Tuesday, January 08, 2008

February 5 Ballot Initiatives

Ok. Get your pencils and papers ready. I'm going to going to tell you how I'm voting on the ballot initiatives that will be on the ballot for next month's primary election. I'll have to admit that I paid scant attention to these until recently and it doesn't sound like any of them are all that exciting. I'm taking No Position on most of them.

I went ahead and checked what positions, if any, the Libertarian Party of California had taken on these initiatives. Looks like I went along pretty much with them, as is usually the case. One thing the LP CA still doesn't do, and I've suggested more than once, is give a brief reason for why they choose the position they chose. I'll never understand why they just say Yes, NO, or No Position.

Prop 91- Transportation Funding: No Position

This seems to be another one of those things where a commitment is made as to how a certain allotment of money is spent. Actually, as I read it, this just guarantees money from gasoline taxes is spent on transportation needs as it was meant to be.

That sounds good. I'd almost support it. Problem is, a lot of our budgetary problems seem to stem from trying to commit certain monies from certain sources for certain things. I feel like voting Yes, but think that might ad fuel to the fire. I'll stand aside on this one.

Prop 92- Community College Funding: NO

I have a soft spot in my heart for community colleges but this seems to be another one of those spending mandates with no specific source of funding. We already have too many such mandates and it's caused spending to go into overdrive in some cases.

Prop 93- Term Limits: NO

I've said before that I'm ambivalent on term limits, but I'll vote NO on this just because the people who wrote it are going on as if it strengths term limits. It actually rearranges term limits and allows many current legislators (especially the initiative's authors) a little more time in office.

I'm with [the Sacramento Bee's] Dan Walters: A good case can be made for ending, or at least modifying, California's current term limits law. Go ahead and make the case for changing term limits, then. Don't try and deceive voters with misleading titles to your initiative.

Props 94 thru 97- Indian Gaming: No Position

I'm not even going to bother educating myself on these ones. They're different versions of a referendum to overturn some indian compact the state legislature made a while ago.

I'm getting a little fed up with the way the state legislature seems to be joined at the hip with the indian casinos. At the same time, I don't care all that much what the casinos do, I just don't like how the indians get to do things no one else can.

I'll wash my hands of the whole affair and stand aside on all of these.


At 1:15 PM, Blogger O Pechanga said...

Fred, I'm going to ask you to come to my blog and take a look around. Hopefully, you will understand why we are hoping you vote NO on the expanded gaming compacts.

Missing from the Big 4 Tribes figure of $9 billion is the fact that the Special Fund they pay into, for mitigation of the issues generated by the casino, traffic, public safety, fire will GO AWAY with this new compact.
That means that $1.5 Billion that we are already getting is included in the $9 Billion.

We also have to believe, that the tribes can generate $130,000 per machine per year, for 5,000 additional machines PER Tribe. Does anyone not believe that more machines will dilute the total of the existing machines? Or that the sole reason that people are staying away from these four tribe’s casinos is that there are not enough machines?

How much more traffic would Pechanga have to generate? They would have to have at LEAST 2.5 times the visitors they have now PER DAY, spending the money that is spent now. Can they handle that much business? They don't have the parking. The roads won't handle it. Is that much more traffic fire safe? Will local fire departments be able to check for safety in a sovereign nation?

Do you know the total Indian population of these four tribes? About 1800 people. (that’s because Pechanga has eliminated 25% of their tribe in violation of their OWN constitution and bylaws, as depicted in KNBC’s Without A Tribe. So using the tribe’s figures 33,000,000 Californians will get $9 Billion and 1,800 Tribal Members will get $27,000,000,000.

Come take a look.

At 5:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice post Fred, but your 'no position' positions should just simply be 'no'. The California initiative process has simply been more trouble than it's worth.

At 6:39 PM, Anonymous Andrew Bird said...

Ron Paul's star sure fizzled out quickly. lol

At 9:27 PM, Blogger Fred said...

I'd say sentiments similar to Ed's are one reason why. From Eric's blog:

"Oh well, if the big H wins the nomination she's got my vote even tho she's right up there with Diane Feinstein on my unfavorate list.".

At 9:45 PM, Blogger mresquan said...

"Ron Paul's star sure fizzled out quickly. lol"

Not so true Andy.

At 9:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrew Bird said...
Ron Paul's star sure fizzled out quickly. lol

I'm no fan of Ron Paul, but even so, Andrew Bird's candle looks pretty dim from my perspective.


Post a Comment

<< Home