Summary of Recommendations on State Propositions, November 2008

This is a summary of my current thinking on state propositions on the November 2008 ballot. I'll add links as I write up remaining conclusions.

A separate post provides my recommendations on local candidates and measures, including Berkeley, relevant special districts, and selected races in Oakland, San Francisco, El Cerrito, and Marin-Sonoma.

YES YES YES on 1A: High Speed Trains to connect California and combat global warming

Yes on 2: Ethical standards for confining farm animals (see comments: Mariana's and mine)
No on 3: Children's Hospital Bond (see my comment)
NO on 4: No means No. No to Legislating Family Communication
A reluctant No on 5: Nonviolent drug offenses (see also John's comment)
No on 6: No ballot-box budgeting for new criminal justice programs
NO on 7: Don't Set Energy Policy by Initiative

NO NO NO on 8: Don't take away my sister's rights

NO on 9: A Bad Constitutional Amendment
NO on 10: Oilman's giveaway pretending to be "green" measure
Yes on 11: Reform Redistricting in California
Yes on 12: Veterans' Housing Bond (see my comment)

As always, comments are welcome, particularly on ones above where I haven't posted a link yet.

A Reluctant No on Prop 5 re: Nonviolent Drug Offenses

This was my toughest decision on this election. I waffled until the moment that I actually filled out my ballot tonight. And it wasn't for lack of data - I even had opposing emails from a public defender (Yes on 5) and a district attorney (No on 5) with lots of details about the measure.

I agree entirely with the policy intent. We should not be locking people up for non-violent drug offenses. If that was all this initiative did, I'd vote yes for sure. I'd be joining LOTS of people I respect.

But that's not all this initiative does. Prop 5 also requires that a certain amount of money be dedicated to specific programs from the state budget, in perpetuity. That is ballot-box budgeting and is exactly the kind of thing that makes it super hard for the legislature to negotiate the budget every year. Did you notice how late the budget was this year? That delay is in large part because the budget is structured to be VERY difficult to pass.

Now I know that the "No" campaign is mostly people I disagree with. And it is likely that if Prop 5 fails, it will mostly be interpreted as a "tough on crime" vote. I'm unhappy about that. But I think I'd be more unhappy, the next time the budget is super-late, if I knew I'd voted for an initiative that made the problem worse.

So I just voted NO, but I'm still unsatisfied. If you're torn like me, I recommend you send a contribution to the Drug Policy Alliance Network and ask them to pursue the same policy change without the ballot-box budgeting.

Yes on Prop 11: Reform Redistricting for State Legislators

I waffled for awhile but decided to vote Yes.

First: this is something that HAS to go through the initiative process. Legislators themselves will not succeed in rewriting the rules for how they get elected. Note the number of FORMER state legislators who are supporting Prop 11. These are people who saw the flaws in the existing system, and now that they're no longer in it, are willing to support change.

Prop 11 was written by the League of Women Voters and Common Cause after a couple years negotiation in the state legislature. This is NOT just some millionaire's crackpot idea. They worked out the kinks.

That's why LOTS of newspapers have endorsed it.

Why not wait 'til a better plan comes along?

Good question, glad you asked :-)

If Prop 11 passes now, it will influence the redistricting done based on the 2010 census. But if it doesn't come back again until 2010 (or 2012, more likely, to be on a presidential ballot), it won't have any influence until the 2020 census. I think that's too long of a wait.

Vote Yes on 11.

Nov 2008 Summary of Local Recommendations

Here are my final recommendations on local candidates and measures. These cover everything I vote on in Berkeley (including Special Districts), plus some races in Oakland, El Cerrito, and Marin/Sonoma where I've got good background knowledge.

If you're looking for my recommendations on State Propositions, click here.

Comments are welcome.

Federal & State Races
Barbara Lee for US Congress District 9
Loni Hancock for State Senate 9th District
Nancy Skinner for State Assembly 14th District
Dennis Hayashi for Superior Court Judge #9

East Bay Special Districts
H.E. Christian (Chris) Peeples for AC Transit Director, At-Large
Lynette Sweet for BART Board District 7
Tom Radulovich for BART Board District 9
Whitney Dotson for EBRPD Director, Ward 1
Doug Linney for EBMUD Director, Ward 5

YES YES YES on V V: Keep AC Transit affordable for seniors & youth
YES on WW for East Bay parks

Berkeley Candidates
Tom Bates for Mayor
Darryl Moore for City Council District 2
Terry Doran for City Council District 4
Laurie Capitelli for City Council District 5
- no endorsement for City Council District 6
Rent Board: Drake, Townley, Shelton, Tregub, and Harrison
School Board: Beatriz Leyva-Cutler and probably Priscilla Myrick

Berkeley Measures
YES on FF to Upgrade Berkeley's Branch Libraries
YES on GG for Berkeley's Fire Departments
YES on HH to Raise Berkeley's spending limit
YES on II: Administrative Change
(Tentative) NO on JJ: We need reasonable regulation on Medical Marijuana
NO NO NO on KK: Anti-Transit, Anti-Environment, Anti-Government
YES on LL: A more sensible historic landmarks process

Oakland Candidates + Measures
Rebecca Kaplan for Oakland City Council At-Large
NO on N: Poorly conceived Schools Parcel Tax
NO on OO: No ballot-box budget, even for kids

San Francisco
No on P: Don't mess up the transportation authority

El Cerrito Candidate
Ann Cheng for City Council

Sonoma/Marin
YES YES YES on Q for the SMART train

Tom Radulovich

I've known Tom Radulovich for several years in his capacity on the BART Board of Directors. As head of the nonprofit Livable City, he was also on my organization's Board of Directors for a few years.

I almost always agree with Tom's stances on the BART Board. And when I don't, I believe that he's got good reasons. He's smart, strategic, and curious.

His opponent's proposals (BART to Stockton? give me a break) reveal a distressing lack of understanding of basic transit finance.

Please vote for Tom Radulovich for BART Board, District 9.

No on P: Don't mess up the transportation authority

San Francisco currently has two major transportation agencies. The San Francisco Transportation Authority (SFTA) collects and distributes most transportation money, via the city's transportation sales tax and regional/state/federal funds. The Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) was created in 1999 by Prop E to have oversight over Muni and the city's transportation departments.

There's some overlap, but there's also some checks and balances.

I agree with SPUR, whose well-written analysis says this is a bad idea. It could get rid of SFTA staff, who are mostly terrific. It would combine too much into one agency, which has proven to be a problem in both other California counties that have done it (LA and Santa Clara). And MTA is still getting started - give it some time to get itself worked out before monkeying with it.

Others are also concerned that this would concentrate too much power in the Mayor's office. The Mayor currently has most control over MTA, while the Board of Supervisors controls SFTA.

Other Measure P opponents include Sierra Club, SF Bicycle Coalition, SF League of Conservation Voters, SF Bay Guardian, and at least 8 members of the Board of Supervisors. Supporter is Mayor Gavin Newsom.

NO on OO: No ballot-box budget, even for kids

Kids are good. Ballot-box budgeting is bad. This measure says it will help youth in Oakland by setting aside a specific portion of the city's general fund for children's services. It is strongly supported by an organization I work with and respect, Kids First!

But there are two humongous things wrong with Measure OO:

• One, the city already has the Oakland Fund for Children and Youth, a good program that supports public and private youth programs. The City Council recently renewed it through 2020.
  
• Two, ballot-box budgeting like this will hurt all the other parts of the city's budget, including many that serve kids, such as libraries and parks. This would be a permanent set-aside for one particular program, regardless of future needs.
  

Especially in a year when Oakland's trying to figure out how to handle a $42 million budget shortfall, this ballot-box budgeting is a bad idea. It feels good, but it'll have terrible unintended consequences.

I don't live in Oakland, so take this recommendation with that caveat. But I've heard confirmation from enough Oakland residents to strongly recommend that you vote No on OO.

NO on N: Poorly Conceived Parcel Tax for Oakland Schools

You know there's something behind the story when the teacher's union opposes a tax that would provide more funding for schools. There definitely is.

Oakland schools need help, no question about it. But not this kind of help. This is an initiative put on the ballot by the state folks who are currently running Oakland schools, with little consultation with school officials in Oakland. Apparently it was rushed on the ballot, which is why there's no opposing argument.

Measure N would raise the parcel tax by $120/year (a lot to ask for!) and use the money to raise teacher salaries and support charter schools. But the measure is not clear about how they'd choose how much money to which charter schools. And the teacher's union says they don't want the raise (first time I've ever heard that). Here are some articles for more info:

• "Parcel tax for Oakland school teachers faces intense opposition," Contra Costa Times, 10/6/2008.
• "Oakland voters should reject the flawed Measure N," editorial in Oakland Tribune and other MediaNews papers, 10/20/2008.
• Smartvoter.org background info
  

I don't vote in Oakland, so take this recommendation with that grain of salt. But I'd recommend you vote No on N.

Ann Cheng for El Cerrito City Council

My friend and colleague Ann Cheng is running for El Cerrito City Council. She's smart, knows city planning as well as most city staff, and has unimpeachable ethics. She's endorsed by 4 of the 5 current councilmembers, the Sierra Club and organized labor, and a bunch of other elected officials. She grew up in El Cerrito and is now on the Planning Commission.

(Tentative) No on JJ: We need reasonable regulation on Medical Marijuana

Nobody submitted an argument against Measure JJ, so at first I assumed that it is not a big deal. Then I looked for news articles, and found one that reminded me why this is on the ballot. This is a re-submission of Measure R from 2004. That measure was declared defeated by less than 200 votes, but a recount was impossible with the old Dieblod electronic voting machines. So a judge put it back on this ballot.

So I went back and looked at my 2004 analysis. It sounded reasonable, so here's an updated version:

This far-reaching reform would make medical marijuana clubs exempt from city permits, with no limits on how much pot they can have. Measure JJ is a comprehensive reform of the city's approach to medical marijuana. I don't like the "war on drugs" and I understand the need for medical marijuana. It looks like some of Measure JJ's elements make sense (for example, the "Peer Review Committee" sounds sensible). But this is a case of the initiative process allowing the extreme version of reform to go on the ballot, when the best solution would be for the
the City Council to come up with a useful compromise. Measure JJ has two provisions that cause me concern:

First, Measure JJ would say that the city must give a permit without a public hearing to any medical marijuana club that wanted to set up shop in any area zoned commercial. Now I'm not a big fan of public hearings every time a business changes hands or changes use, but this goes farther than I'd like. The city should be able to review and approve the location of a new cannabis club. Measure JJ would take that authority away. Read the City Attorney's analysis, #6.

Second, Measure JJ would eliminate all numeric limits on how much marijuana anyone could posses or grow (except you couldn't have more than 10 plants that were visible from a neighboring property). Read the City Attorney's analysis, #1 & #2. This seems as if it would make it pretty easy to become a major dealer: get yourself licensed as a primary caregiver. Grow unlimited pot. Use a little for medical use, and sell a lot on the open market. This isn't theoretical: I know someone who was trying to do just that a few years ago. If you're a fan of legalization, you might say that sounds fine. But this isn't legalization. The high danger/high profit characteristics of the current drug trade, the aspects that cause the violence and are the best arguments for legalization, remain. Cannabis clubs with unlimited supply would be a great target for armed robberies, as has already happened multiple times at one of the city's existing clubs. We don't need that to be a bigger problem.

So I'm inclined to vote No on JJ, feeling that we need reasonable regulation, not complete exemption from city control. My only hesitation is that there's no ballot argument opposing it.

Counter-arguments welcome. But please, don't accuse me of not feeling the pain of suffering people. I get that. This is about unintended consequences.

Berkeley School Board: Beatriz Leyva-Cutler and probably Priscilla Myrick

You get to vote for up to two of the four candidates for School Board.

I am definitely voting for Beatriz Leyva-Cutler. She sounds competent, has good politics, and has support from a wide range of people. She has been active with, and is supported by, Latinos Unidos de Berkeley, a group helping make sure the voices of Latino parents are raised and heard in Berkeley's schools. She's got a lot of inside knowledge on that as head of BAHIA, a bilingual providing childcare, parent/teacher education, and other services for 2-10 year-old kids serving preschool and school-age kids in and around Berkeley. As a parent of a kid in the English-Spanish immersion program, I see the need for those voices.

I'm less certain of my second vote.

Priscilla Myrick sounds competent. I like that she wants to improve fiscal transparency, served as a Treasurer on the BOSS Board of Directors, and has professional experience as a CFO and Controller. Her endorsements mostly don't speak to me, in some cases because they're not people I would vote for (Dean, Olds) but mostly just because I don't know who they are. Exception: boona cheema of BOSS, whom I respect. Her focus seems to be on academics.

John Selawsky has been on the board since 2000. He helped pull the board out of its turn-of-the-century fiscal crisis, and he's done a lot, particularly on environmental issues. He's concerned about reducing traffic danger to kids around schools and supported the Safe Routes to Schools program my organization runs. But a friend and trusted informant, who has a kid at Berkeley High, disapproves of Selawsky's support for Berkeley High Principal Jim Slemp.

Toya Groves sounds passionate, but her statement sounds too generic and lacking in a clear-eyed analysis of problems. She has shallow support, and I can't find a website or SmartVoter page for her.

I'm torn between Myrick and Selawsky. I'll probably go for Myrick. Comments welcome!

Berkeley Rent Board: Drake, Townley, Shelton, Tregub, and Harrison

You get to vote for up to 5 candidates for Rent Board. The 5 candidates running on a "progressive slate" all have candidate statements that explain their agendas and refer to each other. I particularly like Drake's and Townley's. Shelton's and Tregub's are fine. Harrison needs a copy editor.

The other two candidates are Rogers and Kelly, neither of whom put together a compelling statement. Rogers statement just gives her background, which sounds perfectly fine, but it doesn't say what she believes. Kelly's statement doesn't sound well-enough thought out for me.

Lynette Sweet for BART Board District 7

This is a weird BART district: it includes parts of all three BART counties (SF, Alameda, and Contra Costa). Marshall Walker, a retired urban planner with the Richmond Redevelopment Agency, is challenging Lynette Sweet, the incumbent from San Francisco.

It is hard to find out much else about this race. Neither candidate has a website, neither has any information on the League of Women Voters' smartvoter website, and I can only find one news article. I can't even find candidate statements.

But all you have to do is read each candidates' top priority in that one San Jose Mercury News news article:

• Sweet says her "top priority is to get more offices, stores, businesses and housing built around train stations so more people can take BART instead of driving."

• Walker says he "wants to expand BART around the Bay and all the way to Sacramento."

Slam dunk for Sweet. Building homes and shops and places to work around BART will get a lot more riders, and provide a lot more other benefits, than Walker's fantasy. Sorry, but ringing the bay with BART and sending it up to Sacramento is a pipe dream that would cost billions (maybe tens of billions) we don't have. It makes a lot more sense to use what we have. Walker's response makes it clear he doesn't understand BART's finances.

Laurie Capitelli for City Council, District 5, Berkeley

Hahn's vision for downtown is for little change; "low-density, scaled back" is how a Chronicle article puts it. That's not what we need. We need more opportunities for people to live and work in downtown Berkeley. Hahn's got great credentials and vision for the schools - maybe she should run for school board.

Capitelli's vision comes closer to mine, although I'm not sure how strong his commitment is to affordable rental housing (he praises affordable ownership, but we need both). But he seems sensible, paying attention to the nitty-gritty details that make a city work. For example, he's put a priority on safer streets for pedestrians and done good things. And I hear from a trusted source that "he's an intelligent, thoughtful Councilmember who tries to fashion reasonable solutions -- even if I don't always agree with those solutions." I'll take that for District 5.

On endorsements, can anyone explain why both candidates sought endorsements from former State School Superintendent Delaine Eastin? Or why Hahn seems to think she's the most important, listing her first? Capitelli's endorsements include the Sierra Club, Mayor Bates, and five councilmembers.

Terry Doran for City Council, District 4, Berkeley

This is the most interesting city council race in Berkeley. This is a completely open seat, as incumbent Dona Spring died earlier this year.

Five people are running, but only two have a real shot: school board member Terry Doran and rent board commissioner Jesse Arreguin. I don't get to vote in this race, but I live across the street from the district.

Arreguin is an aide to councilmember Kriss Worthington, so he obviously understands how the council works. His endorsements include the Sierra Club, two councilmembers, and several individuals I know and respect.

But as I read through his issues page, I had some concerns. The city is making real progress on environmental issues: look at the solar financing program. Supply and demand does operate in the housing market: if there are more homes in places where many people want to live, they will be more affordable. Why do you think homes are so expensive in the Bay Area? He calls Berkeley's recent approach to affordable housing a "horrible mistake." But that approach has created many more homes that people of all incomes can afford. And he opposes Measure LL, which sealed the deal for me.

Doran has been a good school board member for several years, where he was a good voice for equity. After leaving the School Board in 2006, he's been on the zoning board and the committee developing the downtown area plan. Like Arreguin, he knows the players and how to get things done. He's also got lots of endorsements: Mayor Bates plus 6 of 8 councilmembers and again, a bunch of people I know and respect.

On development issues, I like his stances better than Arreguin's. Doran gets that Berkeley's recipe for affordable housing needs to be a combination of tenant protections for existing renters plus enough new homes that our children can find places to live (maybe that has something to do with the fact that 4 generations of his family live in the same neighborhood!). On the zoning board, he voted to support the Trader Joe's at MLK and University and new homes along transit corridors, including many in his district.

I encourage you to vote for Terry Doran for City Council in District 4.

Darryl Moore for City Council, District 2, Berkeley

I voted for Darryl Moore in 2004 and I'm voting for him again. He's done a fine job and his opponent (Jon Crowder) is no threat.

Tom Bates for Mayor, Berkeley

Tom Bates has done a good job. Bates has gotten the City Council to work together, at least a lot better than it used to (evidence: 6 of 8 Councilmembers have endorsed him). And despite incessant carping by some, the city is getting things done: downtown's better off and has plans to get even better, we're building more homes that people of all incomes can afford, a financing plan to help people go solar, and more.

Shirley Dean brings no new ideas. She has no new support - in fact much less than when she lost to Bates in 2002. She seems out of touch with a city she led for 8 years.

If you want to learn more, check out their entries on the LWV website.

YES on LL for a more rational historic landmarks process

This is another thing that should not be on the ballot, but is because a few disgruntled people are unhappy with the result of a long public process (kind of like Measure KK). Since they couldn't win in that process, they collected signatures to force this onto the ballot.

If you want a nonpartisan history, read the Pros & Cons information by the local chapter of the League of Women Voters (scroll to end of file). Short story is that if we vote Yes, we approve the results of a 6-year public process. If we vote No, we go back to an ordinance passed in 1974 that now conflicts with state law.

I'm voting Yes. The new ordinance creates reasonable timelines and criteria for decisions by the Landmarks Commission. It will cut down on unhappy neighbors suddenly deciding that the shack next door deserves to be protected as a historic "structure of merit," just because they don't like the owner's plans to change the property.

Berkeley has lots of wonderful historic buildings, and we protect them. This new ordinance will not threaten them. It will simply restore some reason and balance to the process.

Oh, and don't be taken in by the opponents claim to being "green." They don't seem to understand (or maybe not care) that there isn't enough land for us all to live in the same buildings Berkeley had in 1920. We need some new ones so that more people can live close to their jobs or school or transit lines. Sometimes that means knocking down an old building. The new building can be a lot greener than the old one, particularly when you consider how many people live in it and how they get around.

Please vote Yes on LL.

YES on WW for East Bay Parks

Measure WW is a 20 year extension of the existing Measure AA, which was approved by voters in 1988. Measure AA is a fee on property of less than $10 per $100K of assessed value. Over its 20 year life, the existing measure has funded the acquisition of 34,000 acres of land (creating 17 new regional parks and recreation facilities), added over 100 miles of trails, and provided $60 million for 235 neighborhood recreation projects. If approved by the voters, Measure WW will will generate an additional $500 million for additional acquisitions and infrastructure projects in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties -- without raising anyone's taxes. With Alameda and Contra Costa Counties' populations continuing to grow, land preservation must keep pace with development. Open spaces for wildlife and other natural resources as well as lands for the active and passive recreational pursuits are necessary in order to maintain the quality of life for future generations.

My organization has endorsed Measure WW. Check out the campaign website for a complete list of endorsements and a list of what projects the measure will fund.

Doug Linney for EBMUD Director Ward 5

I've known Doug Linney for 9 or 10 yearsin his capacity as a campaign consultant who often helps environmental and other public interest groups to win ballot measures or legislation. He's been effective at that for 30 years and he's been effective on the EBMUD Board for the past 8 years. He deserves re-election and should win easily.

His opponent is Susi Ostlund. Her website gives no indication that she's up for the job (although she's got a cool yellow bike).

YES on Marin/Sonoma Measure Q for SMART train

Measure Q, on the November 2008 ballot in both Sonoma and Marin counties, would enact a 20-year ¼-cent sales tax to help fund the proposed SMART rail and trail project. The SMART project would build a 70-mile commuter train on existing rail right-of-way between Cloverdale in Sonoma County to the Larkspur ferry in Marin County. The project also includes a 70-mile bicycling and walking trail within/adjacent to the rail corridor.

SMART is a great opportunity to combat global warming and reinforce the vitality of the great downtowns along the Hwy 101 corridor.

To pass, Measure Q must be approved by 2/3 of the voters in the SMART district, which encompasses Marin and Sonoma counties. SMART barely missed passing in 2006 (it got 65.3%, just shy of the 66.7% required), with not enough support in Marin. If you know people in Marin (or Sonoma), please pass this on!!

More information is at www.smarttrain2008.org

Dennis Hayashi for Superior Court Judge #9

This is a runoff of a June primary.

Dennis Hayashi has the right combination of experience and values to earn my vote. He has 30+ years of professional experience, emphasizing themes of civil rights, social justice, and environmental protection, and he strongly supports an independent judiciary. Here's a sampling of his endorsements (some of whom groups whose opinions I trust): Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club, Sierra Club, lots of labor unions, the Democratic Party, the Deputy Sherriffs Association, three bar associations, and many more.

I oppose Phil Daly, who is much more of a straight law-and-order type (endorsements from police associations but not bar associations, for example).

Rebecca Kaplan for Oakland At Large Councilmember

I am delighted to get to strongly recommend someone I know so well. Rebecca Kaplan has been a smart and enthusiastic member of the AC Transit Board of Directors for six years. She has succeeded there because she is smart, politically savvy, and because she knows how to get things done with people she doesn't agree with. She has strong ethics, she is smart and insightful, and she connects with people. These are also the same reasons my organization, the Transportation and Land Use Coalition, hired her as a policy advocate for a one-year campaign in 2001. She was incredibly effective.

She also has experience as a civil-rights attorney, legislative aide, and an outreach consultant protecting Oakland residents from predatory loans and foreclosures. She will be a great policy-maker and she has the potential to become a bridge-builder on the Oakland City Council.

I don't know as much about Kerry Hamill - nor do many voters, because she hasn't done too many speaking engagements. She used to work for Perata, now is a PR person for BART (two transit people in the same race!) and is currently an Oakland School Board member. But from what I can find, Kaplan is by far the better candidate.

For some examples of others who have looked at this race, see:

• "A Better Oakland" blog post on their debate.
• Daily Kos post excited about Kaplan.
• Kaplan's endorsements.
• News about Kaplan.
  

YES on V V: Keep AC Transit Affordable for Seniors & Youth

More people are riding buses. But fuel costs and health costs are up, and Governor Schwarzenegger has consistently cut state funding for public transit. AC Transit needs to balance its budget.

When AC Transit's board started thinking about raising fares this spring, our organization and allies appealed to them to try to raise new money instead. To their credit, the AC Transit Board (including Chris Peeples, also on the ballot) agreed to take the risk.

V V would take an existing parcel tax that already helps pay for AC Transit's services and renew, extend, and raise it. The new tax would be $4/month ($48/year) higher than the current one.

Passing V V will keep AC Transit affordable, especially for seniors and youth who depend on buses the most. It's a public good in all sorts of ways: helps people in need, reduces energy use, and combats global warming.

NO NO NO on KK: Anti-Transit, Anti-Environment, Anti-Government

Berkeley sometimes puts one-of-a-kind measures on the ballot. Some are innovative and great. Some are truly terrible ideas. This is one of the terrible ones.

If passed, Measure KK would require a citywide vote for any proposal for transit-only or HOV lanes. It is anti-transit, anti-environment, and anti-government.

Anti-Transit: KK's primary goal is to stop the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project proposed to connect Berkeley, Oakland, and San Leandro. Opponents have not been able to win what they want in the dozens (hundreds?) of public meetings so far, so they're trying this ballot measure.

BRT is a great idea for Berkeley and the East Bay. I want to ride a bus that doesn't have to slog through traffic from downtown Berkeley to downtown Oakland. Students will flock to quicker service that helps them get to UC and Berkeley City College. It will give more people a better alternative to driving. That's why my organization has been supporting some version of this idea for nearly all of the 10 years I've been working as a transit advocate.

Anti-Environment: Half of the greenhouse gas emissions in the Bay Area come from transportation. We need to improve local mass transit. It is stupid that a bus carrying 40, or even 10 or 15, people has to sit in traffic hemmed in by cars with one or two people each. And let's confront reality: some of the changes that make it easier to get around on transit will also make it harder for people to get around in a car. If we want to combat global warming, business as usual is not going to work.

Anti-Democratic: Measure KK would add an expensive and unnecessary hurdle to an already complex process that has LOTS of public involvement. Berkeley and the whole BRT process has already had dozens - maybe hundreds - of public meetings, and there will be many more. That involvement has already changed the project a lot, and it will change more before it is (hopefully) approved.

Because it would add hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost of developing a proposal like this, Measure KK would reduce the amount of time and attention a city, or a transit district, could put to this type of process. So we'd lose negotiation and compromise and get a single up-down vote. If you want to cripple our government, this seems like a good idea. If you want government to work, it is a terrible idea.

Please join me in voting NO on KK. If you want more info:

• Read FAQs about KK and learn more about why to vote No.
  
• See people/groups you trust on the list of endorsements for No on KK: every single City Councilmember, Sierra Club, League of Women Voters, a huge number of groups.
  

Yes on II: Administrative Change

This is a small administrative change, allowing the city to take extra time to finish redistricting after a census. Nobody argued against it.

YES on HH to Raise Berkeley's spending limit

It is really dumb that we have to vote on this. If a city spends more money than in 1986-87 (adjusted for inflation), then every four years we have to vote to allow the city to keep spending money, even if that increase is because we voted for tax increases in the meantime. You can thank the #%$$%# Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association for this stupid waste of time and resources.

BTW - look at the names of the people who signed the argument opposing HH. Now look at the arguments against FF and GG and for KK - many of the same folks. It seems like they're big fans of Howard Jarvis and Prop 13, the forces who have helped cripple our state budgeting process and thus our cities' and schools' budgets.

YES on GG for Berkeley's Fire Department

Fire and paramedic services are a public good. I benefit when they put out other people's fires and prevent the flames from spreading.

Opponents of GG are the same crew opposing other taxes and supportive projects the city is trying to do. Their argument asserts that the city is going in completely the wrong direction. I disagree, so I don't trust that their ballot arguments have accurate information.

As with Measure FF, it comes down to priorities. Are you willing to spend about $78 per year (average for a 1900 s.f. home) to get better fire and paramedic services? I am.

YES on FF to Upgrade Berkeley's Branch Libraries

My family uses Berkeley libraries a lot. And even if we didn't, libraries are a public good: my life is better when lots of people of all incomes have free access to books. I'm most familiar with the West and South branch libraries (including the Tool Lending library, such a cool thing!). They are not decrepit, but they could definitely use an upgrade.

So I was ready to vote yes, but I figured I should consider the opposing arguments.

The opponents claim that many people from outside Berkeley use the library may be true, but so what? Do these opponents want to charge people to use the library if they can't prove Berkeley residency? I've used libraries in a dozen cities while I've lived in Berkeley. Kim's aunt (from San Mateo) often take our kids to the library when she babysits. That's what it means to be a public good.

I might have been more receptive to the opponents' concerns about ongoing growth in library spending. But I don't trust anything they say: see my writeup of measure HH for an explanation.

Since this bond carries a property tax increase with it, it is financially responsible from a budgeting perspective and presents you with a clear choice:

If you think improving the branch libraries is worth about $27/year (more if your house is worth more), join me and Vote YES on FF. If not, vote no with a clear conscience. But don't use the ballot arguments as justification.

Dotson for EBRPD Director Ward 1

I'm familiar with both Norm LaForce and Whitney Dotson through my work.

I met Dotson when we both worked for Contra Costa Health Services, where he gained respect for helping develop the North Richmond Center for Health. Our paths have crossed a few times since then. He would bring a strong interest in connecting the parks district to low-income neighborhoods, such as the ones where he has been so involved in Richmond. He would bring connections to public health and to getting youth involved. He would be the only African-American on the parks district board. And from my experience, he works well with other people.

LaForce has been very active and had leadership roles in the Sierra Club. I know him mostly by reputation, but we've crossed paths some. He is more of a classic environmentalist, focused on protecting open space. His legal skills, experience developing the fire management program, and previous experience as an elected official (in El Cerrito) would be helpful. But I would worry a bit that his style - a bit brusque and abrasive for my taste - could hamper his effectiveness on the board.

I like Dotson more on issues and style, LaForce more for administrative and technical experience. I plan to vote for Dotson, but I could be convinced otherwise.

No on 6: No ballot-box budgeting for new criminal justice programs

This is wrong on so many counts.

Prop 6 is way too costly: Ballot-box budgeting is the reason California's budget is such a mess. This initiative would lock in specific funding amounts for specific programs (almost $1 billion a year and rising!), and then require that the funding levels go up every year. But there's no revenues identified. That will further cripple the state's ability to fund education, health care, and other vital services. See the LA Times editorial.

Prop 6 funds ineffective and unproven programs. For example, Prop 6 would give $100 million a year to a program the Legislative Analyst's Office recommended cutting because it has "no definable goals or performance objectives" (according to the San Jose Mercury News).

Prop 6 will waste people's lives (and taxpayer money) on failed criminal justice strategies. Mandatory sentences have filled California's prisons beyond the bursting point, despite the fact that we've built prisons like crazy. Prop 6 would fill them further. A federal court has already taken over the overburdened prison medical system.

Prop 6 is dangerous. It would change existing law so more children - as young as 14 years old - would be tried as adults and relegated to the criminal justice system. That's bad, since the NY Times tells us that "federally backed studies that show that making it easier to try juveniles as adults causes more crime, not less."

Lots of neighborhoods need help with crime. Prop 6 will not help.

Please vote No on 6. Learn more from the League of Women Voters or find out how you can help the No on 6 campaign.

NO on 9: A Bad Constitutional Amendment

The first red flag is that Prop 9 is a constitutional amendment. If it has any unintended consequences, changing it later would require a 3/4 vote of the legislature (more than passing the state budget!). No matter how bad the problem, it would probably never get fixed. So you should only vote for this if you're confident it is perfect.

Prop 9 doesn't need to be passed by initiative. Crime victims get very respectful hearing in the state legislature. So they don't need to pass this as a constitutional amendment, by initiative. They could get what they want through the legislature, unless it is really crazy.

Prop 9 repeats a lot of laws already on the books in California. That's not a huge harm, but it usually indicates an initiative writer who doesn't know what they're doing or is trying to hide something by combining it with a bunch of provisions people will agree with. Notably, most of the "victims' rights" cited by proponents already exist in state law. So why pass a constitutional amendment for them? No good reason.

Prop 9 "fixes" problems that don't exist. California's parole system is already very strict.
Prop 9 will further overload our prison system. California prisons are already so overcrowded, we have federal judges taking over the prison medical system. We've already got mandatory sentences and lots of other limits on any discretion in the criminal justice system. Let's not make it worse.

If there are any merits to this measure, they should go through the legislature, because we won't be able to clean up all the mistakes in this one.

Check out what others think:

• San Jose Mercury News editorial
• Long Beach Press-Telegram editorial (not a bastion of liberal thinking, in my experience)
• League of Women Voters pro/con analysis
  

Vote NO on 9 to stop a bad constitutional amendment.

Chris Peeples for AC Transit Director, At-Large

I've worked with both candidates (Chris Peeples and Joyce Roy) for all of the 10 years I've worked as an advocate for better mass transit. Joyce was on my organization's Steering Committee and she has represented a couple of organizations as members of our coalition. Chris has been a frequent ally in campaigns, some of which have supported AC Transit and some of which have tried to influence the transit agency. I know and respect them both.

I am definitely voting for Chris Peeples. He has been consistently effective. He understands how to work with people - elected officials, agencies, businesses, and advocates - to get good bus service on the street for a reasonable fare. He's consistently voted for the interests of people who depend on the bus for everyday transportation, and he is also out in front on several green initiatives.

Joyce Roy is passionate and is a good person, but I don't think she would do as good a job. I think Peeples is at least as good, if not better, on the issues, and definitely better on competence.

There's a reason that Peeples is endorsed by 21 dozen groups and hundreds of individuals, while Roy is endorsed by 3 groups and 9 individuals (as of Oct 12th for both - for Joyce's, you have to click on the "Endorsements" button on the left of her website).

If you want more details, feel free to email me separately.

NO on 7: Don't Set Energy Policy by Initiative

Could we please stop trying to legislate complex policy with a poorly-crafted ballot initiative?

Prop 7 has a noble goal, getting California to have more renewable energy. But it completely fails on execution.

A little background: Before I got into the transportation world, I spent six years working and studying energy efficiency and renewables. At UC Berkeley's Energy & Resources Group (ERG), I knew lots of people deeply involved in debates on California energy policy. They often disagreed. But all the ERGies I know, and all the groups who advocate for good energy policy, say Prop 7 is terribly written and would make matters worse, not better.

Prop 7 will:

• force small renewable energy companies out of the market;
• allow power providers to always charge a 10% premium above the market price, stifling competition; and
• fundamentally mess up the emerging market for renewable energy.
  

Check out the list of opponents to Prop 10: every major statewide environmental group, consumer advocates, renewable energy producers, taxpayer groups, League of Women Voters, more chambers of commerce than I can count.

Vote NO on 7: don't set energy policy by initiative.

NO on 10: Oilman's giveaway pretending to be "green" measure

Prop 10 masquerades as a "green" measure, but it is really self-serving giveaway sponsored by a billionaire Texas oilman. Don't believe the hype.

Prop 10 subsidizes the wrong things. We need more renewable energy and we need to fuel our vehicles differently. But the biggest piece here is a state giveaway to Prop 10's sponsor, Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens (his real name, not a parody of the Dukes of Hazzard), to allow his company to build lots of natural gas fueling stations. The measure picks a technology (natural gas), rather than picking an outcome (lower energy use or reduced greenhouse gas emissions).

Prop 10 is a bad use of bonds. Has anyone noticed that California's budget is a bit of a mess? Prop 10 would make it worse. It would float $5 billion in bonds and use the majority of the money to give incentives to buy certain kinds of cars and trucks. But most of those vehicles will wear out long before the 30-year bonds are paid off! That's really stupid budgeting.

If it didn't have these two fatal flaws, it could be interesting to consider whether and how much we should invest in natural gas alternative fuels as a bridge to future renewables. And to debate whether we should promote better vehicles through rebates or taxes. But these two humongous flaws are good enough reason for Prop 10 to be opposed by a wide variety of groups.

Vote NO on 10.

No on 8: Don't take away my sister's rights

I love Kim. We're married. My sister Emily loves Felicia. They're married.

Prop 8 would take away the rights of same-sex couples, such as my sister and new sister-in-law, to get married. But it would leave me, and other opposite-sex couples, with my rights. That is just plain not fair.

Prop 8's proponents have recently been filling the airwaves with false ads. Don't be fooled. The spring court decision recognizing the right to marriage has no affect on teaching children in our schools and will not affect our religions or religious institutions in any way.

California law specifically says that no child can be forced to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. And the spring court decision specifically said that “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples." For details, see a Sacramento Bee piece or rebuttals from the No on 8 campaign.

But Prop 8 would hurt families. Both of my sons have playmates who have two moms or two dads. Those families deserve the same rights my family has.

No one can tell you which church to attend, or what you can and cannot say. And no one should be able to tell you whom you can marry.

My wife and I got married to make a lifetime commitment to each other. And marriage gives us the right and responsibility for crucial medical decisions in an emergency. Please do not deny my sister that same security, dignity and respect.

Please join me in voting No on Prop 8 -- it's about fairness.

Please help defeat Prop 8. You can:

• buy a button, hat, or bumper sticker (my kids put buttons on their backpacks)
• donate (have you heard how much money out-of-state right-wingers are throwing at this election!)
• volunteer for the campaign (Kim and I will be phone banking at an office near us next week - you can too!)
• spread the word: email your friends and family, write a newsletter article, or letter to the editor

NO on 4: No means No. No to Legislating Family Communication

We voted No in 2005 and 2006. Now we have to vote No again. This is another attack by a millionaire anti-abortion zealot who has done little to prevent teen pregnancy or help pregnant teens. California has made great progress reducing teen pregnancy. Most girls do talk to their parents. A law for the rest simply won't work. There really are teenagers who have families who may disown or harm their daughter for getting pregnant in the first place.

This time around, the initiative's authors added a clause that allows civil lawsuits against doctors who perform unauthorized abortions. That's just what we need: to put more lawsuits in our health care system.

Please join the California Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, League of Women Voters, the Council of Churches, me, and hundreds of others. For a very detailed description, see the LWV pro/con writeup.

Vote No on 4, and stop a millionaire from trying (again and again) to legislate how families communicate. I also encourage you to donate or volunteer to help the campaign - the latest polls show it has a real chance of passing this time around.

YES on 1A: High Speed Trains to Connect California and Combat Global Warming

This is almost a no-brainer. This $9.95 billion bond would partially fund a high-speed train between LA and San Francisco, with extensions to Sacramento and San Diego, at a total cost of about $45 billion (including the extensions).

The organization I work for has been working on California's high-speed train for several years, and this summer we finally won enough changes in the plan to endorse Prop 1A.

California desperately needs a better transportation system, especially to connect southern and northern California. Our current options are widening I-5/Hwy 99 and building LOTS more airports and runways. That would be a greenhouse gas catastrophe.

The high-speed train will finally be a green and convenient connection, using much less energy and actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions than the alternatives. To toot our own horn, that's in part because we won a commitment, written into Prop 1A, that the trains will run on 100% renewable power.

And for you planning wonks, the train stations in the central valley are ALL in their downtown areas, not the edge of town, which will help those fast-growing cities focus on revitalizing their downtown areas instead of paving over ALL our prime farmland.

Why "almost" a no-brainer?

It's a bond that does not raise taxes. I'm generally not a fan of bonds (pun intended) because of their impact on the state budget. But this is one of the few cases where bonds make sense: huge capital project that will take years to complete and needs a big down payment of a public investment.

Fortunately, as the League of Women Voters says, "This revised proposition addresses concerns about cost and financial uncertainties by requiring a new business plan, peer review, and other accountability provisions, and it allows bond funds to be used for the other segments if there is no negative impact on the first phase." Bond money can only be used after private and federal dollars that provide a more than two to one match for state dollars.

If you're still not sure, check out the humongous list of supporters.

Vote Yes on 1A to build a high-speed train that will connect California, ease congestion, and combat global warming.

First thoughts about Nov '08 state propositions

Today I got my first query about my electoral recommendations. So I'm trying a new tack this year. Here are my initial thoughts, with lots of unfinished thoughts: I welcome comments.

Strong opinions:
Prop 1A: YES YES YES for High Speed Rail to connect Northern and Southern CA and reduce global warming. My organization campaigned hard to make this a good measure, and we won changes to make it better (see our explanation). Now we need voters to agree: help the campaign.

Prop 8: NO NO NO. Don't eliminate my sister's right to marry the person she loves. Please support marriage equality, at www.noonprop8.com

Prop 4: NO on parental notification requirements that make teenage girls less safe - learn why. And it is ridiculous that we keep having vote on this?

Leaning Pro/Con:
Props 5, 6, 9 on the criminal justice issues. Why so many, why are they on the ballot instead of going through the Legislature? I'm leaning Yes on 5 and No on 6+9, but I'm going to check into analysts I trust and see what they think.

Props 7 + 10 on renewable energy issues: I'm leaning No on both of these from what little I've seen. I've seen lots of opposition statements from groups I trust on 7 and arguments that seem reasonable against 10, but I want to look into both of them enough to be completely confident.

Prop 11: Leaning Yes for more rational redistricting: This is the one measure on this ballot that clearly HAS to go on the ballot. Good people support it, it sounds reasonable, but I want to research it more before being completely confident.

I need advice:
Prop 2: "Standards for Confining Farm Animals": at first blush, this appeals to my sensibilities. But why is this on the ballot instead of going through the Legislature?

Prop 3: Children's Hospital Bond: I want kids to be healthy, and real children's hospitals do good work, but I don't like bonds much and the "con" arguments raise doubts I want to research.

Prop 12: Veterans' bond to buy housing and farms: Purpose pulls my heart-strings, but I don't like bonds and the "con" arguments raise doubts. Also, why is this on the ballot instead of going through the Legislature?

Jeff's picks for June 2008 Election

As usual, I focus on the ballot measures and the down-ticket elected official races. And I don't give recommendations in uncontested races.

Full details are in individual posts. Please post comments with your opinions. They'll be particularly influential where I don't have a settled opinion.

And if you'd like opinions on other races, comment on that too.

PROPOSITIONS & MEASURES
NO NO NO on Prop 98: Stop the Hidden Agendas!
Yes on Prop 99 to put "eminent domain reform" to rest - but I'm open to opinions - see my writeup

Yes on Alameda Cty Msr F: Utility Users Tax Renewal

ELECTED OFFICIALS
State Senate, District 9: torn between Hancock & Chan; see writeup
State Assembly, District 14: Nancy Skinner; see writeup

14th AD, Ala Cty Democratic Ctrl Comm: Weinstein, Rosales, Moses, Irons, Flint, maybe Dooley
16th AD, Ala Cty Democratic Ctrl Comm: Paranjape, Briggs, Nishioka

Alameda Cty Sup Court Judge, Ofc 9: Dennis Hayashi

Oakland City Council, At-Large District: Rebecca Kaplan!

If you'd like to hear my opinions on another race, post a comment on this page.

Torn: Hancock or Chan for Senate District 9?

Don Perata is termed out of his State Senate seat. Whoever wins the Democratic primary will win in November, so this is the real election. But I can't decide - I need advice.

Wilma Chan and Loni Hancock are both excellent candidates to replace Don Perata. They're both progressive, effective legislators. They were both 6-year Assemblymembers (Chan in District 16, Hancock in District 14). Lots of groups and key individuals are issuing dual endorsements. A few have started endorsing only Hancock, but that seems to be only because she appears to be ahead in the polls; that's not a good reason to endorse.

Newspapers are split: SF Chronicle for Hancock, Contra Costa Times for Chan. And even their editorials say there's little difference between the two.

My political junkie friends are split too. Everyone gives slightly different reasons, but it looks like they all plan to vote for the woman they've previously voted for in the Assembly. Berkeley, Richmond and North Oakland folks say Hancock. Oakland and Alameda people say Chan. On philosophy, they appear to be nearly the same.

On issues, Hancock has been a leader on environmental issues (particularly global warming), education (where she focused on reversing the state's dropout rate), on campaign finance reform (the "clean money" bill), and challenging the proliferation of gambling in the state. Chan has led on environmental toxics, stopping hospitals from gouging lower-income patients, and by co-authoring a bill that expanded health care to 800,000 children.

On effectiveness, Chan has already held a leadership position in the California Legislature: she was elected Assembly Majority Leader in 2002, the first Asian American and first woman to hold that position. And everyone describes her as "tenacious." For Hancock, the Chronicle says "California needs legislators who approach the big issues with vision, tough-mindedness and practical solutions. Hancock gets our endorsement..."

So I'm torn. Both would be excellent legislators, but I can only vote for one. What do you think? Please post comments (include which city you live in). Or just vote in the poll to the left.

Nancy Skinner for Assembly District 14

Loni Hancock is termed out, so four candidates are vying for this open seat. Whoever becomes the Democratic nominee on June 3 will win in November; there isn't even a candidate in the Republican primary.

I have nothing but good things to say about Nancy Skinner. She's an East Bay Regional Parks Boardmember, where she represents a swath of the East Bay (including both Berkeley and Richmond). She was on the Berkeley City Council for 8 years (84-92), and then she founded ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability, an international non-profit that helps cities become environmental leaders. ICLEI has been a prescient and crucial resource for cities around the world. Nancy is one of the reasons that cities are some of the most progressive forces combating global warming. She would be an excellent idea generator in the Assembly, particularly on how to address climate change. And she's good on budget, health care, and education issues too (as are Worthington and Thurmond, for that matter).

I'm voting for Nancy because she has more experience at a broader range of levels than any other candidate, because I am so impressed by her environmental work, and because her experience working with local governments around the world have given her an understanding of how to make political change happen.

Tony Thurmond is a Richmond City Councilmember whose star appears to be rising. He was appointed to his seat in 2005, then elected in 2006. He runs a non-profit group that helps former foster youth transition into living independently. And he won endorsements from the San Francisco Chronicle, Contra Costa Times, and East Bay Express. Interestingly, each of those endorsements mention that the seat has usually been represented by somone from Berkeley, and they think it is Richmond's turn. I'm not sure how valid that is, but then - I live in Berkeley too :-). More importantly to me, however, 2005 appears to have been Thurmond's first year in politics. And given how little time (no more than 6 years) people have in the Assembly, I want someone who knows his or her way around a little better.

Kriss Worthington has been a Berkeley City Councilmember for 11 years. I volunteered a little with his first campaign. He's been very progressive, he's willing to take strong and sometimes lonely stances, he's very ethical, and he understands how politics works. He's also truly interested in the details; on the county-level boards I've seen him operate in, he actually reads the agenda packets and thinks about how to get incremental improvements on every item. He used to be a Green (as was I), but is now a Democrat to have a chance at higher office. He has been mostly good on transportation issues, where I've worked with him on issues. Oh, and he rides a bicycle - how cool is that?

But I have developed two criticisms of Kriss from my work: First, he has opposed some good proposals for new homes along transit corridors in Berkeley. The second is on the Bus Rapid Transit project in Berkeley, Oakland, and San Leandro. While he has supported funding for it at the county level (good!), he has put roadblocks in front of the project in Berkeley that threaten to kill it. In both cases, my concern is that he is giving too much weight to opposition by change-averse neighbors and not enough weight to the social and environmental benefits these changes would bring. He's letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. I don't want to just vote my issue, but it is very hard for me to vote for someone, even someone I respect as much as I've respected Kriss, when he's getting a key issue so wrong.

Being a doctor appears to be Dr. Phil Polakoff's main claim to this seat. That doesn't cut it with me.

Rebecca Kaplan for Oakland City Council: At Large District

I am delighted to get to strongly recommend someone I know so well. Rebecca Kaplan has been a smart and enthusiastic member of the AC Transit Board of Directors for several years. She has succeeded there because she is smart, politically savvy, and because she knows how to get things done with people she doesn't agree with. She has strong ethics, she is smart and insightful, and she is really good at connecting with people. These are also the same reasons my organization, the Transportation and Land Use Coalition, hired her as a policy advocate for a campaign back in 2001. She was incredibly effective for us.

She also has background as a civil-rights attorney, legislative aide, and an outreach consultant protecting Oakland residents from predatory loans and foreclosures. She will be a great policy-maker, and she has the potential to become a bridge-builder on the Oakland City Council.

For the rest of the field, I'll quote a friend (Nathan Landau) who knows Oakland politics better than I:

Clint Killian was also an AC Transit Boardmember, but I hear no fondness for him. Kerry Hamill's qualifications are good--she's on the Oakland School Board and works for BART community affairs. Charles Pine is a nasty piece of work who can't talk about anything but more police. Frank Rose is a surprisingly forceful and lucid senior citizen and community activist--unlikely to be elected but an asset to Oakland's civic life.

For more info on Rebecca's campaign, see her website.

NO NO NO on Evil 98

Prop 98 is evil. That's right, evil. Not "unwise" or "misguided." Evil.

It is put forward by extreme property rights zealots. The killer piece is a provision that would prohibit any law or regulation that would "transfer economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the private owner."

This goes way beyond eminent domain or rent control, the ostensible purposes of the measure. Since the courts have ruled that virtually all land-use regulations are likely to impose costs on a property owner and transfer economic benefits to someone else, this prohibition would essentially make it impossible for any government to have any regulation on how anyone uses land in any way.

For example: Cities couldn't restrict the locations or hours of liquor stores in an area, because it would transfer an economic benefit from the property owner (lower profits) to the neighbors (higher property values).

Prop 98 would gut environmental protections, threaten our water supply, make it harder to build new schools or maintain existing ones, eliminate any protections for renters (or neighbors), ... the list could go on and on.

If you need any convincing, check out the extremely long list of opponents: civic groups, seniors, consumer groups, police/fire, farmers, teachers, environmentalists, politicians of every stripe, business groups, even lots of property owner groups. Oh, and just about every newspaper in the state.

No on 98 is the most important thing about this election. Vote No, tell all your friends, and help out by making phone calls, writing letters, donating, or "friending" the campaign on Facebook or MySpace.

Yes on 99 to put "eminent domain reform" to rest

While Prop 98 is the most important, and evil, thing on this ballot, Prop 99 is the most nuanced. I think I'm voting Yes, but I'm torn.

Background: In 2005, the US Supreme Court's Kelo decision said that governments could use eminent domain to take property from one private owner and give it to another to do economic development. When we imagine that as taking grandma's house to build a new WalMart, just about everyone thinks that's a bad idea. Of course, there's more nuance than that (see below), but stick with that for now.

The response has been a national effort to reform the use of eminent domain. Here in California, we approach reform with constitutional amendments, or initiatives. The property rights zealots have taken the lead; they narrowly failed with Prop 90 in 2006, and now they're back with evil Prop 98. So several groups put forward Prop 99 as a more limited reform.

What would 99 do? Prop 99 is a limited reform of how eminent domain can be used. It would prohibit state and local governments from using eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied residence and convey any part of it to a private person or business. Much more narrowly written than 98, Prop 99 would continue to allow eminent domain to be used for public uses: schools, roads, government buildings, parks, public utilities, etc. Prop 99 also has a "poison pill" clause: if both initiatives pass but 99 gets more votes, it kills 98.

Who supports 99? LOTS of people and groups I trust. My own organization, for one, as well as lots of environmental and renter protection groups. For examples of reasons, see Greenbelt Alliance or Just Cause Oakland. For the groups I support, the main motivations are to make sure 98 does not go into effect and to take eminent domain reform off the political agenda in California by passing 99's modest reform.

Who opposes 99? Opposition to 99 is split: there's the extreme property rights folks who think 99 doesn't go far enough, and they'd rather have 98 pass. And then there's some good analysts, notably the Sacramento Bee and SPUR, who both argue that eminent domain reform is unnecessary. SPUR also argues that we may want to use eminent domain on homes in the future, and uses the example of building a transit station that also happens to have some shops, child care, or jobs on top of it.

Jeff's position:
There's a lot of truth in the opposition analysis: during 2000-2005, only three single-family homes were taken by eminent domain in all California [source]. There's hardly a crying need for reform, and legislation by initiative is usually a bad idea.

In the end, I bow to the reality of California politics. When I argued against Prop 90 in 2006 , I said that would give the Legislature a chance to pass a reasonable reform. But the Legislature didn't and the issue is still on the agenda. If I thought defeating 98 and 99 both would drive a stake in the heart of eminent domain reform, I'd say vote no on 99 too. But I don't think vampires die that easily.

So I think I'm voting Yes. But I'm open: let me know what you think. If I change my mind, it'll show up in the comments.

Maybe instead, we should just focus on defeating Prop 98 and showing its proponents for what they are: greedy selfish jerks who value private profit over the public good.

14th AD Alameda Cty Democratic Central Committeee

The 14th Assembly District is Berkeley, Albany, Emeryville, and NE Oakland. You get to vote for 6 people. The county Democratic Central Committees are the places where people fight over the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. I bless these people for their passion, because Lord knows we need a stronger better more progressive party.

I'm definitely voting for: Karen Weinstein, Cecilia Rosales, Eleanor Moses, Edie Irons, and Janet Flint. They're all endorsed by the Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club, who I trust to do good research and with whose values I firmly agree. They're also part of a Grassroots Progressives slate that pledges to:

• Revitalize the Alameda County Democratic Party;
• Register new voters;
• Increase voter turnout by organizing neighborhood leaders in all parts of Alameda County; and
  
• Recruit, train, support and endorse progressive Democratic candidates.
  

That sounds like what I want to happen! And if you can't stand to leave a blank spot on your ballot, you could also vote for Andrea Laiacona Dooley, the 6th member of that progressive slate. I probably will vote for her too, unless someone gives me a good reason why WDRC left her off their endorsement list.

16th AD Alameda Cty Democratic Central Committee

16th Assembly District is Alameda, Oakland, and Piedmont. You get to vote for 6 people. I don't live in the district, so I'll just pass on others' endorsements:

• The Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club endorses Sumi Paranjape, Wayne Nishioka, and Mark Briggs.
• The Grassroots Progressives slate endorses only Paranjape and Briggs.

For more info about both those groups, see my post on the 14th AD.

Hayashi for Alameda Cty Sup. Court Judge, Ofc #9

Dennis Hayashi has the right combination of experience and values to earn my vote. He has 30+ years of professional experience, emphasizing themes of civil rights, social justice, and environmental protection, and he strongly supports an independent judiciary. He has also been endorsed by several groups whose opinions I trust, plus lots more: Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club, Sierra Club, Green Party, lots of labor unions, the Democratic Party, the Deputy Sherriffs Association, three bar associations, and many more.

I would not support Phil Daly, who appears to be more of a law and order type. He has many endorsements too, so I'm guessing he is Hayashi's toughest competition. I like Victoria Kolakowski's stances on issues too, but she has less experience and many fewer endorsements than Hayashi. I like Hayashi and Kolakowski for different reasons, but Hayashi gets the edge for the wider range of issues and the fact that he is much more likely to beat Daly.

More info: http://smartvoter.org/2008/06/03/ca/alm/judicial.html

YES on Alameda Cty Msr F: Utility Users Tax

Yes on F would extend an existing utility users tax for unincorporated areas of Alameda County for another 12 years, raising the tax rate slightly. Revenues have been used for important county services such as libraries, drug abuse education, school violence programs, and even land use planning. This is a necessary tax to find vital government services.

NO on 92 to Stop Ballot Box Budgeting

Community colleges are terrific and vital parts of our education system. They provide a LOT of bang for the buck, and I'm sure they need better funding. They serve lots of students of all backgrounds, giving a chance to gain skills and education, sometimes as an inexpensive precursor to 4-year college. They're a big part of why California does have economic mobility.

But this is a bad law.

Most importantly, it is ballot box budgeting. This would write into the state constitution a very specific formula for how to distribute money. Formulas like this are bad for us. Collectively, they create the budget mess we get every year. The more formulas we get, the harder we all have to fight over the smaller and smaller discretionary part of the budget. And the less ability we have to respond to crises. If this passes, it will hurt health care, housing and other social services, and maybe also the CSU and UC systems (although I'm less worried about them).

There are also other things to dislike, if you need more reasons:

• Prop 92 could only be changed by a 4/5 vote (!) of the legislature. C'mon - that's a preposterous super-duper majority rule.
• The funding formula is wacky. It determines funding based on the number of young adults, not enrollment. But a CBP analysis found there's a big disconnect between those two variables [link - PDF]. The formula also requires spending to grow even when the number of young adults decreases, but it wouldn't keep pace when enrollment spikes.
• The fee reduction is not a good idea either. Okay, this seems crazy, but bear with me. It is true that many low-income students can't afford to go to school. But at community colleges, it isn't the fees that get them. It is the overall cost of living, most especially the cost of housing, which is often ten times higher than community college fees. Plus, half of full-time community college students already pay nothing, because they have low-income fee waivers. So lower fees only helps people for whom fees are a tiny drop in the bucket: 1% on average of total education and living expenses for a full-time student living on his/her own. [link-PDF]

I know, lots of other liberals support this. I'm sure I'll catch flak from friends who teach at or go to community colleges. But the law just doesn't make sense to me. I could forgive some of the latter features if this wasn't a constitutional amendment that will harm other services for the poor and make it even more impossible to settle our budget. If you're really interested, I really encourage you to read CBP's analysis, linked above in a couple spots. As usual, they don't take a position, just analyzes the impacts. And those impacts look bad to me.

YES on 93 to Reduce the Power of Lobbyists

Term limits are bad. This loosens them a little.

Term limits give more power to lobbyists, who stay in Sacramento for decades while legislators are termed out.

Prop 93 would allow someone to spend up to 12 years in the Legislature as a whole, rather than individual limits in each house. This will reduce the crazy musical chairs of people jumping from one house to another. And no, it doesn't bug me that Perata and Nunez, and some other legislators, will get a few more years in office. This law is only a minor tweak, but it is a good tweak.

If you like term limits - which means that you must trust lobbyists and the governor more than you trust your legislators - then go ahead and oppose this. But if you want the legislature to have more ability to actually make decisions, vote Yes on 93.

NO on 94-97 to Stop Bad Deals

These were the hardest to figure out. If you don't agree with me, or I'm missing something, please educate me.

This looks like a bad deal, or at least a not-good-enough deal. It appears to mostly benefit four tribes in Southern California who negotiated these compacts. Plus of course it would give huge benefits to the corporations who run the tribes' casinos. It does not appear to provide much benefit to other tribes around the state, although I'm not completely clear on that. Yes, there's some more money to other tribes, but I can't tell how much in the grand scheme of things.

It also looks like a not-good-enough deal for the state of California. At first I considering supporting them because they would provide lots more money for the state and because the legislature passed them. But after reading several other analyses, I think the state could get a better deal.

Plus gambling is a social bad. It is like tobacco: addictive, harmful, and very profitable for the people who sell it. If we aren't going to ban it, we should tax it heavily to discourage people from doing it and to use the tax revenues to do social good. To me, that means more than a 15% tax rate. I pay more than 15% of my income in taxes. So should these casinos.

I also read about problems with the environmental and labor safeguards from people I trust (APEN, for example).

Oh, and who's paying for the ads, one way or the other, doesn't bug me. Of course people who have an economic interest on both sides are going to advertise. These compacts are bad, no matter who says so.

NO on 91, a no brainer

The people who put this on the ballot are now campaigning against it. It was a bad idea in the first place (ballot box budgeting, bad for mass transit, don't get me started). They got something similar on the November 2006 election, but they still ended up wasting everyone's time and money by leaving this on the ballot. And people wonder why voters are turned off by politics?

NO on Alameda County Measures A+B: Children's Hospital Construction Measures

Here's another case of crazy election shenanigans: putting something on the ballot, realizing they're going to lose, and putting a second - compromise - measure on the ballot. I say NO on both.

First Children's Hospital (which is, by the way, a private hospital, not a public one) paid signature gatherers to put Measure B on the ballot. But they didn't even bother to talk with the county supervisors first. And this is key, because the flaws in Measure B would've meant that the county had to spend extra money to collect the tax, and there was no guarantee the money would be spent within Alameda County! It was doomed, but it was also already on the ballot. So definitely vote NO on B.

Once the hospital realized they were going to lose, they hastily worked with the county supervisors to craft a compromise. Measure A is a 35-year parcel tax, expected to raise ~$300 million to build a new Children's Hospital, which needs a seismic upgrade by 2013. But the county's public health system has many needs of its own, including the seismic upgrade to Highland Hospital.

They just didn't think this out very well. The county supervisors haven't even endorsed the measure. There's no real danger that Children's will close, as the hospital claims. It brings in LOTS of money. It will find the money. They just need a better thought-out public process to figure out how, or whether, to commit public money to rebuild this private hospital.

Further reading:
- Confusing ballot measures on hospital, San Francisco Chronicle, 1/18/08 [link]
- Children's Hospital makes end run seeking parcel tax, Matier and Ross, San Francisco Chronicle, 12/23/07 [link]
- San Francisco Bay Guardian says No on A and B [link]

What do you think?

For the past several years, just before each major election in California, I have sent an analysis and recommendation to friends and family on how I'm going to vote. Now it is online.

I welcome comments and feedback - use the comments or email me directly:

• Do you have any suggestions for making this online version better?
• Should I email out the recommendations as well?
• Please tell me if you disagree with my recommendations or want to offer any additional information I should look at. I sometimes change my vote, and I'm always willing to listen to reasonable arguments.
• If you'd like to get an email heads-up when I post for the next election, send me an email with three pieces of info: your email address, the city in California where you vote, and how you heard about my election recommendations.