Proposition 25: Approval of State Budget:
The State budget, due to begin on July 1, was only recently approved. Contractors, including people running day care and health care centers, were closing their doors or borrowing money to stay afloat. The primary reason: California is one of only three states in the US that requires more than a majority vote for the approval of a budget.
The alleged reason for the two-thirds requirement is to assure minority input. However, all this rule has brought is a funny money game so that both sides can say a solution has been achieved, but giving no one the specific responsibility for having failed, as it inevitably does.
Changing to a majority requirement would focus accountability on the majority party. Then, the voters could very clearly say to whoever is in charge that they had succeeded or failed. Now, all we get is unaccounted failure.
Proposition 26: Two-thirds requirement for certain fees: Propositions are often written to fool you. Sometimes they do. This one might.
To those who are angry with government, the requirement for a two-thirds vote sounds very attractive. It essentially means that nothing will get done, because one can almost always find one-third of the people who are against anything.
This proposition requires that a two-thirds vote is necessary to enact regulatory fees to assist, for example, in the mitigation of “health, environmental or other societal or economic concerns.” Thus, if the state wishes to create a regulatory fee fund to make polluters pay for the cleanup of their actions, two-thirds of the state’s voters would have to say “yes.” Most likely, the “no’s” would prevail and our environment would go even further into the toilet.
What’s very odd about this and other two-thirds initiatives is that it takes just a majority vote to implement them. To me, probably the best initiative we could put before the voters is a two-thirds requirement on any initiative instituting a two-thirds vote.
Proposition 27: Repeals of the Redistricting Commission
This would dismantle the redistricting commission and return the responsibility to the State Legislature. It is primarily supported by the two major political parties. Need I say more?
Redondo Proposition G: Harbor Zoning
Mark Twain said that in California “liquor is for drinking, but water is for fighting over.” In Redondo Beach, the same can be said for the AES power plant and King Harbor.
Over a decade ago, an opportunity existed for the city to reduce the footprint of the AES power plant and create a modern, attractive Harbor zone. The ill-fated “Heart of the City” was rejected…in good measure because of the ham-fisted approach taken by the city in presenting the plan to the residents.
It was a once in a lifetime opportunity. Its failure has created a new cottage industry, however. Now, all we ever do is float ideas about the area that are a) impossible to achieve and b) attractive in their impossibility.
Sadly, whatever happens with Proposition G makes absolutely no difference, except that a lot of lawyers will make a lot of money and that the blight in the area will outlive most of the people reading this.
Vote however you want. Release some of your bile. It’ll feel good for a minute or two. But that’ll be all it will do. ER
