May 27th, 2008
|10:06 pm - hot hot state and local primary action!|
hey! there's another election on june 3! that's next tuesday!
tuesday, june 3
polling place locator: http://www.lavote.net/locator/ or call 1-800-815-2666
prop 98: NO
prop 99: YES
judicial office #69: harvey silberman
what, another election?
yes. california used to have its primary in june, but this year, arnold
got all excited and moved the federal primary up to march
. this was supposed to let us have our primary at a time when it would be meaningful and could influence who the democratic nominee
would be. you saw how well
that turned out. anyway, while we did the federal primary back in march, we still have a state
, county, and local
election to have. why should i bother this time
while the march primary turned out to be largely meaningless, as the democrats' nomination process
will continue until the end of time
, your vote does actually matter in state and local elections. plus, the person you want to sleep with thinks the 'i voted' stickers
are totally sexy. they told me. so where do i go to vote?
the sample ballot that was mailed to you recently has the info on the back cover. if for some reason
you have misplaced your sample ballot, you can look up your voting location here: http://www.lavote.net/locator/
or call 1-800-815-2666.
what's on the ballot?
there's two ballot propositions, both of which are about eminent domain, and a whole pile of judges.
what's this about eminent domain?
eminent domain is the governmental power to take private property if it will be used for a public purpose and the owner receives fair market value payment. like all governmental powers, it has been used to ends both positive and, well, questionable. the federal government used it to get pieces of land all in a row to put things like railroad tracks and freeways across the country. california uses it to keep coastal beaches public instead of letting david geffen own them and to make sure there are schools in areas where people live. and... the
LA community redevelopment agency used it to threaten daddy's bar and the other businesses on vine in order to clear things out for the W hotel and condos. as this last example indicates, the definition of "used for a public purpose" has gotten pretty loose lately, largely influenced by the 2005 supreme court decision Kelo v. City of New London . the two ballot propositions are largely a reaction to the expansion of eminent domain.
so what's the difference?
basically - prop 98 goes way beyond the eminent domain issue to eliminate rent control laws. this would affect a lot of apartments -
626,600 in LA county alone
. it would also make it easier for landlords to evict renters in order to make room for new development. it would also invalidate or reduce the protections of a lot of affordable housing laws. it's main supporters are landlords focused on the anti-rent control aspect and it isn't supported by people serious about eminent domain reform. it is bad bad news and would disproportionately affect the working poor and the elderly. NO on Prop 98.
prop 99, on the other hand, addresses the situation in the Kelo lawsuit and, per the SF Chronicle, "declares quite clearly that an owner-occupied single-family residence could not be seized for transfer to another private party. It has no hidden agendas, no ulterior motives, far less risk of unintended consequences." YES on Prop 99.
what about the judges?
i strongly recommend harvey silberman for judicial office #69. he used to work at my organization and is a great guy with a perspective that is badly needed in the family court system. he's endorsed by tons of people too.
as for the rest of them, i have no direct knowledge of any of them and no real idea of their qualities. all i have is harvey's endorsements, which i pass on:
#4: ralph dau
#82 - cynthia loo
#84 - lori-ann c. jones
#95 - patricia nieto
#125 - james n. bianco
#154 - rocky l. crabb
whichever propositions or judges you prefer - just remember to go vote!
Current Mood: ultra cool