In no particular order:
- Hillary Clinton / Tim Kaine
I'm not going to get into this one. If you think Donald Trump is a good choice, our ideas of America are radically divergent. If you think Hillary is a criminal or evil or whatever, we differ on either the magnitude of the threat that Trump and the GOP represent, or the degree to which Hillary has been a victim of journalism theater, or both. In any case, I'm not going to convince anyone one way or another without writing a book on the subject, and even then, I'm unsure it would matter to anyone.
- Kamela Harris
This one is tough because I don't particularly like either candidate. I mostly agree with Harris' stated positions, but I don't trust her to follow through. Still, she has the endorsement of Obama, Boxer, and Feingold, and there's nothing particularly exciting about her opponent, Loretta Sanchez. Sanchez voted against the Iraq War in 2002, but also, more recently, for CISPA, and pushed Boxer off the sidelines by courting the Republican vote in a desperate move to gain in the polls, which suggests her convictions are weak in any event.
- Ted Lieu
This is an easy one, since his opponent, Kenneth Wright, is basically running on a platform similar to Trump's. Ted also scored points with me for opposing the so-called Freedom Act.
- Richard Bloom
Bloom has more experience than his opponent, Matthew Craffey, so far as I can discern, having been the former mayor of Santa Monica and the incumbent. His opponents' platform seems fine, but he's running as a Republican, which, at this point, is an automatic mark against. It's also unclear how he differs from Bloom or why, in particular, he's running. So without more to go on, and without any particular reason to think Bloom is a bad choice, I'm going with him.
- No
A $9B bond with bi-partisan support for our public schools? I can smell the pork sizzling in Sacramento on this one. Gov. Brown calls this “the developers' bond” in reference to fact that the main beneficieries will be developers. The LA Times came out against and summarizes the issues well. In general, I'm skeptical of the state issuing debt at this point and I'm skeptical of any money going into a failing public school system that is always a sucker for funds, regardless of how or why they get them.
- Yes
I'm suspicious of fees like this one and the fact there is no one against it makes it even weirder. Ultimately, it's an indirect tax passed on to consumers, but it is matched by Federal funds, and, in theory, the purpose is reasonable.
- No
I generally like the idea of having voter approval for bonds, but this is the kind of measure that leads to a bunch of $1.9B projects. In addition, these kinds of projects are designed to pay for themselves so, from a debt management perspective, there's not much taxpayer risk to address here.
- No
Watchdog groups need something like this. I've seen many examples of sneaky legislators trying to pass something that no one wants before any opposition can be mobilized, ex: CISPA.
Unfortunately, there's something fishy going on here. The funding in support of this initiative comes entirely from Charles Munger, who is generally pro-GOP, which, again, at this particular moment in time, is a red flag. On top of that, the Democratic party is against the measure. The problem here is that even a small change to a bill would hit the delay button, and it's easy to see how that might have unintended consequences, or even intentionally nefarious ones.
- No
Until the teacher's unions stop blocking reform (in particular, getting rid of poorly performing teachers), I'm against more tax money being diverted to the public schools. I don't have a problem in general with taxing high earners, but this was also supposed to be a temporary measure.
- Yes
Pretty much all I need to know on this is which side the tobacco companies are on, which is No. So this measure is more or less what it says, an increase in tobacco tax. While such a tax is regressive, I think it's justified in this case, given the public health burden smoking imposes. Opponents claim the revenues end up going to healthcare executives, but this is bullshit, since the health programs this funds are heavily monitored and audited, per the LA Times.
- Yes
I'd prefer to see an overhaul of discriminatory sentencing guidelines. But this is at least a step in the right direction.
- Yes
Mutlilingual education is a good thing. For students coming from Spanish-speaking families, this keeps them from falling hopelessly behind out of the gate.
- Not voting.
To begin with, I'm conflicted on this, because I happen agree with the ruling that campaign limits are a free speech issue. I also don't think corporations are people. But none of that matters because this is merely an advisory proposition.
- No
I have no idea why people think this is an area for which the government needs to have express laws. There are plenty of workplace safety issues and we don't pass individual laws for each. Instead we have agencies like OSHA. At any rate, this seems more like a crusade against porn in disguise. In particular, it establishes broad liability that would probably simply push porn production out of state and do nothing to improve safety.
- No
On the face of it, this looks like a cap on prescription drug costs, following the lead of the VA. But most veteran's groups oppose it on the basis that it would actually raise drug prices because the state actually can't enforce the cap. Prominent progressives are split, so the opposition of veteran's groups carries the day for me.
- Yes
I am firmly against the death penalty. To err is human and when you err with the death penalty, you kill innocent people. Note: this implies a No vote on Proposition 66. If Prop. 66 gets more votes, it effectively overrides Prop. 62.
- No
I'm generally pro-gun control. Sensible regulations on the ownership and use of guns is common sense. Because they're dangerous and can kill people. I also don't believe this is a Constitutional issue because my reading of 2nd Amendment emphasizes the “A well regulated Militia” bit. I've also come to believe this is increasingly an expression of seditious politics. So this is should be no-brainer for me.
But law enforcement groups are uniformly against this measure. It turns out, California already passed similar gun control measures that included law enforcement agencies as stakeholders. This ballot measure extends and potentially supersedes that measure and, while there are some things that are appealing about it, it also maybe goes too far.
The biggest thing is that it requires California law enforcement to disarm convicted gun felons. Their objection is that they are not equipped to do this, which isn't difficult to imagine, and that this consequently will put them in harm's way. They've already agreed to cooperate with DOJ efforts to do the same thing, so it's not an objection to the idea of disarming felons, and that, to me, is the crucial question. This isn't the NRA blocking sensible regulation—this is police departments from all over the state saying, this is going to get cops killed.
Since the measure doesn't really address how we'll help cops protect themselves, and because I'm not sure further militarization of our police is a good idea even if it did, and because we have already passed similar legislation, I'm going to take them at their word on this and vote no.
- Yes
I am, in general, a fan of decriminalizing drug use, for any purpose, unless there are clear public safety concerns involved. And I'm definitely in favor of legalizing this particular drug, since I not only think there are minimal public safety concerns, and that criminalization merely increases those that exist, and there is a lot of evidence that marijuana has a lot of positive health benefits. So that's win-win-win and a yes vote from me.
- No
This measure would provide funds to the Wildlife Conservation fund, so why are so many environmental groups against it? Because it's basically a ploy to undermine the plastic bag ban. See Prop 67.
- No
See Prop. 62.
- Yes
Another case of a confusing name to confuse voters. This upholds the plastic bag ban which I'm all for.
- No
I'm all for taxes that are devoted to our beaches and parks and so forth, but this is effectively a regressive tax, taxing property by the square foot instead of by value. I'm also unclear on the meaning of “improved property,” a question that was not addressed in the LA Times' endorsement. If it means property improvements, like, say fixing a roof, then this would create a disincentive for making improvements to low income housing. Sounds like the right objective, but the wrong implementation.
- No
I'm all for mass transit but (a) this is (yet another) regressive tax (sales tax, in this case) and (b) after seeing how long it took for LA to build out the rail line to Santa Monica, I have no confidence whatsoever it whomever is in charge of our rail construction projects. We need solutions, but my gut feel here is that this is just a way to take money out of the pocket of people who can't afford it and create patronage opportunities, while maybe someday, eventually, having a real mass transit solution. Try again.
- No
The actual text on the ballot just says that this would require a new permit process for tall structures, which, in theory, I'm all for. But apparently, the new permit process is quite specific and not included in the language on the ballot, probably because that would be absurd, given that it's a permit process. Which makes the whole thing suspect.
In general, I'm all for reducing the number of tall structures, since they tend to be eyesores and block people's views and make it difficult to do wireless Internet access and for a lot of other reasons. OTOH, this feels a bit fishy, and there are some serious drawbacks to limiting construction like this, including driving up housing prices. Given that Santa Monica housing prices are already likely among the highest in the country, that's bad.
Then there's the question of “smart growth,” which I'm also a big fan of. I can't put it any better than [Shane Phillips][phillips-2]:
Smart Growth America has reported that increased density saves cities an average of 10 percent on service delivery, and this shouldn’t surprise anyone. If you build a new apartment building in Hollywood you don’t need a new fire station or police precinct—there’s already one that services the area. You don’t need new mainline water or sewer pipes because they’re already in the road and have plenty of extra capacity. The developer pays for connections to all of these citywide infrastructure systems, and the residents’ tax dollars help contribute toward much-needed upgrades. Half-full buses and trains become 75-percent full at no additional cost to Metro. Fifty people live along the sidewalk rather than 30, so each person's share of maintenance drops just a bit.
The Coalition to Preserve LA wants to pit existing residents against future ones, but we have every reason to be friends. Our city has the jobs, amenities, climate, and quality of life that they desire; they have the tax dollars that will help us preserve and upgrade our city’s infrastructure.
The real reveal, though, is the answer to the question of why this even on the ballot? The city already has lots of zoning and permit processes and presumably could simply decide to require more stringent justification for taller structures of their own accord if they thought it was wise policy. Now, perhaps the people involved are simply foolish, but there are remedies for that, ranging from voting for different council members, to changing the governance of the city itself. But this is awfully specific—it addresses only one concern. In effect, it's an end-run around the city itself.
In other words, instead of focusing on fixing the process, the idea here seems to be break it completely. Since I don't quite understand the justification for doing that, and since, in general, the advisability of this measure is debatable (for example, 36 feet seems pretty draconian), I'm voting no.
- Yes
This appears to be a no-brainer, providing some teeth to provisions that were intended to end indirect forms of bribery, where I gladly pay you when you leave the city government for favors you grant me today.
- Yes
All for modest and reasonable improvements to SMCC.
- Yes
This is a modest, albeit regressive tax, to help fund our parks, schools, and affordable housing initiatives. The amount of tourism in Santa Monica takes the edge off the regressive nature of the tax, and Santa Monica's schools are relatively well-managed, so my usual skepticism about giving money to our public schools is also abated.
- Yes
This is just an advisory measure accompanying GS, to ensure we spend half the money raised by GSH on schools and affordable housing.
- Steven Schreiner
Schreiner has a ton of experience, but so does his opponent, Archuleta. However, Archuleta seems to be trying to exaggerate her experience to match Scheiner's, which I find ethically questionable. Given that this is a judgeship, that's problematic for me, even though I kind of like her reputation as a rebel. She also tacitly compared herself to Donald Trump for some reason (“Like Donald Trump would say, I'm in it to win it”), which also put me off. Meanwhile Schreiner has a list of actual violent crime cases on his Web site, which is also much more professional looking. He doesn't have as many law enforcement endorsements as Archuleta, which may be a good thing, given the checkered history of LA law enforcement.
- Efrain Matthew Aceves
This is a no-brainer: Efrain is experienced lawyer with a track record of public service. Molina has never tried a case and, like Archuleta, tried to exaggerate her experience.
- Javier Perez
Both candidates here seem pretty strong, but I liked Perez's emphasis on alternative sentencing.
- David Berger
This is a no-brainer. Berger just has way more experience than Nguyen, who will surely find her way to the bench in time.
- Terry O'Day
- Ted Winterer
- Tony Vazquez
- Gleam Olivia Davis
My focus here was on people with a track record of public service and practical real-world experience. Anyone who was big on LV or spoke only in vague language or simply lacks experience in public policy was bumped. For the most part, these are easy choices. Santa Monica is reasonably well run city. All the above candidates take seriously the problems we do have and have the experience to make their promises credible.
- Christopher D. Walton
- Caroline M. Torosis
Similarly logic applied here: both of these candidates have a strong record in tenant advocacy and affordable housing policy.
- Sion Roy
- Rob Greenstein Rader
- Susan Aminoff
I liked Sion Roy's vision for SMCC (better integration with local schools and economy, and, in particular, building on UCLA Medical Center's proximity). The other two candidates are incumbents. I bumped Margaret Qunines-Perez because she's the only candidate who doesn't have the endorsement of the SM Rent Control Board. Thin reason, but I needed to bump someone, so I effectively used them as a proxy.
Thank you for sharing it. Good practice for me. I hope I can vote in the next election tho. good luck with all.