what i voted for and briefly why
I voted all Democratic on the A ballot.
i considered voting Green for the House of Reps, because Eshoo (D) is heavily favored. but then i did some research on Brouillet (G) and she is a 9-11 conspiracy theorist. and though i support some of her other ideas, i simply cannot vote for that.
for the superior court, i voted for liroff, the current deputy district attorney. he is vastly more experienced than ritchie. a little harsh on violent offenders, but also into rehab for drug-related criminals.
for county board of supervisors, i voted for ellen santiago. she is not very experienced, but grace mah has a bad reputation. she forced the PAUSD to have a mandarin immersion program. while i'm all for language immersion, it seems best to let each district decide what language the immersion should be in. my father described her as a 'bomb-throwing' member and not very contructive.
yes on 1a; though the project may not come through, it could really help. the sf-la air corridor is, apparently, the most traveled in the world. the NRDC and Sierra Club both support this project. down with I-5.
Yes on 2. I don't like to regulate too much, but California is home to some of the worst treatment of animals. I would prefer people not buy this sort of meat, but i also think it's fair to say most people don't even know the conditions. i also look at this as an increase on the price of meat, which i think is okay.
no on 3. this seems good, to support sick children, but most of the money may go towards private hospitals captial improvments and not directly into patient care. it's also expensive (almost 1 trillion over 30 years) and doesn't directly address the issues that could reduce the need for expansion: population reduction, prevantative care, and public education.
no on prop 4. i don't need to explain this.
yes on 5. too much money in prisons (thanks to very strong guards' union), not enough in rehab. it also, i believe, makes possesion of less than an ounce of marijuana an infraction, not a misdemeanor.
no on 6. this seems like a typical police-state initiative. and more importantly, the somewhat random 'minimum' of state funding doesn't make sense. i'll let the legislature figure out how much money these programs need.
no on 7. the opposition endorsments are staggering. the NRDC, sierra club, and most of the utilities. when you get that alliance, you know something's wrong.
no on 8/biggotry.
no on 9. it seems good, but it overlaps heavily with existing law. there is a negative cost for an excess of parole hearings, but i'm not sure this is the way to correct that. and i'd rather have too many parole hearings than too few.
no on 10. seems good, but it's really the t. boone pickens gets lots of money measure. similar to 7 in that it appeals to environmental sensitivity, but not to environmental sensibility.
yes on 11. i was reluctant to vote yes on this, as most democrats oppose it. but if read up on the process, it seems quite fair. i could be susceptible to the same negative influences as traditional gerrymandering, but it seems a little more robust and transparent. minority groups seem to favor this prop, though some are against it.
yes on 12. this is basically a gov'mint deal to help veterans get housing and little or no cost to taxpayers. it continues funding for an existing program. i also don't buy into the argument that this would in any way sweeten the deal to become a soldier.
yes on measure A. this one is similar to 3 in some ways, but this is much more clear about what it will do; keep hospital beds open in santa clara county. it has some aspects that i don't like, but meh.
no on measure B. this one was also very tough to decide on. i approve of more money for public transit, but i agree with the sierra club that the VTA is focused on the wrong thing. i wish there was an alternative to B, but there isn't. i would like a BART hookup from San Jose to Oakland, but this funding will probably not create that. The project is conditional on the tax generating enough revenue, which is subject to general economic fluctuations, and securing a matching federal grant. i think the VTA should have other priorities. better bus schedules routes, more light-rail, and electrifying the caltrain. i'm also not convinced the BART line is pressing, whereas the Caltrain not being pollutant and infrequent is pressing.
no on measure C. this would give the VTA approval for a partially complete plan, most of which i disagree with. no on approval until they finish the plan.
no on measure D. this seems to reduce the 6-year citizen oversight to 'review and comment' rather than 'vote'. i think more review and citizen regulation makes sense for the VTA.
yes on N. i think public space is really important to people on the periphery of our society and culture. i wouldn't say this measure addresses that exactly, but i think it's in the right direction.
--the Bearded Citizen
i considered voting Green for the House of Reps, because Eshoo (D) is heavily favored. but then i did some research on Brouillet (G) and she is a 9-11 conspiracy theorist. and though i support some of her other ideas, i simply cannot vote for that.
for the superior court, i voted for liroff, the current deputy district attorney. he is vastly more experienced than ritchie. a little harsh on violent offenders, but also into rehab for drug-related criminals.
for county board of supervisors, i voted for ellen santiago. she is not very experienced, but grace mah has a bad reputation. she forced the PAUSD to have a mandarin immersion program. while i'm all for language immersion, it seems best to let each district decide what language the immersion should be in. my father described her as a 'bomb-throwing' member and not very contructive.
yes on 1a; though the project may not come through, it could really help. the sf-la air corridor is, apparently, the most traveled in the world. the NRDC and Sierra Club both support this project. down with I-5.
Yes on 2. I don't like to regulate too much, but California is home to some of the worst treatment of animals. I would prefer people not buy this sort of meat, but i also think it's fair to say most people don't even know the conditions. i also look at this as an increase on the price of meat, which i think is okay.
no on 3. this seems good, to support sick children, but most of the money may go towards private hospitals captial improvments and not directly into patient care. it's also expensive (almost 1 trillion over 30 years) and doesn't directly address the issues that could reduce the need for expansion: population reduction, prevantative care, and public education.
no on prop 4. i don't need to explain this.
yes on 5. too much money in prisons (thanks to very strong guards' union), not enough in rehab. it also, i believe, makes possesion of less than an ounce of marijuana an infraction, not a misdemeanor.
no on 6. this seems like a typical police-state initiative. and more importantly, the somewhat random 'minimum' of state funding doesn't make sense. i'll let the legislature figure out how much money these programs need.
no on 7. the opposition endorsments are staggering. the NRDC, sierra club, and most of the utilities. when you get that alliance, you know something's wrong.
no on 8/biggotry.
no on 9. it seems good, but it overlaps heavily with existing law. there is a negative cost for an excess of parole hearings, but i'm not sure this is the way to correct that. and i'd rather have too many parole hearings than too few.
no on 10. seems good, but it's really the t. boone pickens gets lots of money measure. similar to 7 in that it appeals to environmental sensitivity, but not to environmental sensibility.
yes on 11. i was reluctant to vote yes on this, as most democrats oppose it. but if read up on the process, it seems quite fair. i could be susceptible to the same negative influences as traditional gerrymandering, but it seems a little more robust and transparent. minority groups seem to favor this prop, though some are against it.
yes on 12. this is basically a gov'mint deal to help veterans get housing and little or no cost to taxpayers. it continues funding for an existing program. i also don't buy into the argument that this would in any way sweeten the deal to become a soldier.
yes on measure A. this one is similar to 3 in some ways, but this is much more clear about what it will do; keep hospital beds open in santa clara county. it has some aspects that i don't like, but meh.
no on measure B. this one was also very tough to decide on. i approve of more money for public transit, but i agree with the sierra club that the VTA is focused on the wrong thing. i wish there was an alternative to B, but there isn't. i would like a BART hookup from San Jose to Oakland, but this funding will probably not create that. The project is conditional on the tax generating enough revenue, which is subject to general economic fluctuations, and securing a matching federal grant. i think the VTA should have other priorities. better bus schedules routes, more light-rail, and electrifying the caltrain. i'm also not convinced the BART line is pressing, whereas the Caltrain not being pollutant and infrequent is pressing.
no on measure C. this would give the VTA approval for a partially complete plan, most of which i disagree with. no on approval until they finish the plan.
no on measure D. this seems to reduce the 6-year citizen oversight to 'review and comment' rather than 'vote'. i think more review and citizen regulation makes sense for the VTA.
yes on N. i think public space is really important to people on the periphery of our society and culture. i wouldn't say this measure addresses that exactly, but i think it's in the right direction.
--the Bearded Citizen