|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Election 2002November 5, 2002 General Election - Green Party Endorsements Local ElectionsPetaluma City Council (3 seats):
Petaluma Mayor (1 seat):
Santa Rosa City Council (3 seats):
Sebastopol City Council (3 seats):
Note: The power of your vote to elect these progressive candidates is increased by casting only two votes for the three open seats.Sonoma City Council (3 seats):
Note: The power of your vote to elect these progressive candidates is increased by casting only two votes for the three open seats.Santa Rosa Junior College District, Analy Area (1 seat):
[top] Propositions
Discussion of Propositions [top]YES on PROP 46, HOUSING AND EMERGENCY SHELTERThis proposition would provide housing for those in greatest need, including emergency shelters for battered women and homeless families with children, housing for low-income senior citizens, housing with social services for the homeless and mentally ill, provide repairs and improvements to the apartments of people with disabilities, p rovide assistance to first-time home buyers as well as repair and improve existing emergency shelters. Providing affordable housing benefits communities in many ways, including letting people live and work in the same area without having to drive far distances. The current budget has almost completely eliminated General Fund spending for housing, and no bond measure for housing has passed in 12 years. Now is a critical time to support these basic needs. Read about Green Party reservations on endorsing bond measures. YES on PROP 47, PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES BONDStudents who attend public schools in the poorer parts of our state are disadvantaged by a lack of funding for even very basic things like safe classrooms. We currently lack schools for growing numbers of students in California, resulting in very large class sizes that are not conducive to learning. This proposition provides money for building and repairing schools in areas of greatest need, as well as for the expansion of state college facilities. This basically replaces the current law with adjustments that give local districts more say over how money is spent, stop penalizing small schools, and take into account special costs associated with urban schools. Read about Green Party reservations on endorsing bond measures. NO on PROP 48, COURT CONSOLIDATION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTThis proposition removes references to municipal courts in the Constitution. Municipal courts were consolidated with the superior court system with voter approval in 1998. The consolidation removed certain inefficiencies and redundancies of the California court system, but it has also resulted in the consolidation of power into the hands of the superior court judges. We believe reference to municipal courts should not be removed from the Constitution as long as there is any chance that this will keep an avenue open for counties which might wish to re-establish municipal courts at some time. NO on PROP 49, BEFORE AND AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMSWhile we aren’t against before and after school programs, this proposition would constitute a very large increase in funding by taking money out of the general fund and permanently earmarking it for these programs. It does not create new money for after school programs. It also requires matching funds from the school district, and poor schools are less likely to be able to provide these funds. It is not appropriate to lock funds up for non-essential programs like these when there are other needs, both current and unforeseen, for the money in California’s general fund. YES on PROP 50, WATER QUALITY, SUPPLY, AND SAFE DRINKING WATER PROJECTSThis proposition focuses on the safety, security, and reliability of our water supply through a holistic approach—conservation, protection, reclamation, treatment, and restoration of existing water supplies and ecological systems. Though voters have recently approved funds for clean and safe water, those funds have already been spent. There is really no other option than to approve this kind of legislation in the context of the state’s growing water crisis. Read about Green Party reservations on endorsing bond measures. PROP 51, TRANSPORTION—No RecommendationThis is a better transportation proposition than the one we had in the last election, which used gas taxes to fund mostly highway expansion--this proposition uses 30% of vehicle sales and lease taxes (money currently available to other projects in the general fund) to fund various transportation projects, 48% of which fall into the category of “rail and bus projects,” 25% into “traffic congestion relief,” 15% into “environmental mitigations” and 8% slated to replace 1400 old school buses. Unfortunately, the constitutionality of the bill is in question, as at least a quarter of the money is earmarked for 45 projects (mostly in L.A., as detailed in about twenty pages of small print) to benefit groups that made financial contributions to the proposition campaign. Though the proposition bypasses local planning processes and legislative discretion over how to use funds on an annual basis, some feel this might be our best opportunity to make funds available for public transit. The Green Party of California opposes the proposition. YES on PROP 52, ELECTION DAY VOTER REGISTRATIONThis has been a key component of the Green Party strategy for election reform for some time. Currently in California the last day to register to vote is fifteen days before the election. Allowing eligible people to register on Election Day increases voter participation, particularly among young voters and others who change addresses between elections. The six states in the nation which already have Election Day voter registration lead the nation in voter turnout. California could help open the doors for at least twelve other states that are considering Election Day voter registration. It would also be a safeguard against the illegal disenfranchisement of eligible voters, such as the thousands of legal voters (mostly minorities, mostly Democrats) who were turned away from the polls in Florida during the last presidential election. The proposition includes funds to offset the additional cost of registering voters at the polls and increased penalties for voter fraud. A note on bond measures: Whenever a proposition is funded by a bond, it means some amount of taxpayer money goes into the pockets of the investors who act as middlemen. Paid off over a period of about thirty years, bonds typically cost taxpayers $1.25 for every $1.00 that actually goes to fund the approved proposition. Greens advocate less wasteful means of financing large capital costs for state and local government. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
[home] [get involved] [election] [platform] [greens] address: PO Box 15073, Santa Rosa, CA 95402 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
