State Propositions: see writeup for details
19: Leaning Yes
20: Leaning No
21: Yes
22: No
23: NO NO NO
24: Leaning Yes
25: Yes
26: NO NO NO
27: NO
State Elected Officials: see writeup for details on some
Governor: Jerry Brown
Lieutenant Governor: Gavin Newsom
Secretary of State: Debra Bowen
Controller: John Chiang
Treasurer: Bill Lockyer
Attorney General: Kamala Harris
Insurance Commissioner: Dave Jones
U.S. Senator: Barbara Boxer
U.S. Congress, 9th Congressional District: Barbara Lee
Member, State Board of Equalization, 1st District: Betty Yee
Special Districts & Superior Court (writeup has details on all)
** BART, District 4: Robert Raburn **
AC Transit, At-Large: Joel Young
AC Transit, Ward 3: Elsa Ortiz
EBMUD Director, Ward 4: Andy Katz
Superior Court Judge Office #9: Victoria Kolakowski
Alameda County & Berkeley Measures: see writeup for details on all
Alameda County
F: Yes for transportation improvements
Berkeley
H: Yes for Schools
I: Yes for Schools
R: YES YES YES for a better downtown
S: Yes
T: Yes
Berkeley City Council
District 1: Linda Maio
District 4: Jim Novosel (1st), Eric Panzer (2nd)
District 7: Ces Rosales
District 8: write in your neighbor
Berkeley School Board
Josh Daniels, Karen Hemphill, Leah Wilson
Oakland Mayor & City Council
Mayor: Rebecca Kaplan (1st), Don Perata (2nd), Jean Quan (3rd)
Council District 4: Libby Schaaf
Council District 2: Jennifer Pae
... and if you live elsewhere in the East Bay, you might be interested in other people's East Bay (and statewide) endorsements.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Berkeley City Council
Berkeley City Council
My council district is not up this time around, but I've still got opinions. Remember, it's ranked-choice voting, so you can vote for up to 3 people. I plan to only vote for people I would like to have in the position. For several races I'd only cast a first vote, for some I'd vote a 2nd and 3rd choice. For the most part, I'll quote my friend Nathan Landau (whose full endorsements I've also re-posted), with a few added comments from me.
District 1 (Northwest Berkeley): Linda Maio
"Maio played a useful role in forging some Downtown plan compromises, even if she doesn’t own up to it in her candidate statement. She tepidly supported Bus Rapid Transit—which could have been the greatest transit improvement in Berkeley in over 50 years. The polite word for Merrilie Mitchell is gadfly, it’s often simply hard to make any sense of what she says at the numerous public meetings she attends. Anthony Di Donato didn’t name a single supporter in his candidate statement, so he’s clearly not a serious candidate. The very young Jasper Kingeter thinks that Pacific Steel Castings—where against all odds some 300 working class men manage to hang to on to decent jobs—is the biggest threat facing Berkeley." -- Nathan Landau
District 4 (Downtown): Jim Novosel (1st), Eric Panzer (2nd)
Nathan writes ... "Incumbent Jesse Arreguin should be replaced—he has consistently fought against more housing in his Downtown Berkeley district, the best place for it (and of course he was against that terrible BRT menace). Among challengers, Bernt Wahl seems to have a lot of interesting experience at the national/international level, but seems to be pretty detached from the petty struggles of Berkeley (and can only muster a half dozen supporters to list out of the twenty permitted). Architect Jim Novosel and environmental analyst Eric Panzer have many of the same supporters, mostly drawn from Berkeley’s liberal and moderate leadership, both put forward a positive vision of living in an urban downtown. I’d vote Novosel—sometimes a difficult character—first for greater city government experience." -- Nathan Landau
I'd add that I am not super enthusiastic about any of these candidates. I have a hard time stomaching Arreguin's claim to being an "environmentalist" given his opposition to Berkeley's best opportunity in decades to improve its transit system (the BRT project). I also understand that he's very difficult to work with. At the same time, I'm not excited about Novosel (some people like historic preservation, some don't). Some of Panzer's endorsers worry me (George Beier!). But on balance, I'll go with Nathan's recommendation: Novosel first, Panzer second.
District 7 (Southside): Ces Rosales only
Here I'll start with my opinion: I handed out literature to support Kriss Worthington's first campaign. He said he would not compromise, and that we should call him on it if he stopped holding to the progressive principles he espoused. I'm taking him at his word and calling him out. Here's some of my friend Nathan's comments: "Incumbent Kriss Worthington was once a progressive hero, but too many votes against housing developments, too many zigs and zags on all kinds of issues (most notably his attack on Nancy Skinner from the right in the Democratic Assembly primary) have un-bloomed that rose. Meanwhile George Beier has run against Worthington from the Berkeley right wing position—homeowner fears of crime are what matter, better bus service (BRT) that might actually get people on the bus is a demon from hell—and ran well enough to scare the Councilman. Enter political newcomer Ces Rosales, backed by Loni Hancock, Tom Bates, and Nancy Skinner."
I know and respect Rosales from her involvement in the Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club -- she's responsible, a sharp thinker, and (I hear) works well with others. If you want to cast a second vote, please don't vote for Beier. Worthington is less bad than Beier.
District 8 (Southside): Write in your neighbor
Gordon Wozniak is highly likely to win re-election here, but I wouldn't support him. Unfortunately, his challengers are worse. My friend Nathan writes "... Incumbent Gordon Wozniak has not simply been an opponent of Bus Rapid Transit but a sarcastic and contemptuous one, as if bus riders were beneath his contempt. Wozniak does favor smart growth—as long as it’s at a place like downtown, a safe remove from his district. But challengers Stewart Jones and Jacquelyn McCormack are vying to be even more NIMBY, extending their hostility to needed new homes into the downtown." Maybe next time someone reasonable will run.
My council district is not up this time around, but I've still got opinions. Remember, it's ranked-choice voting, so you can vote for up to 3 people. I plan to only vote for people I would like to have in the position. For several races I'd only cast a first vote, for some I'd vote a 2nd and 3rd choice. For the most part, I'll quote my friend Nathan Landau (whose full endorsements I've also re-posted), with a few added comments from me.
District 1 (Northwest Berkeley): Linda Maio
"Maio played a useful role in forging some Downtown plan compromises, even if she doesn’t own up to it in her candidate statement. She tepidly supported Bus Rapid Transit—which could have been the greatest transit improvement in Berkeley in over 50 years. The polite word for Merrilie Mitchell is gadfly, it’s often simply hard to make any sense of what she says at the numerous public meetings she attends. Anthony Di Donato didn’t name a single supporter in his candidate statement, so he’s clearly not a serious candidate. The very young Jasper Kingeter thinks that Pacific Steel Castings—where against all odds some 300 working class men manage to hang to on to decent jobs—is the biggest threat facing Berkeley." -- Nathan Landau
District 4 (Downtown): Jim Novosel (1st), Eric Panzer (2nd)
Nathan writes ... "Incumbent Jesse Arreguin should be replaced—he has consistently fought against more housing in his Downtown Berkeley district, the best place for it (and of course he was against that terrible BRT menace). Among challengers, Bernt Wahl seems to have a lot of interesting experience at the national/international level, but seems to be pretty detached from the petty struggles of Berkeley (and can only muster a half dozen supporters to list out of the twenty permitted). Architect Jim Novosel and environmental analyst Eric Panzer have many of the same supporters, mostly drawn from Berkeley’s liberal and moderate leadership, both put forward a positive vision of living in an urban downtown. I’d vote Novosel—sometimes a difficult character—first for greater city government experience." -- Nathan Landau
I'd add that I am not super enthusiastic about any of these candidates. I have a hard time stomaching Arreguin's claim to being an "environmentalist" given his opposition to Berkeley's best opportunity in decades to improve its transit system (the BRT project). I also understand that he's very difficult to work with. At the same time, I'm not excited about Novosel (some people like historic preservation, some don't). Some of Panzer's endorsers worry me (George Beier!). But on balance, I'll go with Nathan's recommendation: Novosel first, Panzer second.
District 7 (Southside): Ces Rosales only
Here I'll start with my opinion: I handed out literature to support Kriss Worthington's first campaign. He said he would not compromise, and that we should call him on it if he stopped holding to the progressive principles he espoused. I'm taking him at his word and calling him out. Here's some of my friend Nathan's comments: "Incumbent Kriss Worthington was once a progressive hero, but too many votes against housing developments, too many zigs and zags on all kinds of issues (most notably his attack on Nancy Skinner from the right in the Democratic Assembly primary) have un-bloomed that rose. Meanwhile George Beier has run against Worthington from the Berkeley right wing position—homeowner fears of crime are what matter, better bus service (BRT) that might actually get people on the bus is a demon from hell—and ran well enough to scare the Councilman. Enter political newcomer Ces Rosales, backed by Loni Hancock, Tom Bates, and Nancy Skinner."
I know and respect Rosales from her involvement in the Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club -- she's responsible, a sharp thinker, and (I hear) works well with others. If you want to cast a second vote, please don't vote for Beier. Worthington is less bad than Beier.
District 8 (Southside): Write in your neighbor
Gordon Wozniak is highly likely to win re-election here, but I wouldn't support him. Unfortunately, his challengers are worse. My friend Nathan writes "... Incumbent Gordon Wozniak has not simply been an opponent of Bus Rapid Transit but a sarcastic and contemptuous one, as if bus riders were beneath his contempt. Wozniak does favor smart growth—as long as it’s at a place like downtown, a safe remove from his district. But challengers Stewart Jones and Jacquelyn McCormack are vying to be even more NIMBY, extending their hostility to needed new homes into the downtown." Maybe next time someone reasonable will run.
Berkeley School Board: Daniels, Hemphill, and Wilson
Josh Daniels is a whip-sharp guy who knows school finance well. In his day job, Josh Daniels is a school finance attorney who has worked with school districts to secure funding for them. And he's not just a green eyeshade guy -- he started the Student Court at the high school.
I like Karen Hemphill and have endorsed her before. My neighbor Deb Gray knew her as a parent at Washington, called her the "voice of reason" who was "forceful but rational and commanded the respect of parents and staff alike."
I like Leah Wilson's perspective promoting excellence and addressing the achievement gap. A friend who was a parent with her at Arts Magnet raved about her, saying she was "smart, efficient and wanted to implement ideas" on the Site Governance Council there.
Of the other candidates: Definitely not Norma Harrison -- pretty incoherent. Priscilla Myrick's list of endorsements includes lots of people who are "former" school rep's, but very few who are currently involved; and I hear from a couple sources that she's difficult to work with. I'd say Julie Holcomb is 4th, but I only get to give three votes.
BTW -- it turns out the Berkeley Federation of Teachers endorses the same three as me.
I like Karen Hemphill and have endorsed her before. My neighbor Deb Gray knew her as a parent at Washington, called her the "voice of reason" who was "forceful but rational and commanded the respect of parents and staff alike."
I like Leah Wilson's perspective promoting excellence and addressing the achievement gap. A friend who was a parent with her at Arts Magnet raved about her, saying she was "smart, efficient and wanted to implement ideas" on the Site Governance Council there.
Of the other candidates: Definitely not Norma Harrison -- pretty incoherent. Priscilla Myrick's list of endorsements includes lots of people who are "former" school rep's, but very few who are currently involved; and I hear from a couple sources that she's difficult to work with. I'd say Julie Holcomb is 4th, but I only get to give three votes.
BTW -- it turns out the Berkeley Federation of Teachers endorses the same three as me.
Oakland Mayor & City Council
Summary:
Mayor: Rebecca Kaplan (1st), Don Perata (2nd), Jean Quan (3rd)
Council District 4: Libby Schaaf
Council District 2: Jennifer Pae
I don't live in Oakland, but I interact with Oakland's political world a fair amount through my work. I also sit on the Board of the League of Conservation Voters of the East Bay. We interview candidates, debate their relative merits, and make endorsements from an environmental perspective. I learned a lot about Oakland's races that way this year too.
Mayor: Rebecca Kaplan (1st), Don Perata (2nd), Jean Quan (3rd)
I am happy to say that I would be comfortable with all three of the front-runners in the mayoral race.
Rebecca Kaplan (1st): I am delighted to again get to strongly recommend someone I know well. Rebecca Kaplan won election to the At-Large council seat just two years ago, and before that was a smart and enthusiastic member of the AC Transit Board of Directors for six years. She has succeeded each place because she is smart, politically savvy, and good at getting things done with people she does not agree with. She has strong ethics, she is smart and insightful, and she connects with people. These are also the same reasons my organization, TransForm, hired her back on 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 would be a great re-start for a city that has had tough times the past several years. Lots of other people also endorse her as the FIRST CHOICE on the Oakland Mayoral ballot.
While Rebecca is far and away my first choice, I know you get to mark 3. And with so many people in the race, you should. 2nd place is tight for me, but I'll go with ...
Don Perata (2nd): I know, he's been in Sacramento for umpteen years. I know, he knocks heads together. I know, he's worked with lots of people I don't like. But damnit, the man is effective. And his positions are close enough to mine on many issues that I'm ok taking the bad with the good. If Oakland isn't going to get Rebecca (who I'll agree with almost entirely but who will have some challenges getting things done), I want Oakland to have someone who will make the city run well. I disagree with those who think he's a rerun of Dellums -- Perata would be engaged. On transportation issues, I've seen him take strong and principled stands, often even though they weren't very popular at first, and work hard at them.
Jean Quan (3rd): Jean is my third choice, but it is close. She's been pretty good in city hall, seems to mostly work well with others, and was on the School Board before that (judge for yourself whether she did a good job -- I don't know). I know of her having done good things to protect California's landmark greenhouse gas reduction law at the League of Cities, working with cities around the state.
Like I said, any of them as mayor would be a step up from Dellums, who never really wanted the job and has not done well.
Council District 4: Libby Schaaf
I've heard great things about Libby from everyone I've talked with, including several work friends who are working on her campaign. Read a great writeup from V Smoothe/A Better Oakland blog, who absolutely gushes over her. Or check out Libby's own website.
Council District 2: Jennifer Pae
It is hard to run against an incumbent who hasn't done anything scandalous. So Jennifer Pae probably won't beat Pat Kernighan. That's too bad, as she looks pretty good. Smart, thoughtful, politically savvy, involved (Young Dems, Obama campaign), young and energetic. I've been less impressed with Kernighan.
Oakland Ballot measures:
I don't know enough about the ballot measures to take positions on them. Check out other people I like who've made endorsements for other East Bay races.
Mayor: Rebecca Kaplan (1st), Don Perata (2nd), Jean Quan (3rd)
Council District 4: Libby Schaaf
Council District 2: Jennifer Pae
I don't live in Oakland, but I interact with Oakland's political world a fair amount through my work. I also sit on the Board of the League of Conservation Voters of the East Bay. We interview candidates, debate their relative merits, and make endorsements from an environmental perspective. I learned a lot about Oakland's races that way this year too.
Mayor: Rebecca Kaplan (1st), Don Perata (2nd), Jean Quan (3rd)
I am happy to say that I would be comfortable with all three of the front-runners in the mayoral race.
Rebecca Kaplan (1st): I am delighted to again get to strongly recommend someone I know well. Rebecca Kaplan won election to the At-Large council seat just two years ago, and before that was a smart and enthusiastic member of the AC Transit Board of Directors for six years. She has succeeded each place because she is smart, politically savvy, and good at getting things done with people she does not agree with. She has strong ethics, she is smart and insightful, and she connects with people. These are also the same reasons my organization, TransForm, hired her back on 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 would be a great re-start for a city that has had tough times the past several years. Lots of other people also endorse her as the FIRST CHOICE on the Oakland Mayoral ballot.
While Rebecca is far and away my first choice, I know you get to mark 3. And with so many people in the race, you should. 2nd place is tight for me, but I'll go with ...
Don Perata (2nd): I know, he's been in Sacramento for umpteen years. I know, he knocks heads together. I know, he's worked with lots of people I don't like. But damnit, the man is effective. And his positions are close enough to mine on many issues that I'm ok taking the bad with the good. If Oakland isn't going to get Rebecca (who I'll agree with almost entirely but who will have some challenges getting things done), I want Oakland to have someone who will make the city run well. I disagree with those who think he's a rerun of Dellums -- Perata would be engaged. On transportation issues, I've seen him take strong and principled stands, often even though they weren't very popular at first, and work hard at them.
Jean Quan (3rd): Jean is my third choice, but it is close. She's been pretty good in city hall, seems to mostly work well with others, and was on the School Board before that (judge for yourself whether she did a good job -- I don't know). I know of her having done good things to protect California's landmark greenhouse gas reduction law at the League of Cities, working with cities around the state.
Like I said, any of them as mayor would be a step up from Dellums, who never really wanted the job and has not done well.
Council District 4: Libby Schaaf
I've heard great things about Libby from everyone I've talked with, including several work friends who are working on her campaign. Read a great writeup from V Smoothe/A Better Oakland blog, who absolutely gushes over her. Or check out Libby's own website.
Council District 2: Jennifer Pae
It is hard to run against an incumbent who hasn't done anything scandalous. So Jennifer Pae probably won't beat Pat Kernighan. That's too bad, as she looks pretty good. Smart, thoughtful, politically savvy, involved (Young Dems, Obama campaign), young and energetic. I've been less impressed with Kernighan.
Oakland Ballot measures:
I don't know enough about the ballot measures to take positions on them. Check out other people I like who've made endorsements for other East Bay races.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Local Measures: Berkeley + Alameda County
Summary of Local Measures
Alameda County
F: Yes for transportation improvements
Berkeley
H: Yes for Schools
I: Yes for Schools
R: YES YES YES for a better downtown
S: Yes
T: Yes
YES on F for transportation improvements
Okay, first off, does anyone disagree that our transportation system needs some improvements? Measure F would fill some potholes, provide some transit passes, clean the buses and BART trains, and support bike paths, sidewalks, and other changes to make it safer and easier to walk and bike. To pay for these improvements, Measure F would add $10/year fee to vehicle registration fees. At TransForm, we supported the legislation that allowed counties to put these measures on the ballot and we support Measure F along with the fees in other Bay Area counties. This is another example of the Bay Area stepping up to support governmental responsibilities when the state is dropping the ball. Vote Yes on F.
YES on H to keep schools safe and maintained
Measure H is a renewal of a tax passed 10 years ago, a tax whose revenues are still needed to keep our schools clean, safe, and well-maintained. I voted for the original tax 10 years ago and I expect I'll probably vote to renew it again in another 10 years. It needs a two-thirds vote to pass, and it draws support from the gamut of Berkeley's political spectrum -- Hancock to Dean to Hemphill. The opponents seem to have gotten their caps-lock keys stuck.
YES on I to improve Berkeley schools
Measure I would allow Berkeley's school district to issue $210 million in school bonds to make a host of improvements to Berkeley schools, such as elementary schools classrooms and high school labs. Importantly, it would provide local "matching" funds that help the district win state funds. This needs a 55% vote to pass, and it draws similarly widespread support.
YES YES YES on R for a better Downtown Berkeley
This one is so important to me, I wrote a special post all about it: http://caelections.blogspot.com/2010/10/yes-on-r-for-better-downtown-berkeley.html. Please -- read the ballot measure, read my writeup, don't believe the hype. Vote Yes on R.
YES on S to tax marijuana
Nobody was sufficiently unhappy about this measure to even file a ballot argument in opposition. It says we should tax medical marijuana at a (higher) more reasonable rate than we do currently (and is supported by the medical marijuana industry -- imagine that, an industry that wants to be taxed!). If Prop 19 passes, and non-medical marijuana becomes legal, it would tax that too. Sounds good to me.
Leaning YES on T to change rules on medical cannabis
This one does have some opposition. And I don't pretend to know that much about the details of this law, so I'm open to counter-arguments. But when I see that the entire City Council has agreed on something, it is hard for me to imagine I'm going to find it too offensive. So I'm leaning yes. If I'm missing the boat on this, please let me know.
Alameda County
F: Yes for transportation improvements
Berkeley
H: Yes for Schools
I: Yes for Schools
R: YES YES YES for a better downtown
S: Yes
T: Yes
YES on F for transportation improvements
Okay, first off, does anyone disagree that our transportation system needs some improvements? Measure F would fill some potholes, provide some transit passes, clean the buses and BART trains, and support bike paths, sidewalks, and other changes to make it safer and easier to walk and bike. To pay for these improvements, Measure F would add $10/year fee to vehicle registration fees. At TransForm, we supported the legislation that allowed counties to put these measures on the ballot and we support Measure F along with the fees in other Bay Area counties. This is another example of the Bay Area stepping up to support governmental responsibilities when the state is dropping the ball. Vote Yes on F.
YES on H to keep schools safe and maintained
Measure H is a renewal of a tax passed 10 years ago, a tax whose revenues are still needed to keep our schools clean, safe, and well-maintained. I voted for the original tax 10 years ago and I expect I'll probably vote to renew it again in another 10 years. It needs a two-thirds vote to pass, and it draws support from the gamut of Berkeley's political spectrum -- Hancock to Dean to Hemphill. The opponents seem to have gotten their caps-lock keys stuck.
YES on I to improve Berkeley schools
Measure I would allow Berkeley's school district to issue $210 million in school bonds to make a host of improvements to Berkeley schools, such as elementary schools classrooms and high school labs. Importantly, it would provide local "matching" funds that help the district win state funds. This needs a 55% vote to pass, and it draws similarly widespread support.
YES YES YES on R for a better Downtown Berkeley
This one is so important to me, I wrote a special post all about it: http://caelections.blogspot.com/2010/10/yes-on-r-for-better-downtown-berkeley.html. Please -- read the ballot measure, read my writeup, don't believe the hype. Vote Yes on R.
YES on S to tax marijuana
Nobody was sufficiently unhappy about this measure to even file a ballot argument in opposition. It says we should tax medical marijuana at a (higher) more reasonable rate than we do currently (and is supported by the medical marijuana industry -- imagine that, an industry that wants to be taxed!). If Prop 19 passes, and non-medical marijuana becomes legal, it would tax that too. Sounds good to me.
Leaning YES on T to change rules on medical cannabis
This one does have some opposition. And I don't pretend to know that much about the details of this law, so I'm open to counter-arguments. But when I see that the entire City Council has agreed on something, it is hard for me to imagine I'm going to find it too offensive. So I'm leaning yes. If I'm missing the boat on this, please let me know.
Yes on R for a Better Downtown Berkeley
Please vote Yes on R for a responsible plan that sets clear guidelines for improvements that will make downtown Berkeley a nicer, greener place to live, work, and shop.
First, the policy: Measure R is rightfully presented as a green plan for downtown Berkeley. Measure R would put in place a revised Downtown Area Plan to set rules for what can and can't be built in downtown. Mostly, that means up to five-story buildings. The plan also allows up to five taller buildings (yes, only five, not the forest of skyscrapers some opponents would have you think). And, it would allow those five only if they follow a "Green Pathway" that requires
buildings provide transit passes, car-sharing, bike parking, meet "LEED Gold" green building requirements, hire local construction workers, and a host of other requirements. If passed and implemented, Measure R would make it more possible for more people to walk, bike, and take transit instead of having to drive everywhere, thereby decreasing Berkeley's largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. And at the same time it would provide more affordable housing Berkeley families desperately need, as well as local jobs.
Second, the process: This plan emerged from five years of deliberation, first by a citizens advisory committee then all of Berkeley's regular committees and commissions, and then finally the City Council. Some vocal opponents were unhappy, so the council made some concessions and passed it. The opponents were still unhappy, gathered signatures and qualified for a referendum. So the council took another look, made some more changes (including the "Green Pathway" to be described in a moment), and put it on the ballot. Those same opponents are still unhappy (although even their own ballot argument admist they agree on 90% of the issues), and just can't seem to handle the idea that a democratic process has some give and take. NOT approving this measure would mean more delay and a longer wait before the city can get the changes downtown Berkeley needs.
Third, the politics: Anywhere else, this would be seen as the greenest downtown plan ever, and it wouldn't even have to be on the ballot. Here in Berkeley, a bunch of recalcitrant opponents have held up a good plan for years and are completely mischaracterizing it. Yes on R is supported by the Sierra Club, Greenbelt Alliance, the League of Conservation Voters, the League of Women Voters, and the Alameda County Central Labor Council.
This is one of those times that living in Berkeley feels like living in a funhouse mirror. Opponents say the plan is not green, but this is truly one of Berkeley's best opportunities to demonstrate that we really meant it in 2006 when 80% of us voted to set aggressive greenhouse gas reduction targets and tell the city to make plans to get there. This plan is one very important way to get there. Vote Yes on R.
First, the policy: Measure R is rightfully presented as a green plan for downtown Berkeley. Measure R would put in place a revised Downtown Area Plan to set rules for what can and can't be built in downtown. Mostly, that means up to five-story buildings. The plan also allows up to five taller buildings (yes, only five, not the forest of skyscrapers some opponents would have you think). And, it would allow those five only if they follow a "Green Pathway" that requires
buildings provide transit passes, car-sharing, bike parking, meet "LEED Gold" green building requirements, hire local construction workers, and a host of other requirements. If passed and implemented, Measure R would make it more possible for more people to walk, bike, and take transit instead of having to drive everywhere, thereby decreasing Berkeley's largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. And at the same time it would provide more affordable housing Berkeley families desperately need, as well as local jobs.
Second, the process: This plan emerged from five years of deliberation, first by a citizens advisory committee then all of Berkeley's regular committees and commissions, and then finally the City Council. Some vocal opponents were unhappy, so the council made some concessions and passed it. The opponents were still unhappy, gathered signatures and qualified for a referendum. So the council took another look, made some more changes (including the "Green Pathway" to be described in a moment), and put it on the ballot. Those same opponents are still unhappy (although even their own ballot argument admist they agree on 90% of the issues), and just can't seem to handle the idea that a democratic process has some give and take. NOT approving this measure would mean more delay and a longer wait before the city can get the changes downtown Berkeley needs.
Third, the politics: Anywhere else, this would be seen as the greenest downtown plan ever, and it wouldn't even have to be on the ballot. Here in Berkeley, a bunch of recalcitrant opponents have held up a good plan for years and are completely mischaracterizing it. Yes on R is supported by the Sierra Club, Greenbelt Alliance, the League of Conservation Voters, the League of Women Voters, and the Alameda County Central Labor Council.
This is one of those times that living in Berkeley feels like living in a funhouse mirror. Opponents say the plan is not green, but this is truly one of Berkeley's best opportunities to demonstrate that we really meant it in 2006 when 80% of us voted to set aggressive greenhouse gas reduction targets and tell the city to make plans to get there. This plan is one very important way to get there. Vote Yes on R.
Robert Raburn for BART District 4
BART Director, District 4: Robert Raburn
This race is very important to me. I've known both candidates professionally for 10+ years. Robert is a bulldog, and fortunately one with whom I agree on most transportation issues. He understands that BART needs to focus on strengthening its core system, the system that carries 300,000-plus people each weekday. He understands that means fiscal accountability, safe and clean stations and trains. He has a history in the Latino community, having worked to protect Latino voters' rights before his last decade-plus of transportation advocacy (he ran the East Bay Bicycle Coalition).
His opponent, by contrast, is an incumbent (Carole Ward Allen) who hasn't had a challenger for the past 12 years. She is the champion of the half-billion airport connector ski-lift proposal (don't get me started -- it defines boondoggle). To do so, she tried to defend BART as the Obama administration cited it for violating civil rights law. Essentially, she claimed BART couldn't be violating civil rights law because she's black (her direct quote was "I am Title VI").
If you really want more info, check out a terrific annotated recap of the LWV candidates' forum from A Better Oakland. Or if you want to watch it straight through, just watch the whole thing at SF Gate's InAlameda blog.
Robert has a big uphill battle, challenging an incumbent -- I'm sending him donations. I hope you'll send him your vote.
This race is very important to me. I've known both candidates professionally for 10+ years. Robert is a bulldog, and fortunately one with whom I agree on most transportation issues. He understands that BART needs to focus on strengthening its core system, the system that carries 300,000-plus people each weekday. He understands that means fiscal accountability, safe and clean stations and trains. He has a history in the Latino community, having worked to protect Latino voters' rights before his last decade-plus of transportation advocacy (he ran the East Bay Bicycle Coalition).
His opponent, by contrast, is an incumbent (Carole Ward Allen) who hasn't had a challenger for the past 12 years. She is the champion of the half-billion airport connector ski-lift proposal (don't get me started -- it defines boondoggle). To do so, she tried to defend BART as the Obama administration cited it for violating civil rights law. Essentially, she claimed BART couldn't be violating civil rights law because she's black (her direct quote was "I am Title VI").
If you really want more info, check out a terrific annotated recap of the LWV candidates' forum from A Better Oakland. Or if you want to watch it straight through, just watch the whole thing at SF Gate's InAlameda blog.
Robert has a big uphill battle, challenging an incumbent -- I'm sending him donations. I hope you'll send him your vote.
Special Districts and Superior Court
Summary on Special Districts & Superior Court
** BART, District 4: Robert Raburn (see writeup) **
AC Transit, At-Large: Joel Young (see writeup)
AC Transit, Ward 3: Elsa Ortiz
EBMUD Director, Ward 4: Andy Katz
Superior Court Judge Office #9: Victoria Kolakowski (see writeup)
BART Director, District 4: Robert Raburn
This race is so important to me, I wrote it up separately. Check out http://caelections.blogspot.com/2010/10/robert-raburn-for-bart-district-4.html. And please vote for Robert Raburn for the BART Board!
AC Transit Director, At-Large: Joel Young
Joel was appointed a couple years ago to fill the seat of Rebecca Kaplan, when she won election to the Oakland City Council. From my work on local transportation issues, I hear he's done a good job. His opponent apparently can't be bothered to submit a ballot statement, so I assume he'll win this seat easily.
AC Transit Director, Ward 3: Elsa Ortiz
Elsa Ortiz is the incumbent, first elected four years ago. All reports I've heard are that she has done a good job. She understands the serious financial crisis facing AC Transit, is willing to take a balanced look -- she's got a strong labor background but also knows labor will have to make some concessions to keep the agency afloat. She was endorsements from dozens of electeds (including many I like), the Sierra Club, and many individuals whose analyses I trust. The serious challenger is Nancy Skowbo, a long-time AC Transit employee. She has endorsements from the Greens, one AC Transit union, and four electeds.
EBMUD Director, Ward 4: Andy Katz
I know, I shouldn't spend time writing up an endorsement for someone running unopposed. But I like Andy. He's smart, he's involved, he's political in a good way (he's savvy, tries to figure out how to make change, knows the players but also knows the policy). And his day job is as a public health advocate.
Superior Court Judge, Office #9: Victoria Kolakowski
I like Victoria Kolakowski. I met her at a fundraiser and she seems like a thoughtful legal mind. I like her take on legal matters much more than her opponent, who comes from the prosecution side of the aisle. I see lots of people I trust in her list of endorsements. If you want to learn more, check her out at http://kolakowskiforjudge.com.
** BART, District 4: Robert Raburn (see writeup) **
AC Transit, At-Large: Joel Young (see writeup)
AC Transit, Ward 3: Elsa Ortiz
EBMUD Director, Ward 4: Andy Katz
Superior Court Judge Office #9: Victoria Kolakowski (see writeup)
BART Director, District 4: Robert Raburn
This race is so important to me, I wrote it up separately. Check out http://caelections.blogspot.com/2010/10/robert-raburn-for-bart-district-4.html. And please vote for Robert Raburn for the BART Board!
AC Transit Director, At-Large: Joel Young
Joel was appointed a couple years ago to fill the seat of Rebecca Kaplan, when she won election to the Oakland City Council. From my work on local transportation issues, I hear he's done a good job. His opponent apparently can't be bothered to submit a ballot statement, so I assume he'll win this seat easily.
AC Transit Director, Ward 3: Elsa Ortiz
Elsa Ortiz is the incumbent, first elected four years ago. All reports I've heard are that she has done a good job. She understands the serious financial crisis facing AC Transit, is willing to take a balanced look -- she's got a strong labor background but also knows labor will have to make some concessions to keep the agency afloat. She was endorsements from dozens of electeds (including many I like), the Sierra Club, and many individuals whose analyses I trust. The serious challenger is Nancy Skowbo, a long-time AC Transit employee. She has endorsements from the Greens, one AC Transit union, and four electeds.
EBMUD Director, Ward 4: Andy Katz
I know, I shouldn't spend time writing up an endorsement for someone running unopposed. But I like Andy. He's smart, he's involved, he's political in a good way (he's savvy, tries to figure out how to make change, knows the players but also knows the policy). And his day job is as a public health advocate.
Superior Court Judge, Office #9: Victoria Kolakowski
I like Victoria Kolakowski. I met her at a fundraiser and she seems like a thoughtful legal mind. I like her take on legal matters much more than her opponent, who comes from the prosecution side of the aisle. I see lots of people I trust in her list of endorsements. If you want to learn more, check her out at http://kolakowskiforjudge.com.
State Offices on November 2010 ballot
Summary of Elected Officials on November 2010 ballot:
Governor: Jerry Brown (see writeup below)
Lieutenant Governor: Gavin Newsom
Secretary of State: Debra Bowen (see writeup below)
Controller: John Chiang (see writeup)
Treasurer: Bill Lockyer
Attorney General: Kamala Harris
Insurance Commissioner: Dave Jones
U.S. Senator: Barbara Boxer (see writeup below)
U.S. Congress, 9th Congressional District: Barbara Lee
Member, State Board of Equalization, 1st District: Betty Yee
Here's a few writeups on the ones I know/care most about:
Barbara Boxer for Senator
This is a tight and important race. Barbara Boxer is a progressive and smart legislator. As the LA Times wrote, Boxer has been a strong voice for "individual rights, equality, environmental protection and constructive engagement by the federal government with national economic problems, including the crisis in healthcare." By contrast, the Republican opponent is a rich right-wing CEO who flirts with the Tea Party, signed a strict no-taxes pledge, and supporting Arizona's racial profiling immigration law. I don't frequently donate to national campaigns, but we donated to Boxer's campaign.
Jerry Brown for Governor
This is a tight race and the outcome is very important. Four years ago, I wasn't enthusiastic about Jerry Brown. But he has been a good Attorney General -- he has done great things on environmental issues and I am proud of his refusal to defend Prop. 8. The Republican alternative would be a horror show, worse than Schwarzenegger in several ways. She has said she would suspend California's landmark climate change law and she would pour cement onto the state budget gridlock. Plus there's her hypocrisy on immigration. We need Jerry Brown as our Governor.
Debra Bowen for Secretary of State
I was enthusiastic about Debra Bowen when she first ran for this role in 2006, and I'm still enthusiastic. She's done a good job and deserves to keep it.
John Chiang for Controller
As with Bowen, I was impressed by Chiang four years ago and I've heard nothing to change my mind. His Republican opponent is one of the more right-wing guys (and one who I particularly know to be dreadful from his work on transportation issues).
Governor: Jerry Brown (see writeup below)
Lieutenant Governor: Gavin Newsom
Secretary of State: Debra Bowen (see writeup below)
Controller: John Chiang (see writeup)
Treasurer: Bill Lockyer
Attorney General: Kamala Harris
Insurance Commissioner: Dave Jones
U.S. Senator: Barbara Boxer (see writeup below)
U.S. Congress, 9th Congressional District: Barbara Lee
Member, State Board of Equalization, 1st District: Betty Yee
Here's a few writeups on the ones I know/care most about:
Barbara Boxer for Senator
This is a tight and important race. Barbara Boxer is a progressive and smart legislator. As the LA Times wrote, Boxer has been a strong voice for "individual rights, equality, environmental protection and constructive engagement by the federal government with national economic problems, including the crisis in healthcare." By contrast, the Republican opponent is a rich right-wing CEO who flirts with the Tea Party, signed a strict no-taxes pledge, and supporting Arizona's racial profiling immigration law. I don't frequently donate to national campaigns, but we donated to Boxer's campaign.
Jerry Brown for Governor
This is a tight race and the outcome is very important. Four years ago, I wasn't enthusiastic about Jerry Brown. But he has been a good Attorney General -- he has done great things on environmental issues and I am proud of his refusal to defend Prop. 8. The Republican alternative would be a horror show, worse than Schwarzenegger in several ways. She has said she would suspend California's landmark climate change law and she would pour cement onto the state budget gridlock. Plus there's her hypocrisy on immigration. We need Jerry Brown as our Governor.
Debra Bowen for Secretary of State
I was enthusiastic about Debra Bowen when she first ran for this role in 2006, and I'm still enthusiastic. She's done a good job and deserves to keep it.
John Chiang for Controller
As with Bowen, I was impressed by Chiang four years ago and I've heard nothing to change my mind. His Republican opponent is one of the more right-wing guys (and one who I particularly know to be dreadful from his work on transportation issues).
Friday, October 15, 2010
State Propositions on November 2010 Ballot
Summary of positions on State Propositions:
19: Leaning Yes
20: Leaning No
21: Yes
22: No
23: NO NO NO
24: Leaning Yes
25: Yes
26: NO NO NO
27: NO
Leaning Yes on 19: Legalize Marijuana in CA
I'm generally supportive of legalizing marijuana. I don't have a personal stake in the matter (smoked it once, tried to inhale, didn't get the point). I have the impression legalization would reduce an unnecessary load on the justice system, reduce violent criminal activity associated with smuggling, allow the government to put rational and enforceable controls on use (unlike the existing laws that are unevenly applied), and get some dearly-needed revenue from a common commercial enterprise. Given currently widespread availability, I don't think many people are being protected by current laws. So I support the intent.
Unfortunately, Prop 19, like so many initiatives, has several flaws. It may stop employers from testing, even when testing may be well-justified and required by federal law (for airline pilots & train/bus/truck drivers). It leaves it up to local governments to set up taxation systems -- that's a bit chaotic. And there's no standard for what qualifies as DUI. All these seem like important flaws that need to be fixed.
But Prop 19 is an initiative statute, not a constitutional amendment, so it can be fixed by the legislature. If we pass Prop 19, they'll have to work out the fixes. If we don't, the status quo will continue. So I'm leaning Yes on Prop 19, but I'm open to feedback.
NO on 27, Leaning No on 20: An Independent Commission, not Legislators, should control Redistricting
Two years ago, I encouraged you to vote Yes on Prop 11, a League of Women Voters and Common Cause-supported measure to establish a citizen commission to conduct redistricting for state legislative districts. California voters passed the previous measure.
Prop 27 would undo the good reform and instead put legislators back in control of drawing their own boundaries. That's what leads to gerrymandered districts where politicians select their voters -- bad policy, bad results. See why the League of Women Voters says No on 27.
Prop 20, on the other hand, would extend the redistricting commission to cover Congressional districts as well. When I started writing this post, I thought I'd say that was a good idea. After all, the same reasoning applies as in 2008: this has to be an initiative, because legislators won't rewrite the rules well to govern themselves. And it has to happen now, because the state is about to reset districts based on the 2010 census.
But then I read the LWV analysis, and they're saying No on 20 as well! Prop 20 would increase the redistricting commission's workload but reduce the amount of time they have to draw boundaries, and it would "narrow the definition of communities of interest in ways that would make it harder for the commission to protect California’s diverse neighborhoods." That doesn't sound good, and that's coming from the staunch and smart supporters of redistricting reform. Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm leaning NO on Prop 20 as well.
YES on 21: Fund state parks with vehicle registration fees
This is straightforward and reasonable. In return for charging every California vehicle a relatively small ($18/yr) annual surcharge on everyone's vehicle license fee, to help fund state parks and wildlife programs, all those vehicles will get free admission to state parks. It isn't a perfect solution, it is still ballot-box budgeting, but it is a reasonable fix while we still have our current messed-up budget system.
NO on 22: Overly complicated, Unintended Consequences
Prop 22 is a proposed amendment to the state constitution that aims to limit the state’s ability to borrow or take from local governments funds used for transportation, redevelopment, or other local government projects and services. That sounds pretty good, and we certainly need good and stable funding for transportation, affordable homes, and local infrastructure. However, it would also increase the state deficit by about $1 billion per year, make it harder to do tradeoffs to balance the budget, and potentially have a host of unintended consequences.
This is just plain way too confusing and complicated of a measure for us to pass on a simple up-down on the ballot. I'm voting no.
Some resources: TransForm's neutral position, California Budget Project's analysis, San Francisco Chronicle's NO editorial.
NO NO NO on 23: Stop Texas Oil Companies from Buying California Elections
I'm just going to quote from TransForm's writeup on this: "Texas oil companies and other major polluters are spending millions of dollars to push this ballot proposition, deceptively titled the "CA Jobs Initiative," which will actually gut California clean energy and air pollution standards and destroy hundreds of thousands of new and future good-paying clean and green jobs."
Resources: TransForm, SF Chronicle, No on 23 website.
Leaning YES on 24: Close Corporate Tax Loopholes
I think I'll vote yes on this: I think I agree with it -- it appears to close some major tax loopholes that allow businesses to shift tax losses to different tax years, share tax credits with affiliated companies, and limit the basis on which taxes are charged. My main hesitation is that I tend to feel like we voters shouldn't make this kind of budgeting decision. But the system is so messed up, I'm inclined to vote yes anyway.
YES on 25: Majority vote to pass the state budget
This seems like a common-sense good first step towards fixing the state budget mess. Prop 25 would mean that California can pass its budget by a majority vote. Right now, we're one of only three states that requires a super-majority (2/3) to pass the budget. That's part of the reason we have budgets that come in months late. We need more solutions too, particularly to deal with how we raise revenues. And I'm a little less enthusiastic after reading the California Budget Project's analysis. But I'm still planning to vote Yes on 25. It is a good start.
NO NO NO on 26: Don't Protect Polluters from Reasonable Fees
Again, I'll quote from TransForm's writeup: "Prop 26 would kill our ability to levy impact fees on pollution or other sources of harm to our communities and state. It would relieve the worst polluters and corporations that cause the greatest harm to public health and the environment from having to cover even the most minimal costs of cleaning up their messes. Prop 26 would also make it impossible for communities to fund critical local infrastructure investments, such as key transportation projects, that are supported by the majority of residents." Learn more.
NO on 27: see combined writeup with 20, above.
NOTE -- this is the last of the November 2010 recommendations. Everything below this is from an earlier election!
19: Leaning Yes
20: Leaning No
21: Yes
22: No
23: NO NO NO
24: Leaning Yes
25: Yes
26: NO NO NO
27: NO
Leaning Yes on 19: Legalize Marijuana in CA
I'm generally supportive of legalizing marijuana. I don't have a personal stake in the matter (smoked it once, tried to inhale, didn't get the point). I have the impression legalization would reduce an unnecessary load on the justice system, reduce violent criminal activity associated with smuggling, allow the government to put rational and enforceable controls on use (unlike the existing laws that are unevenly applied), and get some dearly-needed revenue from a common commercial enterprise. Given currently widespread availability, I don't think many people are being protected by current laws. So I support the intent.
Unfortunately, Prop 19, like so many initiatives, has several flaws. It may stop employers from testing, even when testing may be well-justified and required by federal law (for airline pilots & train/bus/truck drivers). It leaves it up to local governments to set up taxation systems -- that's a bit chaotic. And there's no standard for what qualifies as DUI. All these seem like important flaws that need to be fixed.
But Prop 19 is an initiative statute, not a constitutional amendment, so it can be fixed by the legislature. If we pass Prop 19, they'll have to work out the fixes. If we don't, the status quo will continue. So I'm leaning Yes on Prop 19, but I'm open to feedback.
NO on 27, Leaning No on 20: An Independent Commission, not Legislators, should control Redistricting
Two years ago, I encouraged you to vote Yes on Prop 11, a League of Women Voters and Common Cause-supported measure to establish a citizen commission to conduct redistricting for state legislative districts. California voters passed the previous measure.
Prop 27 would undo the good reform and instead put legislators back in control of drawing their own boundaries. That's what leads to gerrymandered districts where politicians select their voters -- bad policy, bad results. See why the League of Women Voters says No on 27.
Prop 20, on the other hand, would extend the redistricting commission to cover Congressional districts as well. When I started writing this post, I thought I'd say that was a good idea. After all, the same reasoning applies as in 2008: this has to be an initiative, because legislators won't rewrite the rules well to govern themselves. And it has to happen now, because the state is about to reset districts based on the 2010 census.
But then I read the LWV analysis, and they're saying No on 20 as well! Prop 20 would increase the redistricting commission's workload but reduce the amount of time they have to draw boundaries, and it would "narrow the definition of communities of interest in ways that would make it harder for the commission to protect California’s diverse neighborhoods." That doesn't sound good, and that's coming from the staunch and smart supporters of redistricting reform. Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm leaning NO on Prop 20 as well.
YES on 21: Fund state parks with vehicle registration fees
This is straightforward and reasonable. In return for charging every California vehicle a relatively small ($18/yr) annual surcharge on everyone's vehicle license fee, to help fund state parks and wildlife programs, all those vehicles will get free admission to state parks. It isn't a perfect solution, it is still ballot-box budgeting, but it is a reasonable fix while we still have our current messed-up budget system.
NO on 22: Overly complicated, Unintended Consequences
Prop 22 is a proposed amendment to the state constitution that aims to limit the state’s ability to borrow or take from local governments funds used for transportation, redevelopment, or other local government projects and services. That sounds pretty good, and we certainly need good and stable funding for transportation, affordable homes, and local infrastructure. However, it would also increase the state deficit by about $1 billion per year, make it harder to do tradeoffs to balance the budget, and potentially have a host of unintended consequences.
This is just plain way too confusing and complicated of a measure for us to pass on a simple up-down on the ballot. I'm voting no.
Some resources: TransForm's neutral position, California Budget Project's analysis, San Francisco Chronicle's NO editorial.
NO NO NO on 23: Stop Texas Oil Companies from Buying California Elections
I'm just going to quote from TransForm's writeup on this: "Texas oil companies and other major polluters are spending millions of dollars to push this ballot proposition, deceptively titled the "CA Jobs Initiative," which will actually gut California clean energy and air pollution standards and destroy hundreds of thousands of new and future good-paying clean and green jobs."
Resources: TransForm, SF Chronicle, No on 23 website.
Leaning YES on 24: Close Corporate Tax Loopholes
I think I'll vote yes on this: I think I agree with it -- it appears to close some major tax loopholes that allow businesses to shift tax losses to different tax years, share tax credits with affiliated companies, and limit the basis on which taxes are charged. My main hesitation is that I tend to feel like we voters shouldn't make this kind of budgeting decision. But the system is so messed up, I'm inclined to vote yes anyway.
YES on 25: Majority vote to pass the state budget
This seems like a common-sense good first step towards fixing the state budget mess. Prop 25 would mean that California can pass its budget by a majority vote. Right now, we're one of only three states that requires a super-majority (2/3) to pass the budget. That's part of the reason we have budgets that come in months late. We need more solutions too, particularly to deal with how we raise revenues. And I'm a little less enthusiastic after reading the California Budget Project's analysis. But I'm still planning to vote Yes on 25. It is a good start.
NO NO NO on 26: Don't Protect Polluters from Reasonable Fees
Again, I'll quote from TransForm's writeup: "Prop 26 would kill our ability to levy impact fees on pollution or other sources of harm to our communities and state. It would relieve the worst polluters and corporations that cause the greatest harm to public health and the environment from having to cover even the most minimal costs of cleaning up their messes. Prop 26 would also make it impossible for communities to fund critical local infrastructure investments, such as key transportation projects, that are supported by the majority of residents." Learn more.
NO on 27: see combined writeup with 20, above.
NOTE -- this is the last of the November 2010 recommendations. Everything below this is from an earlier election!
Other East Bay (and statewide) endorsements
Here's some lists of other endorsements from people who I generally agree with. Some of these folks cover other local races that I don't, or have more/different things to say about state races. I'll add to this post as I came across good writeups (please, suggest more!):
- Nathan Landau is a friend who lives in Berkeley and writes up a full set of recommendations (16 pages this election), including Oakland-Berkeley-Albany + state + special district races. Here's a PDF of his writeup: http://bit.ly/apraMr
- John Knox White is a colleague and friend who lives in Alameda: http://johnknoxwhite.com/2010/10/14/1244/
- A Better Oakland has great coverage of Oakland politics, from a sensible perspective: http://www.abetteroakland.com/category/topics/elections
- Living in the O's election endorsements: http://oaklandliving.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/endorsements-for-the-november-election/
- Dan Wood lives in Alameda. His "Progressive Alamedan" blog also enthuses about Robert Raburn: http://progala.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Recommendations for SF, Oakland, etc.
Statewide, see my friend Dan Kalb's recommendations.
San Francisco: check out SPUR's analysis of SF propositions.
San Francisco: check out SPUR's analysis of SF propositions.
June 2010 voting summary
Here's how I'm voting today (on the Democratic Party ballot in 14th AD):
Partisan Offices:
Partisan Offices:
- Governor: Jerry Brown
- Lt. Gov: Gavin Newsom (mostly out of Northern CA bias)
- Secretary of State: Debra Bowen
- Controller: John Chiang
- Treasurer: Bill Lockyer
- Attorney General: Kamala Harris
- Insurance Commissioner: Dave Jones
- Member, State Board of Equalization, 1st District: Betty Yee
- US Senator, CA: Barbara Boxer
- US Representative, 9th District: Barbara Lee
- CA State Assembly, 14th District: Nancy Skinner
- County Central Committee, 14th Assembly District (vote for 6 of 7): first 5 were Marge Atkinson, Edie Irons, Beverly Greene, Andrew Kelley, & Elizabeth Echols. My 6th vote went to Maggie Gee.
- Superior Court Judge, Office #9: Victoria Kolakowski
- State Superintendent of Public Instruction: Tom Torlakson
- County Superintendent of Schools: Sheila Jordan
- Member, Board of Education, 1st Trustee area: Joaquin Rivera
- Since there's no competition on the 5 county non-partisan offices, I didn't pay any attention to them. I'll probably vote for them.
- 13: Yes
- 14: No
- 15: Yes
- 16: NO NO NO
- 17: NO
- C: Yes to repair and refurbish our pools
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Recommendations from Dan Kalb
Check out comprehensive June ballot recommendations from Dan Kalb, who serves with me on the Board of the League of Conservation Voters of the East Bay. I don't agree with him on everything (I think he's more of a straight environmentalist and party Democrat than I am), but I respect his analysis and judgment. I agree with him entirely on the state propositions, and he and I sat on the same board that came up with some of these endorsements for Alameda and Contra Costa County races. I haven't reviewed the state offices in detail yet, but Dan's endorsement will make a difference.
You can find his endorsements on this google doc.
You can find his endorsements on this google doc.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Yes on 13+15. No on 16+17. Leaning NO on 14.
YES on 13
This seems like something we shouldn't have to vote on. But it was supported by a unanimous vote of the legislature, no one bothered to write a "NO" argument, and it looks like just a technical fix. Too bad previous constitutional amendments mean that we have to vote on this.
Leaning NO on 14
I can see the point of a reform that might make it more likely that we get legislators who work well together. I'm not bothered by the perceived threats to the parties, major or minor, nor do I think we should worry about people "hiding" their party affiliation. But I don't think this -- how we elect our legislators -- is California's problem. Our problem is the 2/3 requirement for the budget, our too-long state constitution that's been amended too many times to insert too many requirements that hamstring our ability to make sensible decisions. This is yet another constitutional amendment. I'm open to advice, but I'm leaning NO.
YES on 15
Tax lobbyists to pay for fairer elections and reduce the influence of money in politics. What could be better? See CalPIRG's analysis. Oh, and BTW -- this is a statute, not an amendment. That's a good thing, 'cuz it means it can be fixed more easily if there turn out to be flaws in it.
NO on 16
Definitely NO to a proposition to a constitutional amendment that would require a 2/3 vote before a city can do local green power. And definitely NO to a PG&E campaign to maintain its monopoly on power. Check out a video by some friends, or CalPIRG's analysis.
NO on 17
This is too detailed and too complicated a measure for us to have to vote on. I can't tell -- would it hurt military families or help them? Would it help seniors or hurt them? If this is a serious problem, this should go through the legislative process and get the kinks worked out.
This seems like something we shouldn't have to vote on. But it was supported by a unanimous vote of the legislature, no one bothered to write a "NO" argument, and it looks like just a technical fix. Too bad previous constitutional amendments mean that we have to vote on this.
Leaning NO on 14
I can see the point of a reform that might make it more likely that we get legislators who work well together. I'm not bothered by the perceived threats to the parties, major or minor, nor do I think we should worry about people "hiding" their party affiliation. But I don't think this -- how we elect our legislators -- is California's problem. Our problem is the 2/3 requirement for the budget, our too-long state constitution that's been amended too many times to insert too many requirements that hamstring our ability to make sensible decisions. This is yet another constitutional amendment. I'm open to advice, but I'm leaning NO.
YES on 15
Tax lobbyists to pay for fairer elections and reduce the influence of money in politics. What could be better? See CalPIRG's analysis. Oh, and BTW -- this is a statute, not an amendment. That's a good thing, 'cuz it means it can be fixed more easily if there turn out to be flaws in it.
NO on 16
Definitely NO to a proposition to a constitutional amendment that would require a 2/3 vote before a city can do local green power. And definitely NO to a PG&E campaign to maintain its monopoly on power. Check out a video by some friends, or CalPIRG's analysis.
NO on 17
This is too detailed and too complicated a measure for us to have to vote on. I can't tell -- would it hurt military families or help them? Would it help seniors or hurt them? If this is a serious problem, this should go through the legislative process and get the kinks worked out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
