California Propositions
| Sun Oct. 26, 2008 10:02 AM PDT
CALIFORNIA PROPOSITIONS....This is a special post for California readers. The rest of you may safely go about your Sunday business normally.
This year we have 12 initiatives on the California ballot. As longtime readers know, my default position is to very strongly oppose all initiatives. My reasons are here, but the nickel version is that (a) most initiatives these days are funded by corporate interests, not the grassroots, and corporate interests don't really need yet another avenue to work their will on the public, (b) generally speaking, laws should be laws, not constitutional amendments or initiative statutes, where they're essentially etched in stone forever, and (c) ballot box budgeting is a curse.
At the request of my wife, I'll add one other thing: I've routinely voted against not just initiatives, but also against virtually all bond measures for the past couple of decades. Here's why. In the distant past, bond measures were used for capital projects that needed a big dollop of funding right away even though their useful life was decades long. But that's barely ever the case anymore. Rather, they've become little more than ways to evade the normal budgeting process. Most of the time they fund projects that will take a long time to build and could just as easily (and more cheaply) be funded out of general revenues. What's more, the standard mantra that they "require no tax increase" is baloney: they allocate money and that money (plus interest) has to be paid back out of the general fund. This money comes from taxes, just like every other expenditure.
Obviously you might not share my generic distaste for both the initiative process and the abuse of bond funding. So take that into account as you read the rest of this post. And a note for my non-California readers, since I always get a few questions about this. Several of the initiatives on the ballot this year (4, 8, 9, and 11) are constitutional amendments, and yes, a simple majority vote is all it takes to amend the state constitution here. I know it seems weird, but that's the way it is.
High-speed rail bond. NO. As I said above, I generally oppose bond measures. But high speed rail is a worthy long-term endeavor, so I should probably explain my opposition to this particular bond issue in some detail. Here it is: We. Don't. Have. Any. Money.
I continue to be flabbergasted at the unwillingness of Californians to understand just how bad our fiscal situation is. It's mind boggling. We've been running huge deficits for the past six years even though the economy was booming. The coming recession is only going to make it worse. We just flatly can't afford this right now.
On its merits, I'll confess to some skepticism too. Both the cost projections and the ridership projections for the planned 220 mph train from LA to San Francisco strike me as typically optimistic for these things (as does the 220 mph goal, frankly), and I really have to wonder if we don't have better ways to spend a billion or two a year on transit projects. But those are side issues that would only be worth discussing if we had the money to support this in the first place. We don't.
Farm Animal Confinement. YES. This initiative requires that farm animals be penned in cages that allow them to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs, and turn around freely. In practice, it would affect only the egg industry, and it moves California very moderately in the direction of more humane treatment of farm animals. The factory farming industry is running the usual campaign claiming that it would put California farmers out of business entirely, but that dog just won't hunt anymore. That's what they always say. In reality, it will probably increase the cost of eggs a few pennies per dozen and nothing more.
This initiative passes most of my smell tests too. It's a genuine grassroots initiative that would have a hard time getting past the legislature thanks to corporate agribusiness lobbying. It's a moderately written law that allows us to experiment a bit without going off a cliff. And it's not ballot box budgeting.
Children's hospital bond act. NO. We. Don't. Have. Any. Money. Even for good causes, I'm afraid. This is an issue for the legislature, not for ballot box budgeting.
Parental notification for teenage abortions. NO. I think we all know what this is about.
Nonviolent drug offenses. NO. This is a followup to Prop 36, which was passed in 2000 and mandates treatment for many drug offenses instead of jail time. Unfortunately, as with many initiatives, Prop 5 is mostly well intentioned but poorly drafted. Thanks to fuzzy wording, it might allow violent criminals to evade jail time merely by claiming that their crimes were in the service of a drug habit, and it might cripple some of the state's most successful rehabilitation programs. These are risks that might be worth taking if this were merely a normal law, which could be modified if it didn't work out, but as an initiative statute it would be set in stone virtually forever no matter how well it worked. That's a bad deal.
Police and law enforcement funding. NO. This is yet another "tough on crime" initiative, something that California is already overburdened with. It's also an egregious example of ballot box budgeting, in which law enforcement tries to mandate more funding for itself. Forget it.
Renewable energy generation. NO. As near as I can tell, Prop 7 is genuinely well meaning. But as with Prop 5, it's badly drafted and would actually hurt many suppliers of alternative energy, which is why virtually every environmental organization opposes it.
Bans same-sex marriage. NO. I think gay marriage is perfectly fine. If you do too, vote No on 8. Nuff said.
"Marsy's law." NO. This is yet another pet project from a local zillionaire with a bee up his bonnet. But Prop 9 is mostly unnecessary, and to the extent it offers anything new it's just another generic "get tough" initiative that will cost a bucket of money, keep our prisons even more overcrowded, and prevent defense attorneys from doing legitimate parts of their job. What's more, even if you approve of this kind of thing, it certainly doesn't deserve to be engraved in stone and put in the constitution.
T. Boone Pickens alternative energy bond. NO. This is basically just a stealth initiative to funnel some government cash into the hands of T. Boone Pickens. See here for more. Also: We. Don't. Have. Any. Money.
Redistricting reform. YES. On the downside, this initiative is a little bit squirrelly, setting up an oddball "citizen commission" to perform redistricting every ten years. It's also not clear that it would have a huge impact. I used to be a big foe of gerrymandering, but I've read enough research over the past couple of years to convince me that its impact on the electoral process is actually fairly modest.
Still, "modest" isn't zero. And while the citizen commission is a little odd, it's not outlandish and not obviously biased against either party. What's more, Prop 11 is a limited effort that affects only state districts, not congressional districts. Bottom line: Whether the effect is modest or not, allowing partisan legislatures to draw their own lines is crazy. We've missed a lot of chances to reform this in the past, and overall Prop 11 strikes me as a decent start on a difficult task.
Cal-Vet bonds. YES. Huh? I'm recommending Yes on a bond? Yep. We've been issuing Cal-Vet home loan bonds for decades, they genuinely don't cost the taxpayers anything (the bonds are paid back by the vets who get the loans), and it's for a good cause.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
Well, this is total crap. I mean, literally a giant WTF.
You start out sucking like Hoover by opposing High Speed Rail and end up getting suckered to support Proposition 11, the steal-some-seats for the GOP despite the demographics hating the GOP initiative.
I'm quite disappointed. I hope all Californians take the time to see how much this differs with California progressive organizations http://couragecampaign.org/action/189/download-our-2008-progressive-vote...
At least you got No on Proposition 8 right, but given your flops on 1 and 11 I think it might be on the blind chipmunk theory.
I think Bob Brigham might be a tad overly rough on Kevin, but, basically, he's right. Prop 11 is a crock, and high-speed rail is something California should have been on top of from the advent. (Rail service in the U.S. in general should be a much higher priority than it is.) But, like "10 Best" lists of all stripes, the purpose of this post is probably less to dictate prospective voters' responses than to simply start a discussion.
It might have been better to divvy the propositions up into a few separate threads (Bonds, criminal penalty issues, prudes inflicting their will on the populace issues...), but consider the discussion started.
You're simply wrong that large projects such as high-speed rail are a mistake in tough economic times. It's exactly the other way around. The enormous stimulus provided by the rail project, and the economic development that will occur along the route, is a huge argument in favor of supporting it, even in the current economic climate. This is a project that should have been built 30 yeaers ago; waiting even longer won't make anything better. YES on 1A.
And you're mistaken that Prop 11 doesn't place any party at an unfair disadvantage. Prop 11 creates a 14-member redistricting commission on which the largest political party would be restricted by law to only 5 seats, with the second largest political party also holding 5 seats, and all remaining voters, including other parties and independents, holding the other 4 seats. That's unfair any way you look at it. Even if independent voters were 60% of registered voters, they would still only have 4 seats, and would have to share them with minor-party members. As for the major parties, how is it fair to require by law that they have equal representation on the commission, no matter how great the difference in registration is? If one party registered 60% of the voters, they would still only have 5 seats on the 14-seat commission. This is a bogus plan, much worse than the current situation. NO on 11.
Kevin, please reconsider your position on the High Speed Rail bond. This has been in the bureaucratic limbo for over ten years, and will take more that to build. We can't let short-term economics dictate California's long-term solution to our expanding need for infrastructure.
The bottom line is, people are coming, they will be accommodated; the choice is how to accomodate them. More freeways and airports, or rail?
I don't know, Bob. I lived in LA for almost 10 years and recently moved to Long Beach, and I'm a very committed supporter and user of public transit. But I'm not sure that 1A is the right measure for the job. I agree with Kevin that there are probably more sensible mass transit projects and less fiscally crippling ways to pay for them. $20bn+ for a project that's vague on details (details that don't really pass the smell test) doesn't seem like a good deal. Plus, if we're asking for lots of money for transit, I'd rather see it used for deeper investment in local and regional transit than in developing a high-speed, state-wide corridor. That would directly benefit more people. Having commuted the Northeast corridor by only-mildly-popular train (high-speed and otherwise), in a region decidedly less car-centric than CA, I'm not convinced that my fellow Californians would even use a high-speed train, though I'm sure many would enjoy having the option, in the abstract.
That said, I do support the eventual construction of a high-speed train, I'm just not convinced this ballot measure is the right way to fund it -- despite what progressive groups, and my transit-loving heart, say.
Hi Kevin, I'm a long-time reader who's a little bit puzzled here. Most of your recommendations seem fine. But why the opposition to the rail project? I don't think your argument is that government should, as a general matter, reign in spending when the fisc is tight (by definition, almost, when the economy is troubled). But perhaps you think that Keynsian spending should *only* come from the feds? Or maybe there's a constraint on California in particular that makes deficit spending undesirable? Or maybe Keynsianism should never be engaged in from the ballot box? Generally, it seems to me that investment in useful infrastructure is one of several things government should be doing now. And infrastructure that reduces dependency on liquid fuels seems to be highly desirable.
Submitted by dday (not verified) on Sun Oct. 26, 2008 10:51 AM PDT.
I'm going to have to agree with those above about Prop. 1A. You do have it exactly backwards, IMO, about the need for public investment in a time of economic slowdown. You may not consider this the right type of investment, but consider that the state probably cannot reach its emissions cuts requirements under AB32 (the Global Warming Solutions Act) without something like high-speed rail. There's a serious environmental component in addition to the job creation and increased productivity. Energy efficiency in California, according to a recent study, has created nearly 1.5 million jobs over the last 30 years, and the two imperatives are closely linked to transportation. Bullet trains in Europe and Asia routinely reach the speeds of travel about which you're suspect, too.
I share your concerns about ballot-box budgeting but your reasoning on 1A seems to me dangerously close-minded.
Submitted by Robert Cruickshank (not verified) on Sun Oct. 26, 2008 10:53 AM PDT.
Kevin, next time you pontificate on a ballot measure, perhaps you should do some research to understand what you're talking about.
California CAN afford Prop 1A. The state Legislative Analyst Office, a nonpartisan who has forgotten more about the budget than you have learned from the occasional glance at the LA Times, has said we can afford it.
The budget crisis is a cause of Republicans who have deliberately forced the state to take in too little money. California's budget crisis would not exist had Arnold not unilaterally eliminated the Vehicle License Fee, costing us $6 billion per year. They stoke these crises precisely to stop government from taking on necessary projects like high speed rail.
Further, your neo-Hoover stance on deficit spending for infrastructure flies directly in the face of current economic wisdom. Lawrence Summers, Dean Baker, Brad DeLong, Nouriel Roubini, and Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman ALL state that we need deficit spending on infrastructure to lift this country out of recession.
California did this during the Depression. Voters floated bonds to build the Golden Gate Bridge and Shasta Dam even though our budgets looked pretty ugly then, too.
You would do well to read Pete Stahl's lecture on bonds and that should put your mind at ease about bond funding. The budget crisis is an argument FOR Prop 1A, not an argument against it. Why are you siding with the Reason Foundation and the Howard Jarvis Association on this?
Cost overruns are not guaranteed - HSR is a commonplace technology with fairly standard parts and construction needs. 220 mph is easily reached - France, Taiwan and China have achieved those speeds and Spain comes very close.
Prop 11's citizen commission for redistricting seems similar to citizen's assembly formed in Ontario and British Columbia on electoral reform (changing the electoral system from first-past-the-post to something else; electoral districts are drawn up by non-partisan ). They made recommendations that were then put up in referendums. Both were defeated, but BC's was so close the artificially high threshold that they're holding another referendum in 2009.
Submitted by the transport politic (not verified) on Sun Oct. 26, 2008 11:16 AM PDT.
Review a history of the development of high speed rail in the United States and its potential future at the transport politic.
Kevin,
Perhaps you should explain your notion of a bond measure and how it is funded. Because usually the notion is that bonds are sold to third parties and in return a low interest rate is provided. Not usually very expensive, right?
I think you're all wrong about high speed rail. I think that high speed rail corridors should be created throughout the West (CA, NV, AZ). It's far greener than all those cars, airplanes, and even all those trucks on the highway.
And it's nice and Keynsian and will help grow us out of the upcoming global superdepression.
Think Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge.
Submitted by Legacy on Sun Oct. 26, 2008 11:24 AM PDT.
On Prop 11: Please keep in mind that deficit spending by states doesn't stimulate the economy. That only works at the federal level.
I realize that most progressives are in favor of this. But I have my doubts on the merits (see km at 1:46 pm for more), and in any case, we just don't have the money. I'm sorry. We just don't, and until the legislature figures this out, it's grossly irresponsible to support Prop 11.
If you're still not convinced, ask yourself this: why a bond? Why not just allocate a billion a year out of the general fund? Answer: because, as usual, the legislature is playing games with budget rules. I don't see any way to stop this except to flatly oppose all bond measures until they get their collectives heads out of their asses.
TKD: The whole point of redistricting reform is to make it less partisan. In California, yes, that means less control by Democrats. Unless you're just flatly opposed to redistricting reform of any kind, there's really no way around this.
"Please keep in mind that deficit spending by states doesn't stimulate the economy. That only works at the federal level."
Not being an economist, I'm having a difficult time thinking about why this might be so, and some quick googling didn't turn up anything. Any quick links to explain this?
Since live in NM, I have no dog in this fight. But your list is fascinating nevertheless.
We don't have any ballot initiative process here in NM, and I have often wished we did. What's interesting is that you support Prop 11, which is the one initiave that would be impossible to get through any legislature.
Apparently, you remain conflicted about the usefulness of initiatives.
A good post, at an important time. As a California voter I'm appalled that we have this huge list of mostly complicated sounding issues to deal with.
Unlike the vast bulk of commentors here, I thin KD is right on the rail initiative. Not only is it an expensive measure for w very financially distressed state, but I think the physics of rail mean that high speed comes at high cost. The greatest value of rail is for low speed transport of industrial goods. Beyond that medium speed passenger service is very useful. Freight and medium speed passenger can coexist on the same infrastructure, high speed passenger, and freight do not. Funds for improving rail could be much more efficiently utilized by concentrating on the less sexy parts of the system.
Kevin Drum >"...the legislature is playing games with budget rules..."
All legislatures are doing so, maybe not as "bad" as California but still they are. Until humans quit basing their monetary systems on wishful thinking these games will have to continue. No, I`m not suggesting a gold (or silver or oil or grain) based money system just one based on the real world.
Of course I`m dreaming.
"There are three kinds of men:
1. The ones that learn by reading.
2. The few who learn by observation.
3. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves." - Will Rogers
Kevin, presumably your comments at 2:41 were directed to 1A, not 11. And I think it's worth emphasizing to your readers that the commission created by prop 11 would include an equal number of democrats and republicans, which doesn't seem like something the progressive side should give into right now.
Admittedly, it is set up to include significant independent participation, but I'm still not convinced it's a good idea to bring republicans and democrats into parity on redistricting when in fact democrats are a strong majority in this state.
Submitted by Dan Ancona (not verified) on Sun Oct. 26, 2008 12:28 PM PDT.
Neo-Hooverism on MoJo?! Noooo!
Upthread, Mr. Drum writes: "I don't see any way to stop this except to flatly oppose all bond measures until they get their collectives heads out of their asses."
With all due respect, those heads aren't coming free of those asses. The only option is to fire the obstructionists with extreme prejudice at the ballot box. You wouldn't read about it here but CA progressives are making reasonable progress on this. (These things take a couple cycles.)
And I fully agree that we need to reform the ballot prop process. But until then, when we can vote for good stuff that we need, we should.
I fly back and forth to LA & San Diego a fair amount for work, and every time I do I spend the whole flight thinking about what an absurd amount of energy is being wasted by hoisting all those tin cans full of people 2mi into the air. Besides the positive effects on the economy, we need to start on rail now to help shape the land-use decisions in the Central Valley away from sprawl.
For a better thought-through CA ballot prop voter guide, look at Courage Campaign's, here:
bigTom, Kevin:
There is an undeniable need for moving an increasing number of people and goods within California. The question is, how are we going to do it, and what's in the best long-term interest to California.
Choosing to not build a high-speed rail system is NOT choosing to not spend the money. California's population will grow 50% in the next twenty years. The money WILL be spent -- and if not on high-speed rail, we will spend more and get less. Ten billion is cheap in comparison to all the car- and air-related infrastucture expansions, for example, expanding capacity at LAX alone -- as of ten years ago, expansion of LAX was estimated at $12 billion. Now, if intra-California flights at LAX were reduced, existing capacity would serve the national and international flights instead. Now extrapolate that positive impact to all the metropolitan airports in California.
On the Return-On-Investment argument - Socialistic, union-dominated, bureaucratic, inefficient France makes a profit on their state-owned high speed rail system, has paid back its initial investment and is now putting profits toward expanding and improving their service.
...Anticipating the "California is not France" argument: The area planned for the California rail are the densest parts of the west, the route distances are highly attractive for high-speed rail service, and unlike France, the right-of-way are extremely cheap and the technology has already been proven for several decades.
But here's a problem with the high-speed train, at least in LA. Just getting to Union Station is very difficult for most commuters, because the existing local transit system is, well, let's say poorly conceived. It's relatively easy for me now to get up there from Long Beach (an hour-long trip on the Blue Line to the Red Line just to get to the station, but hey, I live 25 miles away, so that's fine). But when I lived in West LA, there was no way for me to get to Union Station without at least two bus transfers and a two hour bus commute -- with luggage! Now, I'm not saying that my particular case is or should be the model, but it's certainly not too far off from the kinds of logistical situations millions of people in LA county would face.
Alternatively, folks could drive to Union Station to pick up the train, but then the argument about freeing up the streets and freeways begins to evaporate -- especially since by far most of the congestion isn't between cities served by the new train, but within and around them (which is to say, a local and regional problem more than a state-wide problem).
Again, it's not that the project itself is a bad idea, but I'm just not convinced that an intra-state high-speed rail project should be funded with yet another bond measure when regional transit -- at least in LA and Orange counties -- isn't even able to efficiently get people to where they need to be to use it.
Kevin, with more and more of us in California voting by absentee ballot (yes, I've mailed mine in already) you need to move this yearly post up a couple of weeks to be most helpful. Not that the local newspapers are any more accommodating.
I mostly agree with you on the abuse of bonds in the initiative process -- but I flatly disagree with you on prop. 1A.
Using general obligation bonds to fund ongoing programs qualifies as "abuse," but issuing bonds to build infrastructure isn't. On the contrary, it's exactly what bonds are designed for.
I can understand that you are skeptical on the merits of the program, but opposing the proposition out of a general sense that we shouldn't borrow money to build infrastructure doesn't make any sense.
On the whole, I agree with most of your votes. But I do share the criticisms of some of the commenters here.
1st - I agree with Christor that Kevin needs to include a link to information on this claim that states can't stimulate the economy. (Isn't California the biggest economy in the country - bigger than most foreign countries?) Dude, we've been stimulating the federal economy for decades!
2nd - We should be investing now on developing new mass transportation systems. With CA's population growing, we will be shuttling more and more people around, and we need to figure out how to do it in a green way that can provide good jobs. Kevin, don't you believe in stimulating the green economy? Or please share.
3rd - Your stand against prop 5 is curious, especially considering MoJo's recent prison package, which details so clearly the problems with imprisoning huge numbers of low level drug offenders, who are predominantly black. Think about how much money we are spending on housing prisoners (MoJo did the break down). And aren't we having a problem funding the prisons anyway, because there are too many people in there? Recall: emergency prison funding or letting prisoners out early? We need to get people out of prison, engaged their communities, into green jobs, and break the cycle of drugs and crime. Ever heard of Sustainable South Bronx, or Van Jones? Majora Carter might have some words for you.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
km, you do have some valid points about LA's Union Station being difficult to get to for commuters, but you can say the same thing for LAX. The high-speed rail really isn't for commuters - it will attract them, but that's not the target market.
Let me use the TGV example:
The initial target customers were businesspeople travelling between [Paris and Lyon]. The TGV was considerably faster than normal trains, cars, or airplanes. The trains became popular outside their target market, the public welcoming fast and practical travel between cities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV
The lack of business travel services at Union Station says more about the current utilization of Union Station than it's potential: Why not have rental cars or parking garages at Union Station for business travellers? Nothing says you can't. Having transit connections and being right in downtown instead of umpteen-dozen-miles out of the city like LAX just makes it that much more convenient.
And as far as commuting on transit goes, Los Angeles is doing much, much better at serving commuters on transit. The value of the Red Line is debatable, but the recent example of LA's "Rapid Bus" shows that significant improvements can be made in service (faster trips, higher capacities, lower cost) in even the most mundane elements of transit.
Kevin -- Prop 11 says that Democrats will hold 5 seats, Republicans will hold 5 seats, and all others, including independents, will hold 4 seats. That means that your individual opportunity to serve on this commission will vary depending on what party you are a member of. How is that even constitutional? There are federal boards (FCC) that set maximum memberships that apply to all parties, but I doubt the constitutionality of a measure that says that if you are an independent, you, by law, may compete for 4 seats, while Dems and Republicans may compete for 5 seats each. That is varying your political power, by law, based on what political party you happen to be in (if any). That's wrong.
Unlike the federal government, states really can't do deficit spending in the same way. I think that's where Kevin's argument on state-level economic stimulus comes from.
As for bonds, they cost about 2x their face value by the time they're paid back. No, that's not free. And yes, it's a very bad way for an already broke state to fund things.
On the specifics of Prop 1A, I don't appreciate being lied to. And things like 220mph are pretty clearly just that. As are claims that system operation has any chance of being fully funded by fares. It'd be great to have -- but it'd be a gigantic cost to a state that just can't afford it.
Anonymous-
Point taken. It is frustrating, though, that, while I'm not a business commuter, I am otherwise the exact kind of person who would take advantage of the new rail system (I'm not a commuter or business travleler, but someone who loves rail transit and makes a few trips a year between Southern and Northern CA). But given the state of the existing infrastructure, I'd be disinclined to actually use it, and I suspect many others would too.
Yes, Union Station and its accompanying services would need to be beefed up (e.g. rental cars, shuttle buses, long-term parking). LAX is slightly different because there are several alternate airports (Burbank, Long Beach, etc.) to relieve regional air traffic, and if Measure R passes in LA County, they'll expand the Green Line directly to the airport, which will make getting to and from downtown a lot easier for business travelers.
I guess part of the problem with the business traveler issue, though, is that, while downtown LA is LA's financial center, it's not necessarily the center for the city's main industry -- entertainment (not to mention lots of other industries). Depending on any given sub-industry, people need to get to and from Hollywood, Century City, Santa Monica, Burbank, and on and on, most of which are not readily connected to one another, or downtown. The econo-geographical layout of the city (i.e., a far and wide smattering of different "centers") makes servicing the area as a whole with long distance mass transit difficult. Choosing downtown and Union Station as the center is sort of a default position that comes more from nostalgia and historical precedence (plus practical issues in terms of existing infrastructure and ROWs) than from the point of view that Union Station will efficiently serve the most people. If, in some dream world, it were possible to connect LA's (and OC's) multiple centers more or less directly to the high-speed rail, then, well, wow. But for right now, it's not happening. I agree that LA has gotten much better about transit (was once a committed Rapid Bus rider), but most solutions have been targeted band-aids rather than any kind of large-scale transit triage.
Now maybe there are plans afoot to in some way coordinate the projects funded by Measure R with those of 1A, but if there are, I haven't heard of them. And right now I don't feel like borrowing $10bn (plus interest) and crossing our fingers that we'll get federal and private money to supplement is the right idea. Measure R is a sales tax increase, which I'm more (though not entirely) comfortable with. Unless I hear more convincing plans about how the money we get from 1A will actually be used (I presume I won't still have to take a bus from Bakersfield to Stockton, but...), it's hard for me to support 1A as it stands.
Submitted by Los Anjalis (not verified) on Sun Oct. 26, 2008 2:26 PM PDT.
Kevin, thanks for the post. But I have to disagree with you on Prop 5, I think there's a lot of misinformation being spread about the proposition allowing violent offenders to say drugs made me do it. This is not at ALL true. at ALL.
Alex Kreit, a law professor, recently published in the LA Times some info on the statements folks are making about Prop 5:
Misleading claim: Proposition 5 gives criminals a "get out of jail free" card.
This is political messaging, not accurate analysis. According to the California Legislative Analyst's Office, Proposition 5 would expand existing programs that offer treatment in lieu of incarceration, making probation-supervised treatment an option for tens of thousands of nonviolent drug offenders each year. These treatment programs include a system of graduated sanctions designed to ensure that defendants who have the potential to succeed remain in treatment and punish those who fail to meet the requirements. Similar criminal justice-treatment partnerships exist now and are widely recognized as a viable and cost-effective alternative to incarceration. Proposition 5 simply expands these successful programs.
Misleading claim: Criminals could escape imprisonment by saying "drugs made me do it."
There is no such magic phrase to qualify for treatment instead of prison. Under Proposition 5, only nonviolent drug offenders with minimal criminal histories are eligible for treatment in lieu of incarceration. Judges would have the discretion to put a limited category of other nonviolent offenders in probation-supervised treatment, but only if the judge finds that the offense was nonviolent, that the nonviolent offender has a drug problem and that it is in the best interests of public safety to put that nonviolent offender on probation and in community-based treatment.
Kevin Drum said: "Unless you're just flatly opposed to redistricting reform of any kind, there's really no way around this."
Well, in fact I am pretty much opposed to redistricting reform as a concept. One problem is that it's unlikely to do any good, since people in California are pretty well geographically concentrated along party lines. So unless the districts are drawn in some really weird ways, you will continue to see most districts being either safe D or safe R. And it's not clear to me that's even a problem. If people in the district vote overwhelmingly for a given candidate, we should be upset because... ?
And that leads to my second point, which is that the whole concept of first-past-the-post legislative districts as we now have is fundamentally flawed. With a polarized electorate, a single-member district can be either competitive or representative, but not both. Either one side wins with 90% of the vote, and most everyone is happy, or it's 51-49 and nearly half of the district's voters get no say. If we want a legislature that reflects public opinion, we should either go to a full proportional representation system, or, as I would prefer, multi-member districts using the ranked ballot, single transferable vote (STV) system that they use in Ireland and that has been proposed by the citizen's commission in BC.
Submitted by serial catowner (not verified) on Sun Oct. 26, 2008 2:41 PM PDT.
Kevin really doesn't understand the whys and wherefores of the Highspeed Rail Project.
The population of California is going to grow. Those extra numbers will need more transportation. And high-speed rail is the only way to supply that transportation with acceptable emissions.
Again, there's the issue of cost. High speed rail is the only way to build that new transportation infrastructure at acceptable costs.
And none of this is uncertain. This has been studied since 1995 at least at the most intensive levels. The environmental and marketing studies have been done and reviewed and revised. The need for the project is so well understood that the highway department and the association of airport agencies support the project.
We don't need to rely on the vague anecdotal assertions of commenters above who think they might not be inclined to use high speed rail. We know from experience that when costs hit certain levels, be they time or money, a certain number of sensible people will switch from driving or flying to high speed rail. This is known as "taking market share" and HSR has been doing it in Europe for years now.
Nor, as a matter of fact, is it simply a "historical accident" to locate rail stations downtown. Downtown is still downtown, and usually one reason it is is because it's at the center of things, that is to say, closer than driving across town. Believe it, if they could build airports downtown they would. The reason they don't is not because it's an undesirable location from the traveler's point of view.
But it would be kind of funny if "liberals" like Kevin rejected high-speed rail just at the time when a Democratic national government was ready, willing, and able to fund pump-priming infrastructure improvements.
Seattle did that with rail transit back in the 70s. People said it would make the population grow and "Californicate" the region. The money got sent to Atlanta. And guess what- the population around Seattle grew but we're still waiting for the first transit trains to roll- waiting in a citywide freeway parking jam every morning and night.
Kevin, wake up and smell the coffee.
This idea that states can't do fiscal stimulus is utter nonsense. Government spending is government spending.
Jon says that, as compared to the feds, "states really can't do deficit spending in the same way." Um, what? California can issue bonds, right? I'm pretty sure that's deficit spending.
Now, in the specific case of Prop 1A, I see no reason to think that this project will provide a fiscal stimulus that would help with the current recession. Certainly not much of the work on the SUPERTRAIN will be done in the next couple of years. I personally support the HSR project and will vote for Prop 1A, but it would be disingenuous to claim that this is a Keynesian stimulus program.
Thanks a lot for your input Kevin. I'm with you on abuse of the initiative process and the funding (or unfunded mandates) by initiative.
I'm conflicted about the rail project as well. I'd like to see it, but I dislike and distrust this kind of funding by initiative. Let's find another way to fund this kind of major infrastructure.
I am VERY much against Prop 11. Big power grab by the Republicans. Leave redistricting alone. The Republicans shouldn't be on an equal footing with Dems numerically; elections have consequences and the Republicans have become an extremist minority party in California. (You may not realize this, Kevin, living in OC) Redistricting reform is PRECISELY the kind of legislation that shouldn't be accomplished by initiative.
"I don't appreciate being lied to. And things like 220mph are pretty clearly just that."
Why do say that? Ten years ago I rode the Eurostar from London to Paris and it ran at 180 mph in France. There's no reason to think that we can't get to 220 mph here.
California definitely needs more mass transit--but the high-speed rail is not "mass", but (very largely) intercity. It is a great time to spend on infrastructure, but it should be infrastructure with a good payoff--else it is just more Bridge to Nowhere material. Adding to BART, the LA metro, and a San-Diego LA highspeed link would be a much better set of projects.
SC-
Well, Kevin should speak for himself, but as for me, it's not the project itself that's the problem, it's the method of funding it. No need to repeat all the reasons CA needs high-speed rail, I'm sure most of us are convinced. It's just the details of this plan that give me pause. I can look at this measure and read into it whatever dreams I have for an honest-to-goodness, viable high-speed connector, but that doesn't mean that it's actually gonna happen. The history of mass transit development in the state does not inspire confidence.
And sure, downtown LA is downtown, but be that as it may, it's no field of dreams. For many Angelenos, the flows of city life bypass the area completely. Yes, there is a practical need to have the station downtown, and I'm not suggesting to change it. But adding other stations in the area (probably infeasible) or some relatively easy means for getting to the one station (more feasible) would make the project actually work. And if a marketer asked me if I would use high-speed rail, I'd enthusiastically jump on it, probably even volunteer to spread the word. But back in the real world, it might not actually turn out to be the most convenient, or most efficient way for me to travel.
And as for vague anecdotal assertions, given that I haven't actually conducted any studies myself, it's all I got. If it helps, I am an actual, true-to-life social scientist (paid by the state of California, no less). But as a voter, I gotta look at it from a different point of view than my job requires, and that point of view happens to be informed by my experiences as an actual user of mass transit in CA. All the studies and statistics are readily available to look at for those who are interested, so there's no need to cite them all here. But one of the things that such studies usually fail to account for is the practical effects of a project from the point of view of the user. As a voter, I've read the statistics, I've read the analysis, and I've thought about it, including lots of contemplation drawn from my own experiences.
Just because we need a modern rail-system doesn't mean this plan, and this way of funding it, is the right one. What CA needs is a wide-scale, comprehensive rethinking of mass transit from all levels up. I think an intra-state transportation system would work a lot better if the local and regional transportation systems it connects to were fixed -before- it was built. Otherwise we'll probably be stuck continuously dumping money into a system that's fundamentally broken for decades to come.
James, you say you're conflicted on 1A because you "dislike and distrust this kind of funding by initiative. Let's find another way to fund this kind of major infrastructure." Prop 1A is not "funding by initiative." It was put on the ballot by the legislature, but by law has to go to the ballot because it's a bond measure. And as others have said, building major infrastructure is exactly the sort of thing that you should use bonds for.
Now if you don't like the project on the merits, that's one thing, but opposing it because you don't want to use bonds to fund major infrastructure improvements is silly.
And what's with Kevin Drum getting all neo-Hooverite on us with this "we don't have any money" crap? The state does need to clean up it's budget mess (hopefully by scrapping the two-thirds budget threshold and reforming Prop 13), but I don't see how this should impact long-range decisions like Prop 1A.
Submitted by Rand Careaga (not verified) on Sun Oct. 26, 2008 3:34 PM PDT.
Like Kevin, I am disposed to vote "no" on any ballot initiative that comes my way absent some compelling reason otherwise. At one time, though, I was more flexible in these matters, and from the 1970s through the 1990s I relied upon a California legislator named H.L. Richardson as an infallible guide in these matters. Few were the initiatives, however humble or vast their scope, that appeared on any ballot during those decades but that H.L. argued strenuously either for or against their passage. I soon realized that rather than spend valuable time studying the issues I had merely to scan the voter pamphlet, see on which side Richardson came down, and vote the other way to be guaranteed that I was on the angels' side. That's weeks of my life spared doing even the most rudimentary sort of cost-benefit analysis, and I remain grateful to the old monster (now apparently retired from public life, alas) for his guidance. Much as I admire you, Kevin, you'll never have that kind of street cred with me (and jeebus! —NO on 11! I'm surprised at you).
"Ten years ago I rode the Eurostar from London to Paris and it ran at 180 mph in France. There's no reason to think that we can't get to 220 mph here."
From my understanding, it's not necessarily a technological issue, but it has more to do with sharing existing rights of way with other freight trains (especially in LA and the Bay Area) and passenger trains, as well as speed limits through densely populated areas. The 220mph figure is theoretical, but on the ground average speeds would end up being much much less. That's actually fine as far as I'm concerned, so long as whatever rail system we end up getting doesn't require a change to a bus on a trip from LA to SF, like today.
km - Maybe the plan isn't perfect, but sometimes "perfect is the enemy of the good enough". Waiting for the perfect solution can easily mean you'll wait forever.
This project has been in the pipeline for about twenty years. If it fails, it won't be back next year or the next, it will be dead. And if it can be resurrected, many things will have been lost forever, not just to new freeway and airport construction, but also development patterns, agreements to share/upgrade existing routes, encroachment, and losses of essential rights-of-way.
For example, the planned tunnel right-of-way to San Francisco's Transbay Terminal has prevented the foundation work of new office buildings: Once you drive pilings into the ground, you're not going to be able to trench/tunnel underneath them. If the project dies, so does the reason to delay foundation pilings. That's just one example, there are many others of how the HSR project will never recover if the project is voted down this year.
KM, you're right that getting the speed requires that we segregate the lower speed traffic. From my reading at the project website, aside from overnight use for freight, there is no intention of sharing track with slower trains.
"If it fails, it won't be back next year or the next, it will be dead. And if it can be resurrected, many things will have been lost forever, not just to new freeway and airport construction, but also development patterns, agreements to share/upgrade existing routes, encroachment, and losses of essential rights-of-way."
This point, which appeals to the pragmatist in me, might change my mind, actually.
serial catowner >"...Seattle did that with rail transit back in the 70s...."
Seattle made a mistake in the early 60s (just post Century 21 - World`s Fair) by not taking Aleweg up on their offer to build a city wide monorail system at cost. Of course the decision then, much like most of the transit decisions now (can you say Kemper Freeman ?), were made by those with their greedy fingers deep in the auto pie.
The more things change the more they stay the same etc.
I`ve rode (local & long distance) rail systems in the U.S., Japan & Europe over the years and the one thing that bugs me about the U.S. is that we continue to ignore the lessons on public transit from all over the world. This continues to bite us in the ass.
"The future is here. It's just not evenly distributed yet." - William Gibson
