Green without Guilt -- Final End

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4], 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 20:07:40 10/21/02 Mon
Author: Drummond
Subject: Green without Guilt

My picks in the California election
Green Without Guilt

Hopefully, this article will contain a few thoughts you find useful even if you disagree with my voting choices. I'm very grateful for the presence of the Greens in this election. Yes, I support much of their agenda, but really, these races would hold very little interest for me even with two confirmed crooks representing the larger parties in the governor's race.

I have a formula for voting. Basically, I vote for progressive candidates, and I'm not wedded to any particular party. Being a realist to a certain extent, I tend to vote Michael Harrington's "left wing of the possible." This means I vote for Democrats for the most part, unless they piss me off enough to toss a vote in the direction of a left wing "third" party. The third party of choice these days is the Green Party, having replaced the hapless Peace and Freedom Party which appears finally to have been buried in a coffin laden with nails of sectarianism. The Green Party is a bit more diverse, mature, and possessive of a surprising level of savvy and depth.

The basic formula, in which I consider the following:

1. Is the race close?
2. Do the politics of the office holder really matter so that I should be "pragmatic?"
3. Is the Democrat worth promoting for some possible run for an office that does matter?
4. Does the Green candidate have a brain?
5. How bad is the Republican?

Governor:

I first heard of Peter Camejo way back in high school, when I joined the Socialist Workers Party (they came up under "socialist" in the phone book). The SWP was the premier Trot group in the US and had recently drummed out their leader Peter Camejo for some heresy I don't remember. He went unheard from in left activist circles until he surfaced a few years later as a successful stockbroker, apparently partaking in Jerry Rubin's concession that "power is in money, not people." He disappeared from politics for awhile, and reappeared in the early 1990s when some refugees from the more dogmatic sectors of the left coalesced into the "Committees of Correspondence," now expressing its politics within the Green Party.

Camejo possesses a gravitas that has been absent in progressive electoral politics, and actually California gubernatorial candidates in any party since Upton Sinclair. Unlike most left candidates, he has been very successful in private business, starting the nation's first successful socially conscious investment firm (Progressive Assets Management) leading to the creation of businesses like Working Assets and one of the strongest pension funds in California. He is as brilliant as Nader, but makes a better leader for his sense of irony and his wit. Unlike Nader, he doesn't take his causes so seriously that he sacrifices humor and depth, milking the "socialist stock broker" shtick for all it's worth. Every once in a while he relapses into some of the old rhetoric that makes some of us recovering Marxists wince (such as references to "smashing the two party duopoly"), but mostly his positions are presented with a reasonable level of intelligence, depth, and what could be considered marketable quality. Most importantly, he knows he is not going to be governor. He knows that his campaign is movement building and positioning, and nothing more. It's important to support leaders with a basic grip on reality.

So why vote for him? Well, if he gets 5% of the vote, the media will report "momentum" of the Green movement which could contribute to a climate of progressive mandate in California. It's that simple. It may force Davis to the left on a few issues, particularly if he beats Simon by double digits and Camejo still pulls his five percent.

Gray Davis has done little to deserve your vote. He's vetoed more legislation for the environment, civil liberties, and government accountability than Wilson vetoed in two terms. His support for the death penalty and a series of "reforms" to criminal law that endanger everything from the presumption of innocence to the reasonable doubt standard approaches a demagoguery that makes many conservatives blush. He presided over the deregulation that sent our power system into a nosedive, and tried to solve the problem by handing the same sleazoids who pushed it even more money. While the Municipal Utilities Districts around the state outperformed the privatized areas hands down, he did not praise them as a model but instead threatened to shut them down when they didn't cut the rest of the state breaks in prices for their surplus power. Davis remains the last real bastion of conservative power in Sacramento, excluding the courts. Yes, he's done a few things for labor and supported minimum wages while providing small favors in opposing drilling off the northcoast shore, he's pretty much taking the progressive vote for granted, maintaining a delusional belief that he can actually be elected president in 2004. If Riordan had won the Republican primary and a good Green alternative was not available, I might have considered voting for a Republican for a partisan office for only the second time in my life. In some respects, Riordan is to the left of Davis on social issues.

And a Green vote comes without guilt as Simon has apparently tripped over his own dick one too many times with the COPS photo stunt. His incompetence had earlier manifested in the implosion of his campaign where he was forced to lay off half his staff. He's been through four campaign managers. Add to this his ongoing legal problems, even though he was bailed out of a unanimous jury verdict of fraud by a Republican appointed judge who will probably be reversed on appeal long after the election. He's run at least one business into the ground on top of the fraud, exemplifying Jim Hightower's profile of a spoiled rich kid who was born on third base thinking he hit a triple. Quite frankly, if California voters are willing to elect a crook/moron of this caliber, we deserve him. He would be a disaster if he was elected. Even the RNC has cut him off.

Camejo prevails on points 1, 3, and 4, while Davis prevails on 2 and 5.

"Green without guilt!" There's a postmodern slogan for you.

Lt. Governor

The Lieutenant Governor doesn't do much besides sit around waiting for the governor to kick the bucket. It really wouldn't be a tragedy to progressives if the Republicans took it. Cruz Bustamente, a moderate democrat waiting for Davis to retire so he can run for governor is a nice guy, but nothing to write home about politically speaking. In the interest of "strategic voting" this is the perfect position to vote Green without guilt. Donna Warren has led a futile campaign against the Three Strikes law and is a windmill fighter worth supporting. Moreover, the Republican candidate, Bruce McPherson is a Riordan type moderate who brags about voting against offshore oil drilling. Anyway, Bustamente is going to win hands down.

Warren prevails on all 5 points.

Green without guilt.

Secretary of State

Now here is one of those offices of importance. The last Republican in a statewide position currently holds office in the incarnation of Bill Jones. This is an important position because the Secretary of State writes the official summaries for the ballot propositions, which voters rely on rather than the actual text of the proposed laws. Jones' summaries have been partisan to the point of misleading on at least two occasions to my memory. The position does matter.

Kevin Shelley is a liberal from San Francisco who is a bit of a party hack; part of the Brown/Burton machine that takes liberal positions nationally while doling out special perks to the powerful locally. Shelley hasn't been especially bad despite his ties, and he supports open government reform. He seems genuinely interested in improving the rate of participation in elections. He's about as liberal as one can be and be elected statewide.

His Republican opponent hasn't even hit the radar screen, and I only remember him for his legislation mandating that students learn about the Constitution, which wouldn't be such a bad thing if it wasn't simply a platform to wrap himself in the flag. Still, he's no Bill Simon or Dan Lungren.

The Green candidate Larry Shoup lacks that quality that would warrant a green vote in a position like this. He listed on his resume membership in the National Writers Union, but then wrote a statement for the ballot pamphlet riddled with dogmatic cliches. Maybe the union should offer an apprenticeship.

It appears that the Democrats are headed for a clean sweep of the statewide positions this election, and Shelley is well out ahead in polls.

Shelley prevails on all but point 1.

Attorney General

Most of my voting choices are between the Green candidate and the Democrat. On this occasion I am half tempted to vote for the candidate of another party. "Fast" Eddy Kuwatch is running for attorney general. He is a brilliant criminal defense attorney from Willits who has literally written the book on confounding the rather draconian driving under the influence laws that cast a very wide net. He is a champion for civil liberties, though he's retired from the trenches. He's a nice guy with a terrific sense of humor. You don't see it in the pamphlet photo, but there's a pony tail behind that head.

But he's a libertarian. You know, privatize the sidewalks? Given the current political climate, I just don't fell right about promoting the "Ayn Rand is a prophet of God" approach to politics even for someone I like. The last line of his statement was the clincher: "I say �encourage' businesses
to do that because we don't need any more rules forcing businesses to do anything." God forbid that the businesses should have to follow rules!

But more to the point, Bill Lockyer is a good Democratic leader. Not great, but I will vote for a good Democrat over a great Green for an office that matters. Lockyer was instrumental in passing the anti-SLAPP law as a legislator. He's avoided at least the demagoguery of the law and order crusades. He actually advocates the DNA "cold hit" programs, and a certain degree of open government (though he did oppose the most recent open government proposal).

But he has refused to provide any leadership on the medical marijuana law, even following the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the burden of proof on the prosecution where the defense is available. He is pretty much pretending that the law does not exist (a non-policy he inherited from the previous attorney general), and so we have a piecemeal policy that differs from county to county. And now that the federal government has stepped up enforcement though avoiding prosecution to avoid the 10 amendment issues, it is incumbent on him to speak up. He has not done so.

But Lockyer is a decent liberal leader, and progressives who do vote in the Democratic Party are going to need someone to support in the primaries against Cruz "Davis-lite" Bustamente. And the Republican Dick Ackerman is a rabid right winger who starts his ballot pamphlet statement with a rant about his support of the death penalty which is repeated several sentences later while lamenting the influence of "meddling liberal federal judges." He's making Dan Lungren look like Tony Serra.

It is doubtful this election will be close.

Green candidate Glen Mowrer seems like a decent and intelligent guy, and certainly his heart's in the right place. But this race is too important to play games with a protest vote over the medical marijuana issue.

Lockyer prevails on points 2, 3, and 5.

Treasurer:

Another sleeper office. Who really cares what the politics of the office holder are, except for the springboard factor?. Philip Angelides is actually a progressive incumbent who divested the states investments from tobacco interests. He's even a nice guy, perhaps worth supporting. Unlike Davis, he agreed to a debate including the candidates from all the smaller parties qualifying for the ballot. He really does promote open government policies and has a deep respect for the democratic process.

But the Green Party has put up a very bright and capable candidate in Jeanne-Marie Rosenmeir. She has depth, and her statement is probably the best written, avoiding the loaded terminology of some of the other Green candidates. Her choice of the term "big contributor" instead of "corporate interests" shows a savvy and maturity of a leader worth supporting. She isn't flashy, and even talks and looks like someone you might expect to find a treasurer of any chapter of the Rotary Club. She has a down to earth style, making great use of the "soft sell." That's rare in progressive leadership. And unlike some of the other Green candidates, I have absolutely no doubt that she could actually perform the responsibilities of treasurer if she actually got elected by some miracle.

The Republican candidate, Greg Conlon, seems an amiable guy. He throws in a little hyperbole in his statement, pledging to solve the budget problems without raising taxes as if the treasurer had any power to influence that outcome. A nice old paleo-con, who would probably do the job just fine if he were elected.

I don't think Angelides is in any danger of losing, and I'd like to see Rosenmeir make a good showing so that her leadership might have more influence within the Green Party itself.

Rosenmeir prevails on 1, 2, 4, and 5.

Controller:

Another "who cares?" race that simply does not warrant the encouragement of yet another eccentric millionaire trying to buy an office in California. I always admired Huffington's ability to argue with a straight face that he was a superior candidate for his wealth because it made him independent from special interests. He WAS a special interest onto himself of course. None of those previous efforts have been successful, but that doesn't deter Steve Westley, who brags about his dot.com successes in his campaign literature. Still, he's a decent liberal guy who included his opposition to vouchers and his support for choice in his statement where it clearly was not necessary for victory. That suggests some principle.

Other than the identity politic/political correctness that saturates her statement and campaign literature, Laura Wells is an intelligent and articulate communicator of Green Party principles. She would probably be capable of the duties of controller. And the Republican Tom McClintock actually has some consumer advocacy tendencies rare to a Republican.

Wells prevails on 2, 4, 5, and probably 1.

Insurance Commissioner:

I'm torn on this race. The Green candidate David Sheidlower is actually a very brilliant leader with some very good ideas. However, his campaign doesn't betray a solid understanding of some of the real problems with the insurance industry right now, particularly the way in which claimants against policies are treated. Moreover, his attacks on John Garamendi are not only unwarranted, but not altogether accurate. When previously holding the position, Garamendi really did try to enforce proposition 103 before it was killed in the courts, and he was clearly not the industry's choice by the end of his term. He wasn't my first choice at the time.

Gary Mendoza is a Riordan protege with some consumer advocate credentials; the Republican Party leadership apparently able to slip a few social moderates under the lunatic fringe radar in the primaries. But Chuck Quackenbush was such a crook, Mendoza's silence is deafening even taking into account party loyalty, or especially thereof. And the potential for industry influence so great, it really is important to keep this office out of the hands of a party that is openly pandering to corporate interests. Plus, Mendoza is gaining on Garamendi in the polls largely as the result of a very negative campaign. Garamendi has taken few shots at Mendoza. There's something to be said for a campaign at least pretending to be based on the issues.

Garamendi actually prevails on point number one as a recent poll has Mendoza within the margin of error. He prevails on points 1, 2, and 3.

Superintendent of Public Instruction

The unions have good things to say about Jack O'Connell who has made a campaign issue of class sizes. That's good enough for me. There's only two candidates. He's better.

U.S. Congress, 1st District

Mike Thompson hasn't always impressed me. But his recent gutsy trip to Iraq coupled with his vote against the recent war bill earned my endorsement. He was more prudent in his approach to the Iraq situation than the two colleagues who accompanied him in that he avoided making public statements while in Iraq. And his public statements since were well delivered. He also deserves kudos for delivering 500 pounds of dead Klammath River salmon to the Department of the Interior to raise awareness of the problems created by the water diversion resulting from Norton's caving to the tantrums of agricultural interests in Oregon. A few of his votes have been questionable, but he's about as liberal as can be elected in the 1st district. Besides, there's no Green candidate running. His Republican opponent is Lawrence Wiesner (Who?).

State Senate, District 2

Wesley Chesbro irritated me with his sudden change of heart on the death penalty shortly before running outside of the safety of Arcata's progressive political climate. But he's done fine, and there is no Green candidate.

Assembly, District 1

Patty Berg wasn't my first choice. But Doug Thron is not a Green candidate ready to claim leadership. His attacks on Patty Berg only reveal him as an amateur, as they are not only nasty... but, well... lame. If I'm going to cast a principle based protest vote, I want to at least believe in the Green candidate's integrity and ability. Mr. Thron's only saving grace appears to be his good looks, which he emphasizes with his mug on annoying billboards around the district. Arcata city council member and Green Party activist Bob Ornelas has not only endorsed Berg, but gone out of the way to make his endorsement known in letters to papers around the district; for reasons along the lines of what I've stated. Plus, Mr. Thron has lost support in the environmental community for what is widely perceived as a petty lawsuit against Julia Butterfly over the rights to some photos in her book. Although I'm not in a position to judge the merits of his case, he should at least acquire the savvy to know that a lawsuit like that pretty much eliminates even a solid green block of votes on his behalf.

Berg is expected to step into Virginia Strom-Martin's shoes, who really did an excellent job.

Berg prevails on 2, 3, and 4.

Judicial confirmations:

Supreme Court

In California, we don't elect our higher court justices. They are appointed by the other branches of government and we confirm them at the end of each term. The idea is for the public to remove a judge if there is a deep loss of confidence. Ideally, we don't make an issue of politics or good faith differences in legal philosophy. Unfortunately, the process was politicized in 1986 when a group of powerful people engaged a very nasty campaign to recall then Justice Bird and two of her associates. The issue was ostensibly their death penalty votes, but Bird was the target of a group of men who detested her for her environmental and consumer decisions. Since 1986, only a few individuals have been put to death despite numerous convictions, confirming that the roadblocks were in the law itself and not any arbitrariness on the part of Bird. But despite the ongoing frustration of the law and order types, the only recall effort was a rather lame attempt in 1998 to take out two Supreme Court Justices for an abortion ruling. The voting demographics having changed dramatically since 1986, the effort didn't go anywhere; and anyway, they didn't have the big boys backing them this time around. Maybe Californians have matured a bit since then. We don't tend to throw tantrums in the ballot box lately.

With this in mind, I would tend to vote to confirm all of the justices, even the conservatives. However, if you're inclined to vote yea or nay according to politics, Carlos R. Moreno is a Davis
Appointee, and a decent judge (maybe the best reason in any arguments for a Davis vote).Marvin R. Baxter is a Deukmejian Appointee, with a very "law and order" mentality. Kathryn M. Werdegar is a Wilson Appointee who actually has a campaign war chest and still finds it necessary or comforting to take pot shots at the deceased Rose Bird. However, neither of the latter has done anything particularly unethical, and without an organized recall effort, it isn't going to happen. Another point to remember is that the better judges often make decisions based on law they don't like. There is no "platform," or shouldn't be. On the other hand, the conservative judicial coup of 1986 (along with a few "law and order" laws past by initiative even in the "liberal 90s") has turned California law upside down.

Courts of Appeal

Same principle. Some judges become more liberal or conservative once on the bench, but most stay true to their affiliations. If nothing else, it underscores how careful we should be in throwing protest votes. Davis' choices have actually been pretty good from a progressive point of view - for the most part. Affiliations are as follows:

District 1, Division 1

James Marchiano - Wilson
Sandra L. Margulies - Davis
William D. Stein - Deukmejian

District 1, Division 2

J. Anthony Klein - Brown

District 1, Division 3

William R. McGuiness - Wilson
Joanne C. Parrilli - Wilson

Stuart R. Pollak - Davis (one of the best on the bench!)

District 1, Division 4

Laurence D. Kay - Davis
Patricia K. Sepulveda - Wilson
Maria P. Rivera - Davis

District 1, Division 5

Barbara Jones - Wilson
Linda M. Gemello - Davis
Mark Simons - Davis

Proposition 46 - Yes

No, I'm not enthusiastic about funding programs with bonds, but that's the reality of post-proposition 13 California. The legislature doesn't take much leadership on these issues, largely because it's handcuffed by a million Constitutional provisions and other laws that have been passed through our goofy initiative system. The measure addresses a number of housing issues, including emergency domestic violence shelters. The proponents claim that 23,000 women and children were turned away from shelters last year for lack of space. If true, that alone is worth the increase in bond debt. If we're going to buy bonds, this is probably the best time as interest rates can't get much lower. The opponents are the usual suspects of libertarians and anal types who usually make up the tax posse. Most of their opposition amounts to whining about taxes with the obligatory reference to the theory of economic rejuvenation through the elimination of red tape. I'm all for streamlining bureaucracy, but I have yet to see an economy or even an industry rejuvenated because the business' clerks don't have to fill out as many forms. In the meantime, we live in a state with a major housing crisis for lower income folk. This measure would mitigate some of those problems.

Proposition 47 - Yes

A lot of money, but we have school buildings all over the state that are actually getting dangerous; to the point that advocacy groups have filed a class action lawsuit to force the state to repair the buildings despite the lack of funding. Class sizes still very often exceed thirty students in the poorer districts, despite previous measures taken to reduce them. More classrooms are half the battle. Next election, we'll probably have to pass a bond to hire more teachers. Following proposition 13, we went from the top 5 states to the bottom 10 in school performance. Some problems really are solved by throwing money at them. Again, the opposition screams about bonded debt; but until there's political will to rewrite laws and raise taxes when the general fund is in trouble, that's how money gets raised in California.

Proposition 48 - Yes

I opposed the consolidation of the superior and municipal courts, but it happened. Consolidation being the reality, the constitution should be worded to reflect reality. The opposition bases its arguments on the premise that Californians will one day see the light and reverse their previous decision to consolidate, then trots out the arguments we all raised against proposition 220 in 1998. Game's over guys. Time to move on.

Proposition 49 - No

Somebody has to point out that the Terminator has no clothes. This year that job has apparently fallen onto the shoulders of the League of Women Voters, providing the only organized opposition to this feel good measure. When they take a position against a proposition, it's usually a good indication that things aren't what they seem.

Proposition 49 would mandate that a "specific spending level" (Bill Jones' words) will be allocated from the funds allocated to the schools via proposition 98 for after-school programs that are being sold as the panacea for everything from crime to tax burdens, but provides no provision for revenue to pay for it. Nobody argues that after-school programs aren't important or even essential. The problem lies in what the proponents don't address, namely the impact on other essential programs for children. The measure takes power from the democratic process in which priorities are set by the legislature presumably after hearing from the experts and various community perspectives. They are appointed by us to decide, particularly when there is a budget crunch, how monies should be allocated to each program. The measure prioritizes as a matter of law this particular program over textbooks, lunch programs, building repairs, or any other program not given equivalent priority. Priority is set automatically, without consideration of the particular needs and resources of the time.

The proponents' response to this issue is misleading. They explain that if there is a budget crunch, the funds may be cut "in exactly the same way other education programs are cut." This isn't quite true. According to the proposed section 8483.5(d) (sometimes it really helps to read the proposed law itself provided at the back of the pamphlet, and not just the summaries and arguments) the funds may be cut by a specific formula, i.e. by proportion according to the reduction of overall education funds from the previous year's level. So while art and music classes may be scrapped in their entirety while other programs aren't cut at all, these funds will only be reduced as mandated. Essentially, the problem with the measure it that it completely supercedes the democratic process, providing no flexibility at all.

Some of the more cynical of us view this measure as Arnold Schwarzenegger's "I care" message as a prelude to a run for governor in 2004. He's put together a proposition that will pass easily because it's garnered support across the political spectrum, and he will undoubtably put this on his resume to show us how he "built consensus" across political lines. One indication that is that he left his name off of the disingenuous rebuttal to the ballot guide argument against, so that he can retain plausible deniability if it ever pops up to haunt him. One might think the mark of leadership should include an affirmative disassociation from misleading statements. I will take Arnold at his word for his intentions, and perhaps his willingness to propose what conservatives would otherwise refer to as an "unfunded mandate" is a sign of his newfound ecumenism. But I have to ask, did Arnold ever attempt to lobby the legislature for more funds to support these programs before pushing this initiative?

Bill Jones neglected to mention a fiscal issue for counties in the "legislative analysis." The measure actually allows the legislature to cut or eliminate existing after school programs, and there is no guarantee that this allocation will be prioritized accordingly. Some counties may actually experience a net loss in money for after school programs.

Proposition 50 - Yes

Another bond issue for clean water projects and protection of coastal wetlands and watersheds. Desperately needed, as usual. Same opposition - no more taxes to pay off bonds accompanied by an out-of-the-blue suggestion for the peripheral canal soundly defeated at the polls 20 years ago.

The only aspect of the proposal I question is 50 million to be spent to protect water from "terrorist attacks." What are we talking about exactly? Fences and alarms. I mean, I'm all for them I suppose, but do the proponents really need to invoke 9/11 based anxiety to pass this thing?

Proposition 51 - No

Another unfunded mandate from conservatives who want their pet projects locked in for funding without having to go on record supporting additional bonds or taxes. Again, this would supercede the legislative process. Despite the P.R., the measure does not represent a comprehensive policy for "traffic congestion relief and safe school busses," but instead throws out a laundry list of proposed projects that are connected only by the fact that they could be labeled "transportation" related projects (and even this connection is tenuous for some of the projects). Numerous developers who stand to benefit from the specific projects listed are throwing money at the measure. A few bucks are thrown at public transportation, environmental projects, and schools to appease some of the potential liberal opposition. The opposition (which once again includes the League of Women Voters) is an impressive coalition of tax posse types and progressives, but there is a lot of money behind this thing.

Proposition 52 - Yes (with reservations)

The proposition would allow voter registration on election day. Six states have already enacted similar legislation, and election participation is up in each, with serious allegations of fraud occurring in Wisconsin only. Frankly, I'm concerned about the potential for fraud, and the claims of the proponents that fraud is actually less likely under the proposed law are belied by their offering up heavier penalties for voter fraud in the same proposal.

On the other hand, I'm for erring on the side of enfranchisement, especially after the 2000 election fiasco wherein thousands of Florida citizens registered to vote were wrongfully barred from voting because their names appeared erroneously on a list of felons registered to vote. On the other hand, I wonder if we really want elections to be more influenced by people who don't have it together to meet reasonable deadlines.

The law would require two pieces of identification from a specified list, however, it does not require that one of them contain a photograph of the individual. For instance, you could register with a credit card bill and a note from your mother (literally - check proposed section 2171(b)(2)(L)). All I can think of is that television commercial with Kevin Bacon. I'm all for liberalization of rules for access, but I think that could have been tightened up a bit.

Humboldt County measures

Measure A (for Southern Humboldt only) - Yes

The school system is broke, running a bare bones operation due to cut-backs and declining enrollment. Term limits have made it impossible for rural representatives to build seniority and influence in Sacramento, and rural communities are getting the shaft. Measure A calls for a $75.00 per year parcel tax that will just keep the district breathing for seven years. Yes, I know we just passed a larger parcel tax for the health district. If anybody has a reasonable alternative, I'm all ears.

Measure B - Yes

This measure would renew the transient occupancy tax level at 10%, instead of dropping it to 8%. The county is too far in the red to forgo any major sources of revenue. I seriously doubt that we are losing tourists to Shasta County because of the additional 2 percent, which amounts to a little over a dollar for a night's stay in the average motel. Even the great fiscal conservative/neo-libertarian District 2 Supervisor Roger Rodoni supports this one. I guess there was some question as to the legality of the tax originally passed in 1993 by the Board of Supervisors. The court determined that a majority vote was required in a referendum, and so here we are.

Measure C - No

The measure would establish a $10.00 parcel tax to maintain/build/purchase veterans memorial buildings. Both sides have trotted out their veterans to argue the positions. The measure would exempt parcels valued under $2,000.00 and vacant parcels in a timber or agricultural zone (excuse me??). Additionally, those who own more than one parcel will only have to pay once, another exception I question. It appears that the wealthy are getting some real breaks in this one.

I'm all for giving veterans their due, and the general public would undoubtably benefit from the use of some of these buildings. Certainly, the courts have benefitted from decent rents in their use of the halls in Eureka and Garberville.

But in addition to the blatantly regressive nature of the structure of the tax, I find the open-ended time frame for the parcel tax disturbing. After ten years, it drops to $5.00 a year into perpetuity. This does seem to support the opposition's claims that this is really just a measure dressed up in patriotic fervor to disguise simply another source of revenue for the county. Although the funds would be designated, basically it's letting the county off the hook for existing obligations. In other words, the veteran's buildings aren't in any danger of not being maintained as the county is obliged to maintain them. And if the county wants to build a new veterans hall, the decision should be weighed against libraries, social services, etc. I would be much more willing to sign onto an increase in existing parcel taxes to go to the discretionary fund. Once again, it's about bypassing the democratic process, and it's a little sneaky in my opinion.

The opposition brings this up in the ballot pamphlet, and the proponents' rebuttal begins by stating that the opponents misunderstand the measure. But it never really explains why except to re-emphasize that the funds aren't discretionary. The rebuttal follows up with a statement that is pregnant with admission:

"In the past the Veterans' Memorial Buildings have had to take a back seat to the often whimsical priorities of the state legislature and the resulting funding shortfalls experienced by local government. With the passage of Measure C, the veterans groups that operate the Memorials will no longer have to beg for a share of the leftovers from state and local governments."

Well, join the special interest club! That's all part of the democratic process. One voice among many. If you don't like the legislative priorities of state or local government, you raise Hell. But to sneak in special status for one interest so that local pols don't have to make the tough choices? That's political gamesmanship, no matter how noble the cause.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]