Proposition 83: Vote No
WeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve got some pretty stiff sex-offender laws in CaliforniaÃ¢â‚¬â€many of which were signed by Governor Schwarzenegger very recently.
The new state laws strengthen all sentences for child rape to 25-years-to-life, elevate possession of child pornography from a misdemeanor to a felony and extend parole for violent sex felons to 10 years. Proposition 83 contains many of these same provisions.
83 would require sexual predators to live outside of a 2,000 feet radius of schools or parks. Not a bad ideaÃ¢â‚¬â€but a vague one. Who would this apply to? The newly convicted? Is it retroactive? Backers of the proposition claim that legislation can easily be added to clarify the law with a two-thirds vote. ShouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t we get it right the first time?[Vote NO on 83 Editorial in The Sacramento Bee] [Yes on 83 Homepage]
Proposition 84: Vote Yes
Current funding for natural resources and environmental protection programs is low. In fact, funding for resources makes up less than 1% of the overall state budget. This measure will make sure Californians have access to safe drinking water, better protection from floods and opportunities to enjoy parks, natural landscapes and our rivers, beaches, bays, and coastline.[Yes On 84] [Sacramento Bee Says: Ã¢â‚¬Å“Vote No on 84Ã¢â‚¬Â]
Proposition 85: Vote No
ThereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a hidden agenda here. Backers of proposition 85 are the same people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade. This is part of a strategy to eventually outlaw all abortions.
Should the decision to terminate a pregnancy be made by us at the ballot box, by an overworked judge in our juvenile court system, or by a trained medical doctor and the patient?[No on 85] [Yes on 85]
Proposition 86: Vote No
Taxing unpopular groups that lack political clout is not fair. Proposition 86 would raise the average cost of a pack of cigarettes from $4 to $6. And this extra tax falls disproportionately on CaliforniaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s poor and ethnic minorities.
I like the argument that higher cigarette prices would dissuade Californians from ever starting the dirty habit, but 86 is about using the initiative process to take money from 15% of the Californians and giving it to special interests.
And canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t I buy cigarettes on the internet if I wanted to??[No on 86] [Yes on Prop 86]
Proposition 87: Vote Yes
California has the nationÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s worst air quality, the nationÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s highest gas prices, and we are dependent on oil that is imported from unstable nations. Voting YES on 87 will help to free us from the foreign oil, and will help transition California into using more domestic energy sources like biofuels, wind, and solar.
(Oil Companies are spending $50 million to kill this proposition because it includes a tax on their profits)[Yes on 87] [NoOilTax.com]
Proposition 88: Vote No
More funding for education? Hell yeah IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll vote for that!
But this proposition has some flaws that make it unacceptable. First off, the money comes from a property tax, which is a regressive tax; everyone pays the same amount regardless of income or wealth.
Second, thereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s no guarantee that the money raised in Orange County will come back to Orange County. The money goes to the legislature, and thereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s very little chance that the money raised will be enough to do any of the good things supporters promise.[No On Prop 88] [Vote For 88]
Proposition 89: Vote Yes
Together we can stop political corruption. The passage of 89 would start to restore the sanity in political spending. It will ban contributions to candidates by lobbyists and contractors, restrict contributions by corporations, unions, and individuals to candidates and to outside groups running negative ads, and allow candidates that reject contributions from big money donors to use public grants.[Clean Money Elections] [No on 89]
Proposition 90: Vote No
This proposition makes it so eminent domain cannot be used unless the property is owned and occupied by the government. Sounds good to me.
But theyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve included a couple of provisions that require taxpayer payments whenever government takes action that a property owner claims devalues their property.
For example, if the local government changes zoning in a surrounding neighborhood that opens the door to new apartment buildings, and thus lowers your property value, you can sue the local government.
Should Proposition 90 pass, it will block infrastructure projects, paralyze land-use decisions, and clog courtrooms with costly lawsuits costing billions in taxpayer dollars.[No on 90] [Yes on 90]