Nov 2008 Recommendations

Ballot recommendations include endorsements from the State, County, and regional Clubs.

FEDERAL OFFICES

  • President: Barack Obama & Vice President: Joe Biden
  • U.S. Representative, District 49: Bob Hamilton
  • U.S. Representative, District 50: Nick Leibham
  • U.S. Representative, District 51: Bob Filner
  • U.S. Representative, District 52: Mike Lumpkin (See http://www.LumpkinForCongress.com)
  • U.S. Representative, District 53: Susan Davis

STATE OFFICES

  • State Senate, District 39: Christine Kehoe
  • State Assembly, District 75: Darren Kasai
  • State Assembly, District 76: Lori Saldaña
  • State Assembly, District 77: Raymond Lutz (See http://www.LutzForAssembly.com)
  • State Assembly, District 78: Marty Block
  • State Assembly, District 79: Mary Salas

CITY OFFICES

  • Chula Vista City Council: Pamela Bensoussan & Steve Castaneda
  • Coronado City Council: Carrie Downey
  • Del Mar City Council: Donald Mosier
  • El Cajon City Council: John Martes & Marge Carlson
  • Encinitas City Council: Maggie Houlihan & Rachelle Collier
  • Escondido City Council: Olga Diaz & Richard Barron
  • Imperial Beach City Council: Maxx Stalheim
  • Lemon Grove City Council: George Gastil
  • Lemon Grove Mayor: Mary Theresa Sessom
  • National City City Council: Mona Rios & Alejandra Sotelo-Solis
  • National City Treasurer: R. Mitchel Beauchamp
  • Oceanside City Council: Chuck Lowery & Esther Sanchez
  • Poway City Council: Howard Collins
  • San Diego City Attorney: Michael Aguirre
  • San Diego City Council, District 1: Sherri Lightner
  • San Diego City Council, District 3: Stephen Whitburn
  • San Diego City Council, District 7: Marti Emerald
  • Santee City Council: Rudy Reyes

SCHOOL BOARDS

  • Alpine Union School Board: Ann Pierce
  • Cajon Valley Union School Board: Ken Jensen & Suzanne Mullins
  • Chula Vista Elementary School Board, Seat 2: Norberto Salazar
  • Chula Vista Elementary School Board, Seat 4: Russell Coronado
  • Coronado Unified School Board: Dawn Ovrom
  • Encinitas Union School Board: Carol Skiljan
  • Escondido Union High School Board: Jose Fragozo
  • Grossmont Union High School Board: Carroll Boone
  • Grossmont-Cuyamaca Comm. College Bd., #4: Mary Kay Rosinski
  • Julian Union School Board: Dennis Cantor
  • Lakeside Union School Board: Gelia Cook
  • Miracosta Community College Board, Area 3: Jaqueline Simon
  • Miracosta Community College Board, Area 4: Gloria Carranza
  • Miracosta Community College Board, Area 5: George Mc Neil
  • National School Bd.: James Grier, Barbara Avalos, & James Clapper
  • Oceanside Unified School Board: Adrianne Hakes
  • Palomar Comm. College Bd.: Nancy Chadwick & Richard Borevitz
  • San Diego Community College Board, Dist. B: William Schwandt
  • San Diego Community College Board, Dist. D: Dwayne Crenshaw
  • San Diego County Board of Education, District 4: Mark Anderson
  • San Diego Unified School Board, District A: John Lee Evans
  • San Diego Unified School Board, District D: Richard Barrera
  • San Diego Unified School Board, District E: Shelia Jackson
  • San Dieguito Union High School Board: Joyce Dalessandro
  • San Ysidro School Board: Raquel Márquez & Paul Randolph
  • Santee School Board, Seat 2: Dianne El Hajj
  • South Bay Union School Board: Dee Mc Lean
  • Southwestern Community College Board, Seat 2: Mitch Thompson
  • Southwestern Community College Board, Seat 4: Nick Aguilar
  • Sweetwater Union High School Board, Seat 2: Pearl Quiñones
  • Sweetwater Union High School Board, Seat 4: Bertha López
  • Vista Unified School Board: Steve Lilly

SPECIAL DISTRICTS

  • Borrego Water District: Jim Engelke & Robert Mendenhall
  • Boulevard CPA: Bill Parsons
  • Campo / Lake Morena Community Planning Bd.: Joseph Carmody
  • Canebrake County Water Board: Sharon Lynn Sherman
  • Fallbrook CPA: Michele Bain
  • Grossmont Healthcare Board.: Anne Kane-Sawyers & Deborah Mc Elravy
  • Grossmont Healthcare Board (Short Term): Shirley Apple Murphy
  • Julian / Cuyamaca Fire Board: Aida Tucker
  • Pine Valley Community Planning Board: Story Vogel & Lucille Goodman
  • Potrero Community Planning Board: Janet Warren
  • South Bay Irrigation District, Division 2: Maria Rubalcava
  • South Bay Irrigation District, Division 3: Jose Preciado
  • Tri-City Healthcare Board: Charlene Anderson & Kathleen Sterling
  • Valley Center CPA: Paul Smith

State wide Propositions

Designation Name State Position
1/1a High Speed Rail Train Bond YES
2. Treatment of Farm Animals
See http://uncaged.yesonprop2.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb8od9ZlUtM
YES
3. Children's Hospital Bond Act YES
4. Parental Notification Constitutional Amendment
See http://www.noonprop4.org/
NO
5. Nonviolent offenders, sentencing, parole and rehabilitation statute YES
6. Criminal Penalties and Laws -- public safety funding statute NO
7. Renewable Energy funding statute
See http://www.noprop7.com
NO
8. Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry
See http://noonprop8.com/home/
NO
9. Criminal Justice System Victim's Rights Const. Amendment and statute NO
10. Alternative Fuel Vehicle and Renewable Energy General Fund Bond Neutral
11. Redistricting Constitutional Amendment NO

Local Propositions

Details: http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/voters/Eng/Epropositiontext.shtml

Designation Name County Position
A Establishes a regional fire protection parcel tax ($52 +) for improved and enhanced fire resources and services. (Req. 2/3) YES
B (Port District) Amends the master plan by the adoption of "The Port of San Diego Marine Freight Preservation and Bayfront Redevelopment Initiative." NO
C (San Diego) Charter Amendment - Designating the use of lease revenue from Mission Bay Park No Position
D (San Diego) Makes the consumption of alcohol unlawful at City beaches, Mission Bay Park, and coastal parks. No Position
F (Chula Vista) Makes the consumption of alcohol unlawful at City beaches, Mission Bay Park, and coastal parks. No Position
H (Dell Mar) Increases the transient occupancy tax (TOT) paid by hotel visitors up to 13%. YES
J (El Cajon) Enacts a one-half cent sales tax to provide funding for the preservation of general fund city services. (Req. 2/3) YES
K (Encinitas) Requires guests of short-term vacation rental units to pay a 2% transient occupancy tax (TOT) for beach sand replenishment and stabilization projects. No Position
L (La Mesa) Would increase the City sales tax by three-quarters of a cent to be used for vital city services. (Req. 2/3) YES
M (National City) Would repeal an existing one percent sales tax which is used for City services. NO
N (San Marcos) Approves the establishment of the Ridgeline Protection & Management Overlay Zone. No Position
O (San Marcos) Requires voter approval of certain general plan amendments modifying or changing land use categories or designations. No Position
P (Santee) Shall the proposed City Charter of the City of Santee be adopted? NO
Q (Coronado) Advisory Vote Only. Supports the purchase of the hospital property from the Coronado Hospital Foundation by the Community Development Agency of the City; and provides for hospital capital projects. No Position
R (Southwestern Community College) $389 million in bonds for school improvements. YES
S (San Diego Unified School District) $2.1 billion in bonds for school improvements. YES
T (Escondido School District) $98 million in bonds for school improvements. No Position
U (Grossmont High School District) $417 million in bonds for school improvements. YES
V (Lakeside School District) $79.55 million in bonds for school improvements. YES
W (Lemon Grove School District) $28 million in bonds for school improvements YES
X (South Bay Union School District) $59.4 million in bonds for school improvements. YES

Details

Prop 1

This bill would enact the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century, which, subject to voter approval, would provide for the issuance of $9.95 billion of general obligation bonds, $9 billion of which would be used in conjunction with available federal funds for the purpose of funding the planning and construction of a high-speed train system in this state pursuant to the business plan of the authority. Nine hundred fifty million dollars of the bond proceeds would be available for capital projects on other passenger rail lines to provide connectivity to the high-speed train system and for capacity enhancements and safety improvements to those lines.

Having a reliable and safe rail line between SF and LA is essential to reducing our reliance on relatively inefficient travel modes, such as car and plane.

Prop 2

Requires that an enclosure or tether confining specified farm animals allow the animals for the majority of every day to fully extend their limbs or wings, lie down, stand up, and turn around. Specified animals include calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens, and pregnant pigs. Exceptions made for transportation, rodeos, fairs, 4-H programs, lawful slaughter, research and veterinary purposes. Provides misdemeanor penalties, including a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment in jail for up to 180 days. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Probably minor local and state enforcement and prosecution costs, partly offset by increased fine revenue. (Initiative 07-0041.)

Full Text

In conversation with local egg farmers, they claim that this proposition would require free-range chickens. However, in my reading of the law, it would only require that they reduce the density of egg-laying chickens in their pens. This would result in eggs that are slightly more expensive than imported eggs. We should push for marking of any animals products that do not comply with the ethical treatment standards.

Prop 7

Are you confused about Prop 7? I was.

As I'm sure many of you have, I've seen many commercials lately for NO on 7.

I thought, why would you vote No on Renewable Energy? Then I notice the names of the organizations that are against Prop 7:
  • Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies
  • Environmental Defense Fund
  • Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
  • Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
I thought, well I respect, especially NRDC and UCS, in regards to environmental issues, so Prop 7 must not be good. Then I was made aware of the small print (which I always do, but for some reason did look at this time) that tells who is funding the ads for No on 7. It turns out that PG&E and So.Calif Edison are the major funders.

Then I was totally confused. Since when are the environmental groups (especially NRDC) on the same side as utility companies? (Robert Kennedy Jr. has been an environmental lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council)

So I called NRDC's San Francisco office. I was told either Craig Noble or Ralph Cuvanah (sp?) would be the ones to talk to. They are both attorneys for NRDC.

I soon received a return call from Ralph Cuvanah. He explained to me that the Propositon would actually make it harder to allow renewable energy, especially for the small business and homeowner. He said a person from Arizona actually wrote the proposition, without any input from the renewable energy people in California. There was good intention, but it is just written poorly. He also told me, that of the utility companies, the two funding the opposition to Prop 7, are better than most, in regards to renewable energy.

The NRDC's agreement to endorse the No on 7 campaign, was that the campaign would not "trash" renewables. So if you see anything in the ads that do that, he wants to know.

I found the following posting from a link from: http://nrdc.org/ It tells NRDC's reasons for opposing Prop 7.

I have great respect for the NRDC, and their environment record and work, so I, personally, at this point, will follow their advice.


Nancy Goettler

Craig Noble is one of NRDC's attorneys in San Francisco.

Craig Noble's Blog -- http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/cnoble/prop_7_is_bad_for_renewable_en.html

California's Prop 7 is Bad for Renewable Energy

August 19, 2008

I’ve learned to bite my tongue around certain friends and relatives because not everyone appreciates my incessant talk about clean energy. I will exercise some restraint. Perhaps I’ll drop the jokes about my brother-in-law’s gas-guzzling SUV, which I’m told are wearing thin. But I will not shut up because the stakes are too high.

We need to create a clean energy economy. I don’t want to see our last best places drilled for oil or strip-mined for coal. Nor do I want to breathe polluted air. Nobody’s children deserve to live on a planet feverish from global warming. Besides, I get excited about being part of the solution here in California. In recent years we’ve passed two internationally-famous global warming laws – The Clean Cars Law (AB 1493) and The Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32), not to mention a lesser known yet hugely important law called The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Performance Standard Act (SB 1368), which prevents utilities from entering into long-term contracts for electricity generated by dirty sources like coal.

California is where the action is, so even though my friends and family get a little nervous when I take a few steps toward my soapbox, they actually ask for my opinion when it comes time for them to approach the ballot box. I’m anticipating some potentially confusing conversations about one particular measure that’s going to be on the ballot this November. How do I explain that they should vote no on Proposition 7, The Solar and Clean Energy Act, which ostensibly requires California to increase its use of renewable energy? With a name like that, what could be wrong with it?

The list of reasons to vote against Prop 7 is long and complicated, but it boils down to this: California’s leading conservation groups and the renewable energy industry itself agree that Proposition 7 would actually make it harder to increase renewable energy development in California.

Here’s that long and complicated list of reasons to vote no on Prop 7:

Proposition 7 was put together by people who don’t know what they’re doing; they don’t understand California’s clean energy policies, laws and markets. Good intentions aren’t good enough, we need clean energy experts who know what they’re doing making energy policy.

Proposition 7 locks in place complex regulatory barriers that make it more difficult for California to achieve its renewable energy goals. We need to dismantle barriers to renewable energy, so we can accelerate efforts to create a clean electric grid.

Prop 7 could exclude smaller renewable energy providers from participating in California’s energy markets; it excludes renewable power facilities smaller than 30 megawatts from counting toward the measure’s new requirements. We need to make it easier, not harder, for clean energy companies to set up shop in California, bringing with them jobs and economic growth.

Prop 7 slashes penalties (by 80 percent) for utilities that fail to achieve the state’s renewable energy targets. There needs to be enforcement and consequences to ensure that energy providers comply with the law.

Prop 7 explicitly allows for a signed contract – not the actual construction of a renewable energy project or delivery of electricity from the project – to count as compliance, and creates several other huge new loopholes that could only be removed by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. Promises aren’t good enough; we need real clean energy projects that are actually on the ground.

Prop 7 would limit environmental review of renewable energy projects. The siting of renewable energy and transmission projects should be an open, transparent process with ample opportunity for review and comment by concerned citizens, regulatory agencies, and federal, state and local governments.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned about California energy policy, it’s that it’s really complicated. I don’t pretend to understand all the details, but I do know they matter. NRDC’s California energy experts all agree that each of the aforementioned details would make it harder, not easier, to increase the amount of renewable energy used in California.

Taken together, these flaws would be an unmitigated disaster. Our friends at the Union of Concerned Scientists, California League of Conservation Voters, Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, and the California Solar Energy Industries Association all agree.

The pro-renewable energy vote this November is an emphatic No on Proposition 7.

-- Raymond Lutz - 18 Jun 2008
Topic attachments
I Attachment Action Size Date Who Comment
Endorsements_Nov2008.pdfpdf Endorsements_Nov2008.pdf manage 111 K 2014-06-26 - 21:22 Raymond Lutz Endorsements for Nov 2008 from San Diego Democratic Party
Topic revision: r13 - 2015-03-11, RaymondLutz
This site is powered by FoswikiCopyright © by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding Cops? Send feedback