Prop 90 seeks to limit the state government’s ability to exert “eminent domain” on private property to benefit other private concerns.

Continue reading →

Proposition 89 seeks to clean up politics in California by providing public funds to people seeking office in the state government. Will 2006 be the year we finally figure out how to nip corruption in the bud?

Continue reading →

Proposition 88 Is pretty straightforward: a $50.00 parcel tax that goes towards schools.

(+) The children. They’re our future, you know.

(+) It’s $50.00. That’s literally less than a dollar per week per parcel of land. That’s not a very big burden to put on the backs of Californians.

(-) Again, we’re looking at a tax shackled to a spending formula. This tax does nothing for the general fund. Every dollar committed by law to special programs like this gives our legislators more excuse to not do their jobs properly.

(+) Unlike Prop 1D, which is effectively paying $20,300,000,000.00 to get $10,416,000,000.00 today, Prop 88 is pay-as-you-go. Everybody can tell what the tax is going to cost, now, as opposed to wondering what we’re going to have to do tomorrow to balance our budgets.

(+) It gets around Prop 13. This means that people that have had their property taxes more-or-less locked in since the early 1980’s have to pay the same amount as people that bought their houses more recently. Like me.

(-) This is the first time California would have a state-wide property tax like this. Local districts have introduced parcel taxes for years. I should know, I pay enough of them. Actually, that’s exactly the point: I’m already paying several parcel taxes for schools.

Of the state-wide propositions on the ballot next week, this is the one I’m most inclined to give a “yes” to. As a self-interested taxpayer, I’m generally in favor of voting down new taxes, but as a parent and a pragmatist, I recognize that good schools are an excellent investment in the future prosperity of the state. I’d be more comfortable with this if there were some assurance that the state would knuckle-down on some of the rules that force schools to spend money inefficiently (especially in regards to where they can buy books), but I guess that’s too much to ask for.

Propositions 86 and 87 are two birds of a feather. The premise is simple: identify an unpopular segment of the population and tax their behavior to fund other, tangentially-related programs.
Continue reading →

On the ballot November 7th is Proposition 85, which would require that no minor in the state of California could obtain an abortion until waiting at least 48 hours after her parents or legal guardians are notified. Similar measures have been adopted in other states, pushed forward largely by people that would much rather outlaw the practice entirely, but are willing to settle for any speed bumps they can throw in the path of some body seeking to terminate her pregnancy.

(+) For the purposes of seeking serious medical treatment, our society generally requires parental consent except in emergencies. A child cannot get a tonsillectomy or root canal without the explicit approval of a parent. Abortions certainly fall under this category. The underlying reason for this is a general desire for parents to take responsibility for the children under their care, and to give parents the authority to make decisions regarding the well-being of the child.

(-) There is some serious concern that some minors have cause to fear retribution from their parents upon notification. Such minors would be able, under Prop 85, to petition the juvenile court system for a waiver. This basically means that the minor can still get the abortion without telling her parents, but only after jumping through some hoops.

This proposition strikes me as blatant pandering to a certain segment of highly-motivated voters, and a wedge that local politicians can use in an attempt to differentiate themselves from their opponents, not as any serious attempt to assert parental rights or to protect young girls and unborn children. A quick look at the arguments for and against in the voter guide shows the shrill unthinking tone of the debate around this issue. Note how many phrases uses are either in all-caps, italicized, or both. If either side on this issue had a reasonable case to appeal to their opponents’ better judgment, that wouldn’t be necessary. This Proposition is bullshit, pure and simple, and reflects a disdain for the general public. Its proponents aren’t trying to save unborn children or protect parents, they just want to be seen as seeking to.

Disinclined to encourage such political tactics, Proposition 85 will be getting an easy “no” vote from me; it helps nobody, hurts a few high-risk youths, and places yet another potential burden on our juvenile court system.

Proposition 83 is an interesting expression of how public sentiment and hundreds of years of legal principles can butt heads. The rule of law generally holds that if you were to behave in a manner that is explicitly outlawed, you are subject to the punishments proscribed at the time of that behavior. If you violate the speed limit, you are subject to fines as described in the various traffic laws. If you steal somebody’s television, you are subject to certain maximum or minimum jail sentences as proscribed in the criminal statutes. Proposition 83 seeks to retroactively lay a series of punishments onto a subspecies of criminal: sex offenders.
Continue reading →