Comments on: my voting slate

By: Charles H. Green

Charles H. Green — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 06:56:39 +0000

Just looking at your list makes me think of a lawyer friend desperately trying to apply intellectual property law to the phenomenon of mash-ups in digital music. I wanna say, you can’t paddle fast enough to stay upstream, this is no way to run a railroad.

I am not the first one to note that the plethora of initiatives on the California ballots is not the triumph of democracy it masquerades as–it’s the failure of representative democracy.

I don’t know the history of how it got there–most likely greedy corrupt politicians and some greater reformer who took it back “to the people,” but the result is absurd. A toothless, impotent bunch of legislators, and laws so absurdly complex that only a bunch of grad students convening special meetings can be expected to understand it.

Not that things are pristine back here in NJ, but that just proves there’s more than one way to mess things up. Hey what if you guys took all your clear intelligence and wonderful energy and put it behind making an intelligent governance system in California? Maybe you’d have to get Prop umpteen-and-a-half on the ballot to make it happen, but it might be worth it.

By: nevada

nevada — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 16:49:00 +0000

If is was living in LA I would surely vote yes on prop H. Since prop 13, these pesky, expensive bond measures are the only way that we can get affordable housing built in CA. In the wake of HUD’s shrinking budget, we in CA need to act as a leader in this arena. (Right now I would say that Mayor Daley is winning w/ respect to establishing a suitable plan to increase the number of affordable units in Chicago.)

Yes, developers and bankers alike are thrilled that there will be more money, and without a doubt this money will act as the equity (and soft money) for countless loan transactions. While this element may be a major turn-off for some, I would urge folks to look beyond that and understand that this is exactly why our affordable housing program has been so successful: the low income housing tax credit harnesses private interests for the benefit of low and lower income folks.

More on tax credits on how they work:
http://www.enterprisecommunity.com/industryTaxCredit/index.html
More on affordability from the National Low Income Housing Coalition:
http://www.nlihc.org/oor2005/

By: joe

joe — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 09:17:42 +0000

Changed my mind on 1A… voting no.

John, check out smartvoter.org …

By: John Bachir

John Bachir — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 10:30:07 +0000

I’ve got a new side project that will help people figure out and research what will be on the ballot on election day, WikiBallot.org. The hope is that someone will be able to pull up their polling location, and see a listing of offices and propositions much like the list you made above (except without the commentary, just the facts ) Check it out here.

By: zephoria

zephoria — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 20:40:53 +0000

Akela – think lots of anger and frustration…. every pissed off angry yelling possibility.

By: joe

joe — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 19:46:41 +0000

Here’s how how I plan to vote is either different from you or me adding stuff, zeph:

1A – I’m voting yes because that will mean more BART funds and AC Transit buses and allowing legislators to raid this source of funding seems silly.

84 – Shit, I don’t know either.

86 – Voting yes despite great arguments I’ve heard either way… when it comes down to it, studies have shown that increasing cigarette taxes cause high single-digit percentages of people to quit.

88 – I’m leaning no on this because it’s a fucking flat tax.

By: Akela Talamasca

Akela Talamasca — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 15:28:32 +0000

The best part about this post is when you said “…I have to vote in San Francisco due to *#$&! voter registration fuckups.”

What heinous swear word was contained within those characters that was worse than ‘fuckups’?

By: crzwdjk

crzwdjk — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 01:12:26 +0000

I’d disagree with you on 1A. Transportation is one of those things where it’s just too easy to raid the funding, because the effects, even if they are disastrous, are not seen until much later. There have been too many examples of “deferred maintenance” both in the public and private sector. As for 1B, a lot of people are for it (and I was initially too) because it does give substantial money to public transit. But it gives so much more money to roads, and I think that makes it self-defeating to some extent. Yes, we need public transportation, but not at the cost of building hundreds more miles of highways and putting the state into debt for it.

By: James Lawson

James Lawson — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 22:41:08 +0000

One of the funnier campaign ads running in my home state of Alabama is one for a Public Service Commissions candidate. The people who work the PSC office mainly handle regulation of the utilities, so what does our Republican candidate tout? That he is pro-choice, against gay marraige and suppports prayer in schools.

By: zephoria

zephoria — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 22:08:42 +0000

Scott – i’m not for outlawing smoking but i also believe that smoking affects medical costs at every level. This is one of the main reasons that i support this tax hike. By all means, people should be able to do what they see fit but when there are social costs, they must be burdened and that’s where taxes come into place. And i say this as someone who has smoked on and off over the years. Do i want to buy a $8 pack of cigs? No. But i will stomach that cost because i know that i’m treating my body like shit every time i smoke. Do i want to pay $8 a gallon for gas? No, but if it went to funding public transit, i would bitch and moan but i’d be OK with it.