| Vol. VIII, No. 8 |
Editor: Robert Giedt |
October 1998 |
Opinions of the LP of San Mateo County's central committee
by Christopher Schmidt
At the September 16 meeting, we discussed the upcoming election and voted to
make the following ballot recommendations:
| Prop 1 |
Tax Re-Assessment Limitations for Contaminated Properties |
| Vote: |
Yes (4--0--1) (Y--N--A) |
| Notes: |
Allows owners of contaminated property (who didn't cause the
contamination) to repair or exchange the property without triggering property
tax reassessment, thereby redressing the tax incentive to let contaminated
property remain in that state indefinitely. | |
| Prop 2 |
Transportation Funds Lending Policy |
| Vote: |
Position not taken (0--3--2) |
| Notes: |
Although we were sympathetic to the stated intent of this proposition
(i.e., limiting the state's discretionary ability to borrow from transportation
funds), most were put off by the provision that makes Local Transportation
Funds (and presumably the sales taxes that fund them) a permanent feature of
the state constitution. | |
| Prop 3 |
Presidential Primary Ballots |
| Vote: |
No (0--4--1) |
| Notes: |
Historically, political parties were free to choose delegates to their
presidential nominating conventions according to their own rules. Modern law in
many states requires that each party's delegation be elected in a
state-sponsored winner-take-all primary. Eschewing this system, the LPC's state
convention elects the delegates to the LP's national convention. An interesting
side-effect of Prop. 198 (which allows all voters to vote in any
party's presidential primary) is that all political parties (by virtue of a
U.S. Supreme Court ruling) now have the option to reject California's
state-designated delegation and seat a delegation according to their own rules
instead--as the LP does. Prop. 3 would not repeal Prop. 198, but additionally
specify a state balloting system intended to recreate the exclusion of
non-registrants from each party's state-run primary election (to avoid awkward
convention rule-making for the big parties). We believe that all parties should
be free to select their own convention delegations and oppose this attempt to
legislate a state-sponsored system at odds with our own. | |
| Prop 4 |
Steel-Jawed Trap & Compound 1080 Ban
|
| Vote: |
Position not taken (0--3--2) |
| Notes: |
Most of those present argued that land owners are in a better position to
judge the relative cruelty of traps, poisons, and other animal control methods
than are voters at large. This writer stated that he would be voting "Yes"
on a natural rights theory of animal protection, but (along with another
member) voted abstention on the grounds that the LPSM shouldn't take a position
where a subjective measure of cruelty is called for (and not the objective
standards we try to apply to most propositions).
| |
| Prop 5 |
Tribal State Gaming Compacts |
| Vote: |
Yes(4--0--1) |
| Notes: |
We were generally happy with the terms of this initiative. Although it
falls short of a libertopian vision of sovereignty, it has the virtue of not
forcing its terms on any tribe not electing to adopt the compact prescribed. | |
| Prop 6 |
Banning Horsemeat for Human Consumption |
| Vote: |
No (0--5--0) |
| Notes: |
No one had any words of support for this proposal to legislate a particular
aesthetic/culinary preference and we found the felony classification excessive. | |
| Prop 7 |
"Air Quality" Board Slush Fund |
| Vote: |
No (0--5--0) |
| Notes: |
Fifteen pages of fine print would create a $2.8 billion slush fund to be
handed out in the form of tax credits to the "private sector" cronies
of various state bureaucracies, at the discretion of special boards. A telling
table on page 105 divvies up the swag. This is corporate welfare at its worst.
The measure also duplicates Prop. 2's provision that would make Local
Transportation Funds (and presumably the sales taxes that fund them) permanent. | |
| Prop 8 |
More State Public School Mandates |
| Vote: |
No (0--5--0) |
| Notes: |
This one's another grab bag of "great ideas" from state
centralizers to be forced on local school districts (presumed to be too stupid
to adopt appropriate policies on their own). A newly created state bureaucracy
("Office of Chief Inspector of Public Schools") and mandatory pupil
expulsion for drug possession (currently discretionary) stood out as reasons we
recommend a "No" vote. | |
| Prop 9 |
Repudiation of Electricity Industry Restructuring |
| Vote: |
No (0--4--1) |
| Notes: |
Prior to the state's restructure of the electricity industry earlier this
year, utilities selected and built power plants in a context created by the
state PUC: planned, predictable revenues (stretching over decades); a broad mix
of power plant types; and a goal of minimizing CO2 emissions. To
prevent utilities from losing the customers of the more costly power plants
under restructuring (mostly the non-CO2 producers) the state issued
$6 billion in bonds. These bonds pay off the portion of the capitalization
costs of those power plants that would otherwise be unrecoverable in an
environment of price-driven consumer choice (stabilizing the transition and
averting a frenzy of coal and oil-fired power plant construction). This measure
seeks to screw utility shareholders by mandating lower electricity prices and
by repudiating the electric rate surcharge which goes to pay off the bonds. We
recommend a "No" vote because of the basic inequity of the measure,
because of the price control, and because (after litigation) the defaulted
bonds would likely become the obligations of the state's taxpayers. | |
| Prop 10 |
New Tobacco Tax; New Commissions; New Giveaways |
| Vote: |
No (0--5--0) |
| Notes: |
$750 million annually. 'Nuff said? | |
| Prop 1A |
More School Bonds... |
| Vote: |
No (0--5--0) |
| Notes: |
$9.2 Billion Dollars. ...Or roughly $1,000 per household, to be repaid,
plus interest, over 4 years. What household couldn't better spend that
money on their own children? (not to mention fairness to households
without children) | |
| Prop 11 |
Local Sales and Use Taxes Revenue Sharing |
| Vote: |
Position not taken |
| Notes: |
Like Prop. 1A, this measure was put on the ballot after the regular
deadline, so detailed information was not available for public scrutiny. To
protest this misbehavior (which has become routine) we voted 5--0--0 to
recommend voting against it. If it's such a great measure, they
can always bring it back at the next election for proper consideration. | |
by Steve Marsland
Mark Hinkle, the Chairman of the Libertarian Party of California, gave a
great talk at the San Mateo Howard Johnson's on Sunday, September 27. In
attendance were a number of local party officers, party members, and candidates
Mike Moloney and Steve Marsland.
Mark talked about the efforts underway by Juan Ros--the new Director of the
LPC--to make contacts and gain influence in the state by identifying and
working with allied organizations. He reported that already Juan had secured
official endorsements of some Libertarian candidates by the Gun Owners
organization mostly thanks to a visit by Juan to the executive director of the
Gun Owners.
Mark also explained how his drive for clear goals and increased
professionalism of the party was getting results--increased funding and
membership, and an increase in the number of candidates.
Mark pointed out that he was successful in meeting his first goals of
increasing party membership to 5,000 and doubling the budget of the state
party. He also talked about a plan to work with the national party on a version
of Project Archimedes. He hoped he could get the state LP to donate some funds
to the national LP so they could add things to their mailings on our behalf.
After the talk, Mike Moloney called for increased teamwork between the
state party and our region, which has two leading candidates this fall (Mike and
Steve Marsland). There was a constructive discussion about how to better link up
the efforts of the state and local party. It was agreed that Juan Ros would
swing by on his next visit in the area to spend an hour with Mike and Steve.
This will enable the state party to learn how Mike and Steve have done so well
in their elections.
by Bernie Jackson
Mike Moloney has returned to the street corners--and, this time, the
newsrooms--for the pre-election homestretch. After his top showing in the June
primary, Moloney took a break until September 1, when he returned to
neighborhood corners from San Mateo to Millbrae with renewed vigor.
On September 25, Moloney attended an anti-Clinton rally outside the San
Francisco Hilton, where Hillary Clinton came to speak at a fund raiser for
Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer. The protesters, fed up and without a viable
Republican candidate, were excited to meet him. On September 27, he discussed
strategy with Libertarian State Chair Mark Hinkle, exploring some options for
working with the state party as the campaign enters its homestretch.
Moloney has five scheduled appearances so far for the month of October. He
will give four policy addresses at community centers around the Bay Area,
sponsored by San Mateo High School Adult Education: 10 am October 6 at San
Mateo Central Park, 1pm October 14 at San Bruno Senior Center, 2pm October 19
at Hillsdale Manor, and 1:30pm Tuesday, October 27 at the Millbrae Recreation
Center. He will also participate in a KQED candidates' panel on October 28 from
1010:30am, which will be broadcast live on 88.5 FM.
The Moloney campaign has begun to attract media attention. John Horgan of
the San Mateo County Times interviewed Mike for an hour on September 29 and
promises to feature Mike in his October 5 column. Phone calls to other local
news editors have resulted in eager inquiries for more information. Press
releases are slated to go out regularly through November 3, at the rate of
about two per week, concerning Mike's scheduled appearances, his plans to
campaign at upcoming public events, and his comments on current affairs that
are likely to break in the news. You can always see the latest releases on the
web at
http://www.moloney98.org.
The Howard A. Friedman First Amendment Project of the
ACLU is sponsoring a free conference open to
all high school students at UC Berkeley on October 27 (8:30am3:00pm). The 5
themes all include topics of interest to libertarian students: "zero
tolerance" policies, privacy, freedom of expression, discrimination &
tolerance, and a press clinic. For more information, or to register, contact
Nancy Otto at 415/621-2006 ext. #37 or at
ffp1aclunc@aol.com
by Christopher Schmidt
September's meeting ran a little long--because we had 12 propositions to
examine--but I hope you will find the results of our deliberations worth the
effort.
[See the article at top.] In other business, we
discussed volunteers and signs for the October 10 "BBQ with the Candidates"
at Garin Park in Hayward (11 am3 pm) and approved a special recruitment
mailing to some of the precincts where Mike Moloney garnered one-sixth of the
vote back in June.
Wednesday, October 21
Prime Time Athletic Club
1730 Rollins Road, Burlingame (between Broadway and Millbrae Avenue)
Informal
chat/dinner: 6:30--7:30pm in the café
Business meeting: 7:30--9:00pm in the multipurpose room.