Blogging Bayport Alameda

October 30, 2008

Certified fresh!

Filed under: Alameda, City Council, Election, School — Tags: , — Lauren Do @ 7:00 am

Endorsement time, I know everyone was anxiously waiting, right?   RIGHT?   For those interested in a roundup of endorsements for local issues, I have included them on the Election 2008 Roundup page.

Starting at the top of the ticket and working my way down, here are my endorsements for select issues/candidates on the ballot.

President: Obama/Biden
Because even though I had initially supported Hillary Clinton, I have become a believer in the capabilities of Obama.   Because after eight years of George W. Bush, we need a change and it’s not coming from a pair of faux Mavericks.  Because the next president will be inheriting wars, a flailing economic system, the degradation of the American brand throughout the world, and the possibility of Supreme Court nominations — the choice is clear and it is Barack Obama who represents the power of American dream.  

Prop 1A: Yes! 
The United States has done a poor job of investing in our rail infrastructure and is being left in the dust by Europe and Asia.  A high speed train will offer travelers/commuters another alternative to taking an airplane or hopping in a car to bridge the distance between northern and southern California.   While I would never think of flying to SoCal, I would take a high speed train.

Prop 4: No.
If this proposition is meant to scare teens into not having sex, it’s not going to work.  If the point of this proposition is prevent teen girls from getting pregnant in the first place, perhaps rather than insisting on mandatory notification laws we should concentrate on making sex education more than just purity pledges and abstinence only.   Not all girls are fortunate to have a very public pregnancy and a parent with an anti-abortion drum to beat.  

Prop 8: No!
The Yes on Prop 8 signs have an interesting tagline that says “Protect Marriage” and it always makes me wonder what we are protecting marriage from and can we simply provide it with Scotchguard.  I don’t feel as though my marriage is some how in danger simply because gay and lesbian couple are able to call themselves “married” under the law.   Two consenting adults who want to bind themselves in a spirtual act is something that should be honored, not something that community members throw roadblocks up in front of every few years because it violates their notion of what “family values” is all about.  

City Council: Marie Gilmore
In the end I am going to bullet vote for Marie Gilmore.  I find her to be the most capable of all the candidates.   I know that she is extremely capable and unlike some publications (coughebxcough) I am not voting for (or endorsing) someone based on the perception of their “independence” from the resident boogeyman.   Like Lena Tam, Marie Gilmore is one of those civic leaders that Alameda is fortunate to get despite the poor compensation and the altogether thanklessness of the task.   Thoughtful, careful, and willing to make the tough decisions; Marie Gilmore is worthy of your vote too.

School Board: David Forbes and Ron Mooney
I am again going to to a modified bullet vote for David Forbes and Ron Mooney.    David Forbes because he has stepped up every single time as a member of the School Board into a leadership role.  More importantly, he knows what he is talking about whenever he sits on that dias, which for those of you that pass on watching the board and commission meetings is sometimes a rare occurance.   Ron Mooney has dedicated his time and resources for the betterment of Alameda schools and its kids.  He understands the issues around education and as a former school board member in Emeryville will be able to pick up where outgoing Board member Bill Schaff has left off.   And considering the state of the State Budget which is still in flux, we really can’t afford to have a Board member that needs to be slowly brought up to speed on the global issues.

Measure P: holding my nose, but yes.

Measures Q-X: yes
This is all just clean up of the City Charter, anyone who wants to make up conspiracy theories about these measures I’ll be happy to make a new tin foil hat for.

AC Transit: Chris Peeples

EBMUD Board: Doug Linney

Superior Court Judge: Dennis Hayashi

53 Comments

  1. Lauren,

    Have you calculated a sort of two person bullet vote for school board? I’ve discussed this with a few folks and the math is complex with three seats and five people running. Everybody I’ve talked to thinks it’s worth casting the third vote and there is no strategic advantage to casting just two, or at least any advantage is off set with a reciprocal disadvantage. I would personally cast the third vote for Tam or Gibson.

    Simply reading the ballot text of Q-X wouldn’t tell you this, but on the one where the HAB is mentioned, our current three person board with two empty seats is allowed to approve with a 2 to 1 vote. The charter change would require a minimum of a quorum (3), no matter if there are 3, 4, or 5 of us present. A minimum quorum is the rule for all the other boards. The rules change on removal is for uniformity also.

    Unfortunately some folks, like whoever wrote the Alameda Green’s voter guide recommendation (Gretchen?), think the changes are part of a power grab conspiracy. It seems odd that they recommend yes on some and no on others, as if there is anything obvious in the text to allow one to differentiate which are conspiratorial. If it were a conspiracy one might expect them all to have some nefarious effect requiring them to be voted against as a block.

    Comment by Mark Irons — October 30, 2008 @ 8:30 am

  2. Hi Mark:

    So I’ll share with you (and everyone else) my bullet voting strategy for the school board. I made a deal with my husband who was planning on voting Mooney & Forbes as well. He would vote for just one (thereby giving that one three votes) and I would vote for the other also swinging three votes that way.

    Comment by Lauren Do — October 30, 2008 @ 8:52 am

  3. Okay, I totally muffed up my understanding of my bullet vote in the School race. Here is why I only will be voting for Mooney and Forbes.

    I think Niel Tam will end up being the compromise candidate for a lot of voters who may choose the “Forbes, Mooney” vote or “Gibson, Spencer” vote or the “Forbes, Gibson” vote. Any combination will give Tam the win. While I would love to see a Forbes, Mooney, Tam win, I’m not giving that third vote to Tam for strategic reasons.

    Comment by Lauren Do — October 30, 2008 @ 11:02 am

  4. What about Prop 2? 🙂

    http://www.yesonprop2.com/

    Comment by alameda — October 30, 2008 @ 2:08 pm

  5. Here’s something else “certified fresh” in your fair city …

    http://www.nbcbayarea.com/around_town/dining/Baking_the_Candidates.html

    🙂

    Comment by Sidewinder — November 1, 2008 @ 7:15 am

  6. Breaking News

    Obama’s aunt, that he wrote about in his latest memoirs, is a muslim illegal immigrant from Kenya who was deported 10 years ago but continues to live illegally in public housing in Chicago. Don’t you guys just love that your hard-earned taxes are being used so that illegal immigrants can live here for free? Well, at least we aren’t spending our tax money on our schools … that would be a travesty!

    🙂

    Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — November 1, 2008 @ 9:05 am

  7. I wonder if the McCain campaign will resort to re-running this ad before Tuesday.

    Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — November 1, 2008 @ 11:17 am

  8. For State budget reasons, I strongly urge a NO on 1A. We can’t afford to build it, we can’t afford to maintain it.

    Comment by David Kirwin — November 1, 2008 @ 11:41 am

  9. For state budget reasons, I strongly urge a YES on 1A. We can’t afford to build and maintain more highway lanes and airport runways to handle the sort of medium-distance trips for which high-speed rail is ideal.

    Yes, high-speed rail is expensive, but highway and airport expansions are even more expensive. Building high-speed rail now will SAVE $42 billion in highway and airport costs, and it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12 billion pounds a year, the equivalent of taking over a million cars off the road.

    For the budget AND the environment, we can’t afford NOT to build high-speed rail. Vote YES on 1A!

    Comment by Michael Krueger — November 1, 2008 @ 12:49 pm

  10. Oh, and did I mention that building high-speed rail will stimulate California’s econony by creating thousands of jobs, both temporary and permanent? Look at the public works projects the 1930’s that we rely on to this day. Budgets were tight then, but they had the foresight to put people to work on projects of enduring value.

    Comment by Michael Krueger — November 1, 2008 @ 12:59 pm

  11. For State budget reasons, I strongly urge a NO on 1A. We can’t afford to build it, we can’t afford to maintain it.

    Michael-
    First, in the 30’s CCC and CWA workers did not make the kind of money doled out to the unions today. If you check your history you’ll see the unions fought Roosevelt on CCC & CWA because of the low wage competition for work it created. Today the unions are supporting this because it will create more union jobs at taxpayer expense. This is not the same thing at all.

    Let’s examine why the strongest, most powerful American unions today seem to be for the public sector workers, fed by the politicians doling out tax dollars for election support. I am actually a strong union supporter and although I am most offended by the imbalance of wages and benefits of today’s CEO’s to the workforce, there also needs to be more of a balance between public and private wage earners at all levels. After all, the majority of today’s workforce, who fund most of the tax burdens, is non-union. They are strapped for cash for food and shelter and healthcare, yet you ask them to support higher wages for others so you have more freedom to fast cheap travel. That sounds unfair to me.

    Where is the State’s present education, and transportation money? Where has it all gone? Let’s support getting off gasoline to help the environment. Let’s support reductions in travel, let’s start eating local food, and supporting local economies for goods and services. We can’t afford to dig more holes in which we pitch our State’s money.

    It is better to maintain the highways we have than to build more transportation systems especially if we can’t afford to maintain those we have.

    Comment by David Kirwin — November 1, 2008 @ 2:23 pm

  12. Kirwin,

    You are a member of a union aren’t you?

    Comment by Mark Irons — November 1, 2008 @ 3:00 pm

  13. Yes Mark, I am a union member. ..And a past president of another union local. I also volunteered for a year in the weekly productions of union news and union views cable shows for the SF Labor Council. That doesn’t mean I always support the democrat or the “Labor” funded diatribe, though that may be more often the case than not.

    As an independent free thinking person I am not required to adhere to any dogmas I consider detrimental to society. If people don’t want to accept me for my honesty, that is their choice. My choice is to always try to be what I respect.

    Comment by David Kirwin — November 1, 2008 @ 3:56 pm

  14. I was driving around Alameda and it was nice to see so many no on 8 signs. I have only seen 2 yes on 8 signs and that was at Bayport. With so many of our neighbors being gay couples in Alameda, as well as in Bayport, it is nice to see support for them and their civil liberties.

    Comment by Gunter — November 1, 2008 @ 6:32 pm

  15. I noticed that we only received about 15 voters ads in the mail this year, and none in the last week and a half. Either no one is sending them this year or the mail person isn’t delivering them…which either can be interesting. In the last few elections we got a ton of them.

    I just finished reading through everything and voted no for all the props except for 1A, 3 & 5, and voted no on all the measures except Q – X

    Comment by Gunter — November 1, 2008 @ 7:35 pm

  16. It was nice to see such great support for the YES ON 8 campaign the other night as I arrived on the Island. That was a VERY large group … and they looked like they were having fun 🙂

    YES ON 8

    Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — November 1, 2008 @ 7:39 pm

  17. Gunter, I don’t care so much about which way you voted, but can you explain why you voted the way you did?

    Comment by David Kirwin — November 1, 2008 @ 8:10 pm

  18. 16. It’s always fun smothering other people’s civil liberties to allay one’s own phobias. Was Sarah Palin there?

    Comment by Mark Irons — November 1, 2008 @ 8:17 pm

  19. #18 … no civil liberties are being smothered. A civil union already allows them the exact same rights in California. I simply don’t want the schools teaching that crap to my kids in kindergarten. And, I’ve had enough of all of the politically correct “homo’s are great” “let’s make our kids androgenous” “everyone deserves to own a home” “illegal immigration is a right” socialist crap. It’s killing our country …

    Sometimes, you just have to stand up for what’s right … and you should be sitting down 🙂

    Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — November 1, 2008 @ 10:04 pm

  20. #19
    And, I’ve had enough of all of the politically correct “homo’s are great”

    And I’ve had enough of Neo-Nazi gay bashers masquerading as American patriots.
    http://www.trilulilu.ro/LGBT/ca14381ce25d70?video_google_com

    Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — November 1, 2008 @ 10:19 pm

  21. ANT – I agree … the zealots on both sides are hypocritical dewsh bags. The government needs to stay out of our heads … don’t try to tell me that homos are evil and don’t try to tell me that gay is great. It isn’t anyone’s business what my thoughts are on the issue nor to attempt to change them. And, certainly don’t force your politically correct view of family values upon my elementary school children.

    I don’t really have a problem with gays marrying … it just doesn’t affect my life so, as an issues unto itself, I feel that it is none of my business. I am voting yes on Prop 8 because I don’t want them teaching gay, lesbian, transgender issues to my kids before I feel that it is an appropriate time to discuss it with them. Prop 8 is a way to prevent that from happening … not the best way, but an effective way.

    Personally, I don’t think that Prop 8 is an ideal solution (although it is a solution that will immediately solve my issue). Ideally, the government would not prevent gays from marrying but would instead pass a law decreeing that such issues will not be presented by state run schools until Jr. High. If that were a Prop on this ballot, I would vote for it and against 8.

    In the mean time, YES ON PROP 8 🙂

    Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — November 1, 2008 @ 11:27 pm

  22. DK,

    I voted no on just about anything which included bond measures. Eventually bonds need to be repaid and they don’t have the money now, why should I believe they will 20 years from now. The exceptions are 1A, after reading about it, as well as discussing it with a few people, and Michael Krueger post, it just makes sense to me. The Children’s hospitals bond measure, even though I don’t have kids I see a need there for various reasons. Prop 5 just makes sense to have more rehab programs rather than build more prisons. Prop 4 & 8 I voted no for just about the same reasons Lauren stated above. Prop 11, who is going to appoint the independent panel?

    Measure P, I voted no just because you are unfairly only taxing a small percentage of people for services used by all.

    Jeff,
    They don’t teach straight marriage in schools, why would they teach anything about gay marriage in school or any kind of marriage? That argument just doesn’t make any sense to me.

    Comment by Gunter — November 2, 2008 @ 8:15 am

  23. “They don’t teach straight marriage in schools, why would they teach anything about gay marriage in school or any kind of marriage?”

    Actually, they ARE required to teach marriage in schools. However, I agree completely … why? In Alameda, homosexuality and transgender issues are in the school board’s proposed kindergarten curricula, it is already happening in SF, and it just happened two weeks ago in Hayward on Gay Day when kindergartners where forced to sign a pledge card saying that they would not make fun of homosexuals, transgenders, etc and then the class proceeded to discuss whaat those words meant … and they did that without notifying the parents. Ridiculous …

    YES ON 8 🙂

    Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — November 2, 2008 @ 8:22 am

  24. I voted No on 8, but Jeff isn’t making that up about the programs for k-garteners. It was a pretty hot issue on this blog this past summer and we DON’T want to conjure up Neotheone again.

    Comment by Jack B. — November 2, 2008 @ 8:53 am

  25. My parents raised me to do my homework and now I have done my homework on Prop 8. Here’s my report:

    For better or worse, Prop 8 won’t change the state Ed Code’s requirement that schools teach non-discrimination and prevent harassment of students, including discrimination and harassment based on “sexual orientation” and “gender.” So the debate over how best to meet those legal requirements in Alameda’s public schools won’t change whether Prop 8 passes or fails.

    Accordingly, voting yes on 8 to stop schools from teaching gay “issues” as JRT suggested in # 21 won’t work. As a result, anyone who finds himself in the quandary JRT claims in #21 to be in (i.e., not having a problem with same sex marriage but having a problem with how the school deal with “gay issues”) should go ahead and vote no on 8 so that consenting adults in California can continue to marry the person of their choice.

    Prop 8 won’t solve the problems that JRT says concern him. So I hope he’ll join my parents Ward and June in voting no on 8.

    Comment by Wally Cleaver — November 2, 2008 @ 9:22 am

  26. Gunter,

    I agree with your sense of fiscal awareness as reasoning for voting no on most issues. I agree on the “Yes On 5” for both social and financial benefits.

    Watching the ever-expanding Children’s Hospital continue grow, and seeing all the real estate they are buying, (and the costs they invoice) I don’t support that Bond. It seems like more public money going into already deep private pockets that get plenty of tax dollars already.

    I will likely support Prop 2 unless I hear a credible reason not to. I know becoming a vegetarian would also be a healthy form of personal action to help the environment too, but Prop 2 is low cost for enforcement and I think if meat producers want to leave the state to be able to continue animal cruelty, -let them. There will be other farmers to take their place, willing to farm without the extreme cruelty.

    It is for 1A I would like you to explain your reasoning more clearly. The ballot language is so scant, I hope you at least read the State Supplement. At a cost of well over $20 Billion and over $1 billion more per year to operate if it gets completed…(It says the bonds can only be used to pay up to 50% of the total cost of each corridor – where is the other half of the costs going to come from? …and those bonds – in reality we know from the last months of economic news that those bonds will cost us much much more because now there seems to be real risk involved for investors, so those bonds may cost more than twice as much to repay. This could be getting us closer to $100 Billion before it ever gets completed. In a very depressing way, it is laughable that the proponents claim it will require “NO TAX INCREASE”. Please, if it will not require a tax increase it will cause a tax increase as more general fund money gets siphoned out. -Remember the bonds can only be used for up to 50% of costs, the other 50% will be general fund, more local tax money, more fed tax money, more regional trade-offs etc.

    And what do we get? Nothing to help the regional and local traffic relief, the traffic jams that affect the vast majority.

    On the environment – We are getting off gasoline powered cars, and the rate is increasing every year. More and more people, like my in-laws in Davis have done, will be adding solar panels to charge their cars. What will power these high speed trains and where will that energy come from?

    Gunter, please, I am not trying to attack or blame you, just please explain how Prop 1A is anything other than BAD BAD BAD, and a stupid waste.

    Comment by David Kirwin — November 2, 2008 @ 9:23 am

  27. Wally may be right, but there is an endless number of ways to meet the State’s requirement to teach non-discrimination in age appropriate ways. After the election everyone with the concerns expressed in #21 and onwards, should contact member of the school board and get active in your schools PTA.

    Comment by Cleaver Clan — November 2, 2008 @ 9:31 am

  28. In my English class, we work on editing our work to be concise. My teacher told me readers may not read something if it is too long and rambling.

    Should we all offer to get Mr. Kirwin a tutor or an editor or something? Sometimes I find it hard to get through his very long writings. But maybe I just don’t “get” his writing style because I am just a teenager.

    Comment by Wally Cleaver — November 2, 2008 @ 9:31 am

  29. Wally – I haven’t seen anything from you to show you have learned much about the world you live in. Perhaps learning at the 3rd grade level doesn’t yet involve complicated issues. I’m glad you are socially responsible enough to contribute at the level you can, so please keep it up and keep learning about your world. In time, you can learn to make a valuable contribution to your community.

    While my blogs are not perfectly written, I do try to explore ideas that are far too complicated for “sound byte mentality”. It is sometimes difficult to balance reducing issues with 1000’s of pages of information to briefs the readers of blogs are able or willing to wade thru, but to be more “concise” my blogs would be longer, not shorter. Perhaps when you grow up Wally, you can do more research and practice your concise writing skills. Just remember, being concise also requires relating all the necessary information.

    As had been often said; “the devil is in the details”. While having a fast cheap train connecting a few cities along HWY 5 is a nice concept, Prop 1A is a lot more complicated. It takes a lot of homework to be fully informed.

    Comment by dk — November 2, 2008 @ 10:53 am

  30. Thanks for the explanation, Mr. Kirwin. I’m actually in high school. (My little brother The Beave is in 3rd grade.)

    In my SAT review class we learned that “concise” means “marked by brevity of expression or statement: free from all elaboration and superfluous detail.” So I’m pretty sure that something concise is short, not long. I don’t quite understand why you wrote that “to be more ‘concise’ my blogs would be longer, not shorter.” But I’m just a high school kid, so maybe I’m not mature enough to understand how something longer could be shorter.

    By the way, I actually think we agree on Props 1A and 8. I just wish you could get to the point and edit down your mega-posts.

    Even though I’m just a high school kid, I might just say something (I think this is concise) like:

    “Vote no on 1A because it creates a massive new debt for the state for something without even explaining where the balance of the funding to complete the project will come from, all for a project with a lot of uncertainties and at best only a slight marginal benefit”

    or

    “Vote no on 8 so that consenting adults can continue to marry the person of their choice. Those concerned about how schools handle ‘gay issues’ should advocate for their perspectives in the world of education policy, where those issues are to be resolved.”

    Comment by Wally Cleaver — November 2, 2008 @ 11:36 am

  31. “Those concerned about how schools handle ‘gay issues’ should advocate for their perspectives in the world of education policy, where those issues are to be resolved.”

    Naaaahhhhh … it is easier to vote YES ON PROP 8 🙂

    Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — November 2, 2008 @ 12:14 pm

  32. Hey Wally, that post #30 was well written and brief, thanks. Sorry I confused you and the Beaver.
    My quick lookup on the meaning of ‘concise’ resulted in “using as few words as possible to give the necessary information, or compressed in order to be brief.” – Perhaps we differ on the meaning of “necessary information”. I hope you can continue in providing your ‘concise’ briefs on the issues and I will continue mine, and I will continue to try to improve.

    For others who prefer some details and my personal reasoning behind my opinions I offer the following:

    I will also support Prop 11 because any change in redistricting is likely going to be an improvement. Current Districts seem to have been altered to clearly support one party or another. This has become politically divisive because during primaries, in liberal districts, liberals must “out-liberal” competition, and in conservative Districts the equal but opposite condition applies. Hopefully any re-districting will have a less polarizing affect.

    Going back to Prop 1A, aside from the reasons stated in an earlier post, a new rail route would also lead to increased development along that corridor, even if we ignore the tax costs associated with ever rapidly increasing population, we are running out of water and energy to support more cities. New cities would also exponentially increase needs for new infrastructure bonds. I also just had a conversation with an environmentalist who opposes 1A pointing out that such a rail bed would also bisect habitats for all the little critters, as has happened in Europe. That may not be an issue if you don’t care about wildlife, but a raised track others would consider an eyesore and potentially create “us & them” neighborhoods where tracks bisect communities. While all true I think the earlier mentioned arguments against 1A are stronger, but not the only reasons to
    REJECT PROP 1A

    I also talked to someone who believes Prop 2 would have little affect other than CA would lose egg producers to Mexico and Nevada. I certainly don’t know the realities, but with Prop 2 maybe CA would have “happier” chickens and cows. I know our own 5 hens seem happy with their 110 sq ft. Not only are the eggs we eat hormone and antibiotic free, our bee colonies have made a drastic improvement in our garden yields. I consider it nice to live with nature rather than always trying to overpower it.

    Here are my present views on State and Local issues; I welcome holders of other views to express rational reasoning.

    Prop 1A – NO
    Prop 2 – Yes
    Prop 3 – NO – Public $ to private pockets
    Prop 4 – NO – Creates increased health risk for no social or health benefit.
    Prop 5 – Yes – Intervention is better than incarceration
    Prop 6 – NO – We need alternatives to prisons.
    Prop 7 – NO – Perhaps started as good idea but now opposed by environmentalists.
    Prop 8 – NO –
    Prop 9 – NO
    Prop 10 – NO – Too much wrong with this, and offering tax credits would be simpler than forming a new bureaucracy to distribute funds to “consumers and others.”
    Prop 11 – YES
    Prop 12 – NO – it’s the Feds responsibility to assist Veterans and offer enlistment incentives.

    P, VV, WW – ALL NO because we already enough for services without these, and the more we opt to repay and overpay, the more budgets will continue to be raided to fund unsupported projects. I am close to the fence with WW.
    Q – NO, while I support many of the proposed changes, there are too many changes beyond the removal of obsolete language. A single opposed change requires a NO vote and there are several changes I oppose.
    R – Yes
    S – NO (We already allow for emergency spending, and this unnecessarily opens the door too wide for abuse)
    T – Yes
    U – No, if we don’t have a problem, let’s not try to “fix” one. Will this lead to the “necessity” of increased costs for personnel?
    V – – no (same as above)
    W – NO, there is no need to change language and there are already rumblings at CASA and elsewhere about a city transportation service. There should be no question that such would be under PUC rather than developers or city staff without PUC oversights.
    X – NO

    Comment by David Kirwin — November 2, 2008 @ 4:58 pm

  33. For people who are on the fence about Proposition 2, I would like to write that it is a solid and forward-thinking measure, endorsed by a wide range of organizations (including the CA Democratic Party, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the California Veterinary Medicine Association and the Sierra Club), as well as a wide range of newspapers (including the SJ Mercury News, the San Diego Union-Tribune, and the NY Times).

    It will improve conditions for animals — not just chickens, but also pigs and veal calves. (And as someone who has chickens, I can assure you that raising them in cages so small they can’t spread their wings, perch, or scratch is not kind).

    But it also promises to improve conditions in communities near farms, as it will lessen the environmental impact that intensive “factory farming” has on the environment.

    The EU has already banned battery cages for egg-laying hens — if Prop 2 passes, CA would be the first state in the US to take the humane treatment of egg-layers, veal calves, and pigs into account.

    Comment by Susan Davis — November 2, 2008 @ 5:35 pm

  34. “Union of Concerned Scientists”

    LOL … who the he11 is that? It is also endorsed by that crazy looking leprechaun guy that talks to himself outside of the Shamrock on Webster. However, I’m voting for it anyway …

    🙂

    Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — November 2, 2008 @ 6:44 pm

  35. Here’s a very cute pro-Obama piece on YouTube, titled Hockey Mama for Obama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh9BmNuqeiQ

    As for Prop 1A: Until the economy and the state budget have stabilized, I don’t think the state should take on any new obligations — any that can be avoided. This project could wait another few years and no harm done.

    Comment by DL Morrison — November 2, 2008 @ 8:10 pm

  36. That is exactly what they said in 2004, when the high-speed rail vote was delayed until 2006, and it’s what they said in 2006, when it was delayed until 2008. California high-speed rail has been on the drawing board since 1996…that’s 12 years. Every year of delay means more congestion on our roads and at our airports, and billions more pounds of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.

    The time for excuses and delays is over. It’s time to build high-speed rail. Vote YES on 1A!

    Comment by Michael Krueger — November 2, 2008 @ 10:31 pm

  37. How’s it gonna be paid for Michael?

    12 years and still no answer to that burning question!

    Even on the last films I worked at Alameda Point, workers going back to LA for a weekend would drive because it is still faster than all the time related to flying, and the need to have a vehicle on the other end. The roads are still fast enough. A problem with Prop 10 is that it could be used to support ethanol instead of a better solution. Hybrid and electric vehicles are a much better solution. Even the presently available on-board hydrogen generators pumping hydrogen converted from water into our standard auto engines would be way more effective for cleaning the environment than Prop 1A. They are said to boost efficiency 30 – 60% even on pre-fuel injected cars – the good old carburetor models.

    Now that we’re closer than ever to getting most of our cars off gasoline and because we all use the web better, we now have less need for traveling the State. We’re all more aware of the importance of consuming local foods and goods. Combine that and the poor economy and there is much less being shipped from China or elsewhere and moved by trucks on our roads.

    Most of the congestion on our roads is the nearby commute traffic that 1A will not help with at all.

    The prosperous days of the 90’s are gone, and this State rail concept was not affordable in the best of times. If they could not figure out the financing in good economic times how do you envision it ever being completed now? The language of 1A says the bonds can only pay 50% at most, and each stretch has to find the balance of financing. With this deal why wouldn’t the central links step back to let others finance it?

    Please explain with real answers, not wishful dreams.

    If you can’t answer the questions how can you expect support for 1A?

    Perhaps it would be better to get legislators to work out new agreements with the freight rail owners to give passenger trains, not freight trains, the rights of rail priority. That alone would vastly improve passenger rail service possibilities. Today freight trumps passengers for rail priority – I’m told that is the biggest reason for the poor quality passenger rail service between northern and southern CA today.

    Comment by David Kirwin — November 2, 2008 @ 11:31 pm

  38. BTW I’ve looked at traveling by train, even for vacations, so travel time was not an issue. The problem, the deal stopper, was the outrageous cost, not the time it took. How would this concept make rail travel cost competitive?

    Comment by David Kirwin — November 2, 2008 @ 11:43 pm

  39. my understanding on 1.A is that the money does not get spent unless it is matched by the state and feds equally, if that changes anybody’s perspective.

    Even though prop 2 is an obvious yes in terms of the animals, I was waiting to see about the cost to farmers because I would hate to see any group regulated into bankruptcy, even by a good law which moves too quickly, but the yes on 2 ads with the B.S. about salmonella riddled eggs from Mexico put me over. I’ve been buying free range eggs for years.

    This relates to the CASA thread where Jack B. was talking about vegetarianism and our carbon footprint. Monoculture and factory farming are killing us on every level. Change we need.

    Comment by Mark Irons — November 3, 2008 @ 8:26 am

  40. the clock on this blog is still in daylight savings.

    Comment by Mark Irons — November 3, 2008 @ 8:28 am

  41. Thanks Mark!

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 3, 2008 @ 8:33 am

  42. Mark … did you mean the “no on 2 ads”? 🙂

    Comment by alameda — November 3, 2008 @ 10:15 am

  43. # 39
    “Monoculture and factory farming are killing us on every level. Change we need.”

    Sheee–it, and all this time I thought it was old age. Where’s the eggs!

    Comment by Jack Richard — November 3, 2008 @ 12:03 pm

  44. #36 re Prop 1A: Is there a term for “an over-generalization which ultimately cuts off discussion”? I’m sorry if this sounds sarcastic, I don’t really mean that, but it does worry me that so many people fall back on some version of “such and such has already happened or has already been said so therefore it doesn’t count anymore”. With what’s at stake in many issues, we can’t afford to be so glib. The economy is in a crisis and getting worse, and there’s — literally — no one anywhere who knows for sure where we’re headed, either the Bay Area, the state, the country, the global economy. I don’t know about you, but I grew up in a post-Great Depression household, and I get the concept — maybe other people don’t??

    And as for the cost: it will be double whatever anybody says it is, because it’s always double (at least). I wonder how far $9 billion would get this project (or $18 billion total)? I bet you that nobody knows that either.

    Comment by DL Morrison — November 3, 2008 @ 5:37 pm

  45. 42. correct, I meant “no on 2 ads”.

    Comment by Mark Irons — November 3, 2008 @ 5:41 pm

  46. Mark,
    If this is what you meant by “monoculture, I could not agree more. http://bss.sfsu.edu/fischer/IR%20305/Readings/global.htm
    Most of us in Alameda oppose the spread into Alameda of this type of Monoculture, and we don’t understand why our CC would support it.

    If you think factory farming is killing us, just remember to be eternally thankful you are not an animal on a factory farm. It is a lot harder for them than for us.

    The following is a very hard video to watch, it is from and about, factory farming and what the EU is doing for ‘humaneity’. It was especially disappointing to see the “certified organic free-range” hens in their stacked cages.
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4016264661656377228

    The following was much easier to watch, but still includes the saddest version of an REM song I’ve ever watched – thankfully it was followed by what local family farming is like in contrast to factory farming.

    Prop 2 is not an end to factory farming; it just lessens the most abhorrent cruelty.

    Learning how to eat right for the environment is very likely to have immense benefit for human health too, because of the mindfulness of learning what is grown locally, in season, and what natural foods we can provide for ourselves.

    Comment by David Kirwin — November 3, 2008 @ 6:07 pm

  47. Lauren,

    I have to ask – how much research did YOU do to examine Prop 1A? While travel alternatives are always nice, do you understand the fiscal implications of the tradeoffs?

    To ALL,

    The only State Props I support are 2, 5 and 11.

    The only Local Measures I support are R & T

    Much of my reasoning is explained in posts 11, 26, 32, & 37.

    I have not yet voted and expectantly wait for other insight, and please include reasons for alternative views.

    Thank you.

    Comment by David Kirwin — November 3, 2008 @ 6:25 pm

  48. #32 how can you have chickens, I thought farm animals were illegal within the city limits?

    We raised chickens, ducks, geese, rabbits, cows and sheep while growing up. My dad named the cows, hamburger, stew meet, t-bone, roast beef ect so us kids would know what they were for and not make pets out of them. I would have voted yes on 2 but I believe it would send a lot of farmers into bankruptcy and raise the prices for food at a time when many people are struggling.

    Comment by Gunter — November 3, 2008 @ 6:34 pm

  49. Gunter,

    AMC (Ala Muni Code) allows up to 6 hens as long as they are kept a min of 20 ft from neighboring dwelling. You missed that Susan said she too has chickens. (post 33) Actually many Alamedans have hens, I’ve learned it’s quite popular, Alameda Magazine even did an article about it a year or two ago. I was disappointed last year when Pagano’s stopped selling feed, they were much cheaper than the pet store at Bridgeside Landing.

    I have also met many others in town who keep honey bees, something I am just learning about. I was letting a friend keep some colonies here and then I captured two swarms at a neighbor’s request. Not only are they amazingly nonaggressive and fascinating to study, but we get to feel we are helping the bees as they are helping our yard in return. Honey is a side benefit. Because it is their winter food I plan to wait until near spring to harvest their leftovers.

    Thank you for providing your reasons for your ballot decisions, although we seem to disagree on 1A, 2, and 3.
    I wish you could list specific causes for your Prop 1A decision.

    Comment by David Kirwin — November 3, 2008 @ 7:44 pm

  50. My apologies if this is a duplicate post

    Gunter,

    AMC (Ala Muni Code) allows up to 6 hens as long as they are kept a min of 20 ft from neighboring dwelling. You missed that Susan said she too has chickens. (post 33) Actually many Alamedans have hens, I’ve learned it’s quite popular, Alameda Magazine even did an article about it a year or two ago. I was disappointed last year when Pagano’s stopped selling feed, they were much cheaper than the pet store at Bridgeside Landing.

    I have also met many others in town who keep honey bees, something I am just learning about. I was letting a friend keep some colonies here and then I captured two swarms at a neighbor’s request. Not only are they amazingly nonaggressive and fascinating to study, but we get to feel we are helping the bees as they are helping our yard in return. Honey is a side benefit. Because it is their winter food I plan to wait until near spring to harvest their leftovers

    Thank you for providing your reasons for your ballot decisions, although we seem to disagree on 1A, 2, and 3.
    I wish you could list specific causes for your Prop 1A decision.

    Comment by David Kirwin — November 3, 2008 @ 7:48 pm

  51. Urban farming is alive and well in Oakland.
    http://www.cityslickerfarms.org

    And picking up in Alameda from what I gather. Too bad we can’t plow The Point.

    Comment by Jack B. — November 3, 2008 @ 7:59 pm

  52. “Urban farming is alive and well in Oakland.”

    Are you talking about the backyard pot plantations? Oakland is an example for nothing …

    Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — November 3, 2008 @ 8:04 pm

  53. I’ve learned that there’s plenty of Oakland to like.

    Anyway, Jeff, I have a surplus of lemons if you or anybody else is looking to trade. Do you have an ‘cados or limes?

    Comment by Jack B. — November 3, 2008 @ 8:19 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at WordPress.com.