Propositions part three
Ok, these will go mostly in order from now on.
Proposition 1A is the one for a high speed train. Wow, finally. One I'm actually voting yes on. After reading the text of this prop, and the arguments for and against, I really can't see a reason not to vote yes. If this works the way it says it's going to it would have a great many benefits. Let's see...
We'd get a faster commute between major points such as the Bay Area and Sac or L.A. This would cut down on cars on the road, and planes in the air. These high-speed trains would run on electricity instead of some non-renewable fuel such as gas. The project of building the system would create thousands of jobs. Maintenance and operations costs will be paid for mostly, if not completely, with the fares paid by passengers. Initial funds not used in the building of the system will go towards improving existing rail services.
The people arguing against this are doing so by pointing out how much it's going to cost. They're calling it a "Boondoggle". They're saying that instead of working on the high speed rail system we should be concentrating on fixing local transportation issues and that this won't help at all. Fine, come up with a proposition for that and I'll vote on that as well. I've ridden trains from the Bay Area to Los Angeles. I've talked to people on them who would commute one way or the other at the beginning of the week and then commute back at the end. So yes, it will help with commutes, just not the local ones.
Proposition 3 is the Children's Hospital bond. Before I get flamed for my opinion let me clarify one thing. My cousin is a current and continuing patient at Children's Hospital of Central California. That hospital is one of the ones that is on the list for this. If it was not for that hospital Joey would have died on several occasions because of a heart condition. Joey isn't even 3 yet and will need care for several more years. And I'm still voting no.
All of the arguments in favor are screaming "Think of the children". All of the arguments in favor are from "parent"s. The same three women posted both the argument in favor and the rebuttal to the argument against. There is nothing saying these women are qualified or have completely looked into the matter.
On the other hand, the argument against is valid. One of the major arguments against this proposition is that it is a carbon copy of one that was passed in 2004. There are still, acording to the argument against, hundreds of millions of funds available from that one, why do we need another 980 MILLION? These funds would go towards hospitals that are part of the University of California system, a system which has it's own funding. The other hospitals on the list are only "likely to meet eligibility".
I know that 107.7 The Bone does a fundraiser for Children's Hospital of Oakland every year. If one hospital practices such, surely all the rest do as well. I agree that the money is going towards equipment and such, however they need to use what is already available instead of dipping into our already tight pockets. I realize that this may sound slightly absurd considering I'm supporting the above proposition and it also requires money from us, but I think in the long run that one will do more positive than this one will.
Again, feel free to discuss.
Proposition 1A is the one for a high speed train. Wow, finally. One I'm actually voting yes on. After reading the text of this prop, and the arguments for and against, I really can't see a reason not to vote yes. If this works the way it says it's going to it would have a great many benefits. Let's see...
We'd get a faster commute between major points such as the Bay Area and Sac or L.A. This would cut down on cars on the road, and planes in the air. These high-speed trains would run on electricity instead of some non-renewable fuel such as gas. The project of building the system would create thousands of jobs. Maintenance and operations costs will be paid for mostly, if not completely, with the fares paid by passengers. Initial funds not used in the building of the system will go towards improving existing rail services.
The people arguing against this are doing so by pointing out how much it's going to cost. They're calling it a "Boondoggle". They're saying that instead of working on the high speed rail system we should be concentrating on fixing local transportation issues and that this won't help at all. Fine, come up with a proposition for that and I'll vote on that as well. I've ridden trains from the Bay Area to Los Angeles. I've talked to people on them who would commute one way or the other at the beginning of the week and then commute back at the end. So yes, it will help with commutes, just not the local ones.
Proposition 3 is the Children's Hospital bond. Before I get flamed for my opinion let me clarify one thing. My cousin is a current and continuing patient at Children's Hospital of Central California. That hospital is one of the ones that is on the list for this. If it was not for that hospital Joey would have died on several occasions because of a heart condition. Joey isn't even 3 yet and will need care for several more years. And I'm still voting no.
All of the arguments in favor are screaming "Think of the children". All of the arguments in favor are from "parent"s. The same three women posted both the argument in favor and the rebuttal to the argument against. There is nothing saying these women are qualified or have completely looked into the matter.
On the other hand, the argument against is valid. One of the major arguments against this proposition is that it is a carbon copy of one that was passed in 2004. There are still, acording to the argument against, hundreds of millions of funds available from that one, why do we need another 980 MILLION? These funds would go towards hospitals that are part of the University of California system, a system which has it's own funding. The other hospitals on the list are only "likely to meet eligibility".
I know that 107.7 The Bone does a fundraiser for Children's Hospital of Oakland every year. If one hospital practices such, surely all the rest do as well. I agree that the money is going towards equipment and such, however they need to use what is already available instead of dipping into our already tight pockets. I realize that this may sound slightly absurd considering I'm supporting the above proposition and it also requires money from us, but I think in the long run that one will do more positive than this one will.
Again, feel free to discuss.