Pinnacle on the Props
When it comes to ballot measures, we apply a simple rule of
thumb:
”
just say no.
”
Pinnacle on the Props
When it comes to ballot measures, we apply a simple rule of thumb: “just say no.”
Once upon a time, the initiative process was invoked cautiously, and only on occasion. It was understood that amendments to the already-bulky state constitution bound the hands of decision-makers and ignored the possibility of changing needs and dynamics in the California landscape.
No longer. Californians are increasingly burdened with ballot box legislation, making the hard decisions their legislators fail to do. On Tuesday, California voters face no fewer than 12 propositions. Many of them are bond measures that, often, would finance needed public projects in California, but shift payment of them onto the backs of future generations. And while our inclination is to say “no” to all of them, that ignores some of the state’s critical needs.
Proposition 1A: Transportation Funding Protection
This one’s easy. The proposition handcuffs legislators by requiring that transportation funds not be diverted for any reason short of severe fiscal hardship. Vote no.
Proposition 1B: Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality and Port Security Bond Act
This would create a debt of nearly $40 billion to provide nearly $20 billion in transportation funds. As much as we need to improve the Bay Area’s transportation network, this is the wrong approach. The fairest way to fund transportation development is through fuel taxes. That way, those who benefit most, pay the most. Vote no
Proposition 1C: Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006
Another bond measure, this one raising $2.85 billion for shelters for battered families, housing for low-income senior citizens, military veterans and working families. California’s housing crisis hurts families, businesses and the economy. The severity of the need for affordable housing prompts the Pinnacle editorial board to endorse this bond measure. Vote yes.
Proposition 1D: Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act
This $10.4 billion bond issue would fund much-needed facilities for overcrowded schools. We vote for more local control of districts. Vote no.
Proposition 1E: Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006
With the memory of flooding in New Orleans fresh, it is an opportune time to attempt to resuscitate California’s crumbling network of levees. But if New Orleans taught us anything, it is that attempting to hold nature at bay while continuing to build in floodplains is folly. Vote no.
Proposition 83: Sex Offenders, Sexually Violent Predators Punishment, Residence Restrictions and Monitoring
The issue of keeping our children safe from predators is so emotional, that it is tempting to vote yes. But facts show that most children are assaulted not by strangers, but by people close to them. This would create an ineffective attempt at a solution, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Vote no.
Proposition 84: Water Quality, Safety and Supply, Flood Control, Natural Resource Protection, Park Improvement Bonds
The name says it all: this is a pork barrel mess designed to offer something for everyone that in reality delivers very little. Vote no.
Proposition 85: Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of a Minor’s Pregnancy
Again, on the face of it this seems like common sense. In reality, it does nothing to stop minors from having abortions. It only mandates a waiting period and parental notification. Reproductive health is something families should talk about, and in those instances in which a minor child does not feel at liberty to approach a parent, we fear there may be good reason. With a cost of several million dollars annually, we have to say vote no.
Proposition 86: Tax on Cigarettes
This would place an additional $2.60 in state taxes on every pack of cigarettes to provide funding for health programs and tobacco education, raising an estimated $2.1 billion annually. It would further have the effect of preventing thousands of young people from taking up smoking each year. Vote yes.
Proposition 87: Alternative Energy, Research, Production, Incentives
This is a tax on California oil producers. With California already importing most of its petroleum supply from out of state, this unfairly penalizes local producers. Vote no.
Proposition 88: Education Funding, Real Property Parcel Tax
A simple approach to a complicated situation. This places a $50 annual tax on every parcel of real property. The owner of a studio condominium will pay the same amount as the occupant of a Beverly Hills Mansion. What’s gained is enough money to buy one textbook per year for one in four California students. This is an unfair, regressive tax. Vote no.
Proposition 89: Political Campaigns, Public Financing, Corporate Tax Increase
This is a start toward campaign finance reform. With local races approaching the $50,000 spending mark, statewide campaigns blanketing the airwaves in an orgy of overspending, it’s past due. Don’t look to the Legislature for a solution. Vote yes.
Proposition 90: Government Acquisition, Regulation of Privagte Property
A solution to a problem that does not exist. This ties the hands of local government, removing much of its authority to pay private property owners fair market value for property for the use of projects benefiting the public. It is rarely used and we could find no local examples of it being abused. Vote no.
