San Diego Housing Bubble News and Analysis

And don't forget that silly Proposition 2 nonsense.

"But the bond measure says it won't cause our taxes to increase!"

Every year when we have these stupid bond measures that spend billions and billions of dollars, the sheeple in CA always vote for them because they are too stupid to realize that SOMEONE has to pay the money back--that someone is all of us.

We also voted for almost all of the school bond measures in the county. More free money I guess. Can't wait to get my next property tax bill.

Oh, and the idiots voted to permanently take away our right to enjoy a beer in a city park or at the beach. Nice.

Reminds me of the Simpsons Monorail Episode.

Lyle Lanley (the slimy monorail salesman): Well, sir, there's nothing on earth
Like a genuine,
Bona fide,
Electrified,
Six-car
Monorail!
What'd I say?

Ned Flanders: Monorail!

Lyle Lanley: What's it called?

Patty+Selma: Monorail!

Lyle Lanley: That's right! Monorail!

[crowd chants `Monorail' softly and rhythmically]

Miss Hoover: I hear those things are awfully loud...

Lyle Lanley: It glides as softly as a cloud.

Apu: Is there a chance the track could bend?

Lyle Lanley: Not on your life, my Hindu friend.

Barney: What about us brain-dead slobs?

Lyle Lanley: You'll be given cushy jobs.

Abe: Were you sent here by the devil?

Lyle Lanley: No, good sir, I'm on the level.

Wiggum: The ring came off my pudding can.

Lyle Lanley: Take my pen knife, my good man.

I swear it's Springfield's only choice...
Throw up your hands and raise your voice!

All: Monorail!

Lyle Lanley: What's it called?

All: Monorail!

Lyle Lanley: Once again...

All: Monorail!

Marge: But Main Street's still all cracked and broken...

Bart: Sorry, Mom, the mob has spoken!

All: Monorail!
Monorail!
Monorail!

[big finish]

Monorail!

Homer: Mono... D'oh!

LOL at the Monorail reference!

Yes, I agree. I can't believe some of these props passed. *sigh*

I am a transportation planner here in San Diego (I won't say public or private) and I voted against the high speed rail project. Again, it's a perfect example of proposing to the people a project that won't work.

As much as I am an advocate for mass transit and alternatives to the auto industry, I couldn't vote for highspeed rail. Very sad day. very sad day.

now my kids are going to have to pay for it...

Hmmm....kinda like the idiots that voted to permanently take away our right to marry the person we love?

Or is the "right to beer in public" somehow a more fundamental human right?

Karma is a bitch.

There is no law against civil unions in California between members of any sex and you still enjoy the same legal rights as 'married' folk.

I OTOH, cannot enjoy a beer at the beach no matter how you spin it.

And, don't worry, as usual, the california courts will overturn the prop that just passed like they always do when it comes to gay marriage and illegal immigration. Par for the course.

Can't figure how the hell we are going to pay for all this stuff. At least 7 and 10 didn't pass.

Thought 8 would get shot down. Out of curiosity, can you be libertarian and against gay marriage?

Just think of all the revenue the state would have gotten from thousands of gay marriages: You have license fees, insurance, space rental, caterers, planners, officiants, conventions, tux shops, dress shops, florists, bakers, bartenders, hotel rooms, all of which are taxed along the way.

So if we're judging the merit of a Proposition based on how it affect's the state's bottom line, Prop 8 is a miserable failure.

And you can enjoy a frosty beer wherever you like. Just not on the beach or park. Oh by the way, your taxes still pay for the upkeep of that beach or park even though your use of that resource has been curtailed.

"Civil Unions" are an attempt to provide some of the basic legal benefits of civil marriage but not all. It's a consolation prize at best. Second-class status.

What if they said you can enjoy a beer on the beach -- but only if it is non-alcoholic. Would you could consider that the "same legal right"? Or would you feel marginalized?

And used to pay for the new Monorail! (which, if we're lucky, we'll get to ride on once before we leave this world).

Yes. And while you cannot enact laws to preclude others from doing it, you are certainly free to express your disapproval in a non-invasive way.

Libertarianism -- at lest the way I define it -- is the ultimate personal freedom tempered by the ultimate personal responsibility. You are free to live your life however you wish with no interference from the state so long as your exercise of those freedoms do not impact on others ability to do likewise. It is a philosophy based on mutual tolerance and respect. We’ll never agree on everything, but we can respectfully disagree and leave one another be.

This is at the very heart of the opposition to Prop 8. No one is seeking your blessing or endorsement of same-sex marriage. If you’re against gay marriage then don’t go! I promise not to burden you with an invitation. But please don’t tell my fellow tax-paying partner and I that we do not have the “right” to a civil marriage with all the proscribed benefits and societal recognition. And certainly do not modify something as fundamental as the state constitution to do so.

California, ca. 2008, could not be more opposite than this ideal. What we have instead is the epitome of a fascist nanny state; a perfect example of Tocqueville’s “Tyranny of the majority”. For meadendale it’s a beer on the beach (a right which I firmly believe should be elucidated in the state constitution!), for me it’s the freedom to marry. For smokers, it will soon be the freedom to light up a cigarette in their own car with the windows rolled up. Where does it end?

So we're taking away rights from consenting, responsible adults, but granting new rights to chickens.

Yippee.

And don't even get me started on that high speed rail nonsense. California could barely sell GOs to cover the deficit, who the heck is going to buy those rail bonds?

Yes, but only to heterosexual chickens. It's traditional after all.

People should only be allowed to vote AFTER reading both the arguments for AND against a proposition with a preface on the financial situation of our state.

Kiss our schools goodbye, but we'll have a nice train used by no one.

Chickens are people, too!Bird power

Train is from SF to LA. Extension from LA to OC and Riverside is optional(extra cost). NO SD!!

The prop doesnt mandate the train, it only allows bonds to be sold, right? On the bright side, doesn't Legislature have to approve bonds for sale?
They could just delay it until budget is balanced.
Not a lawyer, but why wouldnt the sponsors require a date for project start?

I'm reading my voters guide. On a side note, CA allows you to vote by mail. I did b/c I was out of town, but it gave me plenty of time to review the props in enoguh detail to know what I was voting on. I wish I could speak for the rest of the state.

"Safe Reliable High Speed Passenger Train Bond."

$9.95 BILLION in Bonds, to be paid back over 30 yeras costing the state $19.4 Billion (I suppose they may have difficulty selling the bonds, but "mom and pop" slurped up $5 billion in less than 2 days a few weeks back).

"Unknown maintanence costs, probably over $1 billion/yr, at least partially, and potentially fully offset by passenger fares."

It's also been questioned who builds the thing, who makes sure they're doing it properly, and not pocketing it (ala Simpsons), what's the environmental impact, etc.

This is a joke. We don't need mass transit from LA to SF - fly Southwest from one So Cal's 6 airports- we pub trans within the cities to unclog the countless interstate parking lots.

OK, I'll bite despite the fact that these OT threads piss off many on the board and the beating I'm likely to take:

I'm libertarian and I voted for proposition 8. Is this a contradiction? Yes.

Here's my logic: Morally, I'm against gay marriage. That said, I would never legislate against it by that fact alone. I am also a pragmatist, however. Even though I'm libertarian and would never want to use the state to legislate against another's social freedoms, others don't share that belief and are not afraid to use the strong arm of the state to legislate/infringe on mine.

The arguments of those in favor of prop 8 were not completely fanciful. The gay community has an agenda, and this agenda would have resulted in gay marriage being taught in public schools as well as relgious people/institutions being persecuted. Religous leaders would have been hauled into court for not performing same sex marriages, and tax exempt status would have been revoked on grounds of discrimination at some point in the not too distant future.

So, long story short. I have no issue with homosexuality that doesn't impact me personally. Some of my closest friends are gay, many people I work with are gay, and I have no issue with it outside of my own moral beliefs, which I have no need to project on others.

That said, the gay community will/would seek to aggressively push it's rights and its agenda. This would ultimately affect my kids, and religious institutions that I frequent.

The gay community needs to pause a bit. Staunchly defending one's rights is understandable (If I was gay, I'm sure I'd do the same thing), but when it moves onto forcing that agenda onto the educations of others kids, and at times in opposition to the moral/religous beliefs of others, people understandably recoil and lash back.

That's what happened here. Prop 8 would have never passed if it weren't for a recognition of the law of unintended consequences. I'm confident this will be overturned in the next 10 years either by judicial fiat, or via another ballot initiative that might offer protections against some of the fears I outlined above.

Fire away.

Stan

Actually, that was a very good argument, Stan.

I voted against Prop 8 because I'm extremely libertarian on social issues -- as long as everyone is consenting and nobody is being harmed, then the govt should stay out of people's private lives.

OTOH, a few people I know, who would have voted against the ban, voted in favor of Prop 8 precisely because the "gay agenda" would have been shoved down everyone else's throats.

The school issue is a biggie, and while many parents (including myself) don't have any issues with gay people or gay marriage, the idea that schools will have the right to teach about it in a biased manner (pro and con, depending on the teacher...no matter how much they protest otherwise), is a huge turn-off.

Still, I feel libertarian values took another hit; and it saddens me that people think the govt should be involved in people's private lives (that includes teaching about it!).

I don't get this argument. Wouldn't gay people attend gay-friendly churches, and get married there? That's what they're currently doing and have been doing since gay marriage has been legal. What makes you think they'd want to attend or get married in a church that finds them morally reprehensible? Would you attend a church that hated you? Would you want to get married by a religious leader who thought you were sick and going to hell? Have any religious leaders been "hauled into court" since May 2008, when gay marriage was deemed legal?

I also don't understand all this talk about marriage in schools. I was never taught about marriage in school. Were you?

I wish everyone would stop thinking that everyone else is out to get them. We're not a nation of whiners, we're a nation of pussies.

I also don't understand all this talk about marriage in schools. I was never taught about marriage in school. Were you?

-------------------

You probably haven't attended recently.

Depending on the school and district, they can/will teach about marriage and family values in the classroom. It's mandated, to some extent, to discuss the various kinds of families (single-parent, children raised by grandparents, etc.).

While you (and I) might not have any objections, some parents do mind.

Typically, yes, they would get married in a gay friendly church, and hauling religious leaders into court while rare, has, and would happen.

I have a picture in my possession of a husband and a husband with coloring scribbles all over it from the child who brought it home from the Poway Unified School District. That isn't a scare tactic, that's reality.

Stan

Stan-
I tend to agree with your argument, but I voted against 8 anyway. I nearly filled in the "YES" oval, though, but the measure seemed a bit too draconian. Nonetheless, the way in which gay mariage was approved in California was absolutely disgusting.

Majority of Californians are stupid? Try the whole planet. But what the hey, it sure makes the job of making money a lot easier than if most people actually had a brain.

The gay community has an agenda, and this agenda would have resulted in gay marriage being taught in public schools as well as relgious people/institutions being persecuted.

Of course they have an agenda: to be treated equally under the law.

Prop 8 is about denying civil rights and equality under the law. Prop 8 has NOTHING to do with schools teaching or not teaching anything about gay marriage. That was a dishonest scare tactic used by the Prop proponents. Also, Prop 8 has NOTHING to do with religious freedom. If your church doesn't want to celebrate gay weddings, then nothing would have changed by rejectin Prop 8.

Prop 8 is about equality under the law and not having second class citizens. The schools or churches arguments were 100% falacious and scare tactics.

If you voted YES on Prop 8 there is no way you are a libertarian. Overturning Prop 8 would have not forced schools nor churches to do anything differently. Restricting the rights of consenting adults to live their lives as they see fit and to have equal rights is the complete opposite of libertarianism.

And, don't worry, as usual, the california courts will overturn the prop

True. In the 1960s Californians approved a proposition that would have made it legal to add racial discrimination clauses to real estate contracts: The realtors association lobbyied to have the "right" to demand that buyers sign a clause to the effect that they would not resell the property to a person of color.

Guess what, the courts shot it down! Something similar passed in the 1990s with the "anti-immigrant" Prop 187 (really a racist initiative) that would have required Nazi style round ups of children in public schools and teachers demanding to see proof of citizenship before admitting kids to class. The courts shot this one down too!

We Californians have a history of voting for these propositions and initiatives that curtail basic civil rights. But the ACLU and other true libertarians will make sure that the courts hear the arguments and make a decision based on what is constitutional, and not based on what the mob/herd voted for.

I can't believe what a huge deal this proposition was in this election. I have to admit, I couldn't possibly care less if gay people get married, and I also don't care if they teach it to my daughter in school.

I voted No for this, but I almost filled in the Yes oval. Want to know why? It was that ad featuring the Gavin Newsom speech where he said "This door's open now! It's gonna happen, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT!". I have a real problem with an elected official telling me I going to get something whether I like it or not.

In the end I decided not to punish a whole class of people due to one politician's arrogance and stupidity, but I believe Mayor Newsom bears a big part of the responsibility as to why this proposition passed.

I understand overturning a law, but where would the courts find the authority to overturn a constitutional amendment?

The 18th amendment was overturned.

No, only people who pay income taxes should be able to vote.