A Progressive Alamedan

Various writings from a resident of Alameda regarding the political scene. The local perspective of local, state and national politics and a few other odds and ends of local concern. May not be particularly interesting to people outside of the Alameda area.

Name:
Location: Alameda, California, United States

Contact me by sending a message to "dan" followed by the current year at the domain karelia.com

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

East Bay For Democracy endorses Local Candidates, State Props

I am a member of East Bay For Democracy, an organization founded by a number of political activists who had been energized by Howard Dean's campaign; it is affiliated with Democracy for America and is now chartered officially as a Democratic Club.

Last Night, EB4D held its endorsement meeting, and its membership endorsed many local (Alameda, Oakland, Berkeley)candidates, as well as local and state ballot issues.

The Alameda candidates endorsed were Lena Tam for Alameda City Council and Frank Matarrese for Alameda City Council.

Statewide propositions were also endorsed; I'll list them here, linked to their advocacy website, with a brief personal commentary:

1A(no position)These bond measures, which are being grouped by its backers as a package deal, elicited much debate in the meeting, and though there were some strong opinions for or against some, I personally tink that further study needs to be given here.
1BNO
1C(no position)
1DYES
1E(no position)
83NOThis is the "sex offenders" proposition that would further restrict released sex offenders. Many felt that it was too draconian, and was impractical because it would require them to relocate to rural areas. (This position deviates from the California Democratic Party's "yes" endorsement)
84YESWater Quality Bonds
85NOThis is a "rerun" of last year's 73 that was defeated by the Campaign for Teen Safety. Prop 73, plus 12 months, equals 85.
86YESCigarette tax. There was some concern that the per-pack tax would be a burden on the poor, like a regressive tax, but many felt that the reduction in smoking and the prevention and treatment programs it would fund would more than compensate. Highly opposed by the tobacco companies, of course
87YESOil Severance tax to provide a fund to finance alternative energy projects. Highly opposed by Big Oil, of course.
88NO $50 parcel tax for education funding is a regressive tax: Think how Larry Ellison will have to pay just as much as you or me.
89YESPublic Financing of Elections. A no-brainer for anybody who wants to cut down big business's influence on politicians. (Note: The CA dem party did not take a stance on this since some organizations don't want to release their position of power even if they are democratic strongholds.)
90NOIt looks like an eminent domain protection measure, but it would tie local governments' hands and cost taxpayers big.

1 Comments:

Blogger m_cas said...

Why no position on 1C? As a progressive, 1C will benefit communities, local economies, and create smart growth and transit-oriented developments. The positive environmental impact combined with building better neighborhoods and mixed-use development are all things supported by the progressive agenda.

1C will help many low-income people and create workforce housing- which benefits everyone. For a more in-depth analysis, read Urban Habitat’s analysis on Prop 1B and 1C in terms of social equity, environmental justice and economy.

2:05 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home