crime is UP in the surrounding neighborhoods.
Beach attendance has decreased dramatically. That means our city has less money!
Time and money spent by police has been the same with, or without, an alcohol ban.
Don't let a special interest minority scare you into voting away your rights.
More punishment for troublemakers, overnight and holiday bans only, and enforcing our existing laws are the right solutions for San Diego!
ROGER HEDGECOCK
COUNCILMAN JIM MADAFFER, San Diego City Council
DAVID J. GERSZ, PRESIDENT, San Diego County Young Democrats
GEORGE PLESCIA, ASSEMBLYMAN 75th DISTRICT, California State Legislature
MICHAEL BENOIT, CHAIRMAN, San Diego County Libertarian Party
I don’t spend a lot of time on the beach, for obvious reasons. But if I did it might be nice to have a drink in hand…
What I find interesting is that alcohol will still be allowed on the golf courses. Golfers are arbitrarily more responsible? Is this a form of profiling? I have never seen an unruly Frisbee thrower on the beach … maybe you should be able to drink if you have a Frisbee in your hand as well. Girls tanning on the beach do not, in and of themselves, get that unruly. Allow them their Zima!
There are already strict controls on the times you can drink, allowing for everybody to use the area. This just offloads the problem to other areas.
If alcohol is outlawed, only outlaws will have alcohol. And that’s just not right.
San Diego Unified School District
Prop S School Repair and Safety Measure
To improve every neighborhood school by; repairing outdated student restrooms, deteriorated plumbing and roofs; upgrading career/vocational classrooms and labs; providing up-to-date classroom technology; improving school safety/security; replacing dilapidated portable classrooms; upgrading fire alarms; and removing hazardous substances; shall San Diego Unified School District issue $2,100,000,000 in bonds at legal interest rates, requiring independent citizen oversight, annual audits, NO money for administrators, and bonds issued only if NO estimated tax rate increase?
Impartial Analysis from County Council
This proposition, if approved by 55% of the voters voting on the proposition, would authorize the San Diego Unified School District ("District") to issue and sell up to $2,100,000,000 in general obligation bonds. The sale of these bonds by the District will raise money for the District, and represents a debt of the District. In exchange for the money received from the bondholders, the District promises to pay the bondholders an amount of interest for a certain period of time, and to repay the loan on the maturity date.
Proceeds from the sale of bonds authorized by this proposition may be used by the District only for the construction, reconstruction and/or rehabilitation of its school facilities, including the furnishing and equipping of its school facilities, acquisition, or lease of real property for its school facilities and construction management by District personnel.
The interest rate on any bond, which is established at the time of bond issuance, cannot exceed 12% per annum. The final maturity date of any bond could be no later than 25 years after the date of bonds issued pursuant to the Education Code or not later than 40 years after the date of bonds issued pursuant to the Government Code. Principal and interest on the bonds would be paid by revenue derived from an annual tax levied on taxable property within the District in an amount sufficient to pay the interest as it becomes due and to provide a fund for payment of the principal on or before maturity.
California Constitution Article XIII A exempts from the one percent property tax rate limitation ad valorem taxes to pay the interest and redemption charges on any bonded indebtedness for the acquisition or improvement of real property, including the furnishing and equipping of school facilities, when approved by 55% of the voters if: (a) the proceeds from the sale of the bonds are used only for the purposes specified, (b) the District, by evaluating safety, class size reduction, and information technology, has approved a list of specific projects to be funded, (c) the District will conduct an annual, independent performance audit, and (d) the District will conduct an annual, independent financial audit. If a bond measure is approved by 55% of the voters, state law requires the governing board of the District to establish an independent citizens' oversight committee. The District has made this ballot proposition subject to these requirements.
Arguments For Proposition S
Most San Diego schools are 40+ years old. Prop. S repairs leaky roofs, frayed electrical wiring, leaky pipes and plumbing. Prop. S fixes school bathrooms, dangerous heating and electrical systems, broken steps, and cracked sidewalks. Prop. S replaces deteriorating portable classrooms.
Prop. S removes hazardous asbestos and mold, upgrades fire alarms/safety doors, fixes unsafe school drop-off and pick-up zones, makes schools disabled-accessible, improves air quality, energy efficiency and installs security systems to protect our children.
Prop. S renovates and upgrades classrooms for Career/Vocational Programs that teach "real world" job skills.
Prop. S wires every classroom and school for Wi-Fi and the Internet, with technology upgrades for every school in every neighborhood.
Prop. S replaces an expiring bond with a new one, so our tax rate will not be increased.
San Diego City Schools earned two "Golden Watchdog" Awards from the San Diego Taxpayers Association for excellent fiscal management of their last bond.
JOHN L. KING, SDUSD Teacher of the Year
LINDA TAGGART, Principal of the Year
JOHN C. O'NEILL, Chairman, San Diego County Taxpayers Association
RAYMOND SANCHEZ, PTA, President
BILL NEMEC, President, S.D. Police Officers Association
Arguments Against Proposition S
San Diego homeowners pay among the highest real estate taxes in the nation. San Diego home prices soared over the last few years and local government reaped a tax windfall. Yet it is not enough. They would now add an extra $2.1 billion in school debt.
If you currently own a home valued at $500,000, Prop "S" would impose an additional $300 per year. This is on top of the base $5,000 tax (1% according to Prop 13) you already pay. And you are still paying off previous school debt. Something is wrong.
90% of downtown real estate taxes (over $100 million) are "diverted" to subsidize downtown developers. You are being asked to backfill this school funding hole. Your tax dollars were "diverted" from your children's education to so-called "redevelopment".
Homeowners pay 78% of all property taxes collected in San Diego County. Condo owners alone pay more taxes than all the commercial owners in the County combined.
Don't pay for your children's education twice. Vote "NO" on Prop "S".
TAXPAYERS FOR SHARING REDEVELOPMENT FUNDS WIITH SCHOOLS
PAT FLANNERY, Real Estate Broker
MARGARET KUYPER, Retired Educator
It’s always difficult to get a school bond passed, even with the threshold lowered to 55%. But, when there are allegations of illegally involving teachers and administrators during class hours, your in trouble.
Plus, didn’t we just pass Prop MM? What happened to that money?
I’ll have to resort to my time-tested, tried and true method for deciding how to vote. Let me check what the Union Tribune says … oh, they say not to vote for Prop S.
Vote for Prop S.
City Attorney, City of San Diego
Candidates
Jan Goldsmith
Occupation: San Diego Superior Court Judge
• Attorney for 32 years, former managing partner of successful private law firm
• Former Mayor of Poway, a successful City with a balanced budget and sound pension plan
• Three term state legislator focusing on civil and criminal justice, as well as foster care
• Law Professor at all three San Diego law schools. Course includes municipal law and political crimes
• Author of law text: "Law & Political Process"
• Nearly a decade as Superior Court Judge
Michael J. Aguirre
Occupation: San Diego City Attorney
Okay, I started helping Mike about a month out. I figure it this way:
Mike’s a staunch Democratic, while Goldsmith is a staunch Republican.
Although he can rub folks the wrong way and has a mercurial personality, Mike’s a true believer and the only one kicking asses at City Hall.
I honestly believe that if Goldsmith is elected, he’ll be another Casey Gwinn – allowing the Mayor and Council to do as they choose, regardless of it’s legality.
Jan is a politician who became a judge who became a politician again. Sound familiar? No?
How short our attention spans have become. How about the former City Councilman and Judge who was elected Mayor after Susan Golding? Dick Murphy didn’t work out that well.
This is one local race that may benefit from the anticipated “Obama Bump” – will low- and moderate-propensity voters turning out to vote for Obama bother make it all the way down ballot to Attorney? And, if they get there, will the take the time to figure out which candidate is the Democrat?
We’ve been doing everything we can to point out to Democrats that Mike is a Democrat and that when the go to the polls, they should “vote Obama for America, vote Aguirre for San Diego.”
I think it helped that I placed an Aguirre ad to run a 7:57 pm when Obama’s “infomercial” started at 8:00 pm on Wednesday.
Most people think it’s too late. The damage of 4 years of Mike trying to be explained in three weeks is just too much to do in such a short period of time. Also, this weekend, we’ll see a blizzard of negative TV, radio and mail.
It’s a challenge. That’s part of the reason I’m doing this. The other is money. I’m not fully paid. So, I’m voting in my own self-interest. Please help. Vote for Mike.
Council Member, City of San Diego, District 1
Sherri S. Lightner
Occupation: Small Business Owner/Engineer
Community Leader and Volunteer
Co-Owner Lightner Engineering
Staff Engineer General Atomics
Sr. Engineer Rohr Industries
Professional Engineer (M20020)
MS Applied Mechanics from UCSD
Phi Thalheimer
Occupation: Small Business Owner
Phil strikes me as one of those people who want to be elected so he can say he was elected. He speaks in generalities about fiscal discipline, running the City like a business …
Government is not business! Nor should it be run as a business. Individual profit is what motivates the private sector. The public sector’s job is to strive for the public’s general welfare. The two models cannot mutually exist.
Sherri is a more than full-time volunteer in La Jolla. Democrats and coastal Republicans will love her. Not the rest of the District.
Sherri loses in a tight one.
Council Member, City of San Diego, District 3
Stephen Whitburn
Occupation: American Red Cross Community Health Educator
Community Health Educator?
American Red Cross Liaison to San Diego Latino Community
Liaison to San Diego Latino Community?
The City Clerk was awfully generous – they usually only allow three words and require specificity – so, if he does media, it’s Media Maven or something like that. If he goes around talking to people, it’s “Information Disperser” or something like that. The “occupation” line in the ballot book is supposed to state one’s “principal occupation and/or affiliation.” So, what does the position of “Community Health Educator” for the local American Red Cross’s entail?
President, San Diego Democratic Club, 3 terms
Elected Member, North Park Planning Committee
Todd Gloria
Occupation: Congressional District Director
• San Diego Housing Commissioner
• Past Chairman, San Diego LGBT Community Center
• Resident Panelist, Mid City Prostitution Impact Panel
• Member, Hillcrest Clean Team
• Volunteer, Meals on Wheels
I see Steve as the gay John Hartley. From North Park and says he’s all about the neighborhoods. Except, nobody’s certain what exactly Steve has done for the neighborhoods.
When I’m advising a candidate what to say at someone’s door while precinct walking (after “what are your concerns?”), I generally say to:
Tell them who you are.
Tell them what you have done.
Tell them what you plan to do.
Be polite.
Try to keep it to 3 minutes.
With Steve, I’m concerned about #2. I’ve lived in Banker’s Hill/Hillcrest for more than 15 years and I’ve never heard of the guy other than, “don’t you remember, he was President of the San Diego Democratic Club?” Vaguely. Nothing else.
I’ve known Todd forever. I know how much time he spends in City Heights and other “blighted” communities. I know that he was on the Board at The Center. I know that he’s Susan Davis’ much-needed eyes, ears and often (pretty) face.
I don’t care about all this Nicole stuff. Totally irrelevant.
So, I’m voting for Todd. But, I’m keeping in mind that John Hartley won against GLORIA McCall in ’89. Work hard and good luck Todd.
Council Member, City of San Diego District 7
April Boling
Occupation: Certified Public Accountant/Businesswoman
Marti Emerald
Occupation: Consumer Fraud Investigative Reporter
I have known Marti and April for some time. I like Marti’s politics. I’m not sure that she fits the District, but the same goes for April on the right end of the political spectrum. Choosing Larry Remer was a mistake. With Marti’s name ID alone, she should have won in the primary. Her message has been inconsistent – including under new consultant Richie Ross …
[Richie Ross story. He used to be close with Speaker Willie Brown when I worked for Lucy Killea in the state Assembly. He parlayed that relationship into a lot of business, even through he’s been on the outs with the most recent Speaker. Then, along came Cruz Bustamante. Remember Cruz? The Democrat that jumped in as a replacement candidate for Gray Davis in the recall election?
Well, a judge found that Bustamante violated Proposition 34's cap of $21,200 on donations from individual donors during the recall by accepting several donations of $100,000 and more into an old campaign account that predated Proposition 34, and then tried to spend the money on his gubernatorial bid. The judge ordered Bustamante to return the contributions, but Richie said that was impossible because all the money had been spent!
worked for Cruz. She chose Richie to run her Second District City Council race and lost to Kevin Faulconer. Jerry Butkiewicz later chose Lorena to be the Labor Council’s political director. Butkiewicz retired and Lorena became Secretary Treasurer of the Labor Council. Now, Richie is consultant to the Labor Council and some of it’s endorsed candidates.]
April’s been building a base for almost as long as I’ve known her and it’s beginning to look like it’s hers to lose – especially after the Republican Lincoln Club pulled money they were going to spend on Boling and are now spending it to help Thalheimer in the 1st District.
Mayor, City of Oceanside
Rocky J. Chavez
Occupation: Deputy Mayor
• Oceanside City Council 2002-2008
• CEO of SBT Charter High School 2001-2008
• Marine from 1973-2001 (Retired Colonel)
• Legion of Merit, Defense Meritorious Service Medal
• Graduate Air War College, Armed Forces Staff College
• BA in English from California State University, Chico
Hey, Rocky, are you sure you want to be touting a degree from Chico state?
Jim Wood
Occupation: Mayor of Oceanside
• Mayor of Oceanside, 2004 - present
• Oceanside City Council 2002-2004
• Oceanside Police Officer for 31 years
• Graduate Oceanside High School 1966
• Graduate Mira Costa College
• Worked with FBI, NCIS, Secret Service
I haven’t done work in Oceanside since the late ‘80’s or early ‘90’s. It’s a fascinating electorate. Oceanside has 71,302 total voters. Democrats make up 32.5% of registration, Republicans, 40.9%, and Decline to State (independents), 22%.
Republicans have run things pretty much since Melba Bishop “retired.” I think Duane Dichara is running the Republican’s races (since Jack Orr passed away). I’m simply doing an IE for my buddies, the fire fighters.
Both Jim and Rocky are Republicans, but Rocky keeps pointing out that he’s more Republican than Jim. I enjoyed an exchange when Rocky was touting his military service and Jim pointed out that Rocky had never seen combat, while he (Jim Wood) “saw combat every day for 31 years as an Oceanside cop protecting Oceanside residents!” He came up with that all on his own! I love it.
Now Rocky is sending out mail with excerpts from Logan Jenkins piece in the UT:
“The cage fight between Wood and Deputy Mayor Rocky Chavez boils down to this:
Wood is proud of the job he's done the past four years – and believes Chavez is a manipulative liar who's in the tank for developers; Chavez, on the other hand, is certain he can do a better job as mayor – and thinks Wood is a blockhead who's in the tank for public safety unions and any NIMBYs that raise a ruckus.
After back-to-back KOCT interviews with each candidate, I came away with a few factors that might help balance the mayoral equation.
The Nice Guy Factor – That's Wood's strong suit. If your view of the ideal mayor is that he listens to his constituents, great and small, loves his hometown, and comes off like your Average Jim, re-elect the retired police officer. Even Chavez is hard-pressed to find one terrible thing Wood has done to warrant being turned out of office. If central casting were looking for the mayor of Mayberry, Wood would get the role.
The Wiseguy Factor – That's Chavez, hands down. If your view of the ideal mayor is that he's smarter than your average politician, authoritative, looks beyond his city's walls and comes off as an ambitious political star, you want to vote for the retired Marine colonel. If central casting were looking for a city mayor with the savvy and the ego to make the leap to, say, county supervisor or assemblyman, Chavez would be your choice.
The Q of L Factor – If your obsession is quality of life, as measured by the preservation of Oceanside's neighborhoods as pleasant places to live (i.e., no new asphalt plants or added traffic), then you need to knock on Wood – and vote for him.
The Prosperity Factor – If your obsession is local jobs and larger tax base to support an evolving bedroom community, then Chavez is more likely to lead the charge to that promised land. It's in his political DNA to compete on that playing field. In a city where the crime rate is going down, GOP trophies are handed out for job and housing creation.
Before you fill in the bubble, remember this: The mayor is just one vote on the council. The thrill of the job is primarily psychological, which is one reason why Chavez, who is not up for re-election, wants it so much. After an unsuccessful run in 2004, he wants to take over as the big cheese.”
Rocky includes the Mayberry Mayor thing along side of “the ideal mayor is that he's smarter than your average politician”
Of course, being smarter than the average North County politician isn’t really saying much …
I like Jim Wood to stay and keep Rocky waiting another few years.
Council Member, City of Oceanside (Full Term, Vote for 2)
Candidates
Michael T. Lucas
Occupation: Retired State Supervisor
BS Education
State Bureau Automotive Repair Supervisor
Teacher
Business Manager
Farmer
Automotive Engineer
Jim Gibson
Occupation: Hi-Tech Business Owner
School Board Trustee
Rick Kratcoski
Occupation: Grounds Supervisor
Zack Beck
Occupation: Youth Pastor
Esther Sanchez
Occupation: Councilmember/Attorney
Oceanside City Council Member, 2000-2008
Oceanside High School, Class of 1974
B.A., Urban Studies, Brown University
J.D., Hastings College of Law
Public Defender for 20 years in San Diego County
Opening own law practice business in Oceanside
Charles "Chuck" Lowery
Occupation: Business Owner
Member, Oceanside Chamber of Commerce
Board Member, Oceanside Coastal Neighborhood Association
Gandhi Non-Violence Award for Business 2006
Member, Oceanside Boulevard Vision Task Force
Jack Feller
Occupation: City of Oceanside Councilmember
Oceanside City Council member from 2000 - Current
Member of Oceanside Jaycees. Voted Jaycee of the Year in 1992 and 1999
Member of Oceanside Rotary. President 1993-94
Founding board member, Pacific View Charter School
Member, Oceanside Merchants Association
Oceanside Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, 1996-99; Volunteer of the Year 1990; Businessperson of the year 1996.
Rex Martin
Occupation: Retired 911 Director
Elected twice and served 8 years as Council Member, Deputy Mayor and Mayor of Birmingham, Michigan
Retired from the City of San Francisco as their Director of 911 Emergency Communications Department (Police, Fire/EMS)
Served with Homeland Security, Washington D.C., Director of Emergency Communications Center
Appointed by City Council to the Oceanside Arts Commission
Oceanside Charitable Foundation-Board Member
As with Aguirre, this race will be a good case study for whether the anticipated “Obama Bounce” trickles down ballot. Esther is a Democrat and has a solid base. Jack is a Republican and has a solid base. Both have high name ID. Feller has fewer negatives, but Sanchez has more solid support.
Feller (and the Republicans) want to see their hand-picked candidate, Jim Gibson, leapfrog over Sanchez so they have a solid three vote majority (Feller Council ally Jerry Kern isn’t up for re-election this year) – four votes if Rocky wins the Mayor’s seat, Feller and Gibson win the two council seats and add another Republican in the special election for Rocky’s seat on the Council.
Democrats and public safety unions are going after Feller hard, with the hope that as his negatives shoot up, the likelihood of Sanchez and Lowery wining is enhanced greatly. This only happens if the Democratic turn-out is huge and independent voters lean Democrat.
I think Esther will hang on. I’m not certain Feller can be pushed out of the top two, but I’m working on it!
