All those things on the fall ballot? The Bee’s columnist will vote no, and here’s why
November election season is upon us. Time to break out the “no” votes and flannel sheets.
Soon after unsealing the envelope containing my official ballot for the November general election and leaving it open on the dining table, temperatures dipped nearly 20 degrees.
Coincidence? Hard to say. Because after taking a closer look at the list of state propositions and county measures — a few well-known to me, others not so much — I felt a certain chill that had nothing to do with the weather.
Meaning, a general inclination to vote “no.”
“No” on local sales taxes, both new ones and renewals. And “no” to nearly all the propositions.
In a state of nearly 22 million registered voters, a single ballot doesn’t count for much. I realize that. But it’s my small way (along with writing this) of sending a message to the politicians, bureaucrats and special-interest groups behind these initiatives.
The message that what’s being proposed isn’t worthy of my vote. In some cases, go back and get it right. In others, go away. Shoo.
Measure C, the Fresno County transportation tax renewal, belongs in the first group if for no other reason than the current edition expires in 2027. Meaning we have two more election cycles to get the formula right until any local transit project or program loses funding.
Unfortunately, the version of Measure C before voters doesn’t come anywhere close. Heavily tilted toward road construction, even more so than the current incarnation, the spending plan continues the entrenched mindset of taxpayer-funded sprawl while ignoring both air quality issues as well as residents who either can’t afford to drive a car for their daily transportation needs or prefer not to.
Thumb’s down on Fresno State tax
I’ll also be giving the cold shoulder to Measure E, the Fresno State improvement tax bankrolled by developer/construction company owner Richard Spencer.
No question a stronger, better Fresno State benefits the entire central San Joaquin Valley. Still, that doesn’t mean that burden should fall to county taxpayers, especially the poorest who feel the pinch of every dollar.
If 100% of Measure E funds went to academic programs, perhaps I could be swayed. But the very idea of taxpayer money being used to renovate an aging college football stadium leaves a sour taste. Other Mountain West schools have managed to build new stadiums or improve the ones they have through private donations and revenue bonds. If Fresno State officials can’t do the same, perhaps it’s a sign of bigger issues.
Measure E is projected to generate $720 million over its 20-year lifespan. Direction and control of those revenues would fall under a “citizens oversight committee” whose five members are appointed by the Fresno County Board of Supervisors.
Yeah, no thanks.
I’ll also be voting no on five of the seven state propositions. Starting with both Propositions 26 and 27, competing initiatives that attempt to regulate California’s initial foray into legal sports gambling.
Nothing against betting on sports, but these two measures are authored by special-interest groups intent on carving out lucrative revenue streams while knee-capping their competition. Next time, present a system that doesn’t so blatantly choose winners and losers.
Speaking of private interests, Proposition 29 backers have twice previously tried to establish new state requirements for kidney dialysis clinics. Hopefully they’ll get the message following a third rejection.
Campaign spending given a huge Lyft
While Proposition 30 may sound appealing — sure, let’s make the rich pay for electric vehicle infrastructure and wildfire prevention — the campaign is almost entirely funded by Lyft, the ride-share company under pressure to comply with new state requirements for electric vehicle miles.
Lyft has spent $25 million supporting Proposition 30, about half of what it spent in 2020 on Proposition 22 to override state law and keep its drivers as independent contractors.
How much is one company willing to spend to tilt public policy in its favor? I don’t know, but let’s not encourage more to find out.
Proposition 31, which would allow a 2020 state law banning most flavored tobacco products to take effect, is the trickiest on the ballot.
The last place I wish to be is on the same side as Big Tobacco. Nor do I want more young people to become nicotine addicts. But tobacco sales to anyone under 21 is already illegal in California. Which, in essence, makes Proposition 31 a ban against adult use … and strays too close to government overreach for my tastes.
The two “yes” votes on my ballot are for Propositions 1 and 28. Yes, California should absolutely codify reproductive freedoms including a woman’s right to dictate what happens with her own body. And, yes, money should be set aside to fund arts and music programs in all K-12 public schools.
See? I’m not voting down everything on this year’s ballot. Just most things.
