San Diego Housing Bubble News and Analysis

Thank you, Higgy. Very useful and timely (my mail-in ballot just arrived).

Mine arrived recently too. Always seems like I rush at the last minute to research propositions. Wanted to get a head start if anyone on the Piggington panel had thoughts, would love to hear them....

I have a simple suggestion. Vote no on all of them. There might be one or two that you like, but the problem that I see is that the ballot proposition idea sounds good but in practice is terrible.

All too often there is little unbiased information about these ballot and no information about possible unintended consequences. Many times in recent years voters have been fooled or tricked into voting for things that are not what they think they are.

Many of the propositions are also for large bond issues. Notice that we only get to vote on spending money on the issues that voters are likely to support. (education, environmental protection, police and firefighting) What the state assembly does when they want more money, is spend the general fund on their pet projects and then let these ballot propositions fund the things they should have funded instead of their special interest projects.

So, the sooner we stop trying to run our government through this process the better. Thus, I recommend voting no on all of these issues.

I agree with XBoxBoy on the fact that many of these issues appear in face value to support worthy causes, but the question should be asked as to why we can't fund this with our existing budget which is bloated to begin with.

Obviously yes on 2 and 7 (because that's The Right Thing to do)

No on 8 (civil rights issue)

No on 4 (teenagers have rights, too)

No on 10 (a big taxpayer handout to T. Boone Pickens)

No opinion on others.

While I don't know if the High Speed rail prop is a good one as written, we as a country, not just a state, need to invest in this eventually. It will give people an option to air travel at some point, and it has to be less costly to push a vehicle along rails than to lift it up to 30,000 feet in the air.

If high speed rail is successful, it will put a big dent in domestic air travel revenue, but I think that's inevitable.

By the way, I've always hated flying.....

summary: http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1305922....

A supporter whose opinion I respect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._David_Fr...

Where the big money for and against it comes from
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Co...
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Co...

Major donors supporting it: Peter Sperling and Jim Gonzolez
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Pe...
http://jimgonzalez.com/profiles.asp

Major donors opposing it: big utility companies

With that information in mind, I looked at
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_7_(2008)

Am I missing any critical piece of information necessary to make a decision on this?

My general checklist:
1. Is it really necessary?
2. Can the market solve this problem within an acceptable period of time?
3. Can we (the taxpayers) afford it?

I will vote for it.

Best cases I have seen against my position: http://ecoworld.com/blog/2008/10/01/cost...
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/REPORT...

The numbers used by eco-world are probably intellectually honest, and I think an investment on the order of $2,000 per year per Californian household is necessary for our long-term growth and security.
The short comings of the bill identified in the CPUC report are tolerable, and can be reformed via a 2/3rds vote in the legislature.

Check out http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-so... for additional background on solar as an energy option.

adelord wrote: "My general checklist:
1. Is it really necessary?
2. Can the market solve this problem within an acceptable period of time?
3. Can we (the taxpayers) afford it?"

Good idea, if it weren't for the little game the pols are playing with you, that other commenters have pointed out above: Put spending initiatives that are unpopular through the legislature. That gets them up to a certain level of spending in total. Then put the popular spending initiatives on the ballot, using a pay-later bond.

Using this dual-barrel approach, total spending is way higher than if the voters were fully in control, or if the legislature were fully in control. Pols just wanna have... more spending.

My checklist is No if it involves more spending, and Maybe if it doesn't.

regarding my checklist, these props fail:
1a, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, A, C, D
Prop A is especially offensive:

From my perspective only 7, 11, and 12 pass.
B may pass, but it isn't on my ballot, so I'm not going to try to figure that one out.

Note that the costs of prop 12 are paid by the vets who get the loans, unless the vets default. I would rather that only combat vets were covered, but in a way that is splitting hairs (I meet the "combat vet" definition even though I was never in immediate danger while I was deployed in combat zones).

7 is hard to figure out, but I think I have a handle on what its consequences will be:

1. huge new solar-thermal generation facilities all over the deserts (the fast track process will make it harder for environmental groups to halt the destruction of desert habitat for these projects).
2. Higher electricty rates in the short term (10 years) -- the cost of prop 7 will be in higher electricity rates, but the infrastructure built will have an exceptionally long functional life.
3. A drop in the price in photovoltaic cells as economies of scale kick in.
4. Framing the energy debate to where solar cell should be installed, and how decentralized the solar should be.
5. Job creation in SoCal at the expense of NoCal.
6. Local industry growth that will be able to fill the niche created by the eventual federal mandates that will come in five to ten years, if not sooner.

From 10:

Provides $3.425 billion to help consumers and others purchase certain high fuel economy or alternative fuel vehicles, including natural gas vehicles, and to fund research into alternative fuel technology.

Ok sure Ill vote it in if some of that cash is allocated to take my gas inefficient tank away from me at no loss.

8 - had a conversation with some folks on this the other day. Im ok with partnership or whatever you want to call it and still think that marriage or the term/ bond of marriage should remain man/woman. Lets find another term for man/man woman/woman since so many people are up in arms over this subject. Find equal ground to allow their unity, just call it something else to benefit the conservs.

Where is the prop for the beach booze ban? Maybe thats localized. I was at the OB octoberfest and some lady was walking around signing people up to vote and threw this subject into the conversation.

Edit - found the local props

http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/...

Lets find another term for man/man woman/woman since so many people are up in arms over this subject.

I agree, but I really don't want to create a separate institution. Then we have to write a new set of laws, and if they don't provide identical rights to marriages then we have a bunch of lawsuits about it. It also opens up discrimination lawsuits where civil unions aren't treated the same as marriage. If it is identical then we are calling a duck a pig, just because we don't like the name duck. It would probably be best to have the state just call everything a civil union and leave marriages to the church. However, the second best option is to just call everything marriage so we don't have to set up a separate but equal institution.

Wasn't going to get into 8, but I'm surprised by some what I read here.

Where do you stop?

What's to stop 3 men from marrying? 2 men and a woman? A man his dog? An adult and a child? And so on...

The defining of marriage is a family values issue before it's a civil rights issue. This bill would have never made the books 50 years ago, and look at the degradation of our society since then. I'm sure some wise-ass liberal on here will look back and find a racist or biggotist quote from that time period but it doesn't change the fact that American values have eroded, and this furthers that erosion.

Other comments:
Proposition 1A High speed passenger train Bond - Too expensive. Spend it on education.

Proposition 3 Children's hospital Bond Act. - There's already money set aside for this

Proposition 4 Waiting period and Parental notification before Minor's abortion. - see above.

Proposition 6 - Spend this money on schools, (sports, arts programs, etc) and you'll have less criminals in the first place.

Proposition 7 Renewable engergy generation - will almost definately raise energy costs. Let the Federal government fund the alternative energy search.

Proposition 10 Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy. - Boone Pockets, I mean Pickens

You don't have to agree with me, I just wish everyone know more about these.

Glad to see people taking time to read up on them.

The government should not discriminate against civil unions between consenting adults solely because those unions don't conform to the definition used in a certain religion.

It can be argued that a child cannot consent to marriage (although examples of children getting married off to adults are present even in the Bible), same with the dog.

There are probably many laws on the books that implicitly assume that marriage is always between two people. It would be technically challenging to include polygamy; other than that, I don't see why it should be excluded.

Yes! I am not alone in my train of thought.

I already voted no on everything but 2 and 9. I have a very personal interest in victim's rights.

IMHO, the whole county should get to vote on the beach booze thing.

Here's how, two weeks out, I plan to vote:
Yes:
State
1A, 2, 7, 11
San Diego
C

I do. Because marriage between a man and a woman has nothing to do with religion. Thou shalt not murder - is that "religious" too?

Just because something is supported by people who also happen to go to church doesn't mean it's exclusively a religious value being shoved down atheistic throats. It's a family value, and there are plenty of non-religious married men and women who value marriage too.

When marriage laws were written they probably never even thought to specify only between a man and a woman. They didn't need to back then.

You prove my point. You can't fathom the law allowing 3 people to be married, but at the time the marrige laws were written they couldn't fathom it being anything but a man and a woman.

Even if some of these propositions pass, is anyone out there dumb enough to buy bonds from California? Isn't the state already near bankruptcy?

Apparently California sold $5 Billion in tax free bonds last week to what they called "mom and pop investors" in a matter of hours.

I don't recall the rates, but I'd wonder the same thing since California can't print its own currency.

Unless we go to the Austrian schilling.

Your post says that (PROP 8) eliminates the right to same sex marriage? Would you clarify what you mean by "right". I am not sure what rights are being taken away?

Your post says that (PROP 8) eliminates the right to same sex marriage? Would you clarify what you mean by "right". I am not sure what rights are being taken away? Perhaps I am misunderstanding?

Okay: I answered my own question: See Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)

Most marriages that take place in the United States are between a man and a woman of the same race, both under 45, with the groom no more than 5 years younger than the bride. That's what you call a "family value". It has nothing to do with religion, just social customs and human preferences.

But once in a while there is a guy who wants to marry a woman who's 15 years older than him (Ashton Kutcher & Demi Moore), or a white guy who wants to marry an Asian girl, or a guy who wants to have two wives, or a guy who wants to marry another guy. Whatever their personal quirk is. And our laws don't treat these cases equally. Marrying an older woman is OK and it's always been OK. Bans on interracial marriages were declared inconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1967. Gays are fighting for their rights now, and polygamists are still waiting their turn.

Marriage is not a religious value. I am not religious, but I am married. I don't feel that letting gays marry each other threatens my marriage in any way - any more than letting Ashton Kutcher marry Demi Moore does.

Religion plays a role in trying to _restrict_ the definition of marriage. Right-wingers seem to be saying that, their church does not recognize the marriage between gays (because gays are seen as sinful and perverted) and therefore our government should not recognize it, either. THAT's where religious values are being shoved down atheistic throats. I may think that Ashton Kutcher is sinful and perverted, too, but I don't go around demanding that he should not be allowed to marry whoever he wants. He can go and marry Seann William Scott, for all I care. It's his personal business.

I hate the political threads but I'm jumping in at my own peril because I have decided that prop 8 bothers me on a few levels.

This is just about telling people that they aren't good enough, that pisses people off. If it was an option and had been one for years, it probably wouldn't be that prevalent. There was a time that the voters wouldn't have approved of interacial marriage, times change, most people change, some church people are the last to change.

For the most part, marriage is horrible institution, why should gays be spared the pleasures of divorce, alimony and legal fees. If that's what they want, have at at, you'll be sorry but in this country we all have the right to ruin our own lives, who am I to stand in their way. In fact, I'd love to switch with them, let's have heterosexual civil unions, I'd love to say that to my girlfriend "hey babe, I'd love to marry you, but it is illegal, so until the law changes, we have sex and you get none of my stuff."

All of the threats from the yes 8 commercial are faulty, the cases of being sued or losing tax exempt status were exceptions. One case in particular was a pavillion, affiliated with a church, that was available for rent to the public for any function except for gay weddings. That example is being used to scare churches. Actual churches can make whatever rules they want but once you rent to the public (outside the church members) you cannot discriminate, with or without this prop. That misleading ad is the biggest reason I'm against it, I hate the lies.

I do have to give credit to the mormons, even though they have supplied more than a third of the funding for yes on 8, they have been vocal about how some of the ads and e-mails are false. This website, mormons for marriage desribes some of the lies being spewed, kudos to them for being honest.

http://www.mormonsformarriage.com/wp-con...

actually that last site ended up being from a group of mormons who oppose 8, so now it has to be taken with a grain of salt, see this is why I hate politics.

I sent in our absentee ballots several weeks ago with the following:

Yes:
State
1A, 2, 7, 11
San Diego
C
_____________________________

Note, the prop 8 thing is getting extremely emotional. TV ads suggesting that if we vote no, kids will be taught about same sex marriage in school.

Think of that, our kids learning that some people in the world are gay. What a shocking thought.

Doesn't bother me at all that a large percentage of kids have already had sex by age 14, or even younger....

But, the advent of this being taught in elementary or high school lectures is pulling at my wife's heart strings .....