Sunday, October 17, 2010

In which your blogger removes any doubt that he's a wacko

Since I'm never gonna run for political office and will never be considered for supreme court justice or anything, I figure that how I vote isn't going to have an adverse effect on my career. So....
  • Governor: Meg couldn't be bothered to vote. I don't buy the smear campaign related to the housekeeper, but I can't bring myself to vote for Brown. Voting for anyone else is pretty much useless. So I'm abstaining.
  • Lt Governor: Maldonado. Can't stand Newsom because he doesn't seem to care what the law says. I don't want my house fire-bombed so I won't say any more.
  • Att'y General: Cooley. Heard his debate on the radio v. Harris and he sounds a lot more reasonable to me.
  • US Senate: Dear Barbara, you have done the impossible and caused me to vote for Carly. I never thought I'd ever do that, but you've done it. Congratulations.
  • US Rep 14th: Dave Chapman. Anyone but Eshoo. Again, respect for the law is important to me.
  • Sequoia Healthcare District. As I understand it, the district exists to run Sequoia Hospital. But CHW owns and runs Sequoia Hospital. So the district, and the funding, for the district makes no sense. Hickey, Graham, and Stogner say they'll dissolve the district. Why should we pay staff to run this purposeless entity in San Mateo County?
  • Prop. 19: YES. Holder says the feds will continue to enforce marijuana laws. Fine, let them pay for the hours to find, arrest, prosecute, convict... and also for the prisons where these people will be housed. Why should the taxpayers of California pay for all that "enforcement" -- which in case you haven't noticed isn't working? Better to tax it -- like tobacco and alcohol.
  • Prop 20: YES. Got to get the politicians out of the gerrymandering business.
  • Prop 21: YES. $18 per year per vehicle, to undo some of the damage that the Governator did.
  • Prop 22: YES. Have you noticed that roads have gotten worse over the past decades? Caltrain, and other public transit districts, not to mention other local programs, have had enough taken from them by Sac.
  • Prop 23: NO. As in Say NO to Texas Oilmen.
  • Prop 24: YES. Why would we reduce business taxes? I don't get that.
  • Prop 25: YES. Stop budget gridlock in Sac.
  • Prop 26: NO. Otherwise 34% of voters can block anything. (And if you're curious I did vote NO on 13 back in the 70s)
  • Prop 27: NO. Not just NO but "We threw you guys out of the gerrymandering business on purpose, and now you're clamoring to get back in? NO NO NO!"
  • Measure M, City/County Ass'n of Gov'ts: YES. $10/year per vehicle for infrastructure maintenance and improvements. As in yes on 21/22.
What about the other races? I've given enough effort to be well informed on them.

1 comment:

alex said...

Mr. Park,

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts on our upcoming election. I want to take a moment to respond to your thoughts about the Sequoia Healthcare District. The District's mission shifted some time ago from managing Sequoia Hospital to providing funding for community-based health education, screening and prevention programs. The District's shift represents a fundamental shift in the way care is delivered. In 1950, when the District and the hospital were opened, healthcare was largely delivered within the walls of a hospital. Now, decades later, while we still rely on hospitals for accute in-patient services, most care is delivered in the community by public or not-for-profit organizations. To assure that this community care is the best it can be, Sequoia Healthcare District and other healthcare districts nationally shifted their focus from being "hospital districts" to being "healthcare districts." Sequoia Healthcare District now funds programs for children, programs for seniors, nutrition programs, health screening programs etc. all based in the community.

Jack Hickey, Michael Stogner and Frederick Graham have promised to dissolve the District and lower our taxes. The trouble with their promise is that by law, even if a special district, like the Sequoia Healthcare District, is dissolved property taxes will not be lowered and the money will not revert to property owners or tax payers. Instead the money that would have gone to the Sequoia Healthcare District will be turned over to the state. We loose our local tax dollars, the local benefit from the healthcare programs the District funded and any local control or oversight into how this money is spent. This is thanks largely to Prop 13 which locks in our property tax rates. This isn't just my opinion. At Jack Hickey's request, the Sequoia Healthcare District's counsel conducted a thorough review of the relevant tax laws and they come to the same conclusion: Dissolving the district will not lower our taxes. The District is a public entity and you can request this legal review if you want to look at it yourself.