Yesterday, Governor Schwarzenegger announced a special election for November, 2005. Since it’s an off year event, it will cost California taxpayers somewhere between $45 and $80 million. That’s a lot of dough – enough to furnish a new San Jose City Hall.
The issues the Governor wants on the ballot deal with: teacher tenure, budget rule changes, and redistricting.
I think it’s a waste of money. He could have waited until June, 2006.
Nonetheless, it’s here. Other measures will qualify for the ballot as well.
So, I’ll start the discussion by asking what initiatives you’d like to see on the statewide ballot this November. For those, who prefer to focus locally, what issues would you like to see on a San Jose special election ballot?
I know 7,000 people are biting thier nails in anticipation; but…..
Could the district 7 seat final election be put on this ballot instead? Would that save money?
$45 mill for new City Hall furniture or $45 mill for political reform. I know where I want my money spent. Any leftover money can be used to hire a independent investigator for the smelly garbage deal.
To answer your questions “How about”:
The San Jose District 7 election will cost between $250,000 and $350,000 because it will be a stand-alone election.
If it was moved to coincide with the November election, it would be far less cost to the City.
No. It’s the bureaucrats + lobbyists + special interests stupid.
Props (no pun intended) on the 6 suggs. though.
I say we put on a ballot measure to raise money to build a 5 story C-3PO to go with the R2-D2 (rotunda) that the new city hall already has.
It would blow the old light tower away!
Don’t forget where the problem starts—elected officials like Gonzo who have no respect for the citizens or their money. People like him also spit in our faces by having the kind of people on his staff that he does. His office is an insult to all of us and to those elected officials who run an ethical office with people of integrity.
Too bad we can’t legislate ethics and integrity. Oh I forgot, that’w what leadership is supposed to be.
The grand jury report on the garbage contract can be found at http://www.sccsuperiorcourt.org/jury/GJreports/2005/SanJoseTrashDeal.pdf
I quickly scanned the document and found this paragraph quite amusing:
The City Attorney, the Mayor, and every Councilmember interviewed agreed that
under the contract between Norcal and San Jose, there was nothing that obligated the City
to pay the $11.25 million. There was near unanimity that, had the Council voted to simply
give Norcal the $11.25 million it requested, it would have been a gift of public funds, and
that would have been illegal. So the City Attorney suggested that, if Norcal were to give
“something” back to San Jose, even if it were something small, that there could arguably
be adequate “consideration” for the $11.25 million payment. So the City put together a
package deal: in exchange for receiving $11.25 million from San Jose, Norcal would give
San Jose up to $100,000 for a recycle characterization study, plus provide an “e-scrap”
collection and processing program for obsolete or damaged computers, monitors and
electronics, and provide bins for 10 additional neighborhood cleanups. Several City
representatives valued the “consideration” from Norcal at approximately $150,000.
Do we also need a new city attorney if he is so willing to trade 150K for 11.25 million?
Jude states,
“Yesterday, Governor Schwarzenegger announced a special election for November, 2005. Since it’s an off year event, it will cost California taxpayers somewhere between $45 and $80 million. That’s a lot of dough – enough to furnish a new San Jose City Hall.”
What Jude fails to mention is that somewhere in the neighborhood of 44 of the 58 counties have regular elections scheduled for this November anyway.
Rich states:
“Initiatives—what a terrible way to govern. “
What are the people to do if the legislature won’t act in the interests of the people? They can’t even make a budget once a year on time.
Rich also states, “No initiative shall qualify for the ballot unless 40% of the eligible” This could only be considered if the same rule applied for candidate selection: no person shall be considered a candidate unless 40% of the eligable votes in his/her district sign their nomination petition. Let’s go one step further in our over regulated society: no candidate shall be considered elected unless 40% of eligable voters in the district represented cast their vote for that candidate. In instances where this threshold is not achieved, a special election shall be held at another outrageous waste of residents money. Let’s just hope and pray we can get 40% of the people to actually vote on election day – that would give us more hope than anything.
As for Arnold’s measures, why should teachers enjoy a right to work status when we are clearly an at will employment state?
Why should we let the legislature draw the boundaries of their own districts. They have demonstrated that they can’t do that in good faith and make districts competitive. The lines are clearly drawn to keep each party’s seats safe. An independent panel of judges can create districts that make sense geographically, remain competeive and remain manageable for the people who win. When the lines are drawn to favor either party, the people loose. NO SEAT in the state legislature should be considered a safe seat for any candidate.
Steve, how much you wanna bet this is the last we hear of this:
“San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales and his budget and policy director, Joe Guerra, appear to have violated city rules—and possibly state and federal labor laws—by brokering an $11.25 million deal with city garbage haulers and then concealing the arrangement for nearly four years, a Santa Clara County civil grand jury reported Monday.”
Wrongdoing by government officials, do you think the DA has the intestinal fortitude to actually do something about this? Assign the case to Karen Sinnunu and use it as a litmus test to see if she has what it takes to be a DA.
To FYI: “The San Jose District 7 election will cost between $250,000 and $350,000 because it will be a stand-alone election. “
The rsidents of Dist. 7 deserve this run-off election – even at this expense. Fairness of representation shouldn’t be held back due to this relatively small (in government$$) cost. Let’s just leave the mayors office unfinished and use the cost savings to fund the election.
Adam, “Too bad we can’t legislate ethics and integrity” We can legislate ethics and integrity at the ballot box at these elections. Let’s break the mold and elect people from the real world, not just recycled politicians, former aids to recycled politicians, and people who ran labor unions!
In summary, I agree with JNAT, “$45 mill for new City Hall furniture or $45 mill for political reform.” The answer is clear.
To promote citizen unity and the common good, it is proposed:
The government of the City of San Jose shall, in all cases, be restricted from the granting of funding, privileges, or official recognition to any political group identified exclusively by race, religion, gender, ethnicity, foreign origin, or party affiliation. This city, composed of unique individuals and partitioned into geographical political districts, shall demonstrate its dedication to fair governance by granting financial and political assistance only to worthwhile causes and efforts presented to it by individual residents, council district groups, neighborhood associations, or resident groups formed to address a specific issue of local interest.
– – – – – – – –
Let’s take the city out of the discrimination business. If someone’s sexual orientation, heritage, or unexpressed pride is truly deserving of the cash of others, then I’m sure those generous others in the community will come forward. Personally, I’m quite willing to study, embrace, and take pride in my heritage all by myself. What I can’t do on my own is smooth the pavement, clean the streets, man the firehouses, or get a cop when I need one.
Time is running out to file your protest over the proposed Recycle Plus service rate and Storm Sewer Service charge increases. Protest must be filed by JUNE 21 with the City Clerk.
Think there is any coincidence in the Mayor’s $11 million gift to NorCal and the proposed rate increase and the decrease in service?
What a city.
I propose a county initiative that would be titled “The Sports Freedom Initiative.” It would free Santa Clara County from the restrictive territorial rights of any professional sports team that does not reside or play within the county line. In particular, teams that reside 30-50 miles outside of the county proper. This initiative, if passed by the citizens, would deem any such territorial right illegal. LET THE PEOPLE SPEAK!! And go A’s.
The special election is absolutely necessary…expect more of the news such as this from the Intels of the world until California decides to be truely business friendly….
Who needs baseball San Jose when you can play Cricket….
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/11891982.htm
Anthony, I heard a teaser on the news this morning that sounded like a new stadium deal for the A’s in Oakland is dead, but had to leave for work before they ran the story.
Could be your wish will be shared by many others in town now that it appears the A’s will need to look outside of Oakland for a new ball park, and they’d be pretty stupid not to cast a glance about 40 miles to their south.
Jude,
The state is broke. Grey Davis signed away sweetheart contracts and pensions for union employees that the state can’t afford. We can’t just borrow forever.
If we don’t pass a spending limitation initiative, we will be fishing for a bailout like NYC did and the feds and/or courts will be deciding how much we tax and how much we spend. Colorado had such a law during the economic meltdown, and they are running surpluses.
Initiatives—what a terrible way to govern. Many of our current problems are the direct result of past citizen inspired initiatives—-the chaos caused by this direct democracy is seen in our current state of affairs.
Prop. 13 is very popular, however, it only solved the solution for a short period of time and creates huge disparties in property tax payments. Term limits sound good, but inexperienced politicians with only six to eight years are a joke. You may not like Willie Brown, but he was a far-cry better than what exists in the legislature today.
Mandating a percentage of the budget for any item, even education, is not good policy. The myriad of bonds that allow us to borrow, borrow and borrow is not good fiscal policy—even if we continue to vote for “good things”.
The voters want reform—here are some laws that should pass. All of which have a common theme of limiting government—and these suggestions come from an unabashed liberal.
1) A law capping the number of local governments to 1,000. Currently we have over 4,000 local goverments in only 58 Counties.
The growth in government continues unabated.
2) No government official in the State of California shall make more than 90% of the Governor’s salary.
We have assistant city managers in small towns making more than the Governor. Our school system is bloated with Administrators making high salaries. Our teachers would be happy with 90% of the Governor’s salary.
If they can make more in private industry—let them go do it.
3) No school District in the State of California shall conisist of less than 2,000 students.
That would eliminate hundreds of school district administrators (see number 1), the extra savings could go to teachers.
4) All transportation agencies in the Bay Area shall be eliminated. A single regional transportation agency shall administer all transit systems.
We could bring BART to SJ in a New York minute with the cost savings.
5) No legislator shall propose any new law without first calling for the removal of two existing laws. That would be very popular.
Over 25,000 new laws and regulations are signed into law every four years. This would reverse that trend.
6) No public agency shall be allowed to sell public lands for market rate. Public land must be offered to other government agencies for the price paid plus the cost of inflation.
Currently, taxpayers can end up paying many times for the same piece of property. The County will sell at market rate to the City, who sells at market rate to the School District who sells at market rate to the Transit District etc. Eventually they sell to developers for cash and the property is lost altogether.
This is a way government augments their budgets. But the taxpayers get hosed.
7) No initiative shall qualify for the ballot unless 40% of the eligible (not registered) voters in the state sign a petition and the sponsoring party pays for their share of the cost of a statewide election.
That would eliminate an entire industry of which I am a part.
All of you who want to reform government by jailing lobbyists should look to who is really stealing your money.
Its the bureaucrats stupid.
How bout an election to rescind this action from todays morning paper.
San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales and his budget and policy director, Joe Guerra, appear to have violated city rules—and possibly state and federal labor laws—by brokering an $11.25 million deal with city garbage haulers and then concealing the arrangement for nearly four years, a Santa Clara County civil grand jury reported Monday.
Kevin,
>What are the people to do if the legislature won’t act in the interests of the people? They can’t even make a budget once a year on time. <
Answer: Vote them out of office.
As for the budget it takes 2/3 vote to get it out—as long as one party has less than 2/3 it is going to be late to embarrass the other side. It is all partisan politics.
Fair reapportionment is fine—it’s an even better idea for Texas.
If we have “fair” reapportionment, we should end term limits, as we have always had them—the voters can “term-out” an elected official every two years.
As for legislators “not doing what the people want”—that is not a bad idea. “The people” are fickle, their opinions change, unbridled democracy is chaos.
It is better to have trust in qualified elected officials. The people are spoiled, the politicians cater to their whims and thus we have a broken system.
The blame lies not with the politicians, but with the voters. They screwed it up and until it really begins to hurt them, they won’t fix it.
But they will complain. . .that they do well.
Woe the poor lobbyist.
More equal than others, yet victimized at every turn by fickle voters, NIMBY’s, and a corrupt system. Truly a sad story, sniff.
Jude, Jude, Jude
You are sounding like one of those bureaucrats up in Sacramento who is scared to death of the potential redistricting…..
Geez, everyone is saying how Arnold is not doing enough and then when he tries to take action then is making the wrong move.
I’d like to see a vote for applying a certain amount of the gas tax in this county towards freeway landscaping. The weeds are out of control and an embarassment. Let the cities take control of the landscaping if the state isn’t going to, at least at the interchanges and on/off ramps. Nowhere else I’ve traveled in the state do the freeway interchanges look worse than they do in San Jose. Not even Oakland.
Novice,
“A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can last only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority (who vote) will vote for the candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse, with the result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies, always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world’s greatest democratic nations has been 200 years. Each has been through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith, from faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to complacency, from complacency to selfishness, from selfishness to apathy, from apathy to dependency, and from dependency back again into bondage.”
—Lord Macaulay (1857)
I’d say modern voters are in the selfishness to apathy stage. The initiative process is the vehicle by which the people are voting themselves the largesse from the public treasury. The loose fiscal policies are the result of politicians catering to the masses.
We are very close to a dictatorship with the Bush regime.
But blame the lobbyists-it is so much easier than thinking.
“The initiative process is the vehicle by which the people are voting themselves the largesse from the public treasury.”
And a gratuitous Bush shot too!
Great material – when will you be appearing at the improv?
OK, maybe not a Bush dictatorship, but he is certainly the most fascist self-serving leader this country has EVER seen.
This takes us back to the previous posting by Tom re: the Nguyen/Nguyen runoff. Maybe getting the people who truly appreciate democracy because their native country is anything but are exactly the type of office holder that we need to avoid the disaster that Richard has presented.
What’s even scarier are these out of control fickle voters who are “voting themselves the largesse from the public treasury”.
Can you imagine – the very nerve of these fickle voters demanding their own money back?!
These fickle voters are so stupid, they don’t even know enough to trust their ‘qualified politicians’ with their hard earned tax dollars.
These fickle voters must be stopped!!
You’re exactly right Rich,
The public, the politicians, and the public employee unions are bankrupting the state. If we don’t get control of it, we will go technically bankrupt. Then the courts and the bankers will put us on allowance. If the feds are required to secure the loan package, they’ll have a say too. Sounds like the end of democracy to me.
The voters will get their last say when Arnold’s budget limiting initiative is voted on. If it fails, I don’t see any “realistic” chance of avoiding fiscal meltdown. Do you?
Richie #1:
Wow, some great ideas!
The reason the initiative process has become so prevalent is the failure of our elected officials at the state level to act in the best interests of the people. Each one acts in the best interest of the large contributors and their lobbyists.
That also leads to too much “bad-acting”—passing a boatload of unnecessary laws which can’t be funded, or, on the criminal side, are never enforced.
I am not sure I can agree with your points 6 and 7, particularly the large % to qualify for a ballot in the face of government inaction; but on balance, you propose a good program. And this endorsement is from an unabashed fiscal conservative/social moderate.
John Michael O’Connor
The 3CPO idea is great, but he needs to have Gonzo’s face and be standing near “The Park God” Quetzi, which we can move to the Taj Gonzal..or is it the the Ron Mahal…rotunda?
Hmm-Ron near the rotunda—fitting.
John Michael O’Connor
Hey jude,
It seems the democrats are sending your good friend out of the country for a surgical procedure. They will be extracting both feet from his mouth.