The June elections overwhelmed me. It was my first attempt to really conscienciously vote for the environment. But beyond the huge long ballot to wade through, I got a lil upset thinking I shoulda gotten on top of this earlier. If I had, I coulda actually done some work to spread the work ’bout the important people and issues up for vote.
So — I’m starting earlier for the November elections. Which is a doubly good thing, cuz we’ve got a lot to vote for — just look at the list of propositions below. I’ll update each with a link to my analysis and voting decision in the next couple weeks :)
State Propositions
Proposition 1A Restrictions on gas tax revenue use. NO
Proposition 1B Transportation money, mostly for freeways. NO
Proposition 1C Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act. YES
Proposition 1D Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities. YES
Proposition 1E Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention. YES
Proposition 83 Not really preventing sex offenses. NO
Proposition 84 Clean Water, Parks and Coastal Protection Act. YES
Proposition 85 Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy. NO
Proposition 86 Tax on Cigarettes to fund children’s health. Yes
Proposition 87 Alternative Energy. Research, Production, Incentives. Tax on California Oil Producers. YES
Proposition 88 Inadequate education funding. NO
Proposition 89 Public financing of campaigns. YES
Proposition 90 Anti-environment “eminent domain” measure. NO
September 22nd, 2006 at 11:06 am
Here are my unsolicited environmental voting suggestions:
Prop 84 for money for clean water is probably very good. But just need to check the details.
I heard that Prop 85 is very bad for women’s right to choose (Planned Parenthood is against Prop 85).
Prop 87 is very good. Good endorsement.
Prop 89 is good for public financing of elections (League of Women Voters and Common Cause is for it). Clean elections are an environmental issue.
Prop 90 is HORRIBLE! It is based on an Oregon law which tries to stop city planning and environmental projects by saying it hurts private property and tries to make government pay money to property owners. “Takings” is a sneaky way to try to dismantle environmental and planning laws.
Also, let’s vote to bring the troops home from Iraq. Oh wait, that’s not on the ballot. Well, it should be. Let’s impeach the President too.
The best protest vote would be to vote for Todd Chretien of the Green Party for US Senate since Dianne Feinstein voted for the war in Iraq and hasn’t done enough impeaching of Dubya to earn re-election.
-Mike
September 23rd, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Hey — So far we totally agree! Granted, that’s just 1 prop, but still! :P
It’s always interesting to hear what other environmentalists in LA are thinking, esp. in terms of politics. Thanks for sharing, and I’ll keep your suggestions in mind when making my own :)
September 25th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Can you please add No on 85 soon? I don’t have a good argument on the “green” aspects of protecting a teen’s right to privacy, but I’m sure they’re there. (Here are a couple: overpopulation and overuse of resources is an environmental - even if controversial - issue. Also, teens seeking abortions who are unwilling to tell their parents are likely to travel further - over state lines or to Tijuana - in order to get services.)
Also, the LA Greens will be voting on their endorsements at their October meeting (I’m on the ad hoc committee making suggestions). Let us know if you have opinions you think we should hear.
September 29th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Siel:
Here’s an Environmental Justice analysis of prop 1B & prop 1C from Urban Habitat, an Oakland-Based non-profit. 1B is the most expensive bond in the history of CA (even with inflation) and 40% goes to highways to promote sprawl and trade corridors to promote pollution. Another 20% may be used for roads/highways depending on local agencies. That 60% for roads and highways and trains and increased pollution, especially in low-income fence-line neighborhoods.
There is some ‘green-screen’ going on with 1B with the retrofitting public transportation/school buses- but the majority of the money if for car-owners and multi-million dollar shipping companies. All of whom could pay for it by a fuel tax, vehicle registration fee, tolls, etc. We shouldn’t be diverting money from the General Fund for this- we need that money for schools, healthcare, and other essential programs.
As for 1C, it promotes Transit Oriented Development and Smart Growth Plans (including infill incentives) all of which are important to limiting sprawl and further exurb growth.
For a more in-depth analysis, read our analysis on Prop 1B and 1C in terms of social equity, environmental justice and economy.
September 29th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
The links didn’t work… the analysis is available at:
http://www.urbanhabitat.org/pubs/No-on-1B-Yes-on-1C
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:26 am
Here are a couple: overpopulation and overuse of resources is an environmental - even if controversial - issue
That sounds very like the one child policy in China. Which I have to wonder would you support. Really I am to flabbergasted to reply to this.
October 3rd, 2006 at 1:17 pm
simon — I’d like to point out that Prop 85 is very much about control over women’s bodies in general — not merely about abortion. Meaning that Prop 85 is supported by the same people who are against birth control, safer sex education, etc. I’ll ask Erin to weigh in herself, but I think by reducing overpopulation here, she’s referring to birth control avaliability and education just as much as abortion.
Regardless, abortions should be legal and accessible. And forcing women (by denying abortions) to have babies is not a good thing. In the same vein, forcing women NOT to have children (i.e. one child policy) is not a good thing. What we’re arguing for here is for a woman’s right to choose, whether it is to have or not have a baby.
October 4th, 2006 at 5:21 am
ok my point was not really on the rights or wrongs of abortion. I am not going to get into that arguement because I haven’t made my mind up on the issue. It is just to delicate and both sides do very much have good points.
Also the point to debate on the issue. Is when does life start. Everything else is mute really.
If the foetus is a life then no body has a right to stop that life if it is not a life then it is part of the womens body and she can do what she wants. Once it is a life it is a seperate body.
(I find it very funny and highly ironic that most pro-lifers in america are pro-death penalty)
My point really was what ever the reasons for or against abortion enviromental pressures is certainly not one of them.
By the way just incase you wondering. Abortion is illegal in Ireland but your doctor can refer you to an English clinic. (it is cheaper to fly to london then get a train to Dublin from where I live)
12 year old girls can get the morning after pill and the pill without parental consent.
October 11th, 2006 at 10:52 pm
And if you know anyone in California’s District 11 (most of San Joaquin county) tell them to support Jerry McNerney - he’s big on wind power and running against the infamous Richard Pombo, among the most corrupt and environmentally rotten people in government.
http://www.jerrymcnerney.org/
October 12th, 2006 at 7:18 am
Do you know where I can find all the Arizona propositions listed and info objective info on? thnks
barbadvocateagainstdv@yahoo.com
November 1st, 2006 at 11:22 pm
Note that the League of Conservation Voters endorsed 1B: http://www.ecovote.org/endorse/
November 3rd, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Yeah — A lot of people are divided on this one. The basic thing is this: It’s a helluva lotta money, this bond — but only a teensy bit of it goes to de-car-ing efforts. Those who are for argue that at least public transport gets some money (much needed, of course); those against, like me, feel that that teensy bit’s outweighed by the huge amount of money that’ll go to building freeways.
Here’s LA Weekly’s take: “Love freeways? You’ll see more of them in California if Proposition 1B passes. In L.A. County, the MTA will be required to earmark at least $1 billion of the bond proceeds for rail. After that, all bets are off.”
The LA greens, too are saying no: