Posted: Sunday, October 8, 2006 12:00 am
Another California election, another mind-numbing ballot full of propositions. It/s how we do public policy in this state.
The measures are, by and large, hopelessly confusing, which tempts us to recommend a “noC vote on them all, forcing our lawmakers to do their jobs.
But that would not be in our best interests. Some of the 13 propositions make sense or are absolutely necessary to the well-being of this state. The following is a list of the propositions, and our recommendations on how you should vote:
Proposition 1A: Yes
This measure closes a gaping loophole in Prop. 42, which voters approved in 2002, adding a gas tax to pay for transportation projects. But Prop. 42 funds have been diverted to the state/s General Fund instead. Prop. 1A would stop that practice.
Proposition 1B: Yes
One of four bond measures, this one raises nearly ,20 billion for road building and repairs. We/re not a big fan of pushing taxpayers deeper into debt, but California desperately needs better roads, for motorists/ and the economy/s sake.
Proposition 1C: Yes
This one funds housing programs for poor and working families, a problem the solution of which continues to elude local governments. Passage of 1C will help.
Proposition 1D: Yes
This measure would fund repair of old schools and add classrooms to reduce overcrowding. California/s public schools need help, and this is a reasonable start.
Proposition 1E: Yes
Funding to prevent flooding and to get the state better prepared for any kind of disaster.
Props. 1B through 1E are bonds that will require from taxpayers more than twice the funds received to pay off. That/s a burdensome debt, to be sure, but a price that must be paid.
Proposition 83: No
This one would stiffen penalties for sex offenders. Implementation costs would run into the hundreds of millions, and California already has tough laws to deal with this category of crime.
Proposition 84: Yes
A bond the proceeds from which help ensure a safe supply of drinking water, flood control and natural resource protection.
Proposition 85: Yes
Requires parental notification in the case of a minor requesting an abortion. Opponents say this measure will only increase the number of illegal abortions, but there are adequate safeguards to prevent that. Parents have the right and duty to be involved in such important decisions.
Proposition 86: Yes
Would add a tax of ,2.60 per pack of cigarettes to fund health initiatives. Supported by numerous health groups and opposed by the tobacco industry, this measure provides another needed disincentive to smoking.
Proposition 87: No
This is a theoretical winner that morphs into a real-world loser. Taxing the oil industry to induce lower consumption will only end up costing consumers more.
Proposition 88: No
A ,50 parcel tax to help better finance failing public schools is a loser all around. Property owners get slammed, the tax still wouldn/t provide enough funding, and it would put the state in the property tax business for the first time. Bad idea.
Proposition 89: No
This provides for public financing of political campaigns by taxing corporations. Public campaign financing is a good idea, but not exclusively at the expense of businesses, and not all businesses at that.
Proposition 90: No
Everyone wants protection from governments/ abuses of eminent domain takings, but this poorly-worded measure is not the way to do it. Might actually do more harm than good.
As usual, the Nov. 7 ballot offers a mixed bag in terms of propositions. Again, we don/t like the heavy borrowing to build for California/s future, but we don/t see any other way.
Oct. 8, 2006