Union of Concerned Scientists Warns CA Voters about Misleading Slate Mailer and ‘Trojan Horse’ Attack Against State’s Clean Energy Law; Urges Voters to Vote NO on 26

With most voters’ attention diverted by the oil industry’s efforts to derail the state’s landmark clean energy and climate law with Proposition 23, another, less scrutinized oil-industry-funded ballot measure–Proposition 26–also poses a serious threat to the environment and clean energy.

Proposition 26 has received nearly $16 million from Chevron and other big oil companies, as well as alcohol and tobacco interests, to get themselves off the hook from paying for environmental and health damage they cause and shift that burden to taxpayers.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is alerting California voters to beware of misleading ‘slate mailers’ arriving in their mailboxes just before the November 2 election. UCS strongly urges a ‘NO’ vote on Prop. 23 and Prop. 26.

“While Prop 23 is a frontal assault on our clean energy law, Prop 26 is more like a Trojan horse,” said Dan Kalb, UCS California policy manager. “As deceptive as the Prop 23 campaign has been, the campaign to pass Prop 26 is even more insidious. Not only do the oil and tobacco companies behind Prop 26 hide the fact that it would starve state and local public health, clean air, and clean energy programs, but now they are funding misleading slate mailers that misinform voters about what the pro-environment position really is on Prop 26.  The pro-environment position on Prop 26 is a definite NO.”

Voters have already begun receiving a for-profit mailer with the headline “Californians Vote Green” recommending votes on Props 25 (no) and 26 (yes) that are the opposite of what the state’s leading public health and environmental organizations recommend.  UCS and several other leading environmental and consumer groups strongly support Prop. 25 and oppose Prop. 26.

“This pay-to-play ‘green’ mailer sinks to new lows when it comes to false advertising,” said Kalb.

                                                                                                                                                                            (cont.)

Proposition 26, which is vague and poorly written, threatens California’s efforts to bolster green jobs by cleaning up the state’s energy supply and cutting global warming pollution.  According to UCS, if passed, Proposition 26 could:

~ Prevent the California Air Resources Board from collecting a fee from polluters to fund CARB and other agencies implementing policies to reach the state’s 2020 global warming emission-reduction target. Those policies include standards for renewable energy and low-carbon fuel.

~ Prevent CARB from levying fees on global warming pollution as part of an economy-wide cap on emissions.

~ Eliminate funding streams for public transportation, crippling implementation of SB 375, which is designed to help Californians drive less, pollute less, and spend less money on gas.

Proposition 26 threatens California’s clean energy and climate laws by oddly redefining taxes, Kalb explained.  Under current law, the state and municipal governments have the authority to impose narrowly-defined fees on industries whose activities harm public health or the environment and then use that revenue to correct and prevent those harms, as long as the amount of the fee bears a reasonable relationship to the harm.

Fees require a simple majority to pass in the Legislature, while taxes require a two-thirds super-majority vote. Proposition 26 would redefine fees as taxes, establishing a nearly impossible hurdle that could dry up funding for CARB and local governments to implement vital energy and environmental clean-up programs.

“If Californians want to support a clean environment and vibrant economy in California, they should vote ‘NO’ on Props 23 and 26,” said Erin Rogers, manager of the Western States Climate and Energy Program at UCS. “If passed, these measures won’t just put the brakes on California’s clean energy laws, they will send a message to businesses, entrepreneurs and investors in the state’s booming clean tech sector that California is no longer open for business. That’s a rotten deal, especially considering that clean tech is one of the only bright spots our state’s economy.”

The Union of Concerned Scientists has officially come out AGAINST Proposition 16.

The two-thirds vote requirement sets a problematic precedent for a community’s desire to raise and spend funds for an approved purpose.  For the specific purposes outlined in the ballot initiative, the two-thirds vote requirement would effectively prevent local communities from having a choice as to who they purchase their electricity from.  Today, this choice, or the threat of such a choice, could have a positive impact on the behavior of the regulated investor-owned utilities (IOUs) in a number of areas, including rates and increasing investments in local sources of renewable energy.  

The environmental community in California has said that we need to move away from the 2/3 vote toward a simple majority vote on state budget and related revenue matters.  This proposed constitutional amendment goes in the opposite direction.  

Local governments rightfully fear that if this initiative passes, opponents with the sufficient financial resources to mount a public campaign will try to restrict local government’s ability to issue other types of revenue bonds.  

While publicly owned municipal utilities (POUs) can’t guarantee more or less renewable energy than the IOUs, most California POUs have a voluntary green power option that ratepayers can opt into to promote additional development of renewables.  The California IOUs currently do not have such an option and don’t appear to be moving any time soon in that direction.  

While the initiative exempts the 2/3 vote requirement for bonds that would go to 100 percent renewable power, it would still require a 2/3 vote for any combination of renewable and non-renewable energy-even if a newly proposed community choice entity committed to a portfolio of, for example, three-quarters renewables.  

The recent desire and community support for creating new Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) entities for retail electricity purposes, along with the periodic attempt by some communities (e.g. Yolo County) to expand existing POUs, has led PG&E to put this proposition on the ballot to thwart, once and for all, the ability of communities to move toward a limited or full-blown public power option.  

It is relevant to note that all the local jurisdictions that have been promoting the CCA or public power expansion have made renewable energy a top priority in their plans to take over part of the electricity service in their communities.  Not surprisingly, the jurisdictions that are most interested in the public power option, each have relatively progressive elected leaders who have publicly indicated strong commitments to increasing renewable energy.  

Of course, these commitments don’t guarantee that more renewable energy will be produced or used, but we do like to encourage every utility to increase their percentage of renewables as much as possible, and these local elected leaders have expressed a strong desire to create portfolios of energy that have a higher percentage of renewables than the IOUs would be required to procure.  Showing encouragement to elected leaders at all levels of government to promote more renewables can be a positive strategy.  

Please vote NO on 16.

(From our friends at the Union of Concerned Scientists – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

First of its kind economic analysis shows significant cuts in global warming pollution will cost small businesses only pennies

Los Angeles County  –  As international climate treaty negotiations begin in Copenhagen amid controversy over economic impacts, a new report shows that the costs for small business operating under California’s landmark climate law (AB 32) can be measured in pennies. Conducted by leading economists and released by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) today, the report finds that AB 32 policies will only increase the percent of small business revenue spent on energy by only 0.3 percentage points–from 1.4 to 1.7 percent–in 2020.  In a case study which examines a real world small business–Border Grill restaurant–the report finds AB 32 will cost diners a mere 3 cents extra per $20 meal in 2020.

The analysis, The Economic Impact of AB 32 on California Small Businesses ( www.ucsusa.org/small_business ), a peer-reviewed first-of-its-kind analysis, uses empirical data on the cost characteristics of small businesses to estimate the economic impacts of AB 32 and was commissioned by UCS and conducted by The Brattle Group, an international economic consulting firm.

“Our report finds that the incremental cost impact of AB 32 on the average California small business will be relatively small and definitely manageable,” said Jurgen Weiss of the Brattle Group, and co-author of the report.  “The AB 32 cost impact pales in comparison to the effect of inflation over ten years, and falls well within the range of historic cost variation most small businesses face everyday regardless of climate policy.”

The Brattle Group projected the likely changes in electricity, natural gas, and gasoline prices due to the major AB 32 policies: cap and trade (which puts a price on carbon), a 33% renewable energy standard, increased energy efficiency measures, and a low-carbon fuel standard.

(more…)

Report Highlights

~~ Most small businesses will not be directly regulated under AB 32, therefore AB 32 policies will only impact them indirectly to the extent that these policies cause energy prices (electricity, natural gas, transportation) to change.

~~ The average small business spends less than 1.5 percent of revenues on energy-related costs.  So any increase in the price of energy will have a modest financial impact.

~~ Increases projected in electricity, gas and transportation fuel costs due to AB 32 are lower than recent increases in the same rates caused by factors wholly unrelated to environmental regulations.

~~ Increased costs of intermediate products used by small business (food, supplies and services) that result from higher energy prices will also have only a modest impact on small business.

“Energy efficiency is one of the key ways businesses can save money on energy costs” said Jasmin Ansar, a climate economist with UCS.  “This report does not fully reflect the potential cost savings to small businesses from energy efficiency, so even the modest increases forecast by the study overstate the likely cost of AB 32 to small businesses.”

The report includes a case study of Border Grill, a Los Angeles-based Mexican restaurant, chosen because restaurants are more energy intensive than the average small business and represent the largest share of employment in any small business category – 10 percent of total statewide employment.  After auditing five years of the restaurant’s electricity and gas bills, The Brattle Group developed a 10-year business projection based on historical data, and used this projection, along with macro-economic assessment of change in energy prices, to develop the case study results.

The analysis found that by 2020, the cost of a typical dinner at the Border Grill would rise less than 0.1 percent-or less than three cents for every $20.

“Such a miniscule increase, even if noticed, would not cause our customers any heartburn,” commented Border Grill owners and head chefs Mary Sue Milliken and Susan Feniger. “We’re known as the ‘Too Hot Tamales,’ and we’re worried about a Too Hot Future. Our customers are just as worried as we are, and would be more than willing to pay an extra 3 cents to help avoid the most catastrophic impacts of global warming.”

According to the report, in 2020, Border Grill will be spending 2% of its revenue on energy.  By investing in a robust set of efficient appliances, vehicles, and other equipment, the restaurant will be able to use even less energy and improve its productivity and competitiveness.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This report debunks the myth that some large businesses are spewing, claiming that AB 32–the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act–will hurt small businesses.  

For more info, go to  www.ucsusa.org/small_business

DAN KALB’S NOV. ’08 BALLOT RECOMMENDATIONS

PRESIDENT \ V.P. – BARACK OBAMA \ Joe Biden

This will be a close race!  Phone-banking to swing states-including Colorado-continues at your local Obama or United Democratic Campaign headquarters.  Go to http://my.barackobama.com/page… to find the Obama office near you.  

U.S. Congress – C.D. #s 1-53 – Vote for the Democrat in your district!  

IF you live in one of these two districts, please volunteer/contribute to your candidate’s campaign:

 ~  C.D.  #4 – Charlie Brown  [www.charliebrownforcongress.org] – This district is our best chance to turn a red district blue in California this year.  He is running against Tom McClintock, the most ideologically conservative legislator in the state and a carpetbagger from Southern California.  Charlie Brown, he’s “a good man.”

 ~  C.D. #11 – Jerry McNerney  [www.jerrymcnerney.org] – The Democrats, with tremendous grassroots activism, took this seat two years ago, but the Republicans are spending huge amounts of money to take it back.  Let’s make sure we send Mr. McNerney, a leader in renewable energy, back to Congress.  

California State Senate:

~ S.D.  #3 – Mark Leno

~ S.D.  #5 – Lois Wolk [www.loiswolk.com] – This is an open seat that we must keep in the Democratic column.

~ S.D.  #7 – Mark DeSaulnier

~ S.D.  #9 – Loni Hancock – Since I live in this district, I will take this opportunity to say that we are very fortunate to have Loni representing Oakland and other East Bay communities in the St. Senate.  Among her accomplishments, she was successful this year in getting passed and signed into law a ‘Clean Money’ pilot program.

~ S.D. #11 – Joe Simitian

~ S.D. #19 – Hannah-Beth Jackson [www.jackson4senate.com] – This district is our best hope at picking up a Democratic seat in the St. Senate.  Please do what you can to help her win against a very conservative opponent who is misleading voters about his own record.  

~ S.D. #23 – Fran Pavley

~ S.D. #27 – Alan Lowenthal

~ S.D. #39 – Christine Kehoe

California State Assembly – A.D. #s 1-80 – Vote for the Democrat in your district!  IF you live or work in one of the following districts, please volunteer/contribute to your candidate’s campaign.  These are expected to be very close races.  

~ A.D. #10 – Alyson Huber – www.alysonhuber.com

~ A.D. #15 – Joan Buchanan – www.joanbuchanan.com – If you live in the Bay Area and want to help the Democrats gain seats in our state legislature, please contact the Buchanan campaign and help in any way possible.  925-806-0560

~ A.D. #26 – John Eisenhut – www.johneisenhut.com

~ A.D. #65 – Carl Wood – www.wood4assembly.org

~ A.D. #78 – Marty Block – www.martyblock.com

~ A.D. #80 – Manuel V. Perez – www.manuelperezforassembly.com

LOCAL RACES:

Oakland City Council (at-large seat) – REBECCA KAPLAN –

Rebecca is exactly the type of person we need on the Oakland City Council.  She is smart, progressive, experienced and accomplished.  She will shake things up on the city council and move it in a more progress-oriented direction.  She is a former civil rights attorney, policy advocate, environmental activist, and yes, a ‘community organizer’.  She understands the array of issues facing Oakland residents and will work hard to make Oakland a more safe and livable city.  She is well-known for being able to work with a broad cross-section of people and personalities.  Currently, she’s an elected member of the A/C Transit Board of Directors.  She is endorsed by the Alameda County Democratic Party, the MGO Democratic Club, the Sierra Club, East Bay Young Dems, Assembly Member Sandre Swanson, Supervisors Keith Carson and Nate Miley, and a wide array of organizations, elected officials and community leaders.  www.kaplanforoakland.org

Mayor, City of Berkeley – TOM BATES – Mayor Bates has shown leadership and brought people together to get things done in Berkeley.  He’s endorsed by Congresswoman Barbara Lee, the Sierra Club, and a broad range of organizations, public officials and community leaders.  See www.tombates.org/index.htm for details on his priorities.  

Judge – Superior Court (Alameda County seat #9) – DENNIS HAYASHI –

Dennis, a public interest attorney, is highly qualified to be a superior court judge.  He is a former attorney with the Asian Law Caucus, and was director of the Office of Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under President Clinton.  He was also the director of the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing.  We desperately need more public interest attorneys as judges.  He is endorsed by the Sierra Club, the Alameda County Democratic Lawyers Club, former Attorney General Bill Lockyer, and numerous state and local elected officials, as well as several judges.  Dennis will make a superb Superior Court judge.   www.dennishayashi.com

San Francisco County Supervisors:

   District  #1 – ERIC MAR – Eric is an elected member of the S.F. Board of Education, a civil rights attorney, college lecturer, and long-time progressive political activist.  He’s been recognized for his civic involvement, leadership, and passionate advocate for human and civil rights.  He is committed to working at City Hall and in the Richmond district for working families, thriving neighborhoods, and responsive local government.  To volunteer on his campaign, go to www.ericmar.com.

   District  #3 – DAVID CHIU (rank #1) – As a former civil rights attorney, counsel to a U.S. Senate subcommittee, neighborhood activist and leader, former deputy district attorney, member of San Francisco’s Small Business Commission, affordable housing advocate, and Democratic Party activist, David has the breadth and depth of experience to be an excellent supervisor-responsive, innovative, smart ideas. http://votedavidchiu.org  

TONY GANTNER (rank #2) – Experienced neighborhood and environmental activist, Tony would also be a good Supervisor.  

   District  #4 – CARMEN CHU – She’s moderate-to-conservative by San Francisco standards, but this is the Sunset district and her principal opponent is even more conservative.  

   District  #5 – ROSS MIRKARIMI – Ross has been a very good supervisor for this district and he deserves reelection.  He reaches out to groups of people in his district and strives to develop and support innovative and compassionate ideas and proposals.  

   District  #7 – SEAN ELSBERND – Has only token opposition and will be reelected easily in this relatively moderate-to-conservative district.

   District  #9 – no recommendation – Many good progressive candidates in this district, including David Campos and Mark Sanchez.

   District #11 – JULIO RAMOS (rank #1) – Julio is an attorney, elected member of the San Francisco Community College Bd. of Trustees, an experienced trial lawyer, and former Coro Fellow.  I’ve known Julio for nearly 10 years and I’m confident that he would be an excellent county supervisor.  He’s progressive, compassionate, and is committed to focusing his energy on crime prevention, services to seniors, helping at-risk youth, improving neighborhoods and creating clean streets, and expanding educational opportunities for local residents. www.julioramos.org

JOHN AVALOS (rank #2) – Former supervisorial aide, Avalos would also be a good county supervisor.  

BART Bd. of Directors

   Tom Radulovich (district 9) – Smart environmental leader.  He’s been a very good BART director.  

A.C. Transit Bd. of Directors

   Chris Peeples (at-large)

   Greg Harper (ward 2)

East Bay Municipal Utility District Bd. of Directors

   Doug Linney (ward 5) – Environmental leader on the EBMUD Board.  Certainly deserves reelection.  

East Bay Regional Parks District Bd. of Directors

   Norman LaForce (ward 1) – Norman has shown important leadership as a long-time advocate for parks.  He is currently the chapter chair of the Sierra Club and an experienced attorney for environmental causes.  He will be an excellent EBRPD board member.  

Trustee, Peralta Community College District

   Marlon McWilson (area 2)

San Francisco Community College District –

Several good candidates.  I recommend the following four candidates:

   Natalie Berg

   Milton Marks

   Chris Jackson

   Rodel Rodis

San Francisco Board of Education:

Several good candidates.  I recommend the following four candidates:

   Norman Yee

   Sandra L. Fewer

   Kimberly Wicoff

   Jill Wynns

City Council, Daly City – Judith Christensen – She’s a teacher, is supported by the environmental community, and she’s been a breath of fresh air on a stale city council.  She deserves re-election.  

Mayor, City of Fremont – Gus Morrison – Former Mayor Morrison would do a far better job as mayor once again than either the incumbent or his other opponent.  Vote to put Gus back in the Mayor’s office.  

City Council, Orinda – Victoria Smith – She’s done a good job on the Orinda City Council and deserves re-election.  Go to www.voteforvictoria.com for more information.  

Mayor, City of Sacramento – Heather Fargo – Mayor Fargo is running against a former Pro Basketball player who has no experience in government.  Her opponent is being put forth as a candidate by development interests who do not like Ms. Fargo’s policies.  She’ll do a better job than her challenger.  Vote to re-elect her.  For info on her priorities, experience and endorsements, or to volunteer, go to www.fargoformayor.com

Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors (2nd district) – Mark Ridley-Thomas –

Ridley-Thomas is the more progressive of the two candidates.  He is a former L.A. City Councilman and a current State Senator.  We will miss him in Sacramento, but he will make an excellent County Supervisor.  He is endorsed by the L.A. County Democratic Party, Sierra Club, Members of Congress Jane Harmon, Brad Sherman, Howard Berman, Hilda Solis, Planned Parenthood, and dozens of other elected officials and community leaders.  Go to www.ridley-thomas.com to learn more.  

Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors (2nd district) – Richard Hobbs – Endorsed by the Santa Clara County League of Conservation Voters and the local Sierra Club chapter.  That’s good enough for me.    

…Propositions follow…

 STATE PROPOSITIONS

1A – YES – High-Speed Train System for California.  $9.95 billion bond measure to fund construction of a long overdue high-speed rail system in California.  Additional monies would come from federal and private sources.  Once in operation, this will help reduce traffic on north-south major highways, reduce the need to expand airports, and help reduce the total output of greenhouse gases that might otherwise occur without such a train system.  You’ll be able to get from the L.A. area to San Francisco in about 2-¾ hours.  This expensive capital project that will be in existence for several decades or longer is just the type of project that bond measures were made for.  This has broad support from business leaders to the environmental community.  Go to www.californiahighspeedtrains.com for more information and please vote YES on 1A.  

2 – YES – Confined Farm Animals.  This initiative will ban some of the worst confinement practices of polluting confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and is an important step in promoting a modern approach to agriculture that is productive, humane, and more healthful.  www.yesonprop2.com

3 – YES – Children’s Hospitals Bond.  $980 million bond measure to assist with construction and modernization of nonprofit children’s hospitals in California.  Up to 20% of the funds would go to University of California teaching hospitals throughout the state.  

4 – NO – Parental Notification and Waiting Period for Abortions by Minors.  This Constitutional Amendment would mandate that doctors deny an abortion to teenagers until the parent is notified and a waiting period has gone by. This measure creates onerous procedures for minors, including those in troubled families, to obtain a lawful abortion.  This election is the third time that this measure is on the ballot.  We defeated the previous two, and we need to defeat this one as well.  Vote No!

5 – YES – Nonviolent Drug Offenses and Rehabilitation.  This measure expands drug treatment diversion programs for criminal offenders, expands prison and parole anti-recidivism programs, and reduces certain penalties for marijuana possession.  It also creates a separate state cabinet level position in charge of rehabilitation (separate from the current Corrections department).  Also reduces parole time for certain nonviolent drug offenses and expands parole time for serious and violent felons.  This is an important initiative if we’re ever going to deal with overcrowded prisons and take meaningful steps to move people away from a life of crime.  Most crimes are committed by people who have committed crimes before.  If we can reduce the number of repeat offenders, we will be making great strides in reducing crime overall.  Vote Yes!

6 – NO – Law Enforcement Funding and Penalties.  Substantially increases state funding for law enforcement activities without identifying where that money will come from, which means it will require additional cuts in other services such as higher education, medi-cal and state parks.  Increases penalties for specified crimes, and allows hearsay testimony to be used more freely.  This initiative requires all public housing residents to have criminal background checks done on them annually.  It also changes the composition of the existing juvenile justice coordinating councils in each county by eliminating the requirement that the councils include representatives of community-based substance abuse treatment programs.   This proposition does many things and a few of them may seem appealing.  But overall, the initiative goes overboard and would be very costly to the state.  It would increase crowding in our prisons and jails, require cuts in other discretionary spending at a time when the budget has already been cut to the bone, and incarcerate juvenile offenders at a time when what we need more of is treatment and rehabilitation programs.  Most of this initiative takes us in the wrong direction.  The ACLU, Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice, the Youth Law Center, the California Democratic Party, the L.A. City Council, the League of Women Voters and over 25 newspapers, among many others, urge a NO vote on Prop. 6. www.votenoprop6.com

7 – NO – Renewable Energy Statutory Changes.  This proposition purports to increase the generation of electricity from renewable resources, such as solar and wind.  However, this initiative was so poorly drafted and vetted that every major environmental group and virtually all of the renewable energy industry companies and associations in California are opposing it.  Prop. 7 put loopholes into the renewable energy statute for the first time-something the Legislature had rejected on more than one occasion.  It creates problems with the transmission siting process and creates a counter-productive cost policy that could actually discourage the development of large-scale solar projects.  It also has a provision that could shut out the small renewable energy company from being part of the solution.  Overall, it creates uncertainty at a tine when the renewable energy industry needs clarity.  There are too many flaws to list here.  Please join with the Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, Environment California, the CA League of Conservation Voters, the California Wind Energy Association, the Calif. Democratic Party, and over three dozen newspapers in opposing this well-intentioned, but wrong-headed initiative.  Vote NO! www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/no_on_prop_7.pdf

8 – NO – Elimination of Right to Marry for Same-sex Couples.  This proposed constitutional amendment would very simply take away the rights of some adults in our state to marry.  This is a question of fundamental fairness and equal protection under the law.  Do get fooled by the misleading ads by the proponents.  Proudly vote NO to keep same-gender marriage legal in our state.  

9 – NO – Parole and Victims’ Rights (Constitutional Amendment).  Appears to give additional benefits/rights to victims of crimes.  However, California already requires that crime victims receive several specified rights, some of which are duplicated here.  Says that restitution payments to victims come first before any other debts that the criminal already owes.  Allows victims to withhold information from the accused during pre-trial proceedings.  Severely reduces the ability of the state or of judges to provide early release to inmates at state prisons.  Reduces the number of parole hearings (and lengthens the time between parole hearings) to which inmates are entitled.  There are a number of constitutional questions raised by this initiative.  Overall, this would be an expensive initiative to implement without any proven gain in public safety.  Please join with the ACLU, the CA Democratic Party, over three dozen newspapers, the League of Women Voters, and the former warden of San Quentin State Prison in opposing Prop. 9.  Vote No. www.votenoprop9.com

10 – NO – Alternative Fuel Vehicles Bond.   Prop. 10 is an inefficient use of public dollars at a time when our state budget is in crisis.  This is a $5 billion mostly self-serving initiative where nearly three-quarters of the money would likely go to subsidize the natural gas vehicle industry.  This measure is being bankrolled by T.Boone Pickens, the Texas oil and natural gas tycoon.  While the rebates in the initiative sound attractive, they are not based on a consistent environmental metric and they do not require any improvement in smog emissions as a result of how the money is spent.  There are better solutions available that would get us more environmental benefits for less money.  Don’t be fooled.  Join with the Consumer Federation of California, the Sierra Club and several other environmental groups, along with the League of Women Voters, Latino Issues Forum, and over 30 newspapers in opposing the Prop. 10 giveaway.  Vote No.   www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/no_on_prop_10.pdf  

11 – ? – Redistricting Commission.  This is a difficult one.  I’m leaning ever so slightly toward voting No.  Here are a few pros and cons along with some of the key supporters/opponents.  On the Yes side, it certainly makes sense to have a relatively independent commission, not legislators themselves, draw the district lines for legislators every 10 years.  If the result of this measure is the creation of a larger number of so-called competitive districts, that could lead to making a larger number of our elected representatives more responsive and accountable to the voters in their districts.  From a purely good government point of view, creating a redistricting commission is long overdue.  And this proposal is more logical than previous ones because it excludes Congressional districts (including them would be unfair because other states, such as Texas, don’t have similar commissions).  On the No side, from a purely partisan point of view, this could lead to either more Republicans being elected, or more likely, the same number of Dems and Reps being elected, but more of the Dems would be the so-called moderate, business-oriented Democrats-often the ones who don’t support environmental legislation.  Also, if the Commission becomes deadlocked on approving a plan, it would be kicked to the state supreme court to appoint a so-called special master.  Supporters of 11 include the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, AARP, NAACP, Governor Schwarzenegger, Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Steve Westly, Gray Davis, Leon Panetta, California Democratic Council, numerous Republican clubs.   Opponents of Prop. 11 include the California Democratic Party, California League of Conservation Voters, MALDEF, California Federation of Teachers, Senator Barbara Boxer, AFSCME, Asian Law Caucus, and many, many Democratic clubs around the state.

12 – YES – Veterans’ Bond Act.  This is a $900,000,000 bond measure to provide home and farm aid to California veterans.  The monies would be spent on loans to veterans that they would have to pay back with interest.  Veterans often get the short end of the stick from the federal government.  Regardless of what we may think of the current war in the Middle East, our veterans deserve our thanks along with modest financial assistance.  Vote Yes.

LOCAL BALLOT MEASURES

  ALAMEDA COUNTY:

N (OUSD) – NO – This is a $120/year parcel tax to fund teacher salaries for the stated purpose of attracting and retaining qualified teachers in Oakland’s public schools, with 15% of these funds going to Oakland’s charter schools.  We already pay $195/year parcel tax for Oakland’s public schools.  This proposed additional parcel tax does not have the support of the local teachers’ union-the group of people that purportedly would benefit the most.  Apparently, this was put on the ballot with virtually no input from the various stakeholders that should have been involved.  While it’s not easy to oppose a tax increase for public schools, this one appears to have very little support.

KK (Berkeley) – NO – Passage of this measure would require that the voters of Berkeley approve the creation of any transit-only traffic lanes, such as Bus Rapid Transit lanes, in Berkeley.  This would hinder efforts to promote more effective transit options in Berkeley and be a set-back for environmentally oriented transportation planning in the East Bay.  We elect representatives to make these decisions for us based on a deliberative process.  Let’s allow them to do their job.  The Sierra Club urges a No on measure KK.  

NN (Oakland) – YES – This measure would authorize the City of Oakland to levy a parcel tax for the express purposes of adding 105 police officers (on top of the 803 required by Measure Y passed in 2004) AND 75 crime investigation technicians to the Oakland police force, as well as to purchase a computerized crime data management system.  Virtually everyone agrees that we need more police and crime investigators in Oakland to help combat, deter and solve crimes.  The question is will we try to pay for this within our existing city budget, or will we find a new funding source for this vital service.  I say the responsible thing is to raise additional revenue so it won’t come out of other vital city services.  The parcel tax would start at less than $9.50 per month, but could rise as high as $23/month a few years from now.  Nevertheless, this is an essential service.  I strongly recommend a YES vote!

OO (Oakland) – NO – This measure would dramatically increase the already-existing “Kids First” fund in the City of Oakland.  The measure specifies that at least 2.5% of the entire Oakland city budget must be spent on the specified children’s programs.  Currently, the city must spend at least 1.5% of the City’s discretionary funds on these kids programs.  This measure does not specify where the money would come from other than the city’s general fund.  If the city didn’t have any ‘kids’ fund today, I would probably support this; but at a time of severe budget problems and significant cutbacks, we can’t afford this budget set-aside without identifying a new funding source at the same time.  These additional funds would have to come from cuts in other existing programs (senior services, parks, libraries, fire, etc.).  I recommend a NO vote.  

VV (AC Transit) – YES – This is a parcel tax to support AC Transit operations and bus maintenance.  The measure would double the existing parcel tax to a total of $96/year, with the tax expiring in 2019.  The purpose of this increase is to avoid fare increases and make sure transit services affordable and attractive.  I urge a Yes vote.  

WW (E.B.R.P.D.) – YES – Measure WW is the East Bay Regional Park District’s Bond extension to protect wildlife, purchase open space, and acquire and improve our regional parks and trails.  The current bond measure will be expiring soon.  This measure merely puts out a new bond to continue with the same level of funding.  In other words, your property taxes will not increase because of this measure.  Please vote YES on WW.  

 SAN FRANCISCO local ballot measures:

  A – Yes – This is a much-needed bond measure to re-build San Francisco General Hospital.  This is a no-brainer.  SFGH, which serves as the primary trauma center in San Francisco, does not meet seismic safety standards.  This bond measure is long overdue.  Vote Yes!

  B – Yes – The city is in dire need of more affordable housing.  While budget set-asides are not usually the best way to determine policy priorities, this one seems important enough to justify using this mechanism.  Vote Yes for more affordable housing in San Francisco.

  C – No – Prop. C uses a chainsaw approach in a situation that calls for a scalpel.  Top management should not be allowed on city commissions and no employee should be on a commission for the department in which they work; but Prop. C bans all city employees from serving on virtually all city commissions.  This overly broad measure is unnecessary and would prevent some good people from volunteering their service as a city commissioner.  Vote No.  

  D – Yes – This sounds like a smart plan for the Port of San Francisco’s Pier 70, and it’s really something that the Board of Supervisors should have the authority to do on their own through the annual budget process.  But it appears that a vote of the public is necessary to make this happen, so vote Yes.  

  E – Yes – This measure would increase the number of signatures required to recall a district level elected city official in San Francisco.  Recall petitions should not be easy, and this measure would make the city more consistent with existing state law.  A Yes vote makes sense to me.  

  F – Yes – Voter participation increases in even-numbered years, and the more people who participate in a local election, the more representative the result would be.  This is a good government.  On top of that, the city would also save some money that could be used for other essential services.  I urge a Yes vote.  

  G – Yes – This seems like a modest effort to make sure city employees have an opportunity to not lose any of their retirement benefits due to having to take parental leave in the past.  Vote Yes.  

  H – Yes – This is a local clean energy initiative that primarily deals with (a) setting aggressive goals for using clean sources of electricity (including Hetch Hetchy electricity), (b) requiring the San Francisco’s PUC to conduct electricity resource planning, including the development of a comprehensive plan to move San Francisco toward clean and efficient electricity generation and use, and (c) potentially moving toward a public power system of electricity distribution.  PG&E is understandably spending several million dollars to defeat it.  Don’t be fooled by the ads.  Prop. H includes a provision that simply adds one additional purpose for which a vote of the public is not required for the issuance of revenue bonds.  There is already in the City Charter eight situations when a vote is not required.  Revenue bonds are different from general obligation bonds.  Revenue bonds are paid back through income and savings from using the facilities that are built, not from property taxes.  Remember, Vote NO on 7, but YES on measure H.  Go to www.sfcleanenergy.com/about-the-clean-energy-act/frequently-asked-questions to find out the facts on this measure.  

  I –  ? – Not sure if this is necessary or even a good idea, and it essentially duplicates a provision in Prop. H anyway.  No recommendation.

  J – Yes – I’m generally leery of giving unelected commissions the authority to designate buildings as historic landmarks.  However, this measure does not do that.  It still retains final decisions on new historic building designations with the elected Board of Supervisors.  But this measure does allow this new commission to decide on permits once building are already designated as landmarks or deemed historic.  Overall, this seems like a well-crafted and balanced measure in terms of authority and oversight.  I recommend a Yes vote.  

  K – No – This measure does not appear to be well thought out.  While it may make sense to decriminalize prostitution and prioritize police investigations toward more serious crimes, this measure goes overboard.  I suggest voting No.  

  L – Yes – This appears to duplicate what was already approved by the Board of Supervisors regarding the funding for a Community Justice Center court.  Nevertheless, the services that will be provided by this CJC court are a big step in implementing valuable anti-recidivism programs.  It’s worth reaffirming this and putting it into statute so the initial funds can’t be decreased.  Vote Yes.  

  M – Yes – This measure provides additional protections and recourse for renters who are harassed by their landlord.  I recommend a Yes vote.  

  N – Yes – This measure does two things.  First, it doubles the real estate transfer tax for properties that sell for more than $5 million.  Second, it would reduce, but not eliminate, the tax for properties where the seller had installed a solar energy system or made seismic safety improvements.  This would incentivize homeowners to make needed seismic retrofit improvements as well as encourage them to install solar panels on their roofs.  The increase in the transfer tax for upper end properties would essentially pay for the tax losses on the other properties that have their transfer tax reduced.  Sounds like a great idea.  I urge a Yes vote.  

  O – Yes – This merely modernizes the city’s telephone user tax and modifies the fee that is used to fund local 911 services.  These changes are due to recent court rulings.  Vote Yes.  

  P – No – This removes almost all the members of the Board of Supervisors from the existing County Transportation Authority.  While adding the Mayor to this authority makes sense, taking away a majority of the board does not.  This is a power grab that should be rejected-I urge a No vote.  

  Q – Yes – This measure closes a loophole in the city’s payroll tax for businesses and increases the dollar threshold for the small business exemption, so a larger number of small businesses would be exempt from this tax.  This makes sense to me.  Vote Yes.  

 R – No – We all despise George W. Bush, so who would want to name anything-even a sewage treatment plant-after him in San Francisco.  This is a silly measure that should not be on the ballot.  Let’s not encourage these types of things.  Vote No.  

  S – Yes – This is merely a policy statement dealing with budget set-asides that voters can choose to ignore at any time in the future.  Nevertheless, it makes sense to ask elected officials and voters to consider the points outlined in this policy statement.  Might as well vote Yes.  

  T – Yes – This prioritizes substance abuse treatment and calls upon the city’s Department of Public Health (DPH) to implement a plan to make sure that sufficient treatment services to meet demand.  The city would be required to provide sufficient funding to allow DPH to meet expected demand.  Drug treatment is an important part of helping homeless and other people improve their lives.  Vote Yes.  

  U – Yes – This is merely a declaration of policy urging California senators and local members of Congress to stop funding the Iraq war.  The measure carries no force of law.  It does suggest that funds to facilitate a safe and orderly withdrawal would be acceptable.  Might as well vote Yes as a way of expressing your opposition to the war.    

  V – No – This is an unenforceable policy statement urging the SF School Board to reinstate Junior ROTC programs at some district high schools.  After extensive debate, the school board voted to phase out JROTC programs in San Francisco public schools.  Even though this is only an advisory measure, I would recommend reading the pro and con ballot arguments.  It seems on balance that those against the JROTC programs have stronger arguments, especially since some students are enrolled in this program by their parents against their will.  Neither this measure nor the action taken by the school board has or will have any impact on ROTC programs at public universities and colleges.  I respectfully urge a No vote.  

 LOS ANGELES:

   A – YES – A parcel tax of $3 per month to fund anti-gang and violence prevention programs, including after-school programs and mentoring, as well as graffiti removal.  

   B – YES – A measure to remove some height restrictions on affordable housing in order to be eligible for certain pots of state and federal monies.  

   J – YES – $3.5 billion bond measure for community college construction, classroom repair, nursing and apprenticeship training, and earthquake safety.

   R – YES – Metropolitan Transportation Authority 1/2-cent sales tax to fund rail extentions, repair potholes, and relieve traffic congestion.