As you may already know, I always try to protect our over-taxed taxpayers, so I am sharing my ballot preferences with you.
Prop 1 – NO. – The $5.7 Billion Water Bond – First of all, I want to inform you who the players are. During our L.A. Neighborhood Council Coalition (LANCC) meeting on Saturday, September 6, Ron Pickle, our Rate Payer advocate (who was appointed by the Mayor) who is supposed to represent us regarding the LADWP, when asked about Prop 1, had no opinion for or against it. I declared that I knew what Prop 1 contained and I would be voting “No.” A second “Red Flag” went up in the following days when the LADWP announced they were supporting Prop 1. $2.7 billion dollars is proposed to build dams, when actually, we simply need to increase the height of the dams, which would cost a lot less than $2.7 billion dollars. Most of their requested $5 billion dollars would most likely go as payback to the elected official’s politically connected supporters and Los Angeles would not get any increase in their water allotment
Prop 2 – NO – A “Rainy Day Fund.” Our State says it will set aside $800M to $2B per year to pay down State debt of $300B, not counting the $150B in unfunded pension liabilities. But, what they don’t call your attention to is the Governor can simply declare not to set aside any money to pay down the States debt if he so chooses. It must be rewritten to also include that they will not take money away from schools either.
Prop 45 – NO – Health Insurance rates changes. This bill will change who makes decisions on health rate cost. It gives one person, the Insurance Commissioner, too much power to make decisions. This Proposition must to be rewritten to benefit the insured and patients.
Prop 46 – NO – Health Care and lawsuits. The way this Proposition is written increases medical negligence lawsuit awards which will affect increase in health care cost, force doctors to move elsewhere, causing a shortage of doctors and services provided. This Proposition must to be rewritten to benefit the patients not the trial lawyers.
Prop 47 – NO – Regarding our prisoners. It will reclassify some prisoners from felons to misdemeanors. Theft which includes fraud, forgery and firearms, under $950, would be considered a misdemeanor. Possession of methamphetamine, heroin and cocaine now a felony, would become a misdemeanor unless they have a prior history of a particular kind of violent felony or sex offense. Because of the reclassification some may need a new trial which the taxpayer would pay for. And, when the prisoner is classified as lower risk, the prisoner could then qualify for early release back into our neighborhoods.
The correct solution for our over-crowed prisons is for Governor Brown to spend the money already allocated to build more prisons, especially if he intends to maintain open borders. Read more onWWW.californiansagainst47.com.
Prop 48 – NO – Indian Casinos. The decision is about whether or not to allow Indian Casinos to be built outside the Indian Reservation or Indian Territory designated lands. This is a fight between two Indian Tribes who are in competition with one another for customer’s money at their Casino’s. If one Indian Casino wins the other loses customers and would force employee layoffs.
This proposition also includes big business East Coast hedge-fund investors, dealing with big money who don’t necessarily have pure intentions, and an Indian Casino backed by a Las Vegas Casino corporation who would operate the gambling hall. Big money is not worried about the average Indian resident.
If you vote “YES” you will be giving these hedge-fund investors and wealthy corporation’s permission to build Casinos outside Indian territories, anywhere in the State, county, city or any neighborhood. And, they would be able to avoid the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).And, voting “Yes” would also be playing into the hands of the State and City’s plans to attack our “Zoning Laws” with their many new ordinances coming down the pipe line, like re:codeLA and Senate Bill 1 and Sustainable Communities Investment Authority.
However, if we are blessed with an ethical elected official who will not be bought by Casino’s big campaign contributions, chances are our ethical elected official will oppose a Casino in your neighborhood or any other unwanted project that does not meet the Specific Plan.
However, I’m voting “NO” in order that Casinos stay within Indian Territory and Casino workers can remain employed. I don’t trust my current elected officials who favor special interest groups and that lack a clear policy about gambling expansion. Read more here:http://www.sacbee.com/2014/09/07/6683079/endorsements-vote-no-on-proposition.html#storylink=cpy
Prop P – NO – More money for Parks and Gang Prevention. Proposition P, will not reduce crime. All this is, is a new tax. Vote “NO” because government agencies do not handle our money wisely. They don’t misplace revenue, they just park it in “Special Accounts” for their use. The County, City and State have squandered money for gang prevention and 14 years later, what do they have to show for it? We have Gang injunctions throughout our city. The money goes to special interest programs and legitimate programs do without. Proponents of this bill do not have ethical intentions with our tax dollars.
Vote – November 4