Comments on: Vote! Prop 1E — Flood control and emergency preparedness

By: Siel

Siel — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:30:22 +0000

That 1/3 of the state, however, is where a whole lotta our food’s grown! It’ v. important to preserve. I agree with brthomas — the perfect legislation’s not gonna come along, so we have to weigh the pros against the cons without simply rejecting a prop because it isn’t perfect…

By: brthomas

brthomas — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:42:26 +0000

I agree that a pay-as-you go system would be a more efficient way to fund the infrastructure that our state needs. Unfortunately, that would require that our legislators act like responsible adults year after year to fund infrastructure in each budget. What are the odds of that happening? If Katrina-style flooding devastated Sacramento and the system that delivers fresh water to the south you can be sure that the entire state economy would be ruined for many years to come. Although it is not a perfect solution, I support Prop 1E because it is an achievable and realistic solution to a serious problem.

By: Ric Soard

Ric Soard — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:17:41 +0000

Sorry green LA girl, I have to diagree with your position on Prop 1e. When has it ever made good econimical sense to pay 8 dollars for 4 dollars in goods. Well this is exactly what 1e proposes, we pay eight billion dollars of tax payer’s money to receive 4.1 billion in improvements that benifit less than one third of the state. This places a 266 million bill on the budget for the next 30 years. Now if the california treasurer saved 266 million dollas each year, it would only take 15 years to save the required 4.1 billion dollars. This is without interest. It would suck to have to wait 15 years for these improvements, but if we invested a portion of the first 266 million in project management efforts we could begin work as soon as this fiscal year without issueing bonds. Bonds are a bad idea for the california budget.