California November 4 election

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 15, 2014 12:39 AM GMT
    A resource for information about ballot measures. You never know who's really behind them, sneaky bastards.

    http://igs.berkeley.edu/news/nov-4-ca-ballot-measure-resources-from-the-igs-library
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 15, 2014 1:15 PM GMT
    Usually u hear who is behind them iat the end of an ad. The minute I hear "ca working families" or the unions I know it's a no vote but there aren't any decent props on this ballot
  • metta

    Posts: 39133

    Oct 15, 2014 3:05 PM GMT
    Lumpyoatmeal saidA resource for information about ballot measures. You never know who's really behind them, sneaky bastards.

    http://igs.berkeley.edu/news/nov-4-ca-ballot-measure-resources-from-the-igs-library
  • metta

    Posts: 39133

    Oct 15, 2014 3:21 PM GMT
    The Better Part - California Statewide Propositions Fall 2014 Pros & Cons






    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejKUzPzNF8c
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2014 4:43 AM GMT
    Proposition 47 is good.

    Proposition 1 might be good - I haven't decided on it yet.

    All the rest are "No" votes though...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2014 4:44 AM GMT
    Lumpyoatmeal saidA resource for information about ballot measures. You never know who's really behind them, sneaky bastards.

    http://igs.berkeley.edu/news/nov-4-ca-ballot-measure-resources-from-the-igs-library


    Thanks for posting, I have not dive into all the issues. I need to do this, this weekend.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Oct 16, 2014 5:21 AM GMT
    The whole California "direct democracy" thing via propositions scares me--or puts me off at least. I don't have a problem with referendums (where you cancel, retract or modify a law the legislature passes), but the idea that any wacko who gets a (relatively) small number of signatures can then pump money into ads and possibly make law in California is disturbing. It feels cheap. And odd. I know other states have this mechanism under the constitution, but California seems to be the gold standard of actually employing it.

    I don't like propositions. And it's not just because prop 8 left a bad taste in most people's mouth. It's propositions as an inherently odd form of democracy. I'm a "republican" in that sense I suppose.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2014 5:45 AM GMT
    The initiative and referendum process is broken.

    Getting something on the ballot is a matter of dumping tons of money into it with people getting paid by the signature, which encourages then to be shady. And voters are easily misled and have an inflated sense of entitlement to vote on every damn thing.

    And unfortunately sometimes elected officials opt to put something on the ballot instead of voting on it themselves. So it doesn't really work to just vote "no" across the board.

    Prop 8 Ugh.
    Prop 13 Ugh!
  • metta

    Posts: 39133

    Oct 16, 2014 7:12 AM GMT
    ^
    I'm actually thankful for Prop 13. It limits increases to a maximum of 2% per year. Imagine what our property taxes would be without it. I just got my property tax bill last week and the value increased so they are charging the maximum they are aloud to under Prop 13. Thank goodness it is not more than that.

    Many states have much higher property taxes based on values.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2014 1:48 PM GMT
    And because California property tax is so low, our sales taxes are very high, and cities refuse to build housing because it's a financial loser so we end up with rows of auto dealerships and big box stores. And our school funding dropped off significantly, all so someone can pay $500 on property taxes for their million dollar unit.

    Prop 13 is the worst.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2014 1:51 PM GMT
    CFL_Oakland saidAnd because California property tax is so low, our sales taxes are very high, and cities refuse to build housing because it's a financial loser so we end up with rows of auto dealerships and big box stores. And our school funding dropped off significantly, all so someone can pay $500 on property taxes for their million dollar unit.

    Prop 13 is the worst.
    none of thst is true Ca is mid pack tax wise. School funding was never cut and is very well funded and even got a huge check vis prop 30. Which of course never went to the classrooms. teachers are at thr top or near the top in salary. Prop 13 doesn't take away money. Mismanagement and unions do
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2014 1:53 PM GMT
    CFL_Oakland saidAnd because California property tax is so low, our sales taxes are very high, and cities refuse to build housing because it's a financial loser so we end up with rows of auto dealerships and big box stores. And our school funding dropped off significantly, all so someone can pay $500 on property taxes for their million dollar unit.

    Prop 13 is the worst.
    while I agree the referendum system is usually stupid. Especially here. You just run fake ads and get low information voters to believe it (bullet train comes to mind) but the legislature is so corrupt giving them a blank check is worse
  • metta

    Posts: 39133

    Oct 16, 2014 3:31 PM GMT
    CFL_Oakland saidAnd because California property tax is so low, our sales taxes are very high, and cities refuse to build housing because it's a financial loser so we end up with rows of auto dealerships and big box stores. And our school funding dropped off significantly, all so someone can pay $500 on property taxes for their million dollar unit.

    Prop 13 is the worst.


    Those older people are, well..., getting older...they wont be paying those low rates much longer. Having those low rates have helped those people keep those homes in their old age. What cities are not building homes? I have not seen that happen at all. Cities need residents to shop in those stores. Where I live, they are building and redeveloping on almost every lot that they can find left: almost entirely residential. My property taxes are enough already....20 times more than what you stated. I don't want to see them go up more than the 2% per year.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2014 4:51 PM GMT
    CA's initiative system works just fine, as reference to this summary shows:

    http://www.ppic.org/contents/pubs/op/OP_1100FSOP.pdf

    I support it because it increases voter turnout by appealing to "issue" voters, as well as giving all eligible voters more direct participation in their government. As the chart shows, "the idea that any wacko who gets a (relatively) small number of signatures can then pump money into ads and possibly make law in California is" ill conceived. Perhaps opponents of the process fear that voters, unlike politicians who are often far removed from the actual impact of the laws they enact, do not suffer BS gladly, and are thus more prone to tell it like it is when it comes to voting on matters of public policy and how it's put unto effect. Or, perhaps it's just because opponents are as inherently untrustworthy of their fellow citizens as they are themselves.

    The problem with the initiative process is when elected officials refuse to enforce initiatives they personally disagree with, even though they have the force of law. CA's Prop 187, preventing illegal aliens from receiving government benefits and Prop 8, preventing gay marriage, are the two most recent examples of CA AGs' unfaithfulness to their oaths of office in this regard. 187 was held unconstitutional by a federal trial court, but then AG Bill Lockyer refused to appeal that ruling. With 8, then AG Jerry Brown waffled when the matter came before, and was upheld by, the CA Supreme Ct. But when Prop 8 was held unconstitutional by a SF federal trial court, new AG Kamala Harris, who barely won office by the slimmest margin in CA AG-election history, outright refused to do her duty to defend or appeal it. The appellate ruling, that Prop 8's proponents lacked legal standing, as upheld by the US Supreme Ct., effective knifed the initiative process in the back and subjected it to the personal whim of the AG, her oath of office notwithstanding. Look for that dimension of the ruling to be "revisited," as SCOTUS likes to say when it's confronted with a monster of its own making and realizes the damage done and depending.
  • metta

    Posts: 39133

    Oct 17, 2014 6:24 AM GMT
    Courage Campaign Voter Guide

    https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.couragecampaign.org/images/CC_2014ProgressiveVGv3.pdf
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 17, 2014 7:03 AM GMT
    metta8 said
    CFL_Oakland saidAnd because California property tax is so low, our sales taxes are very high, and cities refuse to build housing because it's a financial loser so we end up with rows of auto dealerships and big box stores. And our school funding dropped off significantly, all so someone can pay $500 on property taxes for their million dollar unit.

    Prop 13 is the worst.


    Those older people are, well..., getting older...they wont be paying those low rates much longer. Having those low rates have helped those people keep those homes in their old age. What cities are not building homes? I have not seen that happen at all. Cities need residents to shop in those stores. Where I live, they are building and redeveloping on almost every lot that they can find left: almost entirely residential. My property taxes are enough already....20 times more than what you stated. I don't want to see them go up more than the 2% per year.


    Haven't you noticed that there's a major housing shortage in California? That's no accident. The term is "fiscalization of land use" and it has been documented extensively. Residential development brings residents, who need services and increase costs to governments. Retail is the way to maximize revenue.

    Another legacy of Prop. 13 is that we have the ridiculous situation that a new spending bill only requires a simple majority, but a new tax requires a 2/3 majority. Hello, budget problems!

    Whether your property taxes are "enough already" is just your opinion. I could equally say that my sales taxes are "enough already", and I'm tired of having to pay state and local governments so much for services, and for $320 tickets for illegal U-turns. Thank Prop 13 for all that. Also, since businesses change hands less often than residences, they benefit disproportionately from the artificially low increases. The share of the tax burden borne by homeowners vs businesses has actually increased since Prop. 13, not decreased.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2014 5:50 PM GMT
    CFL_Oakland said
    metta8 said
    CFL_Oakland saidAnd because California property tax is so low, our sales taxes are very high, and cities refuse to build housing because it's a financial loser so we end up with rows of auto dealerships and big box stores. And our school funding dropped off significantly, all so someone can pay $500 on property taxes for their million dollar unit.

    Prop 13 is the worst.


    Those older people are, well..., getting older...they wont be paying those low rates much longer. Having those low rates have helped those people keep those homes in their old age. What cities are not building homes? I have not seen that happen at all. Cities need residents to shop in those stores. Where I live, they are building and redeveloping on almost every lot that they can find left: almost entirely residential. My property taxes are enough already....20 times more than what you stated. I don't want to see them go up more than the 2% per year.


    Haven't you noticed that there's a major housing shortage in California? That's no accident. The term is "fiscalization of land use" and it has been documented extensively. Residential development brings residents, who need services and increase costs to governments. Retail is the way to maximize revenue.

    Another legacy of Prop. 13 is that we have the ridiculous situation that a new spending bill only requires a simple majority, but a new tax requires a 2/3 majority. Hello, budget problems!

    Whether your property taxes are "enough already" is just your opinion. I could equally say that my sales taxes are "enough already", and I'm tired of having to pay state and local governments so much for services, and for $320 tickets for illegal U-turns. Thank Prop 13 for all that. Also, since businesses change hands less often than residences, they benefit disproportionately from the artificially low increases. The share of the tax burden borne by homeowners vs businesses has actually increased since Prop. 13, not decreased.


    You are way off, and demonstrably so, on your sweeping expansion of Prop 13. "Fiscalization of land use" is irrelevant, especially when you consider that new housing is assessed at market rates, save only CA's homeowners or seniors' exemption. The simple majority spending rule was not part of Prop. 13 and is a recent creature of the Democratic Legislature by a ballot measure, whom you can thank for their continuing habit of overspending and spending on unworthy projects. (Can you say bullet train and in-state tuition for illegal aliens?) The other problems you complain of are rightly criticized, but don't lay them at Prop. 13 or Howard Jarvis' door; like all of CA's other spending problems, they are the product of profligate Democrats in Sacto who just can't say "no" to any spending bill that comes their way.