default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
Logout|My Dashboard

J. Kurt Roberts My take on the state propositions

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

J. Kurt Roberts

Posted: Thursday, October 28, 2010 12:00 am | Updated: 6:33 am, Thu Oct 28, 2010.

In less than a week, the people of California, and the rest of the nation, go to the polls to elect an untold number of representatives, and make their decisions on a plethora of ballot measures. The following is a breakdown of what our local ballot will encompass.

Prop. 19, if passed, will basically legalize consumption of marijuana in California. Some say that legalizing marijuana will pretty much lead to the breakdown of society as we know it. Others say that the prohibition of marijuana just isn't working. I tend to agree with the latter. One of my best friends is a cop in Long Beach, and he says dealing with a guy high on weed is a walk in the park compared to dealing with a drunk.

Prop. 20 removes from our state legislature the right to establish congressional districts, and transfers that duty to a redistricting commission. The current districts are gerrymandered beyond any reasonable degree and this measure just makes sense.

Prop. 21 if passed will establish an $18 surcharge on annual vehicle license fees to "help fund state parks and wildlife programs." All I'm going to say on this is if you want to go wander around tens of thousands of acres of wilderness, you pay for it. Don't ask me to, and don't make me pay for finding you if you get lost.

Prop. 22 prohibits the state from "borrowing" redevelopment, transportation or other local funds from local governments. Let's face it, there is NO amount of money that the state of California cannot waste. Keep local tax revenues local. "Yes" on 22.

Prop. 23 would suspend AB 32, California's revolutionary but onerous greenhouse emission control act, until unemployment dips to 5.5 percent statewide. Given California's current political climate, unemployment will pretty much never get down to 5.5 percent. And making California lead not only the nation, but the entire world in some kind of utopian mission to eradicate greenhouse gas emissions is unrealistic and a job killer. As soon as China and India agree to adopt AB 32 type mandates, then I'll say it makes sense. "Yes" on 23.

Prop. 24 repeals tax "loopholes" on some big businesses. Not a major issue either way, but California's problem is more a spending problem than income problem.

Prop. 25 changes the vote requirement to pass a state budget from a two-thirds super majority to a simple majority. A simple majority is all that is required in 48 of our 50 states. Why is California so different? Let the majority act like the majority and let the chips fall where they may.

Prop. 26 if passed, would require a two-thirds vote to increase certain state and local fees. "Fees" are just taxes in disguise. We all know which party is more amicable to raising taxes or "fees." I for one will be voting "no" on 26.

Prop. 27 is a vain attempt by the state legislature to take back the right to draw state Assembly and Senate districts that voters gave to a 14-member redistricting commission just two years ago. A huge "no" on 27.

The polls open at 7 a.m. sharp next Tuesday. Remember if you don't vote, my vote means all that much more!

J. Kurt Roberts can be reached at jkurtroberts@att.net.

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.


  • Joshua Hutchison posted at 12:43 pm on Fri, Oct 29, 2010.

    Joshua Hutchison Posts: 57

    I agree except for the view on AB32. I agree that developing nations will continue to use Carbon based energy as long as it is available. I agree that the effect on greenhouse gases in our shared atmosphere will not be affected if California or the USA stopped using Coal and Oil due to the use around the globe. I do not see the behavior of other actors as a reasonable justification for continuing a pattern of environmentally destructive behavior. I do see a great benefit in having an economic climate which encourages and rewards using sustainable energy. California should be the largest exporter of Green Energy technology. Tesla motors is one fine example of how new technology can create new industry like a phoenix out of an empty shell at NUMI.

  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:04 am on Thu, Oct 28, 2010.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    great views except on prop 19. .. your idea that this bill will basically legalize consumption of marijuana in California, is simplistic and short sited. Even if you are correct that current marijuana laws should be changed, this is the wrong bill to do it. It pits city against city to tax and enforce the law in different ways. I think the proponents should go back to the drawing board and rewrite the law for the voters to consider. This particular law is a bad one.


Recent Comments

Posted 3 hours ago by Jien Kaur.

article: Letter: Ron Portal’s letters repeat the…

So very much the truth Mr Adams - but you forgot to make the mention of the man who spend the millions and finally discover that the Mr Oba…


Posted 3 hours ago by Michael Fiske.

article: Letter: Suggestions for committee appoi…

Ed, everybody knows JoAnne hates Bob. If you don't know that than you don't know squat! Open your eyes. She campaigned against two candidat…


Posted 3 hours ago by Jien Kaur.

article: Letter: Our leaders need to be better r…

The Mr Kindseth wrote that 'America’s attitude toward Royal Emperor Obama changed when he went from “We the People” to “Screw the People”' …


Posted 4 hours ago by Thomas Heuer.

article: Steve Hansen: Funding, researcher bias …

Skepticism is a smart way of saying "I DON'T KNOW." No more no less. It is not a lofty intellectual endeavor. It is used by the …


Posted 4 hours ago by Mike Adams.

article: Letter: Ron Portal’s letters repeat the…

A correct assumption instead: Mr. Portal, like most conservatives, utilize information that is not true and when they do use the correct …



Popular Stories



Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists