Sunday, October 15, 2006

Speaking of Endorsements

All the newspapers have been throwing out their endorsements for the various candidates and issues for a while now. Too many out there now to list all of them here. I'm sure the news will get even thicker with endorsements as we get closer to election day.

The Humboldt Taxpayer's League finally made their endorsements on the ballot initiatives. They actually made those endorsements some time ago. I imagine they probably waited until closer to election day before releasing them. One good thing about the Taxpayer's League is they don't take positions on issues that don't affect taxes.

Our very own, Eric Kirk, posted his recommendations to his blog a few days ago (October 13 post), for those that haven't seen them yet. Don't know if you would want to call blogger recommendations endorsements, but I guess they're pretty much the same thing.

And whatever happened to the Democratic Central Committee's recommendations on the ballot issues? I see they sent their recommendations in to the HOPE Coalition, for listing in their voter guide, but I never saw them mentioned in any of the local papers. Did I miss it?

One thing I'd like to see more organizations do, especially the Libertarian Party of California, is give a reason for their positions on ballot initiatives. Sure, often you're just asked for a Yes or No, but if there's time and space to do so, a reason should be given for your position.

The Willow Glen Libertarian Alliance did such a thing on their web page. The Yes or No recommnendation is a link that sends you to another page with the reasons for their position. Good idea. Too bad the LP of California can't figure out how to do the same.

As for me, my positions I believe I've already given and they can be seen in the Humboldt Libertarians positions on the HOPE voter guide below. The only ones I publicly gave No Position on, which leaves those columns blank, were Prop 85- the minor's abortion notification one, and Prop 90- eminent domain reform.

I think I'll be voting Yes on Prop 85, but gave No Position to the HOPE Coalition because back when Prop 85's predecessor was on the ballot in March, one of the local LPers took issue with my support of it. That's good enough for me to take a public No Position for the group as a whole.

I'm still undecided on Prop 90 with most of me opting for a stand aside, as the Greens call it. In other words: Don't vote on it.

I certainly won't vote NO on it, but there are some legitimate concerns with the language of the initiative and its effects so I'll either vote Yes or stand aside, as I did on the vote on the Wal Mart/ Balloon Tract issue years ago.

Nothing wrong with not voting on something, at least on some issues, no matter what some people may try and tell you.

26 Comments:

At 12:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Prop 90? Gimme a break these guys are Watchdogs????

 
At 1:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

FRED-Don't you remember the news item: Little old lady owns house lived there forever, bad bad city uses eminent domain to take the house away so a developer can put a project that creates tax revenues?

You can't let this one pas Fred take a stand.

Either save us taxpayers from gready developers and paid off city council memebers wanting our property OR save us taxpayers from having to pay eminent domain in the amount the little old lady's property would be worth AFTER the developers get ahold of it.

 
At 1:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred said:

"One good thing about the Taxpayer's League is they don't take positions on issues that don't affect taxes."

So how does Prop 90 affect taxes?

 
At 2:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did the HTL say why they say yes to 1A and no to 1B? Can someone explain that to me?

 
At 2:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Prop 90 affects 'Taxpayers'

 
At 2:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Prop 90 affects 'Taxpayers'

Every Prop 'affects' Taxpayers. The question was how does it affect taxes?

 
At 2:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

2:16 It would obviously affect taxes if the bad city council using eminent domain had to pay this 'little old lady' fair market value for the project they are paving the way for the developer to develop-dolt. Or maybe that particular council had a money tree.

 
At 2:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Name calling, that cool.

So, what about the provisions of Prop 90 that would require the same city to pay the same "little old lady" if an ordinance or zone change could be perceived as changing the value of her property or abilty to make money from that property. Wouldn’t that cost taxpayers too? Since passing ordinances and zone changes are more common than eminent domain takings it seems like this could cost taxpayers more than it saves.

 
At 3:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe the HTL didn't read that part.

 
At 7:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

2:50 so that's why CREG is salivating over 90? You guys think the city should condemn the property and take it from the present developers?

Fat chance.

 
At 7:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1:10pm Are you talking about Larry, Nan, Kuhnel, Peter and Bonnie? All who accepted nearly $50,000 from Bill Pierson to thwart public desires for a Home Depot?

 
At 7:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bought and paid for. Look at what they want to deliver. No growth. The truth. Don't care how you spin it.

 
At 8:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1:10 did not mean that clan-talking about another little old lady's house not the Marina Center. Have no idea what 2:50 is on.

Why would the 'city' have to pay for the difference in zoming when it would be the property owner asking for the zone change? I don't get it.

 
At 8:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Boy, you people are really off topic.

I just read in the voter pamphlet that Prop 90's fiscal impact will be "Increased annual government cost to pay property owners for losses to their property associated with new laws and rules...".

So can the HTL please tell me, how Prop 90 helps me, the taxpayer?

 
At 8:23 PM, Anonymous mresquan said...

Explain how Home Depot equals growth.Explain why since Arkley started his crusade to take over Eureka its population has decreased(3% or so over the last 10 years according to city documents) with kids leaving the area to go on more prosperous adventures.The only thing saving the city from a further decrease has been the infultration of senior citizens who live off of the big box industrial complex which has sent kids packing by the groves.

 
At 9:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mresquan, thats laughable...Is Arkley responsible for the lousy weather today as well? Arkley responsible for the kids leaving the area for better paying jobs? Gee, I thought maybe it had a bit to do with the steep decline in good paying blue collar jobs in the timber industry over the past twenty five years. And all this time I thought those jobs went by the wayside as logging has been curtailed...NOW I have been set straight - It's ROB!!!! LOL.
Oh, its Rob, AND the "big box industrial complex" who have also chased our kids away.

 
At 9:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The rate of kids leaving was no different then than it is now.

 
At 9:28 PM, Anonymous mresquan said...

Sorry,I know that he isn't to blame solely.I just took a moment to take a shot at him because of his fixation on putting a Home Depot in. And his wife sat on council through big box proposals.And are you going to tell me that he doesn't own property in this country where a big box development sits on The big box industrial complex's takeover here has to do with years and years of city mismangement and its supposed need to rely on the promised income base which it never brings in.Twenty five years of promised big box payoffs falling through has hurt us big time.Finally Eureka has a few candidates who see what it has done to this community and want to ensure that the public has a voice in future proposals,instead of being left out,and left to deal with its consequences.

 
At 9:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I will let you people decide.

Jerry Droz

 
At 8:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank Jerry, that's nice of you.

 
At 11:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jerry just look at what you are posting before you hit the send button-kay?

 
At 11:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oops
"mresquan said...
Sorry,I know that he isn't to blame solely.I just took a moment to take a shot at him because of his fixation on putting a Home Depot in. And his wife sat on council through big box proposals.And are you going to tell me that he doesn't own property in this country where a big box development sits on The big box industrial complex's takeover here has to do with years and years of city mismangement and its supposed need to rely on the promised income base which it never brings in.Twenty five years of promised big box payoffs falling through has hurt us big time.Finally Eureka has a few candidates who see what it has done to this community and want to ensure that the public has a voice in future proposals,instead of being left out,and left to deal with its consequences"

Sorry, could have sworn that was from Jerry Droz! Sorry Jerry!

 
At 4:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Eureka Greens now have some up too, but I guess HOPE doesn't care what they think.

 
At 9:19 AM, Anonymous mresquan said...

More great stuff from the Eureka Greens blog.
Anonymous said...
Updates through humboldtgreens.org? Now that's a frigging joke. Lunatic asylum escapee Jesse Goplen and his pornographer wife haven't updated that since July. The whole point of them taking it over was to disrupt the county party and they succeeded completely. Time for the Eureka Greens to stop depending on these waste cases.

8:24 AM

 
At 2:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Review of Ballot measure 1A

Current law allows borrowing from the transportation funds by the legislature. Over the past years the governor and legislature has borrowed billions (yes Billions) of $ from the fuel taxes. Money that was to be used to build and repair our highways and road. This Constitutional Amendment will make it harder for the highway funds to be taken and then only in an emergency. Moreover, the funds borrowed must be paid back to the highway fund with 30 days of the new budget. And finally, the funds already taken from highway will have to be paid back at interest within 10 years.

 
At 8:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

BLOGGERS POLL = IT'S DROZ AND WILBURN .

 

Post a Comment

<< Home