East Bay For Democracy endorses Local Candidates, State Props
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.|
|83||NO||This 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)|
|84||YES||Water Quality Bonds|
|85||NO||This is a "rerun" of last year's 73 that was defeated by the Campaign for Teen Safety. Prop 73, plus 12 months, equals 85.|
|86||YES||Cigarette 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|
|87||YES||Oil Severance tax to provide a fund to finance alternative energy projects. Highly opposed by Big Oil, of course.|
|88||NO||$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.|
|89||YES||Public 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.)|
|90||NO||It looks like an eminent domain protection measure, but it would tie local governments' hands and cost taxpayers big.|