Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-22-2014, 06:16 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
18,813 posts, read 32,354,560 times
Reputation: 38573

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by aboveordinary View Post
I haven't received the voter pamphlet yet either. I thought it would be nice to get into an early discussion on the props.

I got the information from this site: California 2014 ballot propositions - Ballotpedia

Here's more information on each prop via that website

Prop 1:
-Authorize $7.12 billion in general obligation bonds for state water supply infrastructure projects, such as public water system improvements, surface and groundwater storage, drinking water protection, water recycling and advanced water treatment technology, water supply management and conveyance, wastewater treatment, drought relief, emergency water supplies, and ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration.

-Appropriate money from the General Fund to pay off bonds.

Prop 2:
-Require the director of finance to submit estimates of general fund revenues and expenditures for the ensuing fiscal year and the three fiscal years thereafter within ten days following the submission of proposed adjustments to the governor's budget.

Prop 45:
-Require changes to health insurance rates, or anything else affecting the charges associated with health insurance, to be approved by the California Insurance Commissioner before taking effect.

-Provide for public notice, disclosure, and hearing on health insurance rate changes, and subsequent judicial review.

-Require sworn statement by health insurer as to accuracy of information submitted to Insurance Commissioner to justify rate changes.

Prop 46:
-Increase the state's cap on damages that can be assessed in medical negligence lawsuits to over $1 million from the current cap of $250,000.

-Require drug and alcohol testing of doctors and reporting of positive tests to the California Medical Board.

-Require the California Medical Board to suspend doctors pending investigation of positive tests and take disciplinary action if the doctor was found impaired while on duty.

Prop 47:
-Mandate misdemeanors instead of felonies for “non-serious, nonviolent crimes,” such as petty theft and drug possession, unless the defendant has prior convictions for violent and serious crimes.

-Permit re-sentencing for anyone currently serving a prison sentence for any of the offenses that the initiative lists as misdemeanors. About 10,000 inmates would be eligible for resentencing, according to Lenore Anderson of Californians for Safety and Justice.

Prop 48:
-Ratify two gaming compacts between California and, respectively, the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians, and the Wiyot Tribe.

-Exempt execution of the compacts, certain projects, and intergovernmental agreements from the California Environmental Quality Act.
I don't watch the news or read the paper. BUT, I do read my voter's pamphlet from front to back, and scour the actual proposals' fine print.

I can tell you that I will pretty much never vote for anything that will change the state constitution.

Same for anything that will be a major cost to the state. I don like deficits. (to be said with a Ricky Ricardo accent)

And if I don't feel like I understand a proposition, and don't have time to educate myself, I just don't vote on it.

My first take on your quote above:

Prop 1 - fuggetaboudit. We have a great water system here. Somebody is trying to get something passed in this bill and using the emotional feelings about the drought to get it done. Like somebody said above, spending a ton of money won't make it rain. And let's all say no to this and make people actually conserve. My gut feeling, and a completely uneducated guess - is that there's something fishy in this bill.

Prop 2 - WTF? 10 days? Who wrote this joke?

Prop 45 - Don't know enough about it, but my first thought is - we really want to put that kind of power in one office? My gut feeling is this is also a bad prop. Maybe put changes before the voters? But one guy? I don't like that idea.

Prop 46 - Sounds fair to me. $250,000 isn't enough money to take care of a family, if dear old Dad loses his life due to some surgeon's negligence. But, I'm not so sure about requiring drug and alcohol tests by state law. That should be an employer's job. I'd have to really read this one, but it may get my no vote, just because they piggybacked the drug testing into this prop. Not only is that too much govt intervention, but who's going to pay for this new state department that monitors doctors?

So many good bills get screwed up because they piggyback garbage into them.

Prop 47 - Sounds like another bill to minimize marijuana sentences lol! Petty thefts ARE misdemeanors unless it involves amounts over $500. I say we leave this law alone. I think we might want to think about how we define "non-serious." - Oh, I just looked at the next paragraph. Well, I will definitely be looking at the list of offenses this prop wants to reclassify from felonies to misdemeanors. My gut feeling is I'll vote no, but I'll have to read it.

Prop 48 - Well, I generally vote yes for the Indian casinos. I feel like it's not fair to the late-comers to be denied. What's good for one tribe should be good for another. BUT, I am smelling a rat on the section about waiving requirements for environmental issues. Not liking that part. Will have to read it.

FWIW. Good thread, OP. It's good to be thinking about this stuff early.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-22-2014, 07:10 PM
 
Location: Sierra Nevada Land, CA
9,455 posts, read 12,498,736 times
Reputation: 16450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt View Post
Don't vote. It only encourages 'them'.
With all due respect, you forfeit the right to complain by not voting. But I have noticed you don't complain much here so all is well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2014, 07:28 PM
 
Location: On the water.
21,631 posts, read 16,173,384 times
Reputation: 19713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr5150 View Post
With all due respect, you forfeit the right to complain by not voting. But I have noticed you don't complain much here so all is well.
It's an interesting tangent. I do vote sometimes on some issues. But I pretty much consider it about parallel to muttering under my breath Given the reality of all the deeply successful psychological conditioning the electorate is subjected to by financially powerful interests, I see my vote as nothing more than a private, passive-aggressive, act of defiance.

Much as I love living in America, I'm pretty sure that humanity isn't really cut out for democracy. Nice concept though
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2014, 08:10 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
18,813 posts, read 32,354,560 times
Reputation: 38573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt View Post
It's an interesting tangent. I do vote sometimes on some issues. But I pretty much consider it about parallel to muttering under my breath Given the reality of all the deeply successful psychological conditioning the electorate is subjected to by financially powerful interests, I see my vote as nothing more than a private, passive-aggressive, act of defiance.

Much as I love living in America, I'm pretty sure that humanity isn't really cut out for democracy. Nice concept though
You're so incite-full.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2014, 08:51 PM
 
1,095 posts, read 1,626,363 times
Reputation: 1697
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe View Post
Prop 47 - Sounds like another bill to minimize marijuana sentences lol! Petty thefts ARE misdemeanors unless it involves amounts over $500. I say we leave this law alone. I think we might want to think about how we define "non-serious." - Oh, I just looked at the next paragraph. Well, I will definitely be looking at the list of offenses this prop wants to reclassify from felonies to misdemeanors. My gut feeling is I'll vote no, but I'll have to read it.
According to that website I posted the offenses include:

The measure would require misdemeanor sentencing instead of felony for the following crimes:
  • Shoplifting, where the value of property stolen does not exceed $950
  • Theft, where the value of the stolen property does not exceed $950
  • Forgery, where the value of forged check, bond or bill does not exceed $950
  • Fraud, where the value of the fraudulent check, draft or order does not exceed $950
  • Possession of a narcotic drug
  • Possession of concentrated cannabis
As long as rapists, child molesters, and murderers stay in jail, then I am in favor of it.

Last edited by aboveordinary; 08-22-2014 at 09:06 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2014, 09:14 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
18,813 posts, read 32,354,560 times
Reputation: 38573
Quote:
Originally Posted by aboveordinary View Post
According to that website I posted the offenses include:

The measure would require misdemeanor sentencing instead of felony for the following crimes:
  • Shoplifting, where the value of property stolen does not exceed $950
  • Theft, where the value of the stolen property does not exceed $950
  • Forgery, where the value of forged check, bond or bill does not exceed $950
  • Fraud, where the value of the fraudulent check, draft or order does not exceed $950
  • Possession of a narcotic drug
  • Possession of concentrated cannabis
As long as rapists, child molesters, and murderers stay in jail, then I am in favor of it.
Well, raising the $500 limit for misdemeanors to $950 makes sense to me, inflation and all you know...

But, how much of a narcotic drug are we talking here? Same with pot? And what are they talking about, "concentrated" cannibis? Hashish?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2014, 12:10 AM
 
Location: Planet Earth
1,963 posts, read 3,029,775 times
Reputation: 2429
I will wait until I can read the actual text before making my decision. I looked at the link ( California 2014 ballot propositions - Ballotpedia ) and it is "summaries" and *opinions* and *views* on the props. No thanks, I'll make up my own mind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2014, 08:36 AM
 
1,095 posts, read 1,626,363 times
Reputation: 1697
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcopolo666 View Post
I will wait until I can read the actual text before making my decision. I looked at the link ( California 2014 ballot propositions - Ballotpedia ) and it is "summaries" and *opinions* and *views* on the props. No thanks, I'll make up my own mind.

Really? The actual pamphlet has summaries and arguments supporting and opposing them too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2014, 12:49 PM
 
Location: Planet Earth
1,963 posts, read 3,029,775 times
Reputation: 2429
Quote:
Originally Posted by aboveordinary View Post
Really? The actual pamphlet has summaries and arguments supporting and opposing them too.
But, more importantly, the official voter pamphlets have the ACTUAL TEXT of the proposed changes to the law. THAT is what I read and not some professional liars opinion (e.g., politician). Ballotpeida doesn't have the actual text, so ... I'll wait before deciding.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2014, 02:31 PM
 
Location: SW MO
23,593 posts, read 37,377,482 times
Reputation: 29336
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe View Post
Prop 47 - Sounds like another bill to minimize marijuana sentences lol! Petty thefts ARE misdemeanors unless it involves amounts over $500. I say we leave this law alone. I think we might want to think about how we define "non-serious." - Oh, I just looked at the next paragraph. Well, I will definitely be looking at the list of offenses this prop wants to reclassify from felonies to misdemeanors. My gut feeling is I'll vote no, but I'll have to read it.
Unless the law has changed in recent years, petty theft with a prior is a wobbler; i.e. can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top