[Sosfbay-discuss] Fw: [GPCA Official Notice] Ballot Measures Report From Plenary; County Polling on Prop 1 Only
j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net
j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net
Wed Aug 27 16:38:38 PDT 2008
----- Original Message -----
From: "County Contacts" <contacts2006 at lists.cagreens.org>
To: "County Contacts" <Contacts2006 at cagreens.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 7:19 PM
Subject: [GPCA Official Notice] Ballot Measures Report From Plenary;County
Polling on Prop 1 Only
GREEN PARTY COUNTY CONTACTS MESSAGE
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
stated in the email.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UPDATED GPCA COUNTY POLLING FOR NOVEMBER 4, 2008 BALLOT MEASURES
NOTICE!!! GPCA PLENARY TAKES POSITIONS ON ALL BALLOT MEASURES
EXCEPT RE PROPOSITION 1 HIGH SPEAD RAIL
August 25, 2008
To: GPCA County Contacts List
From: Warner Bloomberg Campaigns and Candidates Working Group
Co-Coordinator
Subject: County Polling for Initiatives on the November 4, 2008 Election
Ballot
GPCA positions on ballot measures occur in two ways: By decision of the
delegates at a General Assembly or by County Polling. On August 24, 2008,
the
GPCA General Assembly of Delegates took positions on Propositions 2 thrugh
12.
Those positions, summarized below, are now the official positions of the
Green
Party of California. These are the positions that should be used in tabling
literature, newsletters, webpages, etc.
However, a decision was not reached at the Plenary regarding Proposition 1.
(High Speed Rail Bond). County Polling continues on this issue!!! Below you
will find updated instructions for GPCA County organizations to report
County
GP positions on this item. Immediately following those instructions, you
will
find reports that have been developed from various GPCA contributors
describing this measure and suggesting positions. These recommendations are
simply
those of the people who wrote or compiled them and DO NOT constitute GPCA
positions.
PLEASE NOTE: As recipients on the County Contacts list YOU have the
responsibility to communicate this information to other members in your
local County
GP orgnization. You are to use whatever process you use to make decisions
of
this kind – but each County needs to instruct its delegates on these
issues.
ary, County Polling will continue.
Any questions about these comments should be addressed to Warner Bloomberg
at _wsb3attyca at aol.com_ (mailto:wsb3attyca at aol.com) or (408) 295-9353. Any
questions about the following instructions should be addressed to the
County
Polling Coordinators, Cat Woods at (415) 897-6989 or _cat801 at mindspring.com_
(mailto:cat801 at mindspring.com) and Tim Smith at _Rioryon at aol.com_
(mailto:Rioryon at aol.com) . All County Polling Reports should be submitted to
both County
Polling Coordinators. (Please Note: If you send email to Cat Woods, please
include a telephone number for her to contact you.)
Warner Bloomberg CCWG Co-Coordinator
INSTRUCTIONS FOR GPCA STATEWIDE POLL OF COUNTIES
INITIATIVES APPEARING ON THE NOVEMBER 4, 2008 ELECTION BALLOT
The GPCA uses a poll of all recognized county Green Parties to determine
GPCA positions on ballot measures as an alternative to making those
decisions at
a state meeting. Because the Plenary did not take a position on Proposition
1. (High Speed Rail Bond), County Polling is continuing on this one ballot
measure for the next state election on November 4, 2008. Please be sure
that
your county participates by submitting votes by Sunday, September 21, 2008.
THE POLL:
This poll contains a report and recommendation made by volunteers from the
Green Party grassroots who have reviewed Proposition 1. Of course, counties
are free to agree or disagree with
the recommended positions. The full text of this initiative can be located
by going to the webpage for the California Secretary of State
_www.ss.ca.gov_
(http://www.ss.ca.gov/) and following the applicable links.
PROCESS:
Please provide both Poll Coordinators (Cat Woods and Tim Smith) with vote
results from your county in the following form for each ballot initiative
(including bond measures):
"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 the
report 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
ORANGE COUNTY (DANA POINT) PLENARY. That list was published in the agenda
packet for that state meeting to be held AUGUST 23-24, 2008. For example,
if
your county had 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.) If you have any questions about the total number of votes that
can
be cast for any measure, contact the GPCA Coordinating Committee member(s)
who
represent your region. Your county should rely on its own internal
processes
to arrive at its positions. The poll has an 80% threshold. The default
where
the threshold or quorum is not met is “No Position”.
TIMELINE:
The voting period began on August 10, 2008, and ends on September 21, 2008
(11:59 PM PST). Votes received after the closing date and time will not be
counted. Submit all votes to BOTH the Poll Coordinators at the following
email
addresses:
Cat Woods _cat801 at mindspring.com_ (mailto:cat801 at mindspring.com) or (415)
897-6989. Cat prefers telephone messages. If you send her your County's
votes
by email, include a telephone number to contact if she has any questions
about
those votes.
Tim Smith Rioryon at aol.com
Please submit any questions about the process of the poll to the same
addresses.
RESULTS OF PLENARY DELEGATES DECISIONS AUGUST 24, 2008 ON
NOVEMBER 4, 2008 BALLOT INITIATIVES
Prop. 1: High Speed Rail Bond – Decision not made; County Polling
Continues.
Prop. 2: Treatment of Farm Animals – Consensus to Support/Vote Yes!
Prop. 3: $2 Billion Children's Hospital Bond – Consensus to Oppose/Vote
No!
Prop. 4: Parental Notification for Under-18 Abortions – Consensus to
Oppose/Vote No!!!
Prop. 5: Nonviolent Offenders Sentencing and Rehabilitation – Consensus to
Support/ Vote Yes!
Prop. 6: Anti-Gang Penalties (Runner initiative) – Consensus to
Oppose/Vote
No!
Prop. 7: Renewable Energy Requirements for Utilities – By Delegates'
Votes:
Oppose/ Vote No.
Prop. 8: Same-Sex Marriage Ban – Consensus to Oppose/ Vote No!!!
Prop. 9: Victims' Rights, Reduction of Parole Hearings – Consensus to
Oppose/ Vote No.
Prop. 10: Alternative Fuel Vehicles & Renewable Energy Bond – Consensus to
Oppose/ Vote No.
Prop. 11: Redistricting – By Delegates' Votes: Oppose/ Vote No.
Prop. 12: Veterans' Bond – By Delegates' Votes: Support/ VoteYes.
Please read the previously published reports as resource materials for your
literature and explanations for vote results. Otherwise, contact the
delegates from your County who attended the Plenary and can give their
personal
impressions about the arguments presented for and against the above ballot
measures.
Prop. 1: High Speed Rail Bond Reports
Proposition 1 would create a rail trust fund to issue $9.95 billion in
bonds
to build a new, electric,
high-speed railroad (HSR) between San Francisco and Los Angeles ($9
billion)
and for connections
to the HSR and for other repairs and modernization of existing tracks ,
signals, etc. Additional money would come from the Federal government and
from
private investors (because the project is expected to start yielding
profits
in about 20 years).
If you feel you’ve been hearing about this plan for years, that’s because
you have. High-Speed Rail operates successfully in dozens of countries
around
the world. In 1996 the State created the California High-Speed Rail
Authority to plan for train service at 200 miles per hour or faster, to
connect the “
major metropolitan areas of California, and provide service between
northern
California and southern California” (according to the legislative analyst).
This bond measure was scheduled for the ballot twice in recent years and
then
pulled, and will be on the November ballot (unless the Legislature passes
a different version, AB 3034, in time to place it on the ballot instead).
San Franciscans (and East Bay people like us that are within easy range of
San Francisco) and Los Angeles-area voters tend to see this project as a
faster, cheaper alternative to driving (and a cleaner, cheaper alternative
to
flying). However, we aren’t the only potential riders. The proposed route
would
eventually link downtown stations in San Diego, Los Angeles, Fresno, San
Jose, San Francisco, and Sacramento, and also have stops in Central Valley
cities. Not all trains would stop at all stations, allowing fewer delays
for the
long-distance passengers while providing service for local Valley
passengers.
Let’s shift the scene to Merced, and see how things look from there. The
Authority has produced several attractive brochures, including one that
shows
the travel times from Sacramento to Los Angeles, Sacramento to San Diego,
Merced to San Francisco, Modesto to Los Angeles, and more. However,
Proposition
1, the first phase of the plan, heads west SOUTH of Merced, so it doesn’t
serve Merced, Modesto, Stockton, or Sacramento at all. Voters in the
Valley
would be expected to vote for Prop 1 based on the hope that in the future
extensions will be built as shown on the Authority’s maps. (Voters in
Merced have
been promised, by the Authority, that Merced will actually be served by
the first phase, despite the maps, but nothing in Prop 1 actually says
that.)
Supporters emphasize the real downside of NOT building HSR. Population
growth in the coming years will mean constant pressure for more highways
and
expanded airports, with their added environmental destruction locally and
added
greenhouse gas emissions. HSR uses 15 times less energy per passenger than
single-passenger car trips, and air travel is even worse.
The most controversial decision involves the route from the Central Valley
to San Francisco. Current car traffic is four times greater through the
Altamont Pass than the Pacheco Pass. If the HSR was routed through the
Altamont
Pass, it would have many more potential riders (paying customers) than the
relatively empty land in the Pacheco Route, which the Authority
recommends--empty of human population, that is. Wildlife currently can
travel over a
corridor stretching nearly 250 miles from Altamont Pass to the grapevine,
but if the
HSR goes through the Pacheco Pass, the rails would be protected by
20-foot-high chain-link fences, blocking the wildlife corridor. Many
environmentalists favor avoiding wildlife habitat (the Pacheco Pass route),
and anyone
opposing more sprawl development are concerned that the Pacheco Pass route
will
contribute to exactly that.
The decision we have to make is whether the deficiencies in the plan that
is
currently proposed are so great as to outweigh the advantages that HSR
would
provide if it were done right. The Transportation And Landuse Coalition
(TALC) has been supporting the general concept, working closely with the
Authority to improve the actual plan, and in consultation with member groups
(which
include the Green Party of Alameda County) has been deciding on what
criteria
to use to make a recommendation. TALC has delayed their decision because
of
the legislation still pending as of this writing which may remove some of
the problems with the current ballot measure. Other groups have already
decided to oppose Prop 1. For example, one of the signers of the ballot
argument
against Prop 1 is the president of the California Rail Foundation (CRF).
CRF
and several other environmental organizations are planning a lawsuit
directed
against the EIR.
While I expect this decision to be difficult, my recommendation is “Yes,
with reservations.”
(Author Anonymous)
NO on Proposition 1 -- High Speed Rail Bond
We all believe in attractive alternatives to driving, especially sleek
electric trains designed in Europe, but the promises in Proposition 1 are
too good
to be true.
The cogent reason for Greens to oppose the high-speed rail project is that
it is a public works fraud scheme specifically designed to appeal to
gullible
environmentalists. If we vote for Proposition 1, as it is currently on the
ballot, the only guarantee is that billions of dollars will be spent on
engineering, land acquisition, demolition, and construction of part of a
guideway.
Out front, the promoters say this is a $45 billion system. The $9 billion
provided by the ballot measure for high-speed rail is only 1/5 the project
cost, and project proponents are likely to come back asking taxpayers for
additional tens of billions from taxpayers. There is no guarantee that
there ever
will be a workable rail system, and under current law, no consequences for
project managers if they waste every dime. The idea is apparently to start
a
very big hole in the ground, then come back and ask for more bucks. Federal
funding is as imaginary as private investment, as Amtrak high speed rail
funding
belongs to the 20 senators in Northeastern states.
The firm which has been prime contractor for all work authorized to date by
the High Speed Rail Authority is Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB), notorious for
unsigned engineering drawings on sections of the Wilshire Subway that caved
in,
and for choosing the wrong concrete epoxy for the tunnel in Boston¢s
out-of-control Big Dig. The cost of the Big Dig ballooned from $2 billion
to $22
billion over the course of the project, and the tunnel still leaks
seawater. PB
and other firms were fined $450 million under their settlement with the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but the rest of the money is gone, with not
very
many feet of highway to show for it.
PB also was responsible for the multi-billions of cost overruns on the San
Jose light rail line, the Wilshire Subway, and the BART-SFO line, and their
overall business model doesn¢t seem to have changed much since. For
example,
one of the most recent PB productions was a plan for a $1 billion
Sacramento
airport line.
On the high-speed rail project, not only the cost figures are ballooned
beyond belief. The Rail Authority predicts an annual ridership of 117
million
passengers on the 24-station line. As a reality check, France¢s most
popular
high-speed train, the TGV-Southeast carried 18 million passengers during
its
10th year of operation. Eurostar, the London-Paris high-speed train you may
have
heard about, finally managed to carry more than 10 million passengers for
the first time last year, a decade and a half after it started running. It
is
hard to believe that California trains will outperform European routes with
more population.
The Authority claims that the project will have no operating deficit, but
the Legislative Analyst has produced an opinion in the ballot that the
operating cost would be about $1 billion annually, and suggests that some
proportion
of this would have to be covered by state subsidies (likely in the hundreds
of millions annually). This would directly harm all transit service
statewide.
The Rail Authority has been actively goosing the Merced County real estate
market with statements about the "new California gold rush" and its
selection
of the Pacheco Route, a repeat of the UC Merced land scam with the same
participants. Stations in Gilroy and Palmdale will be minutes from the
Peninsula
and Los Angeles, respectively, causing huge incentives for new exurban
sprawl.
The staff says they won't build a Los Banos station but Angelo Tsakopoulos
and his investor corporations have purchased 3500 acres of land there
within
three miles of the proposed stop, so the station and sprawl are likely to
happen if the route is built.
Severe negative environmental impacts on the Pacific Flyway (disruption of
nesting and avian mortality from striking 220 mph trains), and noise
impacts
on communities on the Peninsula, and in Santa Clara County, Los Angeles
County, and Orange County are also a major concern.
Promised environmental benefits are questionable. According to British
studies, 220 mph trains do not produce greenhouse gas reductions or energy
savings, because of the exponential increase in energy requirement of
trains above
about 120 mph. France has GHG reductions from HSR only because the trains
are
100% nuclear powered. The proposal here will depend on additional
coal-fired
plants in the Southwest.
(From Greg Jan, apparently on behalf of the Green Party of Alameda County
8/12/08)
###
_______________________________________________
Contacts2006 mailing list
Contacts2006 at lists.cagreens.org
http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/contacts2006
More information about the sosfbay-discuss
mailing list