Ohio Issue 2

Continuing series on Election 2008. This is the point where I find it so curious how other states label things…. do we have “issues” in California? Maybe this is a research item… the difference between a proposition, an issue, and a question. Huh.

Issue 2: Clean Ohio Fund Act

If approved by the voters, the measure would authorize the state to borrow $400 million for environmental conservation, preservation and revitalization purposes.

Argument FOR:
– It will not raise taxes.
– It will provide money for environmental clean-up and quality.
– It will create jobs.

Argument AGAINST:
– The economy is in bad condition. The state of Ohio should not be authorized to go into further debt; it should, instead, be tightening its belt and only spending money on immediate priorities.

My recommendation: YES

From what I can tell this has bipartisan support across the board; governor, senators, and other elected officials. It allows the Clean Ohio program to continue which has already created thousands of jobs, not to mention all the environmental support like clean water, preserving family farms, and clean up of abandoned industrial sites. The opposition states that the Ohio citizens have to pay all the money back that is borrowed, but with the creation of the jobs, it may be an even exchange.

HERE is the only website I could find.

Georgia Amendment 1

To be clear… since I live in California, it has been difficult getting information of items on other states ballots. But, I am trying to research as much as I can about the issues that effect the environment. If you live in a state that I am writing about, and have more information, please feel free to send it along.

Amendment 1: Forest Preservation Amendment or HR 1276

This is a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment that would encourage the preservation, conservation, and protection of the state’s forests through the special assessment and taxation of certain forest lands and assistance grants to local government.

Arguments FOR:
– The amendment will ensure that as Georgia continues to grow and develop, it will continue to protect the forests in the state.
– This amendment will affect very little taxable land value, and is a worthwhile investment in helping keep our forest lands.

Arguments AGAINST:
– Rural school districts would lose valuable tax base, and although the measure authorizes the General Assembly to appropriate grants to local governments to offset the loss of tax revenue, there is fear that school districts will suffer.
– While the wording indicates that this is a program to protect the state’s forests, this is not a state land purchase set aside for the benefit of all Georgians. It is in reality a bill to provide property tax relief for paper companies and others that have forest land holdings in excess of 2,000 acres.

My recommendation: YES

I have to say it is very hard to find information about this Amendment. What I can tell you is that it seems everyone is in support of this passing, so who I am I to judge. The biggest issue I find is that in order to be considered for preservation it has to be over 200 acres. But the flip side is that maybe the people who have 200+ acres are the same people that can afford an addition tax.

There are no websites for either position.

California Proposition 2

To continue the series on State Propositions dealing with the environment and my recommendation.

Proposition 2: Standards for Confining Farm Animals

If it passes, it will create a new state statute that prohibits the confinement of farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. Voters in other states have voted to eliminate calf and pig crates, but Proposition 2 in California in 2008 is the first time voters will have been asked to eliminate the practice of confining chickens in battery (small, confining) cages.

* Imposes a misdemeanor penalty and a fine of up $1,000 or imprisonment in county jail for up to six months to those who have been found to violate the act.
* Bans dense confinement for egg-laying poultry, gestation crates for sows and veal crates for veal calves.

Argument FOR
– prevents cruelty to animals, since it is simply wrong to confine animals in tiny cages barely large enough for their bodies. To emphasize this argument, supporters of Prop 2 released a video on October 14 that according to the Los Angeles Times shows “egg-laying hens crammed into filthy cages, while, nearby, discarded birds are left to die in piles of corpses.”
– improves our health and food safety by requiring better conditions for animals.
– supports family farmers, who are driven out of business when factory farms cut corners and put profits ahead of animal welfare and our health.
– protects air and water and safeguards the environment.
– a reasonable and common-sense reform, which will take effect in 2015 and won’t be costly to implement.
– The price of cage-free eggs will go down.

Arguments AGAINST
– If it passes, egg supply will go down and egg prices will go up.
– Some egg farmers in California who already practice cage-free chicken farming are fearful that the ballot language is ambiguous and that their farming would also be subject to the provisions of the initiative.
– If chickens are not in cages, they are more vulnerable to attacks by predators, including other chickens;
– Veal grates and gestation crates for pigs are practically non-existent in California or are being voluntarily phased out this year.
– The initiative doesn’t require farmers to keep chickens outdoors. Battery cages have been banned in Europe effective 2012. Farmers making the transition there are not providing free range conditions for their chickens but are instead finding other ways to keep chickens in barns.
– The cost of producing eggs would increase by 20% or more.

My recommendation:

In my opinion, you should vote YES on this proposition. From what I can tell it not only ensures health and safety rules for the consumer, it supports family farms, it protects our air and water supply, but most importantly, it prevents animal cruelty. I do not believe the concerns raised by the opposition, in fact in many cases (i.e. increase in avian flu and salmonella) those myths have been negated by science.

The websites:
Support of Prop 2, HERE
Oppose Prop 2, HERE

California Prop 1A

I am going to dedicate some time to writing about the various propositions that have to deal with the environment. I will take one at a time, list the pros and the cons and make a recommendation. This is MY recommendation, it is my opinion, I don’t need chatter about how I am wrong.

Let’s begin:

Proposition 1A: Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century

Prop. 1A asks voters to approve the issuance of $9.95 billion of general obligation bonds. This would partially fund a $40 billion, 800-mile high speed train under the supervision of the California High-Speed Rail Authority. The train would run between San Francisco and Los Angeles, with Anaheim, California, designated as the southern terminus of the initial segment of the high-speed train system. Estimates are that the train system would be completed in 2030, and that it would take passengers between San Francisco and Los Angeles in about 2 hours and 40 minutes.

$950 million of the bond proceeds would be available for capital projects on other passenger rail lines to provide connectivity to the high-speed train system and for capacity enhancements and safety improvements to those lines.

Argument FOR:
– It will reduce the reliance on foreign oil for California
– It is a “balanced transportation improvement package offering statewide benefits.”[15]
– The high speed train network proposed in the initiative will reduce highway traffic congestion without raising taxes.
– It will save commuters time and money.
– It will expand transportation options.
– It will remove 12 billion pounds of CO(2) emissions

Argument AGAINST:
– There is no guarantee the project will ever be completed.
– It is a political boondoggle and a waste of money.
– If politicians can’t fix the budget crisis, healthcare or the schools, why think they can build this project competently?
– Proposition 1 is a creature of special interests who are notorious for their cost overruns and stand to “make billions off this scam”.
– Existing transit systems should be expanded instead of starting from scratch

My recommendation: YES

California has in influx of people on a daily basis and there will come a time when we cannot all be on the road. We need to have a reliable method of transportation to get us places within the state, not just within the city. It reduces our dependency on oil… good. It reduces out CO2 emissions… good. It saves commuters time and money…. good. It creates jobs, boosts the economy and fights global warming. Is this not what we have been demanding from the possible president elect?

In the sake of being fair:
HERE is the link to the Vote Yes website
HERE is the link to the Vote No website