California's Ballot Initiatives - Political Forum

Coyote Says · 10-22-2006, 02:53 PM

I hate these damned things. I usually vote no on every single one of them on principle. It's always difficult to tell what they really mean, who is supporting them financially, and what the ultimate cost to the taxpayer is. When in doubt, who needs more laws telling us what to do?

francois60 · 10-23-2006, 08:41 PM

The ballot initiatives total $45 billion in new spending. I'd recommend a no vote on all but the property rights initiative, which was written in response to Kelo and costs nothing.

Coyote Says · 10-24-2006, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by francois60

The ballot initiatives total $45 billion in new spending. I'd recommend a no vote on all but the property rights initiative, which was written in response to Kelo and costs nothing.

Kelo? What is that?

francois60 · 10-24-2006, 09:03 AM

The Supreme Court decision last year that ruled that governments make take land under eminent domain and give it to another private entity or individual.

The Constitution says land may only be taken for public use. The Supreme Court ruled that increased tax revenues, say by taking down an old condo and letting a developer build a hotel, qualifies as public use.

Coyote Says · 10-24-2006, 10:00 AM

I will have to read up on that prop. That and prop 98.

francois60 · 10-24-2006, 01:14 PM

Why 98? That's not on the ballot. That's years ago.

Coyote Says · 10-24-2006, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by francois60

Why 98? That's not on the ballot. That's years ago.

I just got a glossy mailer from the CTA (California Teacher's Association) saying it's on the ballot this year. It's something about school funding. I never unquestioningly believe these glossy foldouts no matter who they're from. Especially when it comes to ballot initiatives.

francois60 · 10-24-2006, 04:42 PM

This is the only education proposition for 2006:

PROPOSITION 88: EDUCATION FUNDING. REAL PROPERTY PARCEL TAX. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
* Provides additional public school funding for kindergarten through grade 12.
* Funded by $50 tax on each real property parcel.
* Exempts certain elderly and disabled homeowners.
* Funds must be used for class size reduction, textbooks, school safety, Academic Success facility grants, and data system to evaluate educational program effectiveness.
* Provides for reimbursement to General Fund to offset anticipated decrease in income tax revenues due to increased deductions attributable to new parcel tax.
* Requires school district audits, penalties for fund misuse.
* Revenue excluded from minimum education funding (Proposition 98) calculations.

I'd recommend a no vote, for two reasons:

1) Funds are fungible. All the legislature has to do is cut funding for education by the same amount the property tax adds.
2) California already spends more money on education per student than all but a few states. At this point Californians might want to consider the idea that money isn't the problem.

Coyote Says · 10-24-2006, 04:59 PM

LOL I feel stupid. I looked closer at that brochure and it was an endorsement for Angelides for Governor based on each candidate's position on Prop 98. I thought it was FOR prop 98. I told you I don't pay attention to these mailings.

CHUQ · 10-25-2006, 04:42 AM

How could you guys in CA let the only bright spot in any election bow out? Mary Carey! Sorry had to interject a wee bit of humor.