This is part 2 of my voter guide for the 2016 elections and focuses on the local San Diego props. As is typical, they go by letters (vs the numbers used at the state level.)
Prop A: Increase sales tax by 0.5% for the next 40 years to pay for transportation related expenses. The local ST at 8% is already high, raising it by another 1/2% under the noble goal of fixing our dilapidated infrastructure is just cynical. Vote NO.
Prop B: Permit the Lilac Hills development in North San Diego. It's kind of curious that one of the supporters is the mayor of Chula Vista! This prop is seeking voter approval to convert agricultural land into a mixed use residential and commercial development. Isn't there enough construction in San Diego already? Vote NO.
Prop C: Pay for a new Chargers stadium, mostly from increased tourist taxes. This is a tough one for me. I like having an NFL team in town and really believe that pro sports franchises raise the profile of a city. But how much of this is thinking like the sports fan that I am? On the flip side, how much of my opposition comes from the general ineptitude of SD teams in general and the Chargers in particular? The team is clever - they are throwing in a convention center expansion along with the new stadium. That will clearly attract bigger and more conventions to the city. There was a lot of opposition to the new Padres stadium (Petco) too, but it is undeniable that East Village has been revitalized by the stadium. But, I really do dislike the Chargers' ownership and the NFL as an organization. If they both want to keep the Chargers in SD (which I am all for), then let them pay for a new stadium. Vote NO.
Prop D: This is another variation on the theme of raising the TOT (Tourist Occupancy Tax) to pay for the expansion of the convention center, but oddly enough, not for a stadium. There is a sweetener in the form of requiring the Mission Valley site of Qualcomm stadium (if vacated) to be sold to an educational institution or a park. I don't like it. Vote NO.
Prop E: Add more detailed rules about the removal of elected officials. This one seems to be largely filling a void that exists in that, currently, an elected official can only be recalled by the public even if, say, they have been convicted of a felony. Seems a largely worthy measure. Vote YES.
Prop F: A deputy city attorney cannot be fired without good cause after serving for at least 1 year (is 2 years currently.) Vote YES.
Prop G: Community review board to review in-custody deaths and police shootings. Seems like a great idea in the current climate. Vote YES.
Prop H: Change city contracting procedures. Apparently the least controversial local ballot measure, according to that fine newspaper - the SD UT. Not interesting enough to parse too carefully and seems useful enough. Vote YES.
Prop I: Allow the city to continue leasing land inside Balboa Park to the SD High School. This is prompted by another arcane rule that somehow considers a public high school an improper use of public land. Vote YES.
Prop J: Increase the share to regional parks from the Mission Bay park revenues: This seems rather unfair - why should the Mission Bay park give up its revenues to pay for other parks? Vote NO.
Prop K: Always require Nov run-off election. When multiple candidates face off in an (ostensibly) non-partisan primary (typically in June), the top two vote getters face off in the general election in Nov, unless one of them gets over 50% of the vote in June. This measure would remove that provision and always require the top 2 to face off. I think this is a useful measure since most folks don't pay attention to the elections in June, especially in non-presidential election years. Vote YES.
Prop L: All ballot measures to go on the Nov ballot and not in the June primaries. Same analysis as above. Vote YES.
Prop M: Raise the limit on the number of affordable housing units that the city can develop. Seems rather benign and perhaps equally ineffectual. But, worthy enough. Vote YES.
Prop N: This is great example of a "freeloader" measure. This allows the city to levy a tax of 5 to 15% on any marijuana sales, should such sales become legal (via Prop 64.) But hey, if we are going to soak the tobacco users (Prop 56), then why not the pot smokers? Vote YES.
Prop A: Increase sales tax by 0.5% for the next 40 years to pay for transportation related expenses. The local ST at 8% is already high, raising it by another 1/2% under the noble goal of fixing our dilapidated infrastructure is just cynical. Vote NO.
Prop B: Permit the Lilac Hills development in North San Diego. It's kind of curious that one of the supporters is the mayor of Chula Vista! This prop is seeking voter approval to convert agricultural land into a mixed use residential and commercial development. Isn't there enough construction in San Diego already? Vote NO.
Prop C: Pay for a new Chargers stadium, mostly from increased tourist taxes. This is a tough one for me. I like having an NFL team in town and really believe that pro sports franchises raise the profile of a city. But how much of this is thinking like the sports fan that I am? On the flip side, how much of my opposition comes from the general ineptitude of SD teams in general and the Chargers in particular? The team is clever - they are throwing in a convention center expansion along with the new stadium. That will clearly attract bigger and more conventions to the city. There was a lot of opposition to the new Padres stadium (Petco) too, but it is undeniable that East Village has been revitalized by the stadium. But, I really do dislike the Chargers' ownership and the NFL as an organization. If they both want to keep the Chargers in SD (which I am all for), then let them pay for a new stadium. Vote NO.
Prop D: This is another variation on the theme of raising the TOT (Tourist Occupancy Tax) to pay for the expansion of the convention center, but oddly enough, not for a stadium. There is a sweetener in the form of requiring the Mission Valley site of Qualcomm stadium (if vacated) to be sold to an educational institution or a park. I don't like it. Vote NO.
Prop E: Add more detailed rules about the removal of elected officials. This one seems to be largely filling a void that exists in that, currently, an elected official can only be recalled by the public even if, say, they have been convicted of a felony. Seems a largely worthy measure. Vote YES.
Prop F: A deputy city attorney cannot be fired without good cause after serving for at least 1 year (is 2 years currently.) Vote YES.
Prop G: Community review board to review in-custody deaths and police shootings. Seems like a great idea in the current climate. Vote YES.
Prop H: Change city contracting procedures. Apparently the least controversial local ballot measure, according to that fine newspaper - the SD UT. Not interesting enough to parse too carefully and seems useful enough. Vote YES.
Prop I: Allow the city to continue leasing land inside Balboa Park to the SD High School. This is prompted by another arcane rule that somehow considers a public high school an improper use of public land. Vote YES.
Prop J: Increase the share to regional parks from the Mission Bay park revenues: This seems rather unfair - why should the Mission Bay park give up its revenues to pay for other parks? Vote NO.
Prop K: Always require Nov run-off election. When multiple candidates face off in an (ostensibly) non-partisan primary (typically in June), the top two vote getters face off in the general election in Nov, unless one of them gets over 50% of the vote in June. This measure would remove that provision and always require the top 2 to face off. I think this is a useful measure since most folks don't pay attention to the elections in June, especially in non-presidential election years. Vote YES.
Prop L: All ballot measures to go on the Nov ballot and not in the June primaries. Same analysis as above. Vote YES.
Prop M: Raise the limit on the number of affordable housing units that the city can develop. Seems rather benign and perhaps equally ineffectual. But, worthy enough. Vote YES.
Prop N: This is great example of a "freeloader" measure. This allows the city to levy a tax of 5 to 15% on any marijuana sales, should such sales become legal (via Prop 64.) But hey, if we are going to soak the tobacco users (Prop 56), then why not the pot smokers? Vote YES.
1 comment:
Nicely written!
Post a Comment