Monday, July 03, 2006

No, No and NO!

That's how some folks in the know think voters might vote on the initiatives on the November ballot, according to the Oakland Tribune. I hope it goes that way for most of them but there are at least a couple that deserve a Yes vote.

3 Comments:

At 4:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll be voting no, no and no on everything BUT the higher penalties for child abusers. I'll consider the one that stops the legislature from using funds for other than they were adopted (the highway funds for example) but anymore I do not trust the initaitve process.

But for child abusers its either the global positionaing anklet or the death penalty as far as I am concerned.

 
At 4:20 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Problem with that child abuse (molester?) one is, if I'm thinking of the right one, that's the one that prohibits sex offenders from living within some specified distance from schools.

It's been pointed out that, in many highly populated areas, they'd have a difficult time finding a place to live, since the schools are so numerous and close together. That means they'd have no choice but to live in rural areas, like Humboldt where there's enough distance between schools they could find a place to live.

One that I'll definitely vote for is the one that limits use of eminent domain by government, making it more difficult for government to take property from one private entity and give it to another.

That's Prop 90 on the upcoming ballot. A result of efforts by folks from all sides of the aisle to rein in eminent domain powers after the Kelo vs. New London decision by the Supreme Court. It may or may not be the best one- there were four different initiatives circulating dealing with the issue- but it's the one that made it to the ballot.

 
At 7:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with you on the eminent domain thing.

I think the sex offenders are already prohiibited from being within a certain distance of schools. 'Course in our mobile society, that doesn't seem like it would stop them.

Just discovered that a local fly-by-night looking "yard" service is listed on Megan's list. Not too happy to see him in my neighborhood. "Lewd and Lascivious acts with a child under 12" is all it says, doesn't specify whether they were his own kids, or others, whether they were girls or boys, and gives no indication what kind of risk he might pose.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home