All posts by DanKalb

YES on 39

I want to urge everyone to Vote YES on Proposition 39. This is the initiative to eliminate the ridiculous tax give-away that out of state corporations enjoy. By closing a loophole–that was only enacted a few years ago due to Republican machinations during the state budget process, the state will bring in about $1 billion more each year.

For the next five years, Prop. 39 earmarks half of those funds for in-state clean energy and energy efficiency projects, virtually all  of which will create jobs for California residents. The other half of the funds will go to the state’s general fund–which means a lot more for our public schools and community colleges.

After 5 years, the entire amount becomes part of the general fund–again, the bulk of which goes to K-14 public education.

There is little organized opposition, but it’s always challenging to get a YES vote in our state. I urge everyone to spread the word and make sure people vote YES on 39. http://www.cleanenergyjobsact.com/

Broad (and Bi-partisan) Support for Clean Energy and Green Job Creation

BERKELEY (March 29, 2011) – In a bold move to bolster one of the few bright spots in California’s economy and set a precedent for strong renewable electricity standards nationwide, the California Legislature today approved a bill that would require utilities in the state to obtain at least 33 percent of their electricity from clean, renewable sources, such as the wind and sun, by 2020.  

Promoted by the governor and legislative leaders in both houses as part of a green jobs stimulus package, the bill would create the most aggressive renewable energy requirement in the country and position California as a national leader in clean energy investments.  

“Today’s vote is not just a victory for California’s economy and environment, but for the entire nation,” said Laura Wisland, an energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), the leading national nonprofit organization providing economic, technical and policy analysis of renewable electricity standards.  “Transitioning toward more clean, renewable electricity sources means cleaner air, healthier communities, and a stronger green economy.”

Introduced by State Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), the bill (SBX1 2) garnered the backing of a broad range of electric utilities, ratepayer groups, environmental organizations and renewable energy businesses. UCS advised the  bill authors, and played a lead role to build support for the bill as it made its way through the Legislature.

UCS also has been involved in coalition efforts to enact clean energy standards in other states and at the federal level.

California’s current law, the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), required privately owned utilities in the state to obtain 20 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2010.  UCS estimates that with the 33 percent RPS law in place, California will be responsible for more than 25 percent of the renewable energy generated by state standards across the country in 2020.  The amount of heat-trapping global warming emissions that would be displaced as a result of the 33 percent RPS would be equivalent to removing nearly 3 million cars from the road.

UCS is expecting California Gov. Jerry Brown to sign the bill, given statements he made during his campaign last year.

Dan Kalb, UCS’s California policy manager, said the new standard would be a boon for the state economy.  “A strong 33 percent renewables standard in statute would give renewable energy developers the market the certainty they need to raise money to build their projects in California,” he said.  “With the governor’s signature, this bill will create new clean energy jobs, strengthen our economy, and reduce harmful heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming.”

Wisland said that the federal government should follow California’s lead.  “Once again, California has demonstrated national leadership in advancing clean energy,” she said. “Now it’s Congress’s turn to act.” Such a move by federal legislators has widespread public support, she added. A February Gallup poll found that 83 percent of Americans favor Congress passing a bill that would provide incentives for renewable energy.

For more information on the California RPS, see the UCS fact sheet, “California Renewable Electricity Standard.”

Beware of for-profit slate mailers that claim to represent ‘green’ positions

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.”

Prioritize ballot proposition campaigns

Should Democratic and progressive campaign forces prioritize spending on ballot propositions for the remaining weeks of the election?

I say Yes!  Here are a couple of examples…  

The Democratic establishment is combining a NO on 20 with a YES on 27 message.  But, for better or worse, Prop. 27 is sure to lose.  The Democratic leadership should cut 27 loose and realize that Prop. 20 is truly a bad idea from a national perspective.  They should focus there redistricting campaign effort on defeating Prop 20.  

Some excellent unions and their progressive allies are spending lots of campaign dollars in trying to pass Prop. 24.  They also actively support Prop. 25.  But the apparent focus in trying to pass Prop. 24 could be a mistake.  While Prop 24 is worthy of passage, it is highly unlikely to actually pass.  Those campaign dollars would be better spent in trying to pass the more important Prop. 25–the on-time, majority-vote budget initiative–which is leading in the polls but still has stiff opposition.  

Please share your thoughts.  

UCS says NO on 16

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.

California Deserves Credit for Showing the Way on Clean Vehicle Standards

WHITE HOUSE FINALIZES HISTORIC VEHICLE STANDARDS TO SAVE OIL, CUT POLLUTION, AND CREATE JOBS:

The Obama White House yesterday finalized new clean car rules from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Dept. of Transportation (NHTSA), securing the largest boost in fuel economy in decades and, for the first time, using the Clean Air Act to require reductions in the amount of heat-trapping emissions from cars and light trucks.

“To paraphrase the Vice-president, this is a really big deal,” said Jim Kliesch, a senior engineer in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Clean Vehicles Program. “Because of these standards, Americans will drive vehicles that save them money at the pump, cut the country’s oil dependence, and produce a lot less global warming pollution.”

The joint rule will boost the average fleetwide fuel economy of new vehicles sold in the United States to 34.1 miles per gallon by model year 2016. The standards also set national global warming pollution standards for vehicles at 250 grams per mile, roughly 25 percent less than the emissions produced by today’s average new vehicle.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the new rule will:

 * Reduce U.S. oil consumption by 1.2 million barrels per day by 2020–more petroleum than the United States presently imports from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait combined;

 * Cut emissions of global warming pollution by 209 million metric tons in 2020, the equivalent of taking nearly 31 million of today’s cars and light trucks off the road that year;

 * Save drivers $34 billion in 2020 even after they pay the cost of vehicle technology improvements. (This is based on $2.75 per gallon. If gas prices spike to $4 a gallon again, the new standards would save drivers $58 billion in 2020.)

 * Create up to 20,000 new jobs in the auto industry and up to 200,000 nationwide by 2020.

This historic announcement demonstrates the important role that states have played in promoting clean vehicle technology.  In 2002, CALIFORNIA passed AB 1493, authored by then-Assemblywoman Fran Pavley.  Then, the state used its unique authority under the Clean Air Act to set the first global warming tailpipe emissions standards for cars and light trucks. Over time, 13 other states chose to adopt the California standards in an effort to reduce tailpipe pollution.

Legal challenges by the automakers to the state standards were struck down twice–by federal courts in Vermont and California, and in 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA affirmed that the Clean Air Act gives authority to EPA and California to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. This ruling also directed EPA to address any threat climate change poses to human health and welfare. This legal decision formed the foundation for the EPA standards finalized today.

As part of the agreement that led to the new national standards, the states will defer to the new federal standards through 2016, although they preserve the authority to set higher standards in the future. The California Air Resources Board is in the process of developing stronger standards that would go into effect in 2017.

“The states laid the groundwork for these national standards,” said Brendan Bell, a Washington representative in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Clean Vehicles Program. “Because of their leadership, all Americans will enjoy the benefits of cleaner, more efficient vehicles.”

For more information on the benefits and structure of the new standards, please see the UCS new factsheet –

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/d…  

AB 32 Cap on Carbon–Negligible Impact on Small Businesses–New UCS Study

(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’s Nov. 08 Ballot Recommendations

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 Buchananwww.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-Ā¾ 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 – YESConfined 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 – NOParental 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 – YESNonviolent 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 – NORenewable 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 – NOElimination 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 – NOParole 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 – NOAlternative 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.  

California Air Board Releases Draft Blueprint to Reduce Global Warming Pollution

CALIFORNIA TAKES ANOTHER GIANT LEAP ON GLOBAL WARMING POLICY

AIR BOARD RELEASES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CUT POLLUTION

SACRAMENTO (June 26, 2008) – The California Air Resources Board (CARB) released the nation’s most comprehensive plan to date for reducing the pollution that causes global warming.  While the plan is still a proposal, it represents the furthest step forward any state has taken in the fight against global warming, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

Patricia Monahan, the director of UCS’s California office, said CARB’s plan would add more momentum to the fight against global warming. “California is showing the rest of the country how we can build a clean energy economy,” she said. “There’s no drilling our way out of energy problems.  As energy prices skyrocket, consumers need real alternatives that sip rather than guzzle, and that are homegrown instead of imported.”

The 75+ page plan includes a range of policy recommendations.  Chief among them is increasing the state’s renewable electricity standard.  The plan also contains provisions for a regional cap-and-trade program that could work in harmony with other more specific policies to reduce pollution economywide.  The plan also says CARB will consider a vehicle “feebate” program that would provide incentives to consumers to buy cleaner cars.

In addition, the proposal includes plans to reduce emissions from heavy-duty trucks with hybrid engine technology and better fuel economy.  Like many of CARB’s proposals, the heavy-duty truck provisions would improve public health by also reducing smog-forming pollution.  The plan also advocates for a high-speed train system in California.  

Christopher Busch, a UCS climate economist, pointed out that many of the draft plan’s policies would save consumers money and yield economic benefits, while the overall cost of implementing the plan would likely be negligible. “Fundamentally, we’re talking about making our economy more efficient, which will give us energy savings,” he said. “And investing in clean, renewable energy will make our electricity and fuel supplies more diverse, and insulate us from price swings in the fossil fuel market.”

Busch added that global warming pollution reduction strategies also would provide public health benefits by cleaning up the air as well as support the state’s growing clean technology industries. “California has proven time and again that we can clean our air and grow our economy,” he said. “Now the state is going to prove the same thing with global warming.”

The renewable electricity standard in the plan would require utilities to generate 33 percent of their electricity from clean, renewable sources, such as wind and solar power, by 2020.  Such a standard would reduce global warming pollution by an amount equivalent to avoiding the construction of 10 new large fossil fuel power plants or removing nearly 3 million cars from the road. And such a standard could save residents money on their electricity bills by displacing natural gas.  Additionally, it would reduce smog-forming pollution, create new green-collar jobs in the state, and bolster California’s growing clean technology sector.

“California has a wealth of renewable electricity potential we aren’t tapping into yet,” said Dan Kalb, UCS’s California policy coordinator. “Shifting to clean, safe sources of carbon-free electricity in a smart and well-planned manner is a win for the environment, the economy and consumers.”

more…

(For more about the benefits of boosting the state’s renewable electricity standard, go to: www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/33_percent_RES.pdf )

CARB also identified a feebate program as one avenue for reducing vehicle pollution. S uch a program would establish one-time rebates and surcharges on new passenger cars and light trucks based on the amount of global warming pollution they emit.  This program would deliver benefits on its own, but also would complement California’s tailpipe standards if both were implemented.  According to a University of Michigan study, implementing a clean car discount program would deliver an additional 21 percent reduction in global warming pollution beyond the tailpipe standards.

More than 1.5 million new vehicles are sold in California each year, which represents about 10 percent of the new vehicle market in the United States. A quarter of California’s global warming pollution comes from cars.

“A feebate program is a great way to make cleaner cars more affordable for everyone,” said Spencer Quong, a UCS senior vehicles engineer. “Cleaner cars simply cost less to operate, so people will save money on gas with this program, too.  On top of that, this ‘clean car discount’ program would give automakers an added incentive to produce cleaner vehicles.”

The regional cap-and-trade market approach in CARB’s plan would work best IF California can strengthen the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) efforts, according to UCS.  The WCI is a partnership among several western states and Canadian provinces to reduce global warming pollution.

“CARB’s plan on cap-and-trade is a step in the right direction and draws on some lessons learned from other cap-and-trade systems,” said Busch.  “But until the details are filled in, the jury remains out on whether or not the program will be as well designed as it could be.”  UCS is VERY pleased to see that cap and trade accounts for only 20 percent of the needed emissions reductions, while the remaining 80 percent will come from direct regulations. “The plan  appropriately recognizes that cap and trade is not a silver bullet,” Bush said.

Busch cautioned that CARB’s plan implies that the agency is considering auctioning less than half of the pollution allowances under a cap-and-trade system initially.  He pointed out that cap-and-trade systems work best when as many pollution allowances as possible are auctioned and that giving them away can create unwarrented windfall profits for polluters. (On page 19 of the plan, CARB calls for the program to “quickly transition … to a system in which the majority of allowances are auctioned.”)

CARB also recommends limiting the number of “offsets,” or substitutes polluters could use to avoid making pollution reductions on their own.  But until those offset limits are specified, Busch said, it will not be possible to determine how effective a cap-and-trade program would be at reducing pollution, fostering innovation, creating jobs, or improving public health in California.  Ideally, in-state offsets would be emphasized more than out-of-state offsets.  UCS urges CARB to prohibit the use of offsets for compliance with direct regulations such as the renewable energy standard.

 ###

Dan’s Election Recommendations for June

For what they are worth, here are my personal recommendations for the June 3rd California ballot.  I do spend quite a bit of time reviewing competitive races before making my recommendations.  

Feel free to comment, agree, disagree, forward, or ignore.  But please Vote on Tuesday (polls open 7a.m.-8p.m.) or vote-by-mail if you already have an absentee ballot.  

Dan Kalb’s Ballot Recommendations for the June 3, 2008 Election

CA State Legislature – St. SENATE:

S.D. #3 – MARK LENO – Three decent candidates; Mark Leno is the strongest of the three. He’s progressive, effective and easy to work with.

S.D. #5 – LOIS WOLK – Good Assembly Member; deserves election to the St. Senate

S.D. #7 – MARK DeSAULNIER – Strong environmental advocate in the Assembly. He will make an excellent St. Senator.

S.D. #9 – LONI HANCOCK – Two good candidates here. Loni stands out with her long history of working on important causes at all levels of government. She’s a leader in the `Clean Money’ reform effort and a strong environmentalist. She’s shown a strong willingness to stand up to Arnold against harmful budget cuts. Don’t be mislead by the negative independent expenditure mailings-they are mostly funded by tribal gambling interests that disagree with Loni because she fought to stop a huge new casino that was proposed in San Pablo (right down the street from where my mother lives); Loni Hancock is a firm advocate for effective public education.  www.hancockforsenate.com

S.D. #11 – JOE SIMITIAN – Very smart St. Senator. He will be re-elected easily, deservedly so.

S.D. #13 – ELAINE ALQUIST – Deserves re-election. Has very strong environmental voting record.

S.D. #19 – HANNAH BETH JACKSON – Former Assembly Member with strong environmental record. She offers a good chance to put this seat into the Democratic column.

S.D. #23 – FRAN PAVLEY – Fran was the lead author on what are perhaps the two most important environmental bills this decade. She is a hard-working leader, a former school teacher, and has developed a national reputation on global warming issues. We need her in the State Senate. www.franpavley.org

S.D. #27 – ALAN LOWENTHAL – Excellent state senator with strong environmental voting record who deserves re-election.

S.D. #39 – CHRISTINE KEHOE – Excellent state senator with strong environmental voting record who deserves re-election.

CA State Legislature – St. ASSEMBLY:

 A.D. 1 – WES CHESBRO – This former State Senator has an excellent record on most every issue. He is running unopposed in the Democratic primary, and will make an excellent member of the Assembly.

A.D. 6 – JARED HUFFMAN – Smart environmental leader in the Assembly. Deserves re-election.

A.D. 7 – NOREEN EVANS – Very bright legislator. Future chair of the Assembly budget committee.

A.D. 8 – no recommendation

A.D. 9 – DAVE JONES – Excellent state legislator. Very committed to helping low income and disadvantaged residents. Strong liberal voting record.

A.D. 11 – TOM TORLAKSON – Currently a smart state senator with a strong liberal voting record. He will return to the Assembly easily.

A.D. 12 – FIONA MA – Fiona has done an excellent job as a first-term legislator. She passed meaningful legislation and has an excellent voting record on environmental issues.

A.D. 13 – TOM AMMIANO – Tom has been an excellent progressive S.F. Supervisor. He will make a fine Member of the Assembly representing San Francisco.

A.D. 14 – NANCY SKINNER – Nancy Skinner is the best among a decent crop of candidates. Nancy is a long-time environmental professional with tremendous experience and a well-deserved national reputation on global warming issues. If elected, she will be only the 2nd environmental professional elected to the State Legislature. She is also a passionate advocate for protecting social services and for increasing funding for public education. She was active in her local PTA. Currently, she is an elected member of the East Bay Regional Parks District board (and a former Berkeley City Council member). She is also a `clean money’ campaign reform advocate. Nancy is endorsed by Loni Hancock, the Sierra Club and CA League of Conservation Voters, the MGO Democratic Club, NOW, the National Women’s Political Caucus, and several local labor unions, just to name a few. In my opinion, she will be an excellent addition to the State Assembly.  www.nancyskinnerforassembly.com

A.D. 15 – JOAN BUCHANAN – Well-respected school board member. She offers a reasonably good chance to take this seat and put it in the Democratic column in November.

A.D. 16 – SANDRE SWANSON – Excellent first-term legislator. Chair of the Labor committee and a passionate advocate for reforms to unnecessary incarceration. Absolutely deserves re-election.

A.D. 18 – MARY HAYASHI – Will easily win reelection-deservedly so.

A.D. 19 – RICHARD HOLOBER – There are three decent candidates here on the Peninsula. Richard Holober is clearly the most progressive. A former School Board member, he currently serves as an elected member of the San Mateo Community College district and has always been a passionate advocate for students and public education. He is the executive director of the Consumer Federation of California and has experience navigating the hallways of Sacramento. He is a strong environmentalist, and consumer and labor advocate and he would be a hard-working legislator. While Papan or Hill would probably be okay, Holober would be better. He would also help facilitate strong relationships between organized labor and the environmental community. Well-financed business interests are spending independent expenditure money against him. Please vote Holober for Assembly in the 19th.   www.holober.com

A.D. 20 – ALBERTO TORRICO – Incumbent who cares deeply and passionately about protecting and creating jobs as well as helping lower income residents.

A.D. 21 – IRA RUSKIN – Effective and well-liked legislator with a strong environmental record.

A.D. 22 – PAUL FONG – Elected community college trustee with a background in civil rights. He is endorsed by the Sierra Club, the Democratic Party, and outgoing assembly member Sally Lieber just to name a few. He is the more progressive of the two leading candidates. Go to www.paulfong.org for more info

A.D. 23 – JOE COTO – Chair of the Latino Caucus. He’s a good legislator who wants to accomplish positive things. He also has a very good environmental voting record.

A.D. 24 – JIM BEALL – Very friendly freshman legislator who wants to make difference. He earned a top-notch environmental voting score.

A.D. 27 – no recommendation

A.D. 28 – ANNA CABALLERO – Very good legislator from Salinas. Willing to vote on yes on controversial bills to help the environment.

A.D. 30 – FRAN FLOREZ – Only Democratic candidate in the race. She will make an excellent Assembly Member; but she may have a tough time in November.

A.D. 35 – PEDRO NAVA – Excellent legislator from Santa Barbara; strong environmental record.

A.D. 40 – no recommendation

A.D. 41 – JULIA BROWNLEY – Very good first-year legislator-deserves re-election.

A.D. 42 – MIKE FEUER – Very good first-year legislator-deserves re-election.

A.D. 43 – PAUL KREKORIAN – Very good first-year legislator-deserves re-election.

A.D. 44 – ANTHONY PORTANTINO – Very good first-year legislator-deserves re-election.

A.D. 45 – KEVIN DeLEON – Very good first-year legislator-deserves re-election. He will be the new chair of the powerful Appropriations Committee.

A.D. 46 – JOHN PEREZ – Long-time community and political activist. He’s been a dedicated labor leader, environmentalist, and city commissioner. He will be an excellent assembly member

A.D. 47 – KAREN BASS – The new Speaker of the Assembly, Ms. Bass has earned a well-deserved reputation as a bright, dedicated, compassionate and effective legislator. She will make an excellent Speaker.

A.D. 49 – MIKE ENG – Very good first-year legislator-deserves re-election.

A.D. 50 – HECTOR De La TORRE – Well-respected and effective legislator. Deserves re-election

A.D. 51 – CURREN PRICE – Excellent first-year legislator; well-liked-deserves re-election.

A.D. 52 – ISADORE HALL – Strong candidate for this open seat. He’s been endorsed by the Calif. League of Conservation Voters, L.A. City Council president Eric Garcetti, several state elected officials and dozens of community leaders.

A.D. 53 – TED LIEU – Very good first-year legislator-deserves re-election.

A.D. 54 – BONNIE LOWENTHAL – Strong candidate for this open Assembly seat.

A.D. 55 – WARREN FURUTANI – Won special election in February. He’ll make a good legislator and deserves re-election.

A.D. 62 – W. AMINA CARTER – Very good first-year legislator. A more conservative candidate is challenging her in the Primary. Carter deserves re-election.

A.D. 65 – CARL WOOD – Former State Public Utilities Commissioner and passionate defender of consumers. This will be a tough district for a Democrat in November, but it’s worth a (long)shot.

A.D. 76 – LORI SALDANA – Strong environmentalist who clearly deserves re-election.

A.D. 78 – MARTY BLOCK – Strong, progressive candidate. Currently serves as president of the San Diego Community College District. Nominating Marty gives the Democrats a strong chance to move this seat into the Democratic column.

A.D. 79 – MARY SALAS – Very good first-year legislator-deserves re-election.

A.D. 80 – MANUAL PEREZ – More than one good candidate in this race. Mr. Perez has support among a number of environmental and social justice advocates. Let’s nominate him and try to take this seat back for Democrats in November.

U.S. Congress:  

 Vote for all the Democratic Incumbents.

 In district #4 – vote for CHARLIE BROWN and help him move this district into the blue column in November.

Alameda County Board of Supervisors:  

  District #4 – Nate Miley – Effective and compassionate Supervisor who deserves re-election

  District #5 – Keith Carson – Same as above!

Oakland City Council

At-Large seat – REBECCA KAPLAN – Rebecca is exactly the type of person Oakland needs on the City Council. She is smart, progressive, experienced and accomplished. She will shake things up on the city council and move it in a more progressive direction. She is a former civil rights attorney, policy advocate, and environmental activist. She understands the variety of issues facing Oakland residents and will work hard to make Oakland a more livable city. She is currently 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, Supervisor Nate Miley, and a wide array of organizations and community leaders.   www.kaplanforoakland.org

District #1 – JANE BRUNNER – Smart, effective and experienced city council member. Effective mediator with progressive values. She has been a leader on affordable housing issues on the council.

District #3 – NANCY NADEL – Experienced, progressive city council member who deserves re-election.

District #5 – MARIO JUAREZ – Experienced community activist. He is trying unseat the more moderate incumbent who has been in office for a long time. I think it’s time for a change.

District #7 – CLIFFORD GILMORE – The incumbent is tied too closely to developers, landlords, and other business interests. Mr. Gilmore, on the other hand, is a long-time community activist and leader. He will make a very good city council member.

Oakland School Board

District #1 – JODY LONDON – Jody is the only candidate in this race with children in public schools. She is also the only registered Democrat in this race. She has been active in supporting funding for public education, an energy advisor to the school district, and an active member of her local PTA. She is endorsed by the Oakland Education Association, the Sierra Club, the Alameda County Democratic Party, the National Women’s Political Caucus, and dozens of local educators, parents, and community leaders.

District #3 – Olugemiga Oluwole – This is an open seat. Of the two candidates, Mr. Oluwole is my choice.

District #5 – Noel Gallo – Incumbent who deserves re-election

District #7 – no recommendation

Judge, Superior Court (seat #9) – Alameda County:

    Dennis Hayashi – Dennis is a highly qualified public interest attorney. 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 Party, and numerous state and local elected officials, as well as a handful of judges. Dennis will make a superb Superior Court judge.  www.dennishayashi.com

Oakland City Attorney – John Russo – Deserves re-election.

Los Angeles County Supervisor (District #2)

Mark Ridley-Thomas – The more progressive of the two leading candidates, Ridley-Thomas is a former L.A. City Councilman. He is currently a State Senator. We will miss him in Sacramento, but he will make an excellent County Supervisor.

State Propositions:

 98 – NO – This is an extreme proposal that would cost taxpayers and local governments millions of dollars and make it extremely difficult to enact new land use, housing, and environmental protection laws. This is not merely about eminent domain-it’s about private interests versus the public interest. Wealthy landlords and their Republican friends spent millions to get Prop. 98 on the ballot to eliminate renter protections and hamstring local governments. Prop. 98 could also destroy local land-use planning, erode environmental protections and lead to higher taxpayer costs.

 99 – YES – Prop. 99 is a genuine and reasonable eminent domain reform measure because it simply prohibits government from taking homes for the purpose of transfer to private developers. For more information, go to www.no98yes99.com

Local Ballot Measures

 Oakland and Alameda County measures:  

     F – YES – Extends the existing Utility Users Tax for the unincorporated areas of the County only, to fund vital County services, including services to unincorporated areas (e.g., Sheriff, Libraries, Code enforcement), and altering the tax to include video and cable services. County libraries very much need these funds.

    J – YES – This measure modernizes the existing telephone utility tax without increasing the current tax rate of 7.5%. It will tax telephone communications services in a uniform and equitable manner, regardless of the means of transmission or technology used.

Democratic County Central Committee – San Francisco

12th A.D. –

  Michael Bornstein

  Emily Drennen

  Mary Jung

  Hene Kelly

  Eric Mar

  Jake McGoldrick

  Trevor McNeil

  Jane Morrison

  Melanie Nutter

  Connie O’Connor

  Matt Tuchow

13th A.D.

  Bill Barnes

  David Campos

  David Chiu

  Chris Daly

  Michael Goldstein

  Robert Haaland

  Joe Julian

  Leslie Katz

  Rafael Mandelman

  Aaron Peskin

  Laura Spanjain

  Debra Walker

Democratic County Central Committee – Alameda County

14th A.D. (vote for no more than six of the following seven candidates):

  Edie Irons

  Elizabeth Echols

  Karen Weinstein

  Cecilia `Ces” Rosales

  Eleanor Moses

  Andrea Laiacona Dooley OR Janet Flint

16th A.D. (vote for no more than six):

  Wayne Nishioka

  Sumi Paranjape

  Mark Briggs

20th A.D. – VICKI COSGROVE

          BOB WIECKOWSKI