California's Costly Propositions (San Diego, San Francisco, Bakersfield: loan, home, school)

[Humanoid]

Seems like you can't watch TV these days without seeing commercials for the propositions (Seriously, every other commercial on the news is for proposition) Just curious how many people are voting for the propositions that require bonds to be sold, namely:

Prop 1A
Prop 3
Prop 6
Prop 10
Prop 12

Personally, I don't understand how a state with a 15 billion deficit (and growly rapidly) is going to be able to pay the bonds off without raising taxes at some point. I'll likely vote "no" on all of these.

[bhcompy]

I'm voting no on all of them. There is no need for new spending right now. If they want to pay for this stuff, how about we cut elsewhere.

[bigdave01]

I would vote no on all of them except 1A. I really want the high speed rail.

[california5]

I voted no on all of them. The high speed rail sounds great, until you read that it will cost us billions before a single piece of track is laid. The cost is prohibitive, it's just unrealistic right now.
When my family is low on cash, we stop spending. Our state needs to learn how to do the same.
I really hope voters look at the situation carefully before voting, we need to cut spending and get our state out of the red, not add to the debt.

[kettlepot]

Originally Posted by bigdave01

I would vote no on all of them except 1A. I really want the high speed rail.

I'm with Bigdave on this one. I'm voting no on all of them except 1A. I travel the I-5 frequently, and the congestion out in the middle of the San Joaquin Valley is pretty bad. We'll need rail eventually, better to do it now rather than 20 years from now when land acquisition costs will be even higher.

And as for Prop 12.... Vote no. Veterans already have their Federal VA loan. There is no need to add some small bond issue which won't apply to most veterans and which most of them don't even know exists. All it does is provide a special benefit to a small group that is 'in the know.' And I say this as a veteran. I am not a SF Bay Area Code Pink radical. Voting No on this is not a slap at veterans, just as voting no on Prop 3 is not a slap at sick kids.

[ImRandy]

I voted no on all of them too. 1A especially makes no sense.

[Humanoid]

Originally Posted by kettlepot

I'm with Bigdave on this one. I'm voting no on all of them except 1A. I travel the I-5 frequently, and the congestion out in the middle of the San Joaquin Valley is pretty bad. We'll need rail eventually, better to do it now rather than 20 years from now when land acquisition costs will be even higher.

You don't need to currently drive. There is already an Amtrak that goes between all the major cities. I have taken it a number of times, it takes just a bit longer than driving. But you can easily work as their are electrical sockets. If you want speed then you can travel by air.

What exactly does a high speed rail give us that we don't already have? Also, I waste way more time on the highways in city traffic than I do when I travel between cities. If you're going to spend the money I would imagine you'd get a much better bang for your buck by spending it on improving city level public transit.

[Roaddog]

Originally Posted by Humanoid

Seems like you can't watch TV these days without seeing commercials for the propositions (Seriously, every other commercial on the news is for proposition) Just curious how many people are voting for the propositions that require bonds to be sold, namely:

Prop 1A
Prop 3
Prop 6
Prop 10
Prop 12

Personally, I don't understand how a state with a 15 billion deficit (and growly rapidly) is going to be able to pay the bonds off without raising taxes at some point. I'll likely vote "no" on all of these.

I agree, this is not the time to be voting for things that will put the state deeper in debt, I'm voting no for anything that costs more money, it's just not the right time.

[tangodoodles]

Originally Posted by Humanoid

Seems like you can't watch TV these days without seeing commercials for the propositions (Seriously, every other commercial on the news is for proposition) Just curious how many people are voting for the propositions that require bonds to be sold, namely:

Prop 1A
Prop 3
Prop 6
Prop 10
Prop 12

Personally, I don't understand how a state with a 15 billion deficit (and growly rapidly) is going to be able to pay the bonds off without raising taxes at some point. I'll likely vote "no" on all of these.

At this point, I think I'm voting Yes on 1A and 3, but No on 6, 10, and 12.

For 1A, I feel like we need to move towards more public transportation, especially in Southern and Central California after experiencing the awesome public transportation in Northern California. I think it will help in the long run if people cut down on driving even if it takes awhile.

For Prop 3, I think it hit home for me because I had childhood cancer and I think it's important, if costly, to make sure to provide extra care for children.

For Prop 6, I'm completely opposed to it. Millions of dollars to fight gangs? Like someone else said, we might as well shout at the rain. Plus, anything with "victims' rights" in the title is going to screw up the justice system. Trust me, my mom is a prosecutor turned judge and she told me that victims already have a huge impact on sentencing. Most of the time they get to testify, have a say during the sentencing portion of the trial, and write victim impact statements. It's a waste of money.

For Prop 10, I was kind of neutral because the California Democratic Party came out neutral but the Sierra Club was reluctantly opposed and I found out that T. Boone Pickens was a main supporter and contributor and it would give his company all the money and power to the exclusion of other companies which I think is a step back rather than a step forward. Plus, I hate T. Boone Pickens for what he did to Senator Kerry's war record during 2004. He and his ilk just disgust me.

For Prop 12, I was going to vote yes but as my dad pointed out, it's not the state's job to take care of veterans, it's the federal government's job and they should have to do it instead of making states foot the bill.

[tangodoodles]

Originally Posted by Humanoid

You don't need to currently drive. There is already an Amtrak that goes between all the major cities. I have taken it a number of times, it takes just a bit longer than driving. But you can easily work as their are electrical sockets. If you want speed then you can travel by air.

What exactly does a high speed rail give us that we don't already have? Also, I waste way more time on the highways in city traffic than I do when I travel between cities. If you're going to spend the money I would imagine you'd get a much better bang for your buck by spending it on improving city level public transit.

Only if you want to ride the bus. The train for me only goes from San Francisco to Bakersfield but if I wanted to go to San Diego I'd have to take the bus for part of the journey and no thank you. The buses in San Francisco are fine but the Amtrak buses are cramped and the last time I was on one there was a guy sitting in front of me talking on his cell phone for all of the thirty minute trip from the Ferry Building to Emeryville and he was even talking about how he was driving drunk the previous night. The buses suck and the trains are slow. It takes me SIX, yeah SIX, freaking hours to get 288 miles from Emeryville to Bakersfield. It's brutal. And I generally either need or want to go home from school at least once a month. So that's six hours there and six hours back. Some people need this rail.