[ebbc-talk] Linda & Jon's Last-minute Election Recommendations

[Jon Spangler]

Dear Friends,

In case you haven't noticed, it's that scary time 
of year again. (No, not Halloween, although it 
feels like it.)Š It's time to make the best 
election choices we can amidst the sea of TV and 
radio ads, slick campaign mailers, and promises 
from all sides.

Based on our collaborative best efforts, advice 
from many friends and colleagues, and more 
non-recreational reading than we'd like, here are 
our (last-minute) choices and recommendations for 
November 2. We respectfully offer them for your 
consideration, to use in any way you wish. We 
welcome your respectful comments, questions, and 
suggestions, regardless of your perspective, and 
offer our prayers and best wishes to all for a 
safe and sane election.

The various races are listed in descending order 
by geographical specificity. If you live outside 
of Alameda County, we ask you to join us in 
supporting statewide and regional measures and 
candidates, and wish you well with your local 
races. If you live in the East Bay or in the City 
of Alameda, please read farther down the list. 
Explanatory comments follow the recommendation on 
a race or ballot measure.

The local propositions follow the local 
candidates, and we saved the state ballot 
measures-always our "favorites"-for last. (NOTE: 
Linda and I disagree on Proposition 63, and both 
sides are presented there.)

May things turn out well for the future of our democratic republic.

Regards,

Linda Hudson & Jon Spangler
+++++++++++++++++
Jon Spangler, Writer/Editor
Linda Hudson Writing
PH   510-864-0370
FAX 510-864-2144
1037 San Antonio Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501-3963


STATE AND NATIONAL CANDIDATES

Kerry/Edwards for President

Boxer for US Senate

Pete Stark for Representative, 13th District

Don Perata for State Senate, District 9

Wilma Chan for Assembly, 16th District
We're consistent Democratic voters, despite our 
party's (and some candidates') shortcomings. The 
Democrats above are much more worthy of your 
support than not. There's not much reward in our 
looking at Republicans any more, as they no 
longer seem to represent a reasonable approach or 
logical problem solving, at least from our 
perspective.

NON-PARTISAN EAST BAY SPECIAL DISTRICT RACES

Harry Hartman for Peralta Community College District Trustee, Area 1
Harry has been active in many local organizations 
and activities, and is a long-time local 
businessman. He brings a fresh and more dynamic 
approach to the local community college 
district's problems. After Bill Withrow's nasty 
campaign tactics against Mayor Beverly Johnson 
two years ago, we cannot support him, despite his 
previous record of community service. (Amey 
Stone, who supports Withrow, also supports Pat 
Bail, whom we oppose.)

H. E. Christian (Chris) Peeples for AC Transit Director, At Large
Peeples is an incumbent AC Transit Board member 
who has recently paid more attention to Alameda's 
needs. (This may be due to serious official 
efforts in Alameda to advocate and support 
transit better. Both are good developments.)

Doug Linney for East Bay Municipal Utility District Director, Ward 5
Doug Linney is a dedicated incumbent, and should 
be re-elected to help "keep it clean."

CITY OF ALAMEDA RACES

Marie Gilmore and Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft for City Council
Marie Gilmore is hands-down the best candidate, 
and has served admirably for a year after being 
appointed to fill Al DeWitt's seat. Marilyn Ezzy 
Ashcraft won my vote after proving herself a 
straight-talking progressive with her work on our 
new library and other local efforts. The Alameda 
Democratic Club endorses Gilmore; both the 
Alameda County Demos and the Sierra Club endorse 
Gilmore and Ezzy Ashcraft.

  My good friend Doug deHaan lost my vote when he 
declared himself an unqualified supporter of 
Measure A (City Charter Section 26), which I 
believe has outlived its usefulness and needs at 
least some serious (and careful) revision to 
better achieve its original goals. Doug deHaan 
would serve Alameda well, but is more 
conservative than I'd like on many issues I 
consider important.

Kevin Kearney for City Auditor
Kevin Kennedy for City Treasurer
Both incumbents have done a good job, and both are running unopposed.

David Forbes, Bill Schaff, and Bob Reeves for AUSD Board of Education
We're voting for David Forbes, Bill Schaff, and 
current Board President Bob Reeves. They are 
principled, thoughtful and committed people who 
are dedicated to kids' education and responsible 
school governance in an era of fiscal challenges. 
Forbes, Schaff, and Reeves bring more consistent 
strengths and fewer serious weaknesses or 
conflicting personal agendas than the other good 
people who are running. Jon has been volunteering 
since March at Franklin Elementary School, and 
believes these are the best candidates for the 
almost 300 teachers, staff, and K-5 students whom 
he sees every week.

Lena Tam and Jeptha T. Boone, MD, for City of 
Alameda Health Care District Board
Incumbents Lena Tam and Jeptha T. Boone, MD are 
dedicated and capable Health Care District 
Directors who deserve re-election. Alameda 
Hospital has made steady progress towards 
financial viability, and it needs their 
experience and skills to make further progress 
towards viability. None of the other candidates 
are as skilled or dedicated as these two.


LOCAL PROPOSITIONS

YES ON AA
Help retrofit BART's Transbay Tube and structures 
so they withstand the inevitable next major 
earthquake. Cost to retrofit: $980 million. 
Estimated cost to repair/replace the same 
structures after a major quake: $2-3 billion over 
2-4 years.

YES ON BB
AC Transit District has suffered almost $25 in 
lost income while costs have risen $25 million in 
the last year. BB will help close that gap 
without another round of service reductions to an 
already-curtailed transit system. Cost: $2 per 
parcel per year for 10 years.

YES ON CC
For $12 per parcel per year, East Bay Regional 
Park District (EBRPD) residents of Zone 1 (mostly 
west of the crest of the hills) will get 
substantial improvements in public access to Zone 
1 parks and facilities, plus better park security 
and environmental maintenance.

Yes on City of Alameda Measure F
City Measure F removes the Alameda Unified School 
District's Board of Education Trustee elections 
from the City Charter. Most of school functions 
are governed by the State Education Code, and 
have been for years. This measure only affects 
school board elections. It also removes term 
limits for Board of Education members, an issue 
which only recently was publicized. Measure F is 
still worth voting for, as term limits already 
apply to incumbent Trustees, and term limits can 
be easily reinstated by the voters, if desired. 
The AUSD staff still has some serious explaining 
to do for its non-disclosure of term limits 
information, however.

THE STATE BALLOT MEASURES
Governing the State of California through 
propositions and bond issues is like repairing a 
race car with bubble gum, baling wire, and duct 
tape. But until we have effective campaign 
spending and lobbyist-limiting initiatives in 
place (not to mention constitutional reforms), we 
have no choice but to do at the ballot box what 
the governor and the legislature cannot seem to 
do. The propositions are listed in ascending 
numerical order, just like your ballot will be.

YES ON 1A
1A (and its predecessor, 65) will help give money 
back to local jurisdictions (cities, counties, 
and special districts like AC Transit) that the 
state has been "stealing" for years in order  to 
pay for massive state budget deficits. Local 
entities will still be under funded after 1A 
kicks in in two years, but won't be as deep in 
red ink as they are now. (Don't even ask what it 
will be like for local cities and counties if 1A 
does not passŠ)

YES ON 59
Proposition 59 installs significant guarantees of 
the public's "right to know" in the state 
Constitution, ensuring that the public will have 
access to public government records and 
information. (Does anyone out there want more 
secrecy and less access to public records?)

YES ON 60
PROPOSITION 60 will essentially keep our primary 
system as it is now. If you didn't like the 100+ 
candidates on last fall's recall ballot, or want 
to make sure that you have choices in November 
between candidates from different parties, you 
probably want to vote yes on 60 and NO on 62.

YES ON 60A
This measure mandates the repayment of specific 
outstanding bonds issued to fund our budget 
deficit (approved by voters as Proposition 57) 
through the allocation of the proceeds from the 
sale of "surplus" property that had been acquired 
using General Fund monies. This accelerated 
payback measure might save California tens of 
millions of dollars in interest on those bonds. 
Not crucial, but it may help pay off our deficit 
a little faster.

YES ON 61
61 authorizes $750 million in general obligation 
bonds to improve selected children's hospitals 
(like Children's Hospital in Oakland) statewide. 
This will expand, upgrade and renovate facilities 
and equipment at the hospitals that specialize in 
caring for kids with serious illnesses.

NO ON 62
This one gives us (once again) an open primary, 
in which any voter can vote for any candidate of 
any party in any race, except the presidential 
elections. This increases the chances of voters 
crossing party lines to sabotage an opposing 
party's candidate(s). This measure makes no 
sense, and open primaries have been rejected 
before by the voters.

YES ON 63
This expands mental health services (mostly in 
local community settings) using an extra 1% tax 
on personal incomes above $1 million. This 
measure will help take mentally ill people off 
the streets and out of jails, where the mentally 
ill are often "treated" now. Not being 
millionaires, we can easily recommend this one.

NO ON 64
If you want to allow public-interest law firms 
and citizens' groups to keep taking on 
corporations for their illegal business practices 
and major environmental pollution, vote no on 64. 
The rich corporations who need more scrutiny the 
most are the ones crying about the poor, 
persecuted small business owners. Don't believe 
them. The average consumer and citizen will 
benefit from a NO on 64. The big corporations 
want you to vote yes so they can have a freer 
hand with your pocketbook, air, and water.

YES ON 66
California's "three strikes" law currently puts 
people in prison for 25-to-life if they steal a 
pizza or commit other "minor" offenses for their 
"third strike." This measure requires that all 
three strikes be qualifying violent offenses, as 
most Californians wanted the law to do in the 
first place. If we want a safer and better 
society, we need rehabilitation, not more 
incarceration.

YES ON 67 (Jon's view)
Emergency rooms and trauma centers are threatened 
or are closing all over California- including 
nationally recognized Highland Hospital in 
Oakland and San Francisco General in San 
Francisco. With threats of global terrorism and 
flu epidemics increasing, a few bucks of phone 
tax can help maintain our struggling 
first-responder institutions.

NO ON 67 (Linda's view)
This proposition's heart is in the right place, 
but the devil is in its details. According to the 
Los Angeles Times:  "It addresses a real need - 
reimbursing doctors and hospitals that treat 
uninsured patients - but this measure is too 
narrow and its funding is simply goofy. It would 
increase the 911 telephone surcharge by 3%, but 
only a tiny fraction would go to the 911 system." 
The bulk of the funds generated are mandated to 
go to physicians and hospitals--with much less to 
first responders. This proposition needs work.

NO ON 68
This proposition's backers have given up the 
fight, as well they should. it's special-interest 
politicking at its worst, and doesn't treat 
everyone fairly. (We oppose 70 also.)

NO ON 69
The concept of using DNA samples from convicted 
criminals to help solve crimes is an excellent 
idea, but 69 also mandates DNA sampling of all 
people who are booked after an arrest, but 
without probable cause and before conviction. 
(DNA sampling at a crime scene is not affected by 
this measure.) Better protections for civil 
liberties need to be in place for a measure like 
this.

NO ON 70
Neither gaming initiative is any good this time 
around. A better solution can be found, and this 
isn't it.

YES ON 71
Stem cell research-but not for the purposes of 
human cloning-would be funded by this measure 
with a $3 billion state bond. The economic 
benefits of a biotech industry resurgence in 
California could be huge, but the real reason to 
vote yes is to support finding cures for a host 
of serious illnesses that are still incurable 
and/or untreatable.

YES ON 72
This measure approves Senate Bill 2, which 
requires health insurance coverage for many 
workers at smaller businesses. It's not a 
single-payer health care system (the ideal, in 
our opinion), but 72 will keep companies like 
Wal-Mart more honest. It will reduce unfair 
competitive practices such as dumping their 
employees' health care costs on the California 
taxpayers. More California workers will have 
health coverage under 72, and not be forced to 
get their medical care at publicly-funded 
emergency rooms, where it costs more to deliver 
the services.

-- 
+++++++++++++++++
Jon Spangler, Writer/Editor
Linda Hudson Writing
PH   510-864-0370
FAX 510-864-2144
1037 San Antonio Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501-3963