Voting on November 2
We don’t claim special insight into all the ballot measures and candidacies, but we hope that what familiarity we do have with the issues might lead to, at the least, informed choices.
Prop. 19 would legalize marijuana usage and permit local governments to regulate its sale. We’ll side with the majority of police, sheriff’s, district attorneys and court judges who oppose it. Sure, the state could use more tax money, but don’t resort to this flawed law to solve an unrelated problem. We’ve met many too many fans of decriminalizing pot that turn around and say they oppose a dispensary in the city limits. That, our NIMBY friends, is the kind of hypocrisy Prop. 19 encourages. The argument that it would “control” marijuana and therefore make it harder for kids to get is ludicrous: If it’s easy for adults to get, it will be easier for kids to get. Write a better law, one that can coexist with federal regulations instead of ignoring them, and come back in four years. NO ON 19.
Prop. 20 would improve the drawing of congressional and state legislative district boundaries by removing the overt political influence. It’s time to try something other than the system that resulted in districts that resemble a Picasso sketch. YES ON 20.
Prop. 21 imposes a surcharge on vehicle registration to fund state parks. We go reverse NIMBY on this one. While not crazy about a new tax or the precedent it sets to fund specific line items, our nearby state parks are a large tourist draw for Sonoma and an integral part of our quality of life here. Keep them open with a YES ON 21.
Prop. 22 stops the withholding of local tax revenue by the state legislature. Arnold and friends took $1.9 million of development funds from the city of Sonoma last year. Do you have reason to believe they spent them any wiser than our city council would have? Don’t bother answering. YES ON 22.
Prop. 23 suspends implementation of air pollution controls. This is a tough call. The long-term gain of cleaner air may come at the expense of a hit to the economy. But it’s time, particularly here in the land of Cittalslow, to do right by the planet. NO ON 23.
Prop. 24 raises taxes on California companies, hurting job creation. NO ON 24.
Prop. 25 would undo the present requirement that any new taxes have to be enacted by a two-thirds majority. After all the budget gridlock in Sacramento, a yes vote is tempting. But on definitive issues like taxes, we want a distinct and clear majority – not one that’s razor-thin — making the big decisions. NO ON 25.
Prop. 26, is funded mainly by the oil, tobacco and alcohol industries to make it more difficult for state and local government to impose mitigation fees on business activities that cause harm to the environment or public health. Sorry boys, but it’s NO ON 26.
Prop. 27 would force re-districting into the politicized legislature. NO ON 27.
Measure H. The Sun has written numerous articles on the merits of Measure H and how it will our make our schools more energy efficient without raising the current tax rate. The savings – an estimated $1 million each year – will go directly back into our classrooms and our students. YES ON H.
In Congressional District 1, we like Mike Thompson. An advocate of health care, the wine industry, water and the environment, he also delivered major federal stimulus dollars to our area and our city.
For the Hospital Board, we like David Chambers and Kevin Carruth. Both are serious candidates with relevant expertise.
Finally, for the Sonoma City Council, we like Steve Barbose and Ken Brown, both hard-working, knowledgeable members of the current council. Candidate Fred Martin was refreshingly candid in his campaign, but his call for term limits does not register here. The devil of city governing is in the details. No random infusion of ‘fresh blood’ can, on its own, replace a reasoned voice steadied by experience. Being a ‘professional’ public servant in Sonoma, in this case for a well-earned $700 a month, plus benefits, is a virtue, not a vice.
For third seat, we like newcomer Mike Gillaspie – he has a business background, he’s a quick study, and he brings a fresh, positive outlook.
We applaud the work and dedication invested in the campaign by candidates Toni Castrone, David Cook, Tom Rouse and Martin. They answered a call to serve, and are certainly the better for it. We hope that if not elected, they can find a place in Sonoma to apply their enthusiasm for public service.
