[Sosfbay-discuss] [GPCA Official Notice] GPCA STATEWIDE POLL OF COUNTIES--INITIATIVES
WB4D23 at aol.com
WB4D23 at aol.com
Thu Aug 10 21:01:15 PDT 2006
This is an announcement from the GPCA Contact List. For more information,
or questions related to the topic of the posting, please do not hit reply.
Follow the contact directions listed at the end of the email.
GPCA STATEWIDE POLL OF COUNTIES--INITIATIVES
FOR NOVEMBER 7 ELECTION.
August 10 - September 8, 10:00 A.M.
PRESENTER:
GPCA Campaigns and Candidates Working Group (CCWG).
BACKGROUND:
The GPCA uses a poll of all recognized county Green Parties to determine GPCA
positions on ballot measures. Thirteen such initiatives have qualified for
the
next state election on November 7, 2006. Please be sure that your county
participates by submitting votes by Friday, September 8, 10:00 a.m.
THE POLL:
This poll contains a list of all initiatives that have qualified for the
Nov. 7
Election. Each initiative title is followed by a recommendation made by
volunteers from the Green Party grassroots who have reviewed the measures. Of
course, counties are free to agree or disagree with the recommended
positions.
Following the list of initiatives is an extensive list of arguments and
resources for research about each.
PROCESS:
Please provide the Poll Coordinators (Matthew Leslie, Michael Borenstein)
with
vote results from your county in the following form for each ballot
initiative:
"Yes" for the GPCA to support the initiative
"No" for the GPCA to oppose the initiative
"No Position" for the GPCA to deliberately remain neutral on the initiative
Votes may also be cast as "Abstain" if they do not wish to participate in the
poll. Abstentions will be counted toward quorum.
Vote on the initiative itself, not the recommendation. For example, if CCWG
has
recommended a position of "No," and your county wishes to agree and vote
"No" on
the initiative, then your county should vote "No" on the initiative, and not
"Yes" on the recommended "No" position.
PLEASE SUBMIT VOTES IN THE AMOUNT ALLOTED TO YOUR COUNTY FOR THE LAKE TAHOE,
SEPT. 2006 PLENARY. This list can be found at
http://www.cagreens.org/liaison/delegates.html. For example, if your county
has
2 delegates, you would submit 2 votes in any combination of positions.
(Votes
from counties with more than one delegate vote need not be unanimous.) Your
county should rely on its own internal processes to arrive at its positions.
To
find out how many delegate votes your county has, please check the list
included
at the end of this document.
The poll has an 80% threshold.
TIMELINE:
The voting period begins on Thursday, August 10 at 10:00 A.M., AND ENDS ON
Friday, September 8, at 10:00 A.M. Votes received after the closing date and
time will not be counted. Submit all votes to BOTH of the Poll Coordinators
at
the following email addresses:
Matthew Leslie
mrl at greens.org
Michael Borenstein
thebor at greens.org
Please submit any questions about the process of the poll to the same
addresses.
THE POLL:
Recommended state Green Party positions for this November's state
propositions:
Yes -- 1A -- Transportation Funding Protection (Constitutional Amendment)
No -- 1B -- Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, Port Security
Bond
Act of 2006
(No Position) -- 1C -- Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006.
Yes -- 1D -- Education facilities: Kindergarten-University Public Education
Facilities Bond Act of 2006.
Yes -- 1E -- Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006.
No -- 83 -- Sex Offenders. Sexually Violent Predators. Punishment,
Residence
Restrictions and Monitoring. Initiative Statute.
Yes -- 84 -- Water Quality, Safety and Supply. Flood Control. Natural
Resource
Protection. Park Improvements. Bonds. Initiative Statute.
No -- 85 -- Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of
Minor's Pregnancy. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Yes -- 86 -- Tax on Cigarettes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and
Statute.
Yes -- 87 -- Alternative Energy. Research, Production, Incentives. Tax on
California Oil Producers. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
(No Position) -- 88 -- Education Funding. Real Property Parcel Tax.
Initiative
Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Yes -- 89 -- Political Campaigns. Public Financing. Corporate Tax Increase.
Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Limits. Initiative Statute.
No -- 90 -- Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property.
Initiative
Constitutional Amendment.
1A -- Yes -- Transportation Funding Protection (Constitutional Amendment)
Prop. 1A provides for further restrictions on the borrowing of gas taxes from
the Transportation Investment Fund by the General Fund (or the Governor).
Thus,
it provides further protection for local governments from raiding of local
transportation funding. It provides for repayment deadlines. However, it
also
loosens the parameters of the current law by changing the circumstances under
which borrowing may happen from *emergency* to *severe fiscal hardship* of
the
state. In both current and this proposed law, the Legislature must vote
with a
2/3 majority to approve borrowing, without any unrelated baggage added to
the
bill.
The changes from current law are:
Borrowing in a fiscal year may take place when ALL of these occur:
* Governor proclaims *necessity due to severe state fiscal hardship*.
* Legislature passes the required bill with a 2/3 vote and no riders allowed.
* A statute is enacted by the Legislature to repay the money with interest
within 3 years.
This prop. would also prohibit borrowing more than twice during any 10 year
period of consecutive fiscal years and prohibit borrowing in any fiscal year
in
which a previous payment has not been made.
Starting in 2008-2009: the allocation of funds is specified:
20% to mass transport and public transit
40% to capital improvement programs (read mostly highways)
20% maintenance and repair, storm damage, rehab, city reconstruction--done by
cities
20% same-- done by counties (both can include a joint city or county)
There is no alternative transport or bicycle/ped money, but that could be
done
under capital improvement. The Legislature may modify the percentages by 2/3
vote; again, a *pure* vote with no riders allowed. The total dollars would
not
change; that is, the revenue from gas taxes is the total; just the %s can be
moved around. The Legislature may pass a bond statute secured by transfer
payments.
I would be in favor of this one. It is generally reasonable. The voters
want
gas taxes to be spent on transportation, and this does not change that. It
is a
use tax for maintaining and upgrading transportation. It does not increase
CalTrans power (the biggest and richest department in state government). It
does not increase taxes or indebtedness. And again, it further protects
local
governments from the raiding of local transportation funds by the state,
along
the lines of our value of decentralization.
Proposition 1A warrants our support.
1B -- No -- Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, Port Security
Bond
Act of 2006
ON THE OTHER HAND, there is Prop. 1B...
Proposition 1B, a Bond Measure, is entitled *The Highway Safety, Traffic
Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Act*. It specifies that that is
what
it is to be called on the ballot and it eliminates the part played by law in
the
Election Code of the Attorney General. I cannot approve of deliberately
bypassing the Election Code law, no matter how poorly the Attorney General's
office has been doing on these titles and analyses in recent years.
This title pushes all the right buttons, but it is a bond call for
$19,925,000,000 of our tax money, plus interest of course. Of that, Port
Security gets $100,000,000. In other words, $19,825,000,000. does NOT go
to
port security. $2 billion is thrown to Dept. of Transportation (DOT) to
augment
other funding for whatever projects they wish. When you analyze all the $$,
you
will see that the elephant's portion of it goes to highway projects. Again
and
again you see the words *freight movement*, *goods movement*, *trade*....
Fixing up roads for ingress and egress to ports and harbors, main
highways--because they are trade routes, airport access roads, you name it,
it's
still a road and their main concern is clearly really commerce. The
parameters
of allocation of funds are more to enhance the efficiency and speed and
capacity
of goods movement than they are to the lip service of safety or air quality
($200,000,000. for school buses, to reduce diesel exhaust and
emissions--that's
nice, but again, $19,925,000,000. minus $200,000,000. says that
$19,725,000,000.
is NOT going to the safety of children in CA.
Some of these projects need to be done, but hardly as emergency items. (The
bill specifies that it is an urgency measure--the reason? not for the need
of
the projects, but for the need to get it on the ballot in November!) Some of
these should be on the list of projects in the regular budget for DOT, and
I'll
bet some of them, at least, are or will be.
It seems we have a massive transportation bond measure every election, and
this
one clearly aims to take advantage of Katrina and security/terrorist concerns
the voters may have...it is deliberately disingenuous and I can't abide this
kind of sneakiness! Let's pay for transportation needs with gas taxes and
augment as necessary from the General Fund, like any other need in the state
would be funded. If education and state parks only had this pork! Be sure
you
read this one and talk about it!
The Green Party should solidly oppose proposition 1B.
1C -- (No Position) -- Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006.
A coordination of groups is needed to provide housing to California
residents.
The state provides financial assistance, while cities and counties are
responsible for the zoning and approval of new housing. In addition, local
governments are responsible for providing infrastructure such as water,
sewer,
roads, and parks.
Proposition 1C authorizes the state to sell $2.85 billion of general
obligation
bonds to fund new and existing programs. The major allocations: 1) Three
new
programs aimed development, such as parks, water, sewage, transportation, and
housing, 2) Assistance to homebuyers to make downpayment for home ownership,
and
3) Construction or renovation of rental housing projects, such as apartment
buildings.
The first concern is with the source of funds: general obligation bonds.
They
require state taxpayers to pay the interest on these bonds for perhaps the
next
30 years. Since most of the payers will not end up owning the properties
themselves, we wonder if they should be required to pay the costs.
There is also concern with ownership by profit-motivated entities benefitting
from such taxpayer-paid subsidy. There are nonprofit entities, whose
purpose is
to work with government to provide benefits for the public, for example, the
California Housing Finance Agency. We cannot however guarantee that such
housing
will not someday get sold off to profit-motivated owners. It may be better
to
create limited equity arrangements composed of homeowners and local
government
to own the housing, so that individuals can be building equity, instead of
always just paying out rent, year after year. As an alternative to Prop. 1C,
programs which will instead allow people to build equity seem to make sense,
but
we don't yet have enough information about them, or knowledge about whether
they've even been tried before, to definitively recommend them in lieu of 1C
at
this time.
Assistance to low-income residents to afford to pay the down payment for home
ownership is certainly a benefit for those residents. It is likely, however,
that there will only be enough funds to help some and not others. Also, it is
not clear whether the lucky residents could quickly sell their new homes to
get
a quick windfall at taxpayer expense.
In previous elections, and in line with our key value of social justice,
many
Greens have supported the use of bonds to help finance housing for those who
need assistance. For example, in 2002, although the state party did not
take a
position on proposition 46, the county Green Parties in Alameda and San
Francisco counties both endorsed Prop. 46. Now however, some Greens are
having
reservations that these sorts of programs may simply not be the best use of
public funds, to address the need for decent affordable housing.
Given these present internal differences in our information and
understanding,
perhaps the wisest thing for the state Green Party to do might be to simply
not
take a position on 1C -- and then, over the next year or so, further develop
and
refine our understanding, analysis and policies on how best to use public
funds
to provide housing assistance.
1D -- Yes -- Education facilities: Kindergarten-University Public Education
Facilities Bond Act of 2006.
Here we go again. This nearly 10.5 billion dollar bond measure would fund
K-12
seismic retrofits AND vocational training facilities (let's leave aside the
mere
token funding of voc. ed programs by the state, we'll have the facilities),
as
well as community college and university facility retrofits.
Money is sorely needed, and it's difficult to envision anybody in state
government actually allocating funds each year for 10 or 15 years to achieve
these goals; therefore we are left with that old dilemma. Not the best way to
fund these necessary goals, but perhaps, politically, the only way we have
right
now. (Interestingly, this measure was authored and sponsored by Nunez in the
Assembly, who is the author, architect, and driving force behind the
attempted
dismantling of local control (elected School Board) in LA County.)
Increased funding for public education needs to be a top Green statewide
priority. And unfortunately it will be a while before significant funding
alternatives can become a practical reality (although we should of course
work
for them). So in the meantime, let's endorse a "Yes" vote on 1D -- our
students
need to be supported now.
1E -- Yes -- Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006.
This Bond Measure (1E) puts the State in additional debt to the tune of 4
Billion dollars. At first read, we Green voters are excited by the fact
that
the measure recognizes as a goal: "the control and elimination of exotic
species". But reading further we find only 300 million is available for
those
projects, where feasible, and only when someone else (the Federal
government?)
is putting up at least half the money.
The vast majority of the money, 3 Billion, goes to repairing the state levee
system. Our levees are old and, like much of California's non-highway public
infrastructure, do not receive the attention they deserve. Literature on
this
measure claims that an earthquake in the Central Valley could create
significant
flooding. The supporters of this measure are betting we all have seen too
many
pictures of New Orleans this year to take a chance that an earthquake
wouldnÕt
cause flooding.
The Democrats bill this as part of "rebuild California" and when it works, it
will do just that. But like many bonds that call for infrastructure
rebuilding
this one has the usual shortcoming: no details. For direction on how to
decide
where to spend the money, the bill reads: "Prioritize project selection and
project design to achieve maximum public benefits from the use of these
funds." The decision is left up to the legislature and the Governor. So,
in
reality, this measure just says "Hey, you folks in Sacramento, we'd like you
to
borrow 4 Billion and spend it on, ya know, prevent-Katrina-in-California
looking
stuff". We can conclude that some projects will be sorely needed, put local
workers to work, and help strengthen the infrastructure while others will
just
be the usual pet projects of our current and future legislators. How much of
each you think we will get depends upon what you think of how our State
Government does at prioritizing projects. (For example, the latitude for
spending in 1E is so broad that in theory, $3 billion could be spent on only
those levees that will encourage more development on flood-prone and below
sea-level land, while nothing at all might be spent to protect
already-developed
areas (such as areas in or near Sacramento). Or vice versa. The chances
are,
of course, that some of each will happen, but it's just impossible to predict
how the money will actually end up being allocated).
Be that as it may, I say vote "yes" because it will do its share of good.
But
if anyone asks what you'd prefer, respond: how about a measure that directs
the
Governor to borrow 4 Billion dollars, spend 500 Million creating detailed
plans
to put Californians to work on projects to strengthen our flood control
infrastructure where lives and land are at the highest risk and then spends
the
other 3.5 Billion paying a living wage to implement the projects?
In conclusion, yes, we'll be taking a risk by endorsing 1E and hoping that
the
money will be spent reasonably. But of course, all of us take lots of risks
everyday, whether it's crossing the street, eating food that we didn't grow
ourselves, or living near an earthquake fault. And for the many Californians
who currently live in areas protected by levees, it's of course a risk as to
whether the funding will come through to adequately maintain those levees.
So
let's risk helping them out. Vote "Yes" on 1E.
83 -- No -- Sex Offenders. Sexually Violent Predators. Punishment, Residence
Restrictions and Monitoring. Initiative Statute.
[ Proposition 83: The Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act: Jessica's
Law
]
This initiative is a hysterical approach to a very serious issue.
No one wants serious sex offenders who may re-offend on the loose or in their
neighborhood. Prohibiting their living near parks and schools and using
electronic monitoring to track their whereabouts may sound reasonable to
many
voters. Long sentences will keep them off the streets.
However, this initiative has serious problems. By creating a 2000 foot
radius
surrounding parks and schools within which offenders cannot live, it
virtually
banishes them to rural areas, where small law enforcement agencies will have
the
burdensome task of tracking them.
The initiative also fails to distinguish serious sex offenders from young men
who may have used poor judgment in their relations with teenage girls. These
men will never be able to live in most urban areas, will serve long prison
sentences, and will be tracked for the rest of their lives as a result of
their
youthful indiscretion.
All this is estimated to cost the taxpayers $500 million, money that could be
better spent on programs to treat, track or incarcerate truly serious
offenders.
A similar law passed in Iowa in 2001 may soon be repealed, as the
prosecutors'
association that backed it now realizes their mistake.
There is nothing in this "tough-on-crime" initiative that will actually
improve
present law so as to make our lives or our children's lives safer. This is
an
initiative that the Green Party should strongly oppose.
84 -- Yes -- Water Quality, Safety and Supply. Flood Control. Natural
Resource
Protection. Park Improvements. Bonds. Initiative Statute.
The state operates a variety of programs to conserve natural resources,
protect
the environment, provide flood control, and offer recreational opportunities
to
the public. The state also operates a program to plan for future water
supplies
and other water-related requirements for a growing population. Since 1996,
voters have authorized approximately $11 billion in general obligation bonds
for
various resource purposes. Of this amount, $1.4 billion is projected to
remain
available for new projects as of June 30, 2006.
Prop 84 allows the state to sell $5.4 billion in general obligation bonds for
safe drinking water, water quality, water supply, flood control, natural
resource protection, and park improvements. The cost of the bonds, assuming
a
5% interest rate, would be approximately $10.5 billion (principal and
interest). Payments would be made from the General Fund over a period of
thirty
years.
Of the $5.388 billion in bond funds, 28% would go toward water quality; 17%
toward the protection of rivers, lakes and streams; 15% toward flood control;
11% toward sustainable communities and climate change reduction; 10% toward
the
protection of beaches, bays, and coastal waters; 9% toward parks and natural
education facilities; 8% toward forest and wildlife conservation; and 2%
toward
statewide water planning.
Opponents include Lewis K. Uhler, the founder and president of the National
Tax
Limitation Committee, who was also a major proponent of Prop 75, which
sought to
limit the ability of labor unions to spend dues on political activity.
Opponents argue, unconvincingly, that Prop 84 would raise taxes and that
there
will be little public oversight. Other opponents include Bill Leonard with
the
California State Board of Equalization, and Ron Nehring, a consultant with
Americans for Tax Reform.
Proponents argue that environmental protection and improved water quality
efforts are much needed and of vital public interest. They also argue that
the
measure will not raise taxes and that strict accountability provisions are
built
into the initiative. Supporters include Clean Water Action, the Nature
Conservancy, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the Ocean Conservancy,
the
League of Women Voters, and scores of other grassroots groups. (Please see
http://www.cleanwater2006.com/ for additional endorsers, and further
information).
The protection of our state's natural resources is of critical importance,
and
Prop 84 will fund much needed water improvement and environmental
preservation
efforts. Additionally, our reading of the Proposition's text suggests that
there would be appropriate public oversight, contrary to what opponents
claim.
Greens therefore urge a Yes vote on Prop 84
85 -- No -- Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of
Minor's Pregnancy. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Proposition 85 mandates that a physician notify a minorÕs parents or guardian
forty-eight hours before performing an abortion, except in medical
emergency, or
by parental waiver or waiver of the court. Proposition 85 would mandate the
physician performing the abortion to comply with reporting requirements to
the
government and impose monetary damages against physicians for failing to
comply
with the above referenced notification and/or reporting requirements.
Proposition 85 is virtually identical to last year's Proposition 73, which
was
defeated, and which the state Green Party opposed. (The difference being
that
abortion is no longer defined in the proposition's text as causing the
"death of
the unborn child").
Argument Against Proposition 85
Proposition 85 undermines the confidentiality of the patient / physician
relationship, and gives the government access to this private information.
Proposition 85 undermines a womanÕs right to choose. There is no substitute
for
good family communication, and our government is overstepping itÕs bounds by
mandating this confidential communication between a parent and a child, which
could irreparably damage personal relationships and lead to the persecution
of
daughters for their mistakes and/or personal choices. This is a
patient/physician matter, and should be treated in this way.
Opponents of Proposition 85 include Planned Parenthood, the National
Organization for Women (NOW), the California Medical Association (CMA), the
California Nurses Association (CNA), the League of Women Voters, and the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The Green Party should renew its
opposition to this punitive proposal by endorsing a "No" vote on Proposition
85.
86 -- Yes -- Tax on Cigarettes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and
Statute.
This proposition will impose a $2.60 excise tax on each pack of cigarettes
and
indirectly increases tax on other tobacco products. It will provide funding
for
various health programs, childrenÕs health care coverage and tobacco-related
programs. The current state law imposes excise taxes on cigarettes of a
total of
87 cents per pack. Those taxes provide 50 cents to support childhood
development
program from Prop 10 in 1998 and 25 cents to support tobacco education and
prevention as well as health care for low-income uninsured persons,
environmental protection and recreational programs from Prop 99 in 1988.
The taxes collected would go into a fund called the Tobacco Tax of 2006 Trust
Fund. Some monies would provide back fill because it is expected for
cigarette
sales to fall and programs currently being funded by Prop 10 would need to be
back filled by this tax. The Board of Equalization would determine what
amount
that would be. After that 52.75 percent of the remaining funds would be used
to
fund hospitals for their unreimbursed emergency services along with
expansion of
emergency services, equipment and facilities. Private hospitals and certain
public hospitals including UCÕs hospitals would be eligible for the funding.
Hospitals that are licensed to Òother state agenciesÓ or the federal
government
would not be eligible.
42.23 percent of the fund after the backfill would be used to expand health
care
coverage for low income residents, including immigrants (both legal and
illegal)
up to 300% above the federal poverty level. It would require certain
agencies to
simplify administrative procedures to keep children covered with health
insurance.
The collected taxes will provide funding for emergency services, nurse
education
and health insurance for eligible children. There are other specified
purposes
including tobacco-use prevention programs, enforcement of tobacco related
laws
and research and prevention treatment of various conditions including breast,
cervical prostate colorectal cancers; heart disease, stroke, asthma and
obesity.
It will exempt certain hospitals from anti-trust laws related to emergency
services, facilities and ER physicians. There is the usual unknown
significant
savings to state and local public health agencies over time due to the
decrease
in health care costs related to tobacco usage.
Hospitals have seen a severe drop in the pool of available nurses. The
nursing
education programs at UC, CSU, Community Colleges and privately operated
nursing
education program would be expanded by the fund. It would support non-profit
community clinics, pay back student loans to get physicians to work with
low-income persons in communities with insufficient physicians. Also funding
would provide prostate cancer treatment to poor and underserved communities
as
well as provide services to help people quit smoking.
Most of the sponsors of this proposition consist of agencies that advocate or
provide direct health care services to underserved children. The other
members
of the coalition are the American Cancer Society, American Lung Association,
American Heart Association, and the California Hospital Association. The
American Lung Association of California is using its lobbying group
(government
liaison) as the point of contact for this proposition.
The part about exempting hospitals from certain antitrust laws is
interpreted by
the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) as sharing certain medical services
including emergency services and the sharing of on-call emergency room
physicians. The LAO anticipates a decrease in cigarette sales and the
possibility of an increase in internet cigarette sales and illegal smuggling.
Over time, the reduction of cigarette sales due to the tobacco sales and
excise
tax will affect the funding of the above programs. However, the decline in
tobacco related diseases would decrease the cost of health care by the state
and
other agencies over time.
This Proposition is a good example of appropriately taxing luxuries that
cause
harm to the individual and society. The majority of the funds, after
backfilling Proposition 10 programs, will go to direct services health care
programs. Since we are not providing sufficient health care for every
California resident, the taxes collected will help fill in some of the gap.
The
Legislative Analyst Office noted that the ÒexperimentalÓ program of providing
health care for those 300% above the Federal Poverty Level, or less, would be
carefully watched. However, the text of the Proposition provides an adequate
system of checks and balances including audits, commissions with a broad
range
of interested parties including the communities these funds will serve.
At the same time, we will need to watch how the enforcement part of the
funding
is spent. It should not go to any police department in California.
Unfortunately
though, they will get funding to enforce tobacco laws. Another ÒWar on
DrugsÓ
focusing on tobacco could therefore theoretically be part of our future.
Another
part that we need to be cautious about is the percentage that is going to the
General Fund. IÕd prefer to call it a slush fund, but Proposition 13 has
placed
unbelievable constraints on the budget process: Hence the need for a Òslush
fund.Ó And until we can elect a Green as Governor, we'll have to accept the
fact that undoubtedly some of that spending will be against our interests.
We can expect to hear that this proposition will increase gang violence and
that
sales will targeted to African American and under-served Californians. The
logic
in that argument is specious. Since the price of a pack of cigarettes is
going
up by $2.60, many in those communities will not be able to afford to smoke.
In
fact, the proponents state that 700,000 Californians who are currently
children
will not become adult smokers because of the almost doubling in the cost of
cigarettes. Yes, there will be some rise in cigarette smuggling and illegal
Internet sales, but the Òsmoke screenÓ RJ Reynolds and other business
political
action committees are putting up is greatly exaggerated. Plus, more money for
programs to help smokers quit will be available.
Passage of this initiative will mean that hundreds of thousands of lives
will be
saved. Vote YES for Proposition 86.
87 -- Yes -- Alternative Energy. Research, Production, Incentives. Tax on
California Oil Producers. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Establishes $4 billion program to reduce petroleum consumption though
incentives
for alternative energy, education and training with the goal of reducing
dependence on oil by 25%. Funded by tax of 1% to 6% depending on the price of
oil on California oil producers, which by law cannot be passed on to the
consumer. Program administered by new California Energy Alternatives Program
Authority. New State revenue from $225 million to $448 million annually for a
total of up to $4 billion.
The bill forms the California Energy Alternatives Program Authority, a
nine-member board which includes the Secretary of the EPA, the Chair of the
State Energy Resource Conservation and Development Commission, the Treasurer
(assuming the State Treasurer), two members appointed by the Governor, one
appointment by the Controller, one appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly,
one
appointed by the Senate Rules Committee, and one appointed by the Attorney
General. The commission will be able to hire an unidentified amount of
employees. The funds will be dispersed as follows: 57.5% to the gasoline and
diesel use reduction account, 26.75% to the Research and Innovation
Acceleration
account, 9.75% to the Commercialization Acceleration Account, 2.5% to the
Vocational Training Account, and 3.5% to the Public Education and
Administration
Account. Fuels considered ÒalternativeÓ are fuel blends consisting of at
least
85% ethanol, or a fuel blend consisting of at least 20% bio-diesel.
Based on current market realities, it would have been nicer to see in the
text a
direction to make 100% bio-fuel accessible at every pumping station, a
diesel to
bio-diesel car converter program, and a tandem bill for incentives for car
manufacturers to offer a range of new cars explicitly for bio-diesel. We can
only hope the revenue raised by this bill will be used for pointed and
measurable goals that aim to eliminate oil dependency. However, Proposition
87
is something -- anything -- to help our addiction to oil and raise needed
revenue for alternative fuel implementation, so although imperfect,
Proposition
87 does warrant our ÒYESÓ vote endorsement.
Some of the organizations which have already endorsed Proposition 87 include
Public Citizen, Gray Panthers, NRDC, Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer
Rights, Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Sierra Club. For more info.,
please see: http://www.yeson87.org
88 -- No Position -- Education Funding. Real Property Parcel Tax. Initiative
Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Proposition 88 would enact a $50 per parcel, parcel tax (special tax) on
every
parcel in California. About $450 million will be raised annually for
specified
and very strict purposes: class-size reduction, instructional materials,
school
safety. The money is needed, but a state-wide parcel tax would be
unprecedented, and the fixed amount, though raising significant funds now,
will
erode over time. (That is the nature of parcel taxes, however). Another
legitimate argument against is that there is no sunset for this.
While it might be acceptable (for now) for local jurisdictions such as local
school districts to have the option of using parcel taxes to supplement their
currently modest levels of funding, given the regressive nature of parcel
taxes,
we need to think carefully whether it would be wise to allow statewide parcel
taxes to now come into being. After all, local jurisdictions have very
limited
funding options, while the state has a wide range of revenue possibilities,
from
very progressive, to very regressive. (For example, many Greens would like
to
see the top state income tax bracket be at least returned to its former
$200,000
level for individuals. Our current system, whereby individuals who make a
mere
$40,000 are now in the top bracket, is no longer progressive for the
majority of
income that is earned in our state! Or, we could end the corporate
change-of-ownership loophole, whereby corporations continue to reap huge
Prop.
13 tax savings, with their property never re-assessed, even if their
corporate
stock changes owners every single year!).
Prop. 88 is a tough one -- public education certainly needs the money, but
would
enacting California's first statewide parcel tax open the door to further
regressive new taxes (whether they be additional statewide parcel taxes, or
whatever?). Unfortunately, we're not able to resolve this either way, right
now. (That is, it looks like we're going to have to "delegate" further
research
and analysis on this one to our county Green Party chapters).
89 -- Yes -- Political Campaigns. Public Financing. Corporate Tax Increase.
Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Limits. Initiative Statute.
YES ON PROP 89 Ð Public Financing of Political Campaigns
Public financing of political campaigns has long been a Green strategy to
bring
greater democracy to our corporate-ruled state. Arizona and Maine already
have
successful public financing programs in place. Assemblywoman Loni Hancock
introduced bills for public campaign financing into the CA legislature in
2004
and 2005. Greens at first objected to the billsÕ funding limits on third
parties, but later negotiated improvements and finally endorsed AB 583. AB
583
failed in the Senate earlier this year, but the California Nurses Association
picked up the ball with a state-wide signature campaign, and succeeded in
getting it on the November 2006 ballot as Prop 89. It has already gathered
significant support from around the state, including the League of Women
Voters,
Common Cause, the Greenlining Institute, and (even) Phil Angelides. It is
opposed by the CA Chamber of Commerce and the Governor.
How does Prop 89 work? Full public funding for campaign expenses goes to
qualifying candidates whose parties won more than 10% in the last state-wide
election. Qualified Green candidates (and others) can get partial funding,
and
would become ÒmajorÓ candidates with full funding once their party wins 10%
of
the vote state-wide or in any state office district. To qualify for public
funds, one needs to forgo private donations, report all campaign
expenditures,
and gather a number of individual $5 contributions to prove the candidateÕs
political ÒviabilityÓ. If a publicly-funded candidate is running against
someone taking private donations, that candidate is eligible for additional
funding to match the expenditures of the privately-funded opponent. There
are
severe restrictions on corporate donations to any campaign, even to ballot
measures. And the cost of financing the campaigns would be underwritten by a
0.2% increase in the state corporate tax rate.
It sounds great, but we understand that some Greens still have doubts. While
Prop 89 uses much of AB 583's language, there have been some significant
changes, particularly in the way small parties are funded. The bad news is
that
third party funding percentages have been cut in half from AB 583 levels.
The
good news, though, is that Prop 89 makes it somewhat easier to qualify for
that
partial funding than was possible under Loni's bill. And the really great
news
is that with a little hard work and grassroots organizing, Greens can become
major players with funding equal to the Dems and Republicans, in two to four
short years once Prop 89 becomes law.
Here are the details: A major party candidate qualifies for public funding
in
part by gathering a certain number of $5 contributions from individuals, to
prove a strong base of acceptance among the population. For example, an
Assembly candidate needs 750 $5 contributions from the District to get
$400,000
in campaign funds; for Senate, it is 1,500 contributions for $800,000; for
state-wide office other than Governor, 7,500 contributions for $2,000,000;
and
for Governor, 25,000 contributions for $15,000,000.
A minor party (or independent) candidate can qualify for 25% of full
major-party
funding by gathering 50% of the required contributions (this is a new Òweak
candidateÓ provision). And the same minor party candidate can qualify for
50%
of full funding by gathering 200% of the required contributions (this is less
funding than in AB 583). Thus, for example, if a Green wanted to run for a
District Assembly seat, under Prop 89 rules he or she would need to get an
easy
325 $5 contributions from residents of the District to qualify for $100,000,
and
then he or she would run against the Democrat and/or Republican's $400,000.
And if our Green were really ambitious, he or she could collect 1,500 $5
contributions and get $200,000.
Could we win with $200,000? Well, when has a CA Green ever had $200,000 to
spend on an electoral campaign? So maybe we could. But in any case, we
would
stand an excellent chance of getting more than the 10% of votes required to
insure that when we ran again two years later, we would have the same
$400,000
as the Democrat and/or Republican would Ð a level financial playing field at
last! (Remember, our 1998 Lt. Governor candidate, Sara Amir, received 10% of
the vote for state assembly in 2000 with far less than $100,000 of funding.
If
Prop. 89 had been in place at that time, she could have then been able to
run in
2002 with a full $400,000 campaign fund!).
There are many other scenarios that would work for Greens under Prop 89.
Laura
Wells got 6% of the statewide vote for Controller in 2002 with practically no
funding; do we think she could reach 10% using the $1 million available to an
ambitious small party candidate? And if Peter Camejo got 10% of the
gubernatorial vote, under Prop 89 rules ALL Green candidates would then
qualify
for full funding in all the state races of the subsequent election. (In
other
words, we would become a major party, exactly equal to the Democrats and
Republicans, in the eyes of Prop. 89).
To be sure, money is not everything, but it does play its part in elections.
So
let's not focus on what Prop 89 does not do for Greens. Given the
advantages to
Democracy in general of public campaign financing, given that the
disadvantages
to Greens are not excessive and can be overcome with hard work, and given
that
the odds of winning 10% of the votes with partial public funding would almost
certainly make some Greens fully-funded ("major party") candidates in
subsequent
years, the Green Party should enthusiastically endorse Prop 89 and recommend
a
YES vote on the November ballot.
More info:
Full text:
http://www.caag.state.ca.us/initiatives/pdf/SA2006RF0015_Amdt_2_S.pdf
CNA website: www.CleanMoneyElections.org
Discussion: http://www.californiaprogressrepor
t.com/2006/07/a_load_of_hooey.html
90 -- No -- Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property.
Initiative
Constitutional Amendment.
The California constitution states that private property may be taken for
PUBLIC
USE only when justly compensated ..... . In practice this has gradually
changed
to PUBLIC PURPOSE which has permitted eminent domain abuse. If Prop 90 was
a
well-designed reform of eminent domain we might want to support it, however
it
goes too far. It has numerous far-reaching provisions that could harm, not
protect, communities and might limit government's ability to enact new
legislation in various areas. It could potentially be very expensive for
California taxpayers.
This measure amends the California Constitution to:
- Limit government authority to take ownership of private property.
- Require government to pay property owners for substantial economic losses
resulting from some new laws and rules.
All EXISTING laws and rules would be exempt from the measure's compensation
requirement. However, NEW laws and rules would be exempt from this
requirement
only if government enacted them (1) to protect public health and safety, (2)
under a declared state of emergency, or (3) as part of rate regulation by the
California Public Utilities Commission. The terms of the measure aren't
clear,
but the broad language of
the measure suggests that its new severe provisions could apply to a variety
of
future governmental requirements that impose economic losses on property
owners.
These laws and rules could include requirements relating, for example, to
employment conditions, apartment prices, endangered species, historical
preservation, and consumer financial protection.
This measure's provisions regarding economic losses could have a major
effect on
future state and local government policymaking and costs. State and local
governments might modify their policymaking practices to try to avoid the
costs
of compensating property owners for losses.
The opponents of Prop 90 say that it "could require Billions of dollars in
new
taxpayer costs each year, if communities and the state continue to pass or
enforce basic laws to protect neighborhoods, limit unwanted development,
protect
the environment, restrict unsavory business and protect consumers."
Follow The Money ----
Support - is funded by Protect Our Homes Coalition which gets almost all of
it's
money from The Fund For Democracy ($1,500,000 as of 5/06) a New York
Committee
funded by a wealthy New Yorker named Howie Rich or from Montanans In Action
($600,000), also a Howie rich funded committee..
Opponents - $ comes from two committees.
1) NO ON 90, Californians Against The Taxpayers Trap ($355,411 as of
6/30/06) -
a committee of taxpayers, educators, business, environmentalists, local
governments and public safety.
2) Conservations Taxpayer Protection ($35,525 as of 6/30/06) - a committee of
the California League of Conservation voters.
In sum, Prop. 90 will put local, regional, and state government at the mercy
of
private (and corporate) landowners, who will be able to sue for just about
every
conceivable possible loss of value to their property. If Prop. 90 passes,
the
public interest, which has been struggling for decades, will suffer one of
its
greatest defeats yet. The Green Party should strongly oppose Prop. 90.
(Note:
A list of other organizations that are already opposed to Prop. 90 follows).
Who Opposes Proposition 90
Environmental Groups
The Nature Conservancy
California League of Conservation Voters
Audubon California
Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Communities
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Defense Council
The Ocean Conservancy
Sierra Club California
California State Parks Foundation
Defenders of Wildlife
Environmental Defense
California Oak Foundation
Planning and Conservation League
Greenbelt Alliance
Endangered Habitats League
California Council of Land Trusts
Public Safety Groups
California Police Chiefs Association
California Fire Chiefs Association
Education Groups
California School Boards Association
Coalition for Adequate School Housing (C.A.S.H.)
Small School Districts' Association
Agriculture Groups
American Farmland Trust
Business/Economic Interest Groups
California Association for Local Economic Development
Homeowner/Housing Groups
League of California Homeowners
California Housing Consortium
California Housing Partnership Corporation
Golden State Manufactured-Home Owners League
Orange County Community Housing Corporation
San Francisco Tenants Union
Oakland Tenants Union
Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights
Consumer/Public Interest Groups
League of Women Voters of California
Public Advocates, Inc.
Community Groups
Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City
Government Groups
League of California Cities
California State Association of Counties
California Redevelopment Association
California Special Districts Association
American Planning Association, California Chapter Resources
_______________________________________________
contacts2 mailing list
contacts2 at marla.cagreens.org
http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/contacts2
_____________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20060811/9bfe311d/attachment.html>
More information about the sosfbay-discuss
mailing list