Okay here are the ballot measure recs:
PROPOSITION 13 – YES
Prop 13’s an easy yes. A no brainer. It means that, if you’re a building owner, and you want to make your building safer in our earthquake prone state by retrofitting the thing, you won’t pay higher property taxes because you have been a responsible property owner. You’ll only be taxed on the upgrade when the building is sold. It’s in the interest of public safety that we pass this puppy.
PROPOSITION 14 – YES
This is the measure I dithered over the most. It’s the so-called “Top Two” elections reform plan. If it passes, it means that when you go to the ballot box on primary day, you can vote for whatever candidate you like, regardless of party affiliation—yours or theirs. And the top two candidates will go into the runoff, again, regardless of party affiliation.
Theoretically, Prop. 14 will help alleviate the partisan gridlock that is so hamstringing Sacramento by encouraging legislators and candidates both to play to the middle rather than the far right or far left of their base, which is what we’ve got now, particular on the Republican side of things.
Will it work? Some experts say, yes. Other say, the affect will be minimal.
Plus there is the argument that it will eliminate 3rd party candidates from the general elections, which is arguably true—(unless the 3rd party candidate is unusually strong, then it could possibly help that rare person.)
Although many support the measure, both the ACLU and the Howard Jarvis folks oppose 14, as do the leaders of both political parties.
Nearly every major newspaper supports it.
My final reason for coming down on the YES side is that I am so fed up with the paralyzing partisan bickering in Sacramento that I figure it can’t possibly get worse and that desperate times call for desperate measures. I hope I am not proven wrong.
Washington State has passed a similar measure, and has been pleased with the results.
If it does pass, however, we must pressure legislators to amend it to allow for write in candidates, which in its present form it eliminates.
PROPOSITION 15 – YES
Prop 15 would lift the ban on public funding for elections, if candidates meet certain requirements. It would pay for itself by levying fees for lobbyists of $350, (which is not exactly onerous).
But here’s the thing: It is simply a pilot program and would only be tried out for two elections cycles to see if it works, and even then, only for one office, that of Secretary of State. Then it can be expanded if we like it. If not, nothing lost; without renewal, it will expire.
The LA Times has an unusually good rundown on the measure if you want to know more.
Prop 15 is opposed by people like Meg Whitman who think it would be BAD for democracy if they were not allowed to buy elections. (I don’t believe that’s quite how she phrased it, but that’s the bottom line.)
PROPOSITION 16 – NO (WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE)
Prop 16 is a true jaw-dropper—a conscience-free attempt at corporate law making.
If you had a meter than measured chutzpa, Proposition 16 would send it into the red zone.
The measure is funded almost entirely by utility giant Pacific Gas & Electric Corp.to the tune of $46 million and it is as bald-faced a power grab as you can imagine, designed to give PG&E, and other investor-owned, profit-making utilities, virtual monopolies in the areas they cover.
More specifically, Proposition 16, the disingenuously named the TaxPayers Right to Vote Act, would amend the state’s constitution to require a two-thirds vote before any city or municipality can offer its residents some sort of alternative source of electricity. (And we know how often supermajority votes on anything pass in the state.)
The same two-thirds vote would also be necessary before cities could create “community choice aggregation” programs, in which residents sick of rising PG&E prices may buy power wholesale from elsewhere, or several eleswheres.
PG&E really, really doesn’t like it when you comparison shop and buy cheaper power elsewhere.
So it has paid for a ballot initiative in order to block such moves in the future. In short, Prop 16 is a proposed a law that would only benefit it’s primary backer—PG&E, and other investor-owned companies, not you and me.
If you want to read more, try the Modesto Bee’s editorial opposing the measure titled: Prop. 16: No way, never, uh-uh, no.
PROPOSITION 17 – NO
Prop 17 is another corporate funded power grab, albeit one that is not quite as breathtaking as Prop. 16, but nearly so.
Backed by Mercury Insurance, which has spent a bundle on the campaign, Prop 17 allows drivers to bring their “company loyalty” discount with them if they change insurers. Doesn’t sound so bad, right? But in offering that little carrot, the measure would take a great big step toward gutting the 1988 landmark piece of legislation, Proposition 103, which requires insurance companies to offer and price policies based on a drivers’ individual safety records and driving patterns, not on broad strokes risk groups. Mercury has tried, unsuccessfully, to kill the law before. Prop 17 would allow Mercury to wound 103, which is bad for all of us.
In other words, with one hand, Mercury and it’s fellow insurers are giving you a nice, sweet cookie, but while you’re munching, with their other hand, they’re jacking your wallet.
The hidden wallet-jacking comes in the form of much higher rates for anyone who is newly insured (younger people, lower income first time insurance buyers), or who stops driving for a while, like students, someone with an illness, or a man or woman who joins the military, your nephew if he moves back east for two years of graduate school, for example. And if, heaven forbid, you are ever really late on paying your insurance premium, under this proposed law, you can have your rates raised to unpleasant heights.
To put it another way, Mercury and its pals are not in the habit of giving away money. And they certainly aren’t going to plunk down big bucks to do something that only benefits me and you. (Consumer Reports claims that they have spent $17 million on the YES on 17 campaign.)
One more thing: earlier this year, Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner filed a lawsuit against Mercury stating that the insurance company had:
1. improperly applied surcharges to its customers
2. failed to give customers the discounts they were due
3. discriminated against people with certain medical conditions
4. refused to insure applicants based on their occupation.
So, yeah, I’d trust that Mercury’s paying the tab on this initiative because it has your best interest in mind.
NOT.
NOTE: Late tonight I’ll put up a print out list, for those who want take it with them.