Quickie california post for June 3rd
I just thought I'd throw this out there before the election that everyone forgot about. On the June 3rd election there are only two statewide propositions, and they are both on eminent domain. The summaries on the ballot are generally not enough to judge what they are about.
Before I start anything, I want to point out that Prop 98 phases out rent control. That is a bad thing. It is really expensive to live in some California cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles without anything like rent control.
I know you're probably saying that if someone moves out, rent control is phased out anyway...but what happens is that if someone moves out, management can re-rent the space at the market value, but the rate at which they can raise the rent is controlled. If Prop 98 passes, there will be no such thing anymore and lots of people are going to be stuck where they are now, or forced to pay sometimes extortionate rents at the whim of management. This is only and ultimately best for the property owner. Why this is bundled into Prop 98..which is predominantly about eminent domain..is beyond me.
Prop 99 is a bit more complicated. Basically to my tiny little brain, it doesn't really..seem to change much. The big points are that 1. the government can't transfer the property to a private entity, 2. none of it including #1 matters if it has to do with public health/safety..etc. So um, again, what is this supposed to do again? ;) Every single case I have seen of eminent domain involved some exception outlined in Prop 99, which only leads me to think that it's really not an improvement either way. The analysis says exactly the same thing. If there is any other reason to possibly vote yes on this (if you're like me and you're in the "why bother" school of thought), you might be interested to know that if Prop 99 gets more yes votes than 98, none of 98 takes effect.
Okay, so I don't have anything else to say about Prop 98. To be honest, I didn't even give a shit about what it had to say on eminent domain. On the basis of rent control alone I believe it is harmful.
So I reallllllly hope that the californians reading this post actually educate themselves and read things like the guide you should have gotten in the mail (alternatively available at http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/) before voting on these two propositions. And if you're truly undecided, check out who's donated to what proposition on http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Measures/.
Full disclosure? I voted no on both. I'm not happy with either one of them. Hopefully people who don't look into what they're voting on will vote no on 98 for the rent control thing.
And just before I forget, there's a ton of judges on the ballot as well. I originally thought it was going to be a total bore voting on those, but there are some interesting things about some of the races...like:
Before I start anything, I want to point out that Prop 98 phases out rent control. That is a bad thing. It is really expensive to live in some California cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles without anything like rent control.
I know you're probably saying that if someone moves out, rent control is phased out anyway...but what happens is that if someone moves out, management can re-rent the space at the market value, but the rate at which they can raise the rent is controlled. If Prop 98 passes, there will be no such thing anymore and lots of people are going to be stuck where they are now, or forced to pay sometimes extortionate rents at the whim of management. This is only and ultimately best for the property owner. Why this is bundled into Prop 98..which is predominantly about eminent domain..is beyond me.
Prop 99 is a bit more complicated. Basically to my tiny little brain, it doesn't really..seem to change much. The big points are that 1. the government can't transfer the property to a private entity, 2. none of it including #1 matters if it has to do with public health/safety..etc. So um, again, what is this supposed to do again? ;) Every single case I have seen of eminent domain involved some exception outlined in Prop 99, which only leads me to think that it's really not an improvement either way. The analysis says exactly the same thing. If there is any other reason to possibly vote yes on this (if you're like me and you're in the "why bother" school of thought), you might be interested to know that if Prop 99 gets more yes votes than 98, none of 98 takes effect.
Okay, so I don't have anything else to say about Prop 98. To be honest, I didn't even give a shit about what it had to say on eminent domain. On the basis of rent control alone I believe it is harmful.
So I reallllllly hope that the californians reading this post actually educate themselves and read things like the guide you should have gotten in the mail (alternatively available at http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/) before voting on these two propositions. And if you're truly undecided, check out who's donated to what proposition on http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Measures/.
Full disclosure? I voted no on both. I'm not happy with either one of them. Hopefully people who don't look into what they're voting on will vote no on 98 for the rent control thing.
And just before I forget, there's a ton of judges on the ballot as well. I originally thought it was going to be a total bore voting on those, but there are some interesting things about some of the races...like:
- The LA Times claims on their judicial endorsement page that the six judges alone on the ballot are because of:
Ronald C. Tan, a Carson minister, is trying to recruit lawyers to unseat these judges. Tan alleges that he is concerned about appellate rulings in religious-rights cases on subjects such as abortion, same-sex marriage and evolution, but he produces no evidence that these judges are part of that concern. Instead, he has targeted six jurists, all of them Latino men.
Yeah, well. More than one newspaper (just google, dammit) has mentioned that Tan, together with another judicial candidate named Bill Johnson, are doing this precisely because the judges are Latino (what a racist prick?). Well, good luck with this write-in campaign I can't even find much publicity about? Also, the dude must be steaming about the California Supreme Court's decision on same-sex marriages (and sexual orientation-based discrimination!) the other day (awesome news, by the way). - Bill Johnson, mentioned above, is mentioned a few times around the blogosphere and in some papers as being..well..a white supremacist. Since I already voted (for Bianco), I didn't look into it too much, but that is quite the interesting thing to say about someone.