Point Reyes Light - October 28, 2004
The Light Endorses ...
By Jim Kravets
National Office
President – Unlike the incumbent, unelected president, Senator John Kerry is pro-environmental, understands foreign policy, and speaks English. John Kerry for President.
US Senate – Marin County’s own Barbara Boxer has been unfailingly strong on the environment, healthcare reform, and the economy. Over the years, she has slid a bit to the right (she voted for the USA Patriot Act), but her voting record is sill the most progressive in the Senate. Republican Bill Jones’ flaccid campaign has merely shown him to be another right-wing conservative. Barbara Boxer for US Senate.
House of Representatives – Liberal Democrat Lynn Woolsey is an unwavering advocate for education, healthcare, and women. After a clumsy start in Congress, she’s become more politically savvy, and she’s been outspoken against President Bush’s actions in Iraq. (Her opponent, Santa Rosa Republican Paul Erickson, unabashedly calls the war in Iraq a success.) Lynn Woolsey for Sixth District representative.
State Office
State Senate – Voters would like their state senators to be approachable, receptive, or at least slow down as they drive past constituents. Carole Migden does none of the above, and she’s mean besides. However, voters also like their legislators to be leaders, have good judgment, and act decisively without having to first check political barometers. Carole Migden does all of this. Her years in the Assembly and as chairwoman of the state Board of Equalization give her clout in the State Senate that her Republican opponent, Andrew Felder, simply doesn’t have. However, she champions state government against local government and authored the election pamphlet argument against Proposition 1A, which would protect the revenues of water districts, utility districts, community services districts, county governments, and city governments from raids by state government. Carole Migden (reluctantly) for State Senate.
State Assembly – Marin County’s incumbent Joe Nation is one of the brightest lights in the Legislature and has sponsored all manner of legislation to protect wetlands, improve air quality, and decrease class sizes in schools. Although he is sometimes too quick to lend an ear to quirky interests, he deserves a third (and final) term. Joe Nation for Assembly.
County Office
Marin County Superior Court Judge – Voters are fortunate to have two strong candidates vying for the spot vacated by retiring judge William McGivern. Republican Paul Haakenson is a 10-year deputy district attorney in Marin and has prosecuted more than 50 trials, most notably cases involving child abuse, kidnapping, and sexual assault. Faye D’Opal is the director of the Legal Self-Help Center of Marin, which advises more than 900 people a month who can’t afford an lawyer. She’s a Peace Corps veteran, fluent in Spanish, and has long been an advocate for women’s and victims’ rights. She has often served as a fill-in judge. Her supporters include the president elect of the Marin County Bar Association, Senator Barbara Boxer, Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, Assemblyman Joe Nation, and Supervisor Steve Kinsey. Faye D’Opal for Superior Court Judge.
Marin Healthcare District Board – Two wings of Marin General were built in the 1950s and 1960s. These structures do not meet current seismic-safety standards, and replacing them with new buildings is the best option. The deadline to comply with state seismic standards is 2013. Sutter – the healthcare company that leases Marin General Hospital from the publicly elected healthcare board – loses its lease in 2015. Sutter says it will build and pay for a new wing if its lease is extended. Given the quarrelsome hospital board at present, no negotiations are possible. Stonewalling until the lease runs out isn’t responsible. The Light in the past has supported directors who would oust Sutter, but it is now clear shedding Sutter isn’t the answer. Healthcare executives Judy House and Sharon Jackson, running on the same slate, are willing to negotiate with Sutter to make Marin General a state-of-the-art facility. The slate of Neurosurgeon Archimedes Ramirez and nonprofit executive Jonathan Friemen has run an acrimonious campaign highlighted by petty and small-minded maneuvers. Judy House & Sharon Jackson for Health Care District board.
Stinson Water Board
Stinson Beach Water District Board – This race started out exciting with four candidates for three open seats. Then, six days after putting his name on the ballot, incumbent Charles Dutkin sold his house and moved to San Francisco, making him ineligible for the post. Voters will find Dutkin’s name still on the ballot, but in a September statement to the Stinson Beach Village Association, Dutkin encouraged voters to choose the other directors. The Light endorses John Gilbert, Elizabeth Sapanai, and Gilbert Scott Tye.
State Propositions
Propositions 1A and 65 – The state's ongoing raids on the tax revenues of local governments have hobbled counties, cities, and special districts (such as those that take care of water, sewers, and town parks). Because the basic services of West Marin’s towns are managed by special districts, we are especially vulnerable when state government hijacks property taxes traditionally earmarked for local government. In Dillon Beach, for example, Gov. Schwarzenegger hijacked 40 percent of the property-tax that heretofore has been spent operating the Oceana Marin sewer system. So sewer rates go up. County permits have become outrageously expensive in order to compensate for the loss of property-tax revenues hijacked by state government to balance its own budget. Proposition 1A would put a stop to the state’s hijacking of local-government money to balance the state budget – except during state government’s periodic financial emergencies. Prop. 65 is a weak predecessor of Prop. 1A, and it has now been abandoned by its backers in favor of Prop. 1A. Yes on Proposition 1A & No on Prop 65.
Proposition 59 would amend the state Constitution to improve the public’s right of access to meetings and to government documents. Amazingly, despite laws such as the California Public Records Act, the Legislative Open Records Act, the Ralph M. Brown Open Meeting Act, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, and the Grunsky-Burton Open Meeting Act, governments remain obsessively secret about their doings. Although lacking real teeth, Prop. 59 at least keeps chipping away at government’s obsession with hiding public business from the public. The League of Women Voters supports this proposition as does the California Newspaper Publishers Association. The only formal opposition to this proposition comes from Mountain View attorney Gary Wesley who has made it a crusade to provide arguments against propositions that are otherwise unopposed. Yes on 59.
Propositions 60, 60A, and 62 affect primary elections. Prop. 62 creates new voting rules for primary elections; the two primary-election candidates receiving the most votes would be the candidates on the general election ballot – even if the two were of the same party. Under Prop. 62, voters could vote for any candidate they choose in primaries regardless of their own party affiliations. Prop. 60 maintains the current system wherein all political parties represented in the primary election would advance their top vote-getters to the general election. Prop. 62 made the Nov. 2 ballot via the initiative process of collecting signatures. The State Legislature’s opponents of Prop. 62 are not merely fighting the initiative, they have put their own Prop. 60 on Tuesday’s ballot to preserve the present system of primary elections. To sweeten the case for Prop. 60, legislators tacked onto it an unrelated matter. The unrelated matter became Prop. 60A when a judge ordered that the issues be separated. Prop. 62, under the guise of opening up the political process, virtually ensures that no minor-party candidates would make it past the primaries to reach the general election. If passed, this proposition would favor Republican and Democratic candidacies and discourage the rise of new parties. Prop. 60A requires that proceeds from the sale of surplus state property be used to pay off the state's debt. In and of itself, it’s a fine idea. Because Prop. 60A was an add-on dreamed up to make Prop. 60 more attractive, it was drafted hastily mere days before the deadline for qualifying to be on the November ballot. Both 60 and 60A have their merits, but their incomplete and flawed construction renders them lame. No on Propositions 60, 60A, & 62.
Proposition 61 – Careful! Oppose this proposition, a $750 million bond to benefit children’s hospitals, and you’re considered indifferent to sick children. The sad fact is the bonds would be repaid from the state’s general fund and would add another $1.5 billion of debt onto California’s world-famous deficit. One immediate problem with California’s deficit is that its bond rating, though slightly improved, is still the lowest of any state. This means California taxpayers must repay state bonds at higher interest rates than those of other states. No one could argue that children’s hospitals aren’t a worthy cause, but this proposition was put on the ballot through the public initiative process instead of through the Legislature where any analysis of its fiscal impact on state finances would have stopped it in its tracks. No on 61.
Proposition 63 is perhaps the most curious of the lot. In the 1960s, state government dumped care for the mentally ill on communities unprepared for the responsibility. The Legislature and Governor Ronald Reagan closed state mental hospitals, which saved tax money and created an enormous population of untreated patients, thousands of whom became California’s homeless people. This initiative would impose a 1 percent tax on Californians with incomes above $1 million a year to fund needed but neglected mental-health services. These services are often the first cut when government budgets are squeezed because the mentally ill are not a constituency politicians worry about. Such diseases as breast cancer and AIDS get more government attention because their victims are better organized. The proposition would also prevent the state from reducing expenditures on mental health below the current level. What do millionaires in particular have to do with the mentally ill? Isn’t it obvious? Nothing. That’s the beauty of Prop. 63. Opponents, some of whom naturally are millionaires, agree the cause is just but ask, "Where do you draw the line on just causes? Next thing you know, millionaires will be subsidizing treatment for indigents with renal failure or rickets." To this we say: Great! Yes on 63.
Proposition 64 – Litigious shakedowns abound in California. This initiative is intended to reduce the frivolous lawsuits that plague small business, often forcing them to settle out of court rather than mount legal fights they can’t afford. Prop. 64 would restrict access to the California Unfair Business Competition Law, which allows individuals, governments, and public-interest groups to file suit on behalf of the public. If approved, Prop. 64 would change the rules, and suits could only be filed by individuals who were actually injured by or suffered financial or property loss because of an unfair business practice. This would be a blow to environmental and consumer groups who have used the law to stop pollution and false advertising. Notwithstanding the very real victimization of small businesses, big business is ponying up the big bucks ($8.2 million so far) for the Prop. 64 campaign. Among the major contributors are the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Bank of America, Blue Cross of California, Citigroup, Kaiser, Nike, and State Farm. The California District Attorneys Association has refused to support this proposition, and the public should, too. The Unfair Business Competition Law needs fixing, but this proposition doesn’t fix it. No on Proposition 64.
Proposition 66 – A life sentence for shoplifting double AA batteries is not what the authors of California’s "three-strikes" law had in mind. Yet this and other equally absurd sentences are common results of the law in its present form. Prop. 66 would amend the three-strikes law so that only violent or serious felonies could be counted as a strike. The change would bring California law in line with three-strikes laws in other states. The opposition pretends that Prop. 66 could release numerous hardened criminals if passed, ignoring the many other laws that keep them there. The condemning of minor offenders to long sentences has evolved into a make-work program for prison builders and prison guards. In fact, the California Prison Guards Union is vocally against Prop. 66. Revising the three strikes law is more than just fairness; it makes fiscal sense. The Justice Policy Institute estimates that between 1994 and 2003, the three-strikes law cost California more than $8 billion in incarceration costs, with more than half that amount resulting from long prison terms for non-violent offenders. Yes on 66.
Proposition 67, like Proposition 72, demonstrates the dire need for healthcare reform. But instead of directly confronting it, the sponsors look for innocent bystanders who can be handed the bill. The proposition would raise $500 million annually by adding a new 3 percent tax to the existing tax on telephone use within California. The money would pay doctors, clinics and hospitals for treating uninsured patients in the emergency room and would fund improvements in the 911 system. The relationship between a phone tax and emergency care is tenuous at best, but compared with Prop. 63’s taxing millionaires extra to pay for treating the mentally ill, Prop. 67 would merely allow the Legislature to avoid its duty to finance emergency services for which there is already an influential constituency. No on Proposition 67.
Propositions 68 and 70 – Both of these Tribal Gaming Compacts are forms of blackmail. Both offer the state unappealing ultimatums, and neither are in the public’s interest. The compacts Gov. Schwarzenegger negotiated in June with the tribal casino industry are not ideal, but they’re far better than Prop. 70’s 99-year abolition of state audits of casino profits. Prop. 70 has only one formal endorsement in the ballot pamphlet. Prop. 68 has none at all, and its backers on Oct. 6 ceased campaigning for it after spending more than $20 million. With public opinion polls showing no support and Gov. Schwarzenegger strongly opposing it, Prop. 68’s backers concluded it had no chance of passage and stopped promoting it. No on 68 & 70.
Proposition 69 would expand law-enforcement’s collection of DNA samples (via mouth swab) to include people convicted of any felony plus those convicted of – or simply arrested on suspicion of – minor charges such as shoplifting. Privacy advocates say that because the DNA samples could be sent out to private labs for analysis, personal information could be misused or stolen. Proponents contend that DNA is just the next generation of fingerprints. Wrong. Unlike a fingerprint, DNA contains sensitive and private information about individuals, including propensities for disease and other genetic markers. California’s criminal-justice system already cannot deal with all the DNA samples it receives, and Prop. 69 would further overburden a system that, if properly used, is invaluable for law enforcement and for proving the innocence of people wrongly convicted. Other states limit DNA sampling to felony convictions. California should too. No on Proposition 69.
Proposition 71 – Although it appears to be a referendum on stem-cell research, it is really more about who should pay for the research. Ideological arguments aside, stem-cell research holds the promise of breakthroughs in treating diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, multiple sclerosis, various cancers, and roughly 70 other diseases. Tragically, national politics have blocked needed research. Prop. 71 would allow science to resume its forward progress. If passed, state government could sell $3 billion in general obligation bonds to fund stem-cell research – not a small amount for a state profoundly in debt and having many other pressing needs. The state Legislative Analyst, in a rare non-specific statement, says such research could have an economic benefit for California that is "unknown but could be significant." Innovation in biotechnology has been California’s heritage, and Prop. 71 helps ensure it will be our future. Yes on Proposition 71.
Proposition 72 – On his way out of office last year, Gov. Gray Davis signed Senate Bill 2, which would require companies with 200 or more employees to buy health insurance for workers and their families by 2006. Companies with 50 to 199 workers would have to buy coverage for their workers starting in 2007. Prop. 72 challenges SB 2. Health insurance in America somehow evolved into a "benefit" that comes from the workplace. California needs to get to work on a solution to the uninsured problem, but Prop. 72 isn’t the answer. If this country wants to develop a national health-insurance plan, an employer-based system of healthcare reform is a step in the wrong direction. Proponents of Prop. 72 rightly point out that the huge number of uninsured people contribute to rising healthcare costs, but Prop. 72 would not affect five out of six uninsured Californians. And it would do little to cut excessive healthcare costs. It just forces employers to keep paying them. No on 72.
County Measures
Measure A – If approved by voters, the county’s sales tax would increase to 7.75 percent from 7.25 percent. That’s would cost the average Marin resident about $80 dollars per year, and the county would raise $16.5 million per year or $331 million over 20 years for traffic relief and better transportation. The money would go to: repair of local roads, bikeways, and sidewalks, 26.5 percent of the tax money; improvements to ease traffic congestion and provide safe routes to schools, or 11 percent; closing the carpool lane gap on Highway 101 through San Rafael and Central Marin, 7.5 percent; local bus transit, 55 percent. Of special interest to West Marin, 3 percent ($9.93 million over 20 years) would be allocated to West Marin Stagecoach. The current service would be expanded to include weekends, and a new route would travel the Olema Valley between Bolinas and Point Reyes Station. The measure would also pay for resurfacing of Sir Francis Drake Boulevard through Samuel P Taylor State Park. The measure would not create a seamless, frequent and affordable bus network throughout the county but would reverse the current decline in service. A two-thirds majority is needed to pass this measure. While the measure isn’t perfect, voters should not let the ideal become the enemy of the good. Yes on Measure A.
Measure B – Banning genetically modified organisms. Growing genetically modified organisms may be inevitable in the future, but we’re not there yet. Health risks associated with modified organisms have only barely been studied, and environmental considerations are numerous. Through a process called "gene flow," a field of GMO crops can cross-pollinate – and contaminate – non-GMO plants miles away, and the process can never be undone. Damage to our health and environment could be catastrophic. Yes on Measure B.
Measure C – Asks Marin voters to approve the sale of $249 million in general obligation bonds over the next 30 years to repair and renovate College of Marin’s Kentfield and Indian Valley campuses. Residents will have to pay about $85 per year on average. Proceeds from the bond sales will be subject to audits and citizen oversight and must be spent solely for campus improvements, not administrative salaries. College President Frances White says improving facilities will also allow students to use modern technology in their classroom, which will indirectly enhance job-training programs. College of Marin buildings have been badly neglected, and repairs are immediately needed. Yes on C.
Measure G renews the Tamalpais High School District’s parcel tax for another seven years with a three percent annual increase. The tax would be $199.97 for the 2005-2006 tax year. The measure affects West Marin property owners in Muir Beach, Stinson Beach, Bolinas, Nicasio, and the San Geronimo Valley. Community support is a key reason for our high schools’ continuing excellence. Yes on G.