52.6 F

Davis, California

Tuesday, April 23, 2024

Editorial: Most bond measures expensive, unnecessary

Proposition 1A: Yes.

This initiative will unite the state, reduce fossil fuel emissions and help take the burden off of California’s already notoriously over-crowded highways. Establishing high-speed rail is an unprecedented step forward in finding alternative forms of transportation for Californians. Though this is an expensive bond measure, the end result is well worth the cost.


Prop 2: Neutral.

The California Aggie Editorial Board was unable to come to a consensus decision on this issue.


Prop 3: No.

The Children’s Bond Hospital Act proposes the allocation of an extra $980 million to children’s hospitals throughout the state to help fund construction and expansion of children’s hospitals. The bond apportions money to an already existent and untapped fund of nearly $450 million along with causing a significant strain the state economy to pay back the bond. It’s unclear why voters should approve such an expensive bond measure when there is so much unused money set aside for the same purpose.


Prop 4: No.

This would require parental notification for minors seeking an abortion, but family communication is something that cannot be mandated by the government. The other alternatives offered under the legislationa judicial bypass or an alternative family member notificationare not realistic alternatives. Two ballot measures have already failed in the past, and although similar measures in other states have worked to lower the in-state abortion rates, teenagers may investigate out-of-state and out-of-the-country options.


Prop 5: No.

Though the rehabilitation effort behind this measure is laudable, it amounts to a hodgepodge of legislative and sentencing changes that will put an unreasonable burden on California drug courts and prisons. The measure also makes it too easy for drug offenders to get out of real punishment for their crimes.


Prop 6: No.

Prop 6 requires that almost $1 billion be allocated to law enforcement annually, indexed to increase with inflation. Propositions like this are dangerous; when the state is in economic hardship, as it is now, the legislature needs to have options to reduce spending, not a mandate to increase it. Voting no on Prop 6 will allow for smarter budget planning.


Prop 7: No.

This measure requires California to produce half its power from renewable resources by 2025. However, the wording of the proposition has led Democrats, Republicans and the Sierra Club to oppose it, as it would do more harm to California’s renewable energy plans than good.


Prop 8: No.

This proposition would change the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Californians should not eliminate the fundamental right for loving partners to marry. The claim made by supporters of the proposition that its failure would lead to public schools teaching children about gay marriage is simply false. Public schools are in no way required to teach gay marriage and to say otherwise is merely a scare tactic.

Prop 9: No.

Prop 9 would amend California’s Constitution to require that victims be notified and be able to participate during criminal justice proceedings, a change which is unnecessary – victims are already protected by the law. Passing Prop 9 would keep criminals in prison longer, taking up valuable prison space, costing the state hundreds of millions of dollars, money that the state cannot afford to lose in such trying economic times.


Prop 10: No.

This is a bond that would provide $5 billion dollars for alternative energy in California. Bond funding is the wrong way to go about such a task. When the state is in debt, piling on billions more is unwise. The proposition is also a poor choice because its vague language could end up funding projects for natural gas, which is not a renewable resource.


Prop 11: Yes.

This measure would create an independent 14-member commission to establish state Senate and Assembly district boundaries instead of allowing the current legislature to determine districts. The system as it is now makes elections uncompetitive and is a serious conflict of interest. A yes vote on this proposition would help fix our currently broken system by preventing legislators from drawing their own favorable boundaries.


Prop 12: Yes.

Unlike other bond measures on the ballot, the interest on Prop 12 will be paid by veterans who receive home loans through the Cal-Vet program. California voters have approved funding for the past eight decades, and there is no reason for it to stop now.


Measure N: No.

This measure would change the city of Davis from a general law city to a charter city, giving the Davis City Council too much power with respect to giving the City Council more power over how local government operates. Because the charter does not lay out any specific changes to how the city is currently run, the necessity of this measure is dubious at best.


Measure W: Yes.

This much needed parcel tax for the Davis Joint Unified School District will cost Davis homeowners $120 and $50 per unit for apartment owners per year to help preserve already existing programs and teachers. It will positively affect the school district and students without causing any strain on Davis residents. 


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here