Voting Matters - San Francisco Judicial Election

Now, in California, we have a weird little system. Some states do it all by appointment. Some do it all by election. We combine the worst of both and have judges come up for rentention elections, but sometimes they get opposed. That is what is going on here.

Normally, this is not a big deal. But the San Francisco Superior Court judges have been acting in a particularly arrogant fashion this year. First, there was Judge Ernest Goldsmith comments from earlier this year that put a chill on people challenging his seat. Then, when a challenger did appear, but to Judge Richard Ulmer, the other judges started to organize to support Ulmer. And they apparently were not being shy about it. Judge Campos decided he would sent out endorsements supporting Ulmer on Superior Court letterhead to members of the DCCC.

Now I have some problems with Nava. He is playing the race and sex card. He says he is trying to downplay it in interviews, but he is running as the gay latino. And that is just as bad as what the Superior Court judges are doing in opposing him. Last year, it was Mellon being targeted in a similar case of race politics. Unfortunately, we got Sandoval on the bench.

Ulmer is a bit on the conservative side. Reports from the tenants' attorneys seem to say he is pro-landlord. But is this enough to vote against him? Objectively, you cannot say that Judge Ulmer has done anything wrong.

So what to do here? I think the Judges need to be reminded that they need to focus more on doing their jobs than banding together to protect their jobs. Yeah, I'm a bit about punishing incumbents this year, but in reality, I do not think that Nava will be much different from Ulmer. He will just have different prejudices. This is really about whether the judges should weigh in on judicial retention elections. Vote Nava. I'm sure litigants will regret it just as much as if we keep Ullmer.

Voting Matters - San Francisco Proposition Voting

Proposition AA - Increasing the San Francisco registration fee for automobiles. Basically, the City wants you to approve an increase in the vehicle registration fee which was authorized by the Sacramento. On the up side, the money is supposed to only be used for "capital projects" and not just for administration of other transportation programs. Furthermore, it specifically states that the money is not supposed to be used outside of San Francisco. That's all well and good. The City believes that it is going raise $5 million. Fine. But you know what, I still do not approve of this measure. Why? The City has a lot of money troubles. And the temptation is going to be there to "borrow" or "borrow against" this money. The City needs to start making some hard decisions. Feeding it more money is not the answer, especially with all the Muni cutbacks. Vote No on AA.

Proposition A - Bonds to retrofit buildings leased for low income people. I'm generally against the City expending any money or taking on any other debts. This time, I think its a good idea. We live in earthquake country. We're going to have one. Might as well do what we can to make sure that the damage is minimized. Vote yes on A.

Proposition B -  Reforming San Francisco's Benefits and Pension System. This needs to happen. The current system is unsustainable. Basically, the way it is now, if you work for San Francisco, you do not have to contribute to your own healthcare and you don't have to contribute towards your own pension. Pretty sweet deal for everyone but the people who aren't on the City's payroll. As it stands right now, out of every $ 8 you pay in taxes and fees to the City, $1 goes directly to the pensions and benefits for the city workers. That's 12.5% of the entire budget of San Francisco. It will save the City $120 million. The only people lined up to oppose this are the unions, who think that they need to be special and not have to contribute to their own pensions or health care. They're not. They need to contribute, just like everyone else. Everyone needs to contribute or we're going to have bigger problems. Vote yes on B.

Proposition C - Requiring the Mayor to attend at least one Board of Supervisors meeting a month. You know, as much as I dislike Chris Daly, I think he has a point on this one here. Its irrelevant if the mayor and Board of Supervisors hate each other's guts. Part of the job is showing up and our mayor has been, well, a little preoccupied to show up a lot lately (unless of course there is a Giants game involved). The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has to show up once a week, the President of the United States has to show up at least one day a year (although, G-d knows President Obama will try and claim a golf conflict should let him out in 2011), so I don't see why the mayor can't be required to show up for a Board of Supervisors meeting. Let's get our disagreements out in the open and where people can be pressed to explain their position instead of the insanity that is the war of press releases that we get here. Vote YES on C.

Proposition D - Noncitizen Voting In School Board Elections. Didn't we vote this down a few years ago? Oh, that's right, we did. And the reason remains the same: voting is a right of citizenship. The point of being a citizen is you get to have a say in your government. Not letting other people have a say in your government. Vote NO on D.

Proposition E - Election Day Registration. If it weren't for the fact that it would cost so damn much, I'd say yes. But changing things when the economy and the budget is this mucked up is just asking for trouble. Vote NO on Prop E.

Proposition F -  Health Service Board election reform. I cannot say it any better than the Chronicle, so here is what they say, 

This may not be the most riveting issue on the ballot, or even result in much of a savings, but it's an example of one of the little efficiencies that can add up. 

 Vote YES on Prop F.

Proposition G - Reforming the MUNI Pay System. Umm... how to put this? Vote yes. Vote Yes! VOTE YES! Muni reform needs to start with this. End the free ride for the Muni workers. Start putting the priority of Muni back to the citizens of this city and not with the operators union. Vote YES on G!

Proposition H - Prohibiting elected officials from sitting on political party committiees. Huh? So we're trying to take the politicians out of the elected officials? Puh-lease. This one is needless regulation. And I almost think its a violation of a politicos rights (I think I could make the argument, have to look at a few cases). So anyways. Vote NO on Prop H.

Proposition I - Saturday Voting. On the one hand, it won't cost any money, so it says. And it will allegedly make it easier to vote. Or it will just confuse people as to when election day is. If you can't be bothered to vote on the day you are supposed to, who says that an alternate extra day is going to help? Vote NO on Prop I.

Proposition J - Hotel Tax Increase. Bad economy, people have less money to spend. We want to make it more expensive to visit here than anywhere else in the country? At least whoever comes up with these schemes is consistent. They want to make it more expensive for the locals and the tourists. Who do they want to live and visit here? Ummm.... let's shoot this one down.  Vote NO on Prop J.

Proposition K - Hotel Tax Reform. Did you know that there is a different tax paid on a room when it is booked direct as opposed to through a third party? Neither did I. Problem is, this is a thorny question that is being litigated. It would probably be better to figure out what the law actually means before we go about changing it. Vote NO on Prop K.

Proposition L - Civil Sidewalks. Vote Yes on this. Its a law that has been tested and used effectively in other cities. Is there a problem? Some say no. But I'll tell you, I see a bunch of people when I go out in parts of the city. Is it going to penalize the homeless. It could. But at the same time, there is a problem and there is no effective solution other than this at this time. Vote YES on Prop L.

Proposition M - Community Foot Patrols. How it got this name, I am not sure. The intent of this proposition is nothing more than to kill Prop L. All it really does is require a "written community policing policy." Whooped-di-doo. Its real intent is found later in the proposition where it specifically nullifies Prop L if it passes. Vote NO on Prop L. 


Proposition N - Real Property Transfer Tax. It increases the real property transfer tax for property in San Francisco that is worth $5 million or more. Once again, I know that the city is broke. And it wants to raise money. The problem is, this will work to kill development deals. Those put people to work. This is not just about Sea Cliff houses. Its going to affect everyone. Its going to affect the rents that get charged to both residents and small businesses. Vote NO on Prop N. 

Voting Matters - Governor of California (Could We Have A Worse Set of Choices?)

so it's that time of the year again. Ballots have been printed, debates have been had,and now tomorrow all you have to do is go on down to your polling station hold your nose and make some choices.

I'm really not kidding about that last part. This year in California we've been offered probably the weakest selection of candidates that it has been my misfortune to ever have to vote on. Think I'm making this up? We've managed to outdo the absurd removal of Gray Davis, where among the slate of candidates we had a porn star and former child actor, by  the two parties giving us a retread and a dilettante.

Going with the theory that it's age before beauty, will start off with Jerry Brown. What can we say that hasn't been said about Jerry Brown? He's been governor once before. He's run unsuccessfully for president of the United States. He was the mayor of Oakland, more on that later. And now he's the Attorney General of California. We know an awful lot about Mr. Brown.he has an awful long record, which is something that is unusual in this election cycle where everyone seems to want to not have a record.

With the state that California is in right now a priority for any voter has to be how is this person going to handle the economy and more specifically, whether they can do to help create jobs. Over Mr. Brown's website, he states that his plan is going to include a number of things. First, he wants to stimulate clean energy jobs. How did he want to do this? he wants to increase California's electrical generation capacity by at least 12,000 MW, in addition to that he wants to build 8000 MW worth of large-scale renewable and necessary transmission warnings. Furthermore he wants to reduce peak energy demand to develop energy storage systems along with those who want to increase the efficiency of buildings and appliances while at the same time developing more combined heating and power projects. And of course to ensure all this goes smoothly, he wants to appoint a "Clean Energy Jobs Czar".

Along with his proposed clean energy initiatives, Mr. Brown wants to encourage business startups. (Where have I heard that before?) To do this, essentially he wants to embark on a massive infrastructure upgrade. he also wants to create what he calls "strike teams" which will focus on job retention and creation. we hope that these teams will do is coordinate between worker training program tax incentives and other programs to help, I suppose match entrepreneurs and job seekers with each other as well as applicable incentives which may help them create new jobs in the state. he also promises to make a priority and increased manufacturing jobs also delivering quote targeted workforce training programs". Finally, like any good candidate, he promises to invest in education.

Now the question really is, how is in the pay for office? He is talking about a lot of money to be invested in "green jobs". when president Obama proposed the same thing, people started looking at this. Some studies have shown that to create one green job, you need to spend $30,000 of taxpayer money. in Spain, where they've done a similar plan of subsidizing renewable energy sources, they found that the cost of exit significantly higher end effects the economy number of ways. First, it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Second, not only do the citizens have to pay for it as part of their taxes, they also end up paying higher energy costs because it's more expensive to generate.great, so not only is it going to cost us a lot of money or each new job that Mr. Brown wants to create with his renewable energy incentives, but were also pay more for the electricity that were already using. Already, this sounds like a great plan.

While Mr. Brown says that he wants to cut down on the bureaucratic red tape that businesses have to go through California, at the same time he proposes creating a new bureaucratic position, "Clean Energy Jobs Czar". how many government positions in the executive that report directly to the governor do you think come without a staff? If you can name one you get the no prize.

In what passes for his plan to deal with the budget, Mr. Brown said 11 same things that we heard from Gov. Schwarzenegger when he took office. This includes cracking down on those who aren't paying their taxes, making sure that we get all the federal money that's available, adopting a pay-as-you-go type of financing for state projects, and tearing up the "credit cards", while creating a rainy day fund. Tom, history Brown watched any of his own political ads? Play something about insanity being defined as doing the same thing over and over?

The major problem with Brown, if you're talking in very broad terms. He's talking in idealistic ways about how he wants to help California. Make no doubt about it, I truly believe this is a man who sees himself as being the one to help the state at this time. The problem I have with them is his inability to articulate his position on certain issues. First and foremost, what is he going to do about taxation and how does he view that when it comes to dealing with jobs in growing the economy California. The reason I ask this question first, is that he wants to spend a lot of money to make his vision of the future happened. Right now renewable energy costs a lot to get started. When you've got more than 10% (its actually 12.4%) of Californians out of work or underemployed, you have to start at the base and the basics in this case is job creation.

Second, what is he going to do to make sure that people are actually able to live in this state. The state has one of the highest standards of living, and because no one seems to be willing to allow the market to fail and readjust downward, we're stuck with the high cost of living. One of the ways that we alleviate this  is Proposition 13. Position 13 passed during jury Brown's first term as governor of the state of California, and he fought against its passage. Once passed, he later professed to be "born again supporter" of Prop 13. now the unions, and some educational advocates, claimed the Prop 13  harmed our state schools. Why? Simple proposition 13 limited the amount that real property taxes could be increased in the state. The way that while schools in the public school system are financed is through the collection of property taxes. Without the ability for the local city and municipal governments to raise the taxes at their whim, and to whatever level they wanted, it hurt the school's ability to get new funds. on the right, Prop 13 is seen as a bulwark against out-of-control government taxation that is essentially unaccountable to the electorate. Now in San Francisco, Proposition 13 is unpopular. Why? Because were very liberal and a majority of the people within the city are renters, and renters don't pay property tax. but in other parts of the state the majority of the people are property owners in the 1970s property tax rates skyrocketed making homeownership almost unaffordable. It's something to consider. Backspace, especially in light of the fact that Mr. Brown is heavily dependent on the union's, including the SEIU and the teachers union, or very hostile to Proposition 13.

When asked about Proposition 13 and other tax raises Mr. Brown has been very evasive about this. His answer seems to revolve around the evolving the power to tax and local levels. And how is he going to convince the state legislature to give up the power to tax or in the alternative to not tax is much. one thing that will grant him, is that he does have a history of frugality. The problem is is that enough especially in light of his performance as mayor of Oakland?

On the flipside, we've got Meg Whitman. Her first strike against her, in the state, is that she's a Republican. Say what you want about California this is a blue state. Her background, as you probably have heard by now if you've watched any television show in the state, is that she was one of the people who helped get eBay to where it is today. She made a lot of money doing it such creative lot of jobs at the company by helping guide from small startup to the behemoth that is now. For a time, she also sat on the Board of Directors for Goldman Sachs.

Let's talk about the Goldman Sachs connection per minute, because that kind of important in choosing who you want to lead your state. Another bit allegations that she did some pretty illegal things there. according to California Watch,

Whitman's relationship with the giant Wall Street firm -- an investor, corporate director and recipient of old insider stock deals and campaign donations -- could pose conflicts of interest if the Republican front runner is elected governor of California, critics say.

[...]

Whitman left the board [of Goldman Sachs] in 2002 after she was targeted in a congressional probe of bond underwriters and "spinning" -- a financial maneuver, now banned, in which Goldman and other firms allegedly traded access to hot IPOs for bond business. Whitman later settled a shareholder lawsuit related to the prophets she and other execs made from buying the IPOs.

[...]

With golden active on so many state issues, Whitman could face "a pile of potential conflicts of interest" if elected governor, said Doug Heller, spokesman for consumer watchdog of Santa Monica.

[...]

Whitman's campaign attorney said it was "plainly ridiculous" to hold Whitman responsible for problems Wall Street because she spent 15 months Goldman's board.

Basically, Whitman took advantage of the system as it existed at that time. The system did not make illegal the things that she knew about or participated in with Goldman Sachs, and it appears that no insider trading was ever proven. When ever there is money and where ever there is access, there is always going to be the implication that improper things are going on but the rest of the public does not have access to. yes, she did apparently settle a shareholders suit. However, that the civil litigation matter does not necessarily make her criminal nor make what she did wrong. It simply represents the fact that she chose to settle rather than go to costly litigation. (Yeah, it's a little inside baseball, but there it is.)

Now, let's look at what Ms. Whitman wants to do as governor. Just like with Jerry Brown, let's look at what she wants to do about the economy and in particular about jobs. According to her website, her plan had a number of components. First she wants to eliminate the small business start up tax, including apparently, eliminating the LLC filing fee. this she believes will make it easier to start new businesses in California. Second, she wants to eliminate the factory tax. third two wants to increase the research and development tax credit. Fourth she wants to eliminate the estate tax and capital gains. Fifth she wants to promote investments that are cultural industry. Apparently she wants to do this by providing a tax credit to encourage investment in our conservation technology so that we can reduce the consumption of water.

Wow, she really is noticed. Compared to Jerry Brown checks the list out what she wants to do what she wants to eliminate.

Next up, we have what she wants to do about the budget. Like Mr. Brown, Ms. Whitman wants to do something about the spending going on in Sacramento. Ms. Whitman's plan appears to be threefold. First she wants a strict spending cap. The spending cap is going to be based on the state's gross domestic product. All happened, according to her plan is that spending can't increase unless the state's economy is growing. Second, she wants to uphold the two thirds majority rule when it comes to passing the budget for the state. There she wants to turn the legislature into a part-time legislature, similar to what they do in Texas. This would take a constitutional amendment and could not be done something to passing a bill. It would require a vote by the citizens of the state of California.

In looking at what she wants to do, it appears that she has some laudable goals. Imposing some sort of fiscal discipline on the state is needed. However the question arises as to how he'd deal with expenditures that are going to be necessary when the unexpected happens. adopting the spending cap that she wants to use, unless certain safeguards are built in, it's going to make it very hard for the state to do things especially if the economy suddenly goes south again (of course, that'll require the economy to go up and grow instead of getting worse).

California has very difficult choice. Our economy sucks. Were losing jobs. We have a lot of projects that need to be done. Jerry Brown offers experience. Meg Whitman offers an outsiders perspective. Both of these have their advantages and disadvantages.

Some argue, that electing Whitman would merely be a continuation of Schwarzenegger's policies towards California. While some of what Gov. Schwarzenegger has done has not worked out, and his many campaign promises that were unfulfilled, this might not be a bad thing. The problem we have right now in the state is that we have been unable because of our unwillingness to effect change tour budget in the way that we do things. When I look at Jerry Brown, when I listen to what he says, I see a man who wants to to continue along the same path he is gone before. I respect Mr. Brown but I think given the results of his tenure in Oakland that his solutions are not necessarily the ones that we need nor can we afford at this time.

On the flip side, when I look at Meg Whitman, I see a business woman who has engaged in sharp practices as shown a willingness to initiate attacks on her opposition. While this sounds bad, I'm not necessarily sure that it is.while there are some questions as to whether or not she would have an actual conflict of interest with Wall Street, in particular Goldman Sachs, this is not the same as the type of baggage that Mr. Brown carries with him marked with tags from the SEIU.

If I could, I would send these two choices back and tell the respective parties to put up serious candidates. To me a serious candidate would be someone who has both ideals and is willing to lay out the plan what he wants to do going forward. Both Ms. Whitman and Mr. Brown only to fill half of my requirements as a voter. Because Mr. Brown is so dependent in what he does tell me he wants to do on things, such as green jobs, which studies have shown have the opposite effect of the helping create jobs, but I have to say that we should give Meg Whitman the vote.

You have no idea how much it hurts me to say vote for a Republican here.

Elections Matter - State Attorney General Race

Isn't it nice when we have a choice like this? Both of the major candidates for California's Attorney General position can't seem to get past their own greed or dreams of glory to take the time to figure out who is giving them money.

And after all, isn't that what the Attorney General is supposed to do? I mean, gosh golly darn, it's not a problem that neither candidate has any money accepting a bribe, er I mean a campaign contribution from felons? Its not like neither Kamala Harris nor Steve Cooley don't have access to well funded staffs, or volunteers, who could check out where the checks are coming from.

In Steve Cooley's case (and only because his blew up first does he go first), he took money from someone who has been convicted in the past for violating campaign finance laws. That's right, records show that the Cooley campaign accepted money from Gladwin Gill. Who is Gladwin Gill, you ask? He's a wealthy guy who likes to see his people win office. Presumably because it will give him something down the line (either in the form of policies he supports or perhaps something more sinister, it really does not matter). However, he did this by violating campaign finance laws. He was caught. He was prosecuted. He was sentenced to a year in prison for violating the law in four separate campaigns.

Now why is this so bad? It must happen all the time, right? Well, as the District Attorney for Los Angeles, Mr. Cooley has a unit that works under him called the Public Integrity Unit. While Mr. Cooley was the District Attorney for Los Angeles, this unit prosecuted a number of people, including Pierce O'Donnell and John Archibald.

Slipshod campaign work? Or just turning the blind eye when money is concerned? Either way, this does not speak volumes of Mr. Cooley.

Then there is San Francisco's own contribution to the Attorney General race: Kamala Harris. It was revealed this week that Ms. Harris' campaign accepted funds from Norman Hsu. This after going after Mr. Cooley over the Gill contributions.

Does Ms. Harris know about that whole glass house thing?

So what did Mr. Hsu do to earn the scorn of the media and become ammunition for Mr. Cooley to sling back at Ms. Harris? Mr. Hsu contributed to the campaigns of Ms. Harris when she ran successfully to be re-elected as San Francisco District Attorney in 2006. Mr. Hsu, at the time, was at the time, a fugitive from the law. Isn't that nice, fugitives supporting a District Attorney's campaign. It seems almost... corrupt. But I should not use that word should I? I guess I just have to say its politics as usual.

Anyways, in case you were curious, Mr. Hsu ended up being sentenced to 24 years in jail for charges which included fraud (the original conviction for which he "forgot" to show up for sentencing on back in 1992), Ponzi schmes (well... that is to say more fraud), and violations of campaign finance laws.

About the only thing that commends Ms. Harris in this situation is that Mr. Hsu had not already been indicted on the campaign finance law.

By the way, in case you care, Mr. Cooley is the Republican nominee and Ms. Harris the Democratic nominee.

Also, in case you care about either of their policies, they don't actually seem that far apart. From my perspective, I scratch my head when I wonder why either of them actually are District Attorneys. One of them is adamantly opposed to the death penalty, so much so that there has not been a prosecution in the district where the death penalty has been requested without significant demand for it by everyone else. The other is against Three Strikes Laws. In fact, that candidate is so against it, they have tried to reform the Three Strikes Law here in California to curtail its usage and application.

One oversees an office which loses high profile cases. The other has an office which seems to have a conviction rate lower than any other major city in California.

(I'd say it was a problem that one of them was opposed to Jessica's Law, but I have some problems with that piece of legislation as well. Let's not talk about that right now, ok? Fine, basically I think it gets into an 8th Amendment violation. )

So that's what we have to choose from. Ain't it great to be a Californian with choices like these? My suggestion, hold your nose and make your pick. Either one is tainted. Both are, in my opinion, lackluster as far as real credentials go when it comes to someone who is the State's chief lawyer and enforcer of laws.

But coming on the heels of Jerry Brown's tenure, maybe it can only go up? Right? Or did I just say something akin to "It couldn't possibly get any worse?"

Damn.

An interesting thing in the polls

Since poling seems to drive our every decision in politics, I was taking a look at one of the daily tracking polls. Over at Investor's Business Daily, they have a break down of their latest poll which shows the election as being pretty close if it happened today: Barak Obama with 47% and John McCain with 44.2%. The margin of error was listed at +/-3.5%. Statistically, the race is a dead heat.

What I found interesting in the poll was that the more education a person, the closer the numbers got. The largest gap was 51% for Senator Obama against the 40% for Senator McCain. However, for those with college degrees or better, the two candidates split the vote evenly with each having the allegiance of 47%.

Of course, this does not mean that much, since it would appear that the latest polls, when translated to how this would break down for the electoral college. According to Rasmussen, there polling indicates that the if the election were held today, Senator Obama would win with 286 electoral votes to 174 for Senator McCain.

If True About Obama... This Would Be Troubling

Seriously,... can someone tell me what he has accomplished as a senator?

Thank You For Voting... Now Will Someone In Sacramento Do Their Job?

Thanks to all the Californians who did their civic duty yesterday. Among the decisions made, Prop 98 lost, which if you have been reading my blog you will know fills me with a huge sense of relief.

Now, if the people we elected to serve as our legislators in Sacramento will get off of their collective bums and start working on actually dealing with issues affecting Californians, they may start earning their pay check. The issues in Props 98 and 99 are not new. Its not like it is a great secret what the majority of Californians want done about eminent domain laws in the state. However, we allow our legislators to take the easy way out, over and over again, by allowing re-electing them when they are not passing laws which the people of this state want passed.

A short list of those would be:
- Actual eminent domain reform (even I agree that Prop 99 is not a full solution)
- Same Sex Marriage (you can only hide behind the California Supreme Court so many times)
- Reforming the Worker's Compensation (which was ruined by the hype and misinformation which convinced Californians to gut worker's compensation rules in California)

Once again, thanks for voting. Now if only our elected officials would do the same in Sacramento.

Tomorrow, if nothing else, VOTE NO ON 98

Prop 98 is not the solution to the problem of eminent domain use in California. The proposition, as drafted, is just too broad. It denies the government, both local and state, the ability to regulate things including, possibly zoning, environmental regulations, and rentals. Without the ability to pass regulations as to private property, in a manner rationally related to the public good, then we are left with appealing to property owner's better natures to do the right thing in a variety of arenas including zoning and the enviroment.

A few people have left the comment to my previous postings urging the defeat of Prop 98. Some have suggested that Prop 98 will not affect rent control. Others have asked whether rent control will actually be affected by Prop 98 since there is the provision as to the effective date.

First, let's be clear: Prop 98 will end rent control. People who are in rent controlled units will not lose their rent control right away. Rather, as soon as they move, the units that they move into will not be rent-controlled and the units which they have left will also not be rent-controlled. For example, if Prop 98 were to pass on June 3, and Person A was to move in to a new apartment in San Francisco (where rent-control laws exist) on June 5, then Person A's lease would not be protected by rent control.

Now something that has bothered me about Prop 98 about the language used in the definitions. Although the people at the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association say that "Our initiative has nothing to do with regulatory takings[.]" However, according to a Daily Journal (subscription required) report published earlier today, "'a fair reading of the measure would allow a property owner to sue based on any regulation of the use of property no matter how insignificant,' said John Echeverria, executive director of Georgetown University's Environmental Law & Policy Institute and author of a recent report on the regulatory takings reforms. "

I'm undecided on Prop 99. To my mind, it does not go nearly far enough to bring the use of eminent domain powers in line with what they have traditionally been meant to be used for. On the other hand, it can be viewed as a first step. A step that if our legislators did the work to earn their salaries could finish in the next session in Sacramento. And if it passes by one more than Prop 98, then it eliminates Prop 98.

It's not just about rent control. It's not just about the environment. Its not just about the ability to set up zoning regulations that make sense. And its not just about eminent domain. Its about all of it.

What California needs is eminent domain reform. What it does not need is a constitutional amendment which will harm the enviroment, cause endless litigation over virtually any law which regulates privately owned property, and eliminate municipalities' ability to police their housing markets.

Vote No on 98.

If This Ad Is Accurate..

Then I cannot in good conscience vote for this man.

This man wants to run the most powerful nation on the planet. And he wants to do it by gutting defense, placing idealism over practicality and morality, and ignoring the state of the world.

Do I want a better president in office than the one I have right now? Of course I do. But do I want one who will gut our ability to directly influence hostile situations around the world and at home? Do I want one who has decided that the U.S.'s best interest is to cut and run from a war? Do I want one, who the more I listen to his foreign policy talks, sounds more and more like Jimmy Carter?

I have theory about peacemakers. Peacemakers can only make a "good peace" because they have the credibility to make the peace. That credibility does not come from simply opposing the horrors of war, the military industrial complex, and the Republican Party. Who fashioned the peace? Wilson or FDR? Begin or Peres?

How successful was this tact for Carter during the period of 1976 to 1980. Yes he cancelled a slew of programs. He failed to do what was necessary to rebuild the post-Vietnam U.S. military, leaving it incapable exerting power effectively when we needed it.

Grrrrr. What is it with the Democratic party? Are they trying to force me to vote for a Republican? They figured that Kerry was not wishwashy enough on the war so they decided to throw up Surrender-crat?

Apparently, these are how my views line up with the candidates

85% Bill Richardson
84% Chris Dodd
83% Barack Obama
82% Hillary Clinton
80% John Edwards
76% Joe Biden
61% Rudy Giuliani
61% John McCain
57% Dennis Kucinich
56% Mike Gravel
47% Mitt Romney
44% Mike Huckabee
32% Fred Thompson
26% Tom Tancredo
13% Ron Paul

2008 Presidential Candidate Matching Quiz

Little bit more on the whole Reilly v. Ma (or is it Ma v. Reilly) thing

According to the Chronicle's Matier and Ross today, this 12th District, which I apparently live in (or at least live close enough that I get the mailers and have to be subjected to the tv ads) is a pretty big fight. In one corner you have the entrenched Sacramento group, whose outgoing standard bearer wants Ma to take over. In the other corner you have the wife of the man who was the standard bearer's political foe.

What does this mean? Upwards of 2 million dollars has been spent on a sleepy district that includes a large number of dead people (the 12th includes Colma, where the cemetaries are). And this has been a nasty fight. Its included charges that one of the candidates worked for an anti-abortion govenor in South Dakota (one hell of an IRS goof). Then there has been the counter-attack which has included that, horror of horrors, one candidate dared to send her children to a catholic school!

The Chronicle just came out for Ma. However, in reading it, I almost think that they are using the Brian Sabean approach to free agents (i.e. if the player's an older veteran he must be good. And Mr. Sabean if you do read this, don't hold this against me when I put in for season tickets!).

Of course, it would have been nice to hear that candidates debate the issues instead of their choice of schools for their childern. However, one candidate seemed less than eager to do so. So that leads me to wonder why?

As I said before, I endorse neither of these people. I just find the whole thing amusing in a "will you stop putting on these awful commercials the take me out of my Doctor Who/Battlestar Galactica/Veronica Mars groove".

Chevron backing down?

In an earlier posting, I talked (ok, maybe I ranted, I've been doing that a little lately) about a proposed ballot initiative that was being backed by a number of large corporations, including Chevron.

Thanks to a post by Professor Childs, it appears that this ballot measure has been withdrawn and will not be submitted for the ballot here in California. According to the gentlemen at Products Liability Prof Blog, this is not the first time during this initiative cycle that "tort reformers" have been forced to pull an unpopular measure.

The law.com story about this ballot measure states that the backers of the proposed initiative pulled back because of assurances by the California legislature that they would work on this issue. Apparently there is hope by some in the legislature that a reasonable solution to this will be achieved.

On the other hand, perhaps backers of the initiative are hoping that this November, Californians will elect legislators who are more inclined to vote for so-called "tort reform".