Many environmentalists oppose the initiative because it might disqualify some small generators from the state's renewable energy standard. But there are bigger reasons to oppose it.
It vests too much authority in the California Energy Commission to make crucial decisions on generation and transmission. It undermines the power of local governments to review those decisions.
Overall, it could complicate the state's goals of achieving cleaner energy while keeping rates reasonable.
Vote "no"
PROPOSITION 8
Summary: Would change the constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
Why we oppose it: This initiative is a response to a state Supreme Court ruling in May. The court ruled that the constitution does not allow the state to deny those who are homosexual the right to marry – just as it decided 60 years ago that the California Constitution does not allow the state to deny individuals of different races the right to marry.
Just as an individual's sexual orientation is not a legitimate basis on which to deny housing or a job, it is not a legitimate basis on which to deny individuals the right to marry. Californians should reject the call to amend the state constitution to exclude some people from marriage. That would be a black mark on the constitution, just as past exclusionary acts remain a stain on California's history.
Vote "no"
PROPOSITION 9
Summary: Would amend the constitution to require that crime victims be notified and have input on phases of the criminal justice process, including bail, pleas, sentencing and parole.
Why we oppose it: Crime victims in California already have the right to be told about and to speak at parole and sentencing hearings involving criminals who have victimized them. Prop. 9 would expand those rights in ways that are unnecessary and costly. The initiative also ties the hands of lawmakers who might one day consider allowing early release of inmates to relieve dangerous overcrowding or to save money.
If Proposition 9 passes, the Legislative Analyst's Office says, the state would be forced to forgo potential savings amounting to "hundreds of millions of dollars annually." Prison spending in our state has reached a staggering $10 billion a year.
Proposition 9 ensures that lawmakers will not be allowed to do anything easily to cut those costs without another amendment to the constitution. At a time of fiscal crisis, when the state can't pay its existing bills, this irresponsible initiative adds costs while preventing legislators from making prudent adjustments to save money.
Vote "no"
PROPOSITION 10
Summary: Would authorize $5 billion in bonds to help consumers and others purchase certain vehicles, including those powered by alternative energies.
Why we oppose it: Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens is the deep pockets behind this initiative that, among other things, would provide rebates for businesses and consumers to buy natural gas vehicles. What's wrong with that? Nothing, if you don't mind mind handing over $5 billion in bonds to a select group of manufacturers and energy producers, including Pickens, who owns a natural gas company.
Unlike an existing state program that offers rebates for companies to invest in alternative fuel trucks, this measure wouldn't require recipients to take their dirty trucks off the road. The net result could be more pollution and $335 million less money in the general fund each year for schools, parks, water projects and other state services.
Vote "no"
PROPOSITION 12
Summary: Would authorize $900 million in general obligation bonds for veterans to buy homes and farms, extending a program that originally started in 1921.
Why we oppose it: Proponents say the program poses no costs to taxpayers, but this claim is deceptive. To finance loans to veterans, California would sell bonds to investors. Since the interest paid to bondholders is tax-free, state and federal taxpayers end up subsidizing the program and the homes purchased under it.
In better economic times, it might make sense to keep adding this benefit to the ones that veterans already receive, but not now. If veterans were unable to pay back these loans, it would leave state taxpayers on the hook for some of the $59 million in annual debt service these bonds will incur.
In addition, as of July of this year, there was still about $102 million remaining from past bond issues for veterans, so there's no urgent need to pass a new bond issue.
Vote "no"
