OT: The Propositions on the ballot in CA

[CAwireman]

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…..

[adelord]

[quote=HiggyBaby]
Proposition 7 Renewable engergy generation
[/quote]
It took me a while to find the information necessary to evaluate this one.

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

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

Where the big money for and against it comes from
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1302703&session=2007&view=late1
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1304245&session=2007&view=late1

Major donors supporting it: Peter Sperling and Jim Gonzolez
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Peter_Sperling
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/costing-californias-proposition-7/
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/REPORT/88422.htm

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-solar-grand-plan for additional background on solar as an energy option.

[adelord]

[quote=HiggyBaby]
Proposition 7 Renewable engergy generation
[/quote]
It took me a while to find the information necessary to evaluate this one.

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

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

Where the big money for and against it comes from
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1302703&session=2007&view=late1
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1304245&session=2007&view=late1

Major donors supporting it: Peter Sperling and Jim Gonzolez
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Peter_Sperling
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/costing-californias-proposition-7/
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/REPORT/88422.htm

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-solar-grand-plan for additional background on solar as an energy option.

[adelord]

[quote=HiggyBaby]
Proposition 7 Renewable engergy generation
[/quote]
It took me a while to find the information necessary to evaluate this one.

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

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

Where the big money for and against it comes from
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1302703&session=2007&view=late1
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1304245&session=2007&view=late1

Major donors supporting it: Peter Sperling and Jim Gonzolez
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Peter_Sperling
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/costing-californias-proposition-7/
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/REPORT/88422.htm

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-solar-grand-plan for additional background on solar as an energy option.

[adelord]

[quote=HiggyBaby]
Proposition 7 Renewable engergy generation
[/quote]
It took me a while to find the information necessary to evaluate this one.

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

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

Where the big money for and against it comes from
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1302703&session=2007&view=late1
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1304245&session=2007&view=late1

Major donors supporting it: Peter Sperling and Jim Gonzolez
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Peter_Sperling
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/costing-californias-proposition-7/
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/REPORT/88422.htm

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-solar-grand-plan for additional background on solar as an energy option.

[adelord]

[quote=HiggyBaby]
Proposition 7 Renewable engergy generation
[/quote]
It took me a while to find the information necessary to evaluate this one.

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

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

Where the big money for and against it comes from
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1302703&session=2007&view=late1
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1304245&session=2007&view=late1

Major donors supporting it: Peter Sperling and Jim Gonzolez
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Peter_Sperling
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/costing-californias-proposition-7/
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/REPORT/88422.htm

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-solar-grand-plan for additional background on solar as an energy option.

[patientrenter]

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.

[patientrenter]

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.

[patientrenter]

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.

[patientrenter]

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.

[patientrenter]

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.

[adelord]

regarding my checklist, these props fail:
1a, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, A, C, D
Prop A is especially offensive:
[quote]
San Diego County adopted a 2007-2008 budget of about $4.7 billion, over 8% higher than the previous year. County revenues have soared in recent years, but our Supervisors have chosen not to fund these firefighting improvements from their swollen budgets.
By supporting this tax, our Supervisors essentially are deciding that all other budget spending is more important than firefighting – that there isn’t $50 million to be found in a $4.7 BILLION county budget. That’s about ONE PERCENT of the budget.[/quote]
source: rebuttal against Prop A http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/sd/prop/A/

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.

[adelord]

regarding my checklist, these props fail:
1a, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, A, C, D
Prop A is especially offensive:
[quote]
San Diego County adopted a 2007-2008 budget of about $4.7 billion, over 8% higher than the previous year. County revenues have soared in recent years, but our Supervisors have chosen not to fund these firefighting improvements from their swollen budgets.
By supporting this tax, our Supervisors essentially are deciding that all other budget spending is more important than firefighting – that there isn’t $50 million to be found in a $4.7 BILLION county budget. That’s about ONE PERCENT of the budget.[/quote]
source: rebuttal against Prop A http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/sd/prop/A/

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.

[adelord]

regarding my checklist, these props fail:
1a, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, A, C, D
Prop A is especially offensive:
[quote]
San Diego County adopted a 2007-2008 budget of about $4.7 billion, over 8% higher than the previous year. County revenues have soared in recent years, but our Supervisors have chosen not to fund these firefighting improvements from their swollen budgets.
By supporting this tax, our Supervisors essentially are deciding that all other budget spending is more important than firefighting – that there isn’t $50 million to be found in a $4.7 BILLION county budget. That’s about ONE PERCENT of the budget.[/quote]
source: rebuttal against Prop A http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/sd/prop/A/

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.

[adelord]

regarding my checklist, these props fail:
1a, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, A, C, D
Prop A is especially offensive:
[quote]
San Diego County adopted a 2007-2008 budget of about $4.7 billion, over 8% higher than the previous year. County revenues have soared in recent years, but our Supervisors have chosen not to fund these firefighting improvements from their swollen budgets.
By supporting this tax, our Supervisors essentially are deciding that all other budget spending is more important than firefighting – that there isn’t $50 million to be found in a $4.7 BILLION county budget. That’s about ONE PERCENT of the budget.[/quote]
source: rebuttal against Prop A http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/sd/prop/A/

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.

[Author]

Posts