Thursday, October 25, 2012

voting recommendations for Oakland

When asked what I write about on Our Oakland, I list a variety of things: food, history, art, maps, bicycling; "whatever catches my interest about Oakland." Rarely do I write about politics in Oakland, in part because they generally annoy me too much. But a number of people have asked me for recommendations lately, so I figured it was time to put them down in writing. Agree or disagree, here are my recommendations for the upcoming election.

If you're unsure which BART, AC Transit, or whatever district you're in, check out this web page from Alameda County, Districts Lookup. It will even tell you your flood control zone! Don't know your Oakland city council district? Check the Oakland City Council Districts map I made a couple of years ago.

U.S. Representative - Barbara Lee - Barbara Lee is the only one in congress who voted against a blank check for Bush to invade Iraq. She's also the only major politician who's never disappointed me. 'nuf said.

BART Board District 3 - Rebecca Saltzman - Rebecca Salztman is passionate about Oakland as well as transit, bicycling and pedestrians. She rides BART (& AC Transit) and knows the challenges facing BART. She's got a zillion endorsements from the Sierra Club to state senator Loni Hancock to much of the existing BART board, and for good reason. She's clearly the best candidate for the job.

Oakland City Council at large - Rebecca Kaplan - Many people have wondered why Ignacio De La Fuente is giving up his sure-thing seat in District 5 to run for the at-large seat. The only reason that makes sense is so that he can have more influence over the council and get wider support in Oakland for an eventual mayoral run. Which would be OK if he was up front about it, but he's running by trying to downplay the contributions of Rebecca Kaplan. And if his linking to his campaign site from his city council page isn't illegal, it should be. See also this EBX article. And this list of 10 reasons not to vote of Ignacio De La Fuente.

City Attorney - Barbara Parker - I was leaning towards supporting Barbara Parker because it seems like she's done a good job. Then the OPOA came out in support of Jane Brunner, and released some ads that lie about Parker's record. Then there's this gem about Brunner's plagarism. See the same EBX article.

Measure A1 - NO on A1 - I love the Oakland Zoo (while being somewhat conflicted about zoos in general.) The zoo is pushing A1 as "for the animals" and say the money won't be used for a controversial expansion into Knowland Park. However, the measure has a loophole you could ride an elephant through that would allow them to, and my trust in them dropped further when it was discovered the zoo has broken several election laws during the campaign, and is spending nearly $1 million to try to pass the measure.

Measure B1 - YES on B1 - It's always hard to vote for increased taxes during a down economy, but this is one I can support. There's currently a 1/2 cent sales tax in Alameda County that goes towards "transportation", which generally means roads and infrastructure for cars and transit. Measure B1 would extend the sales tax, increase it to 1 cent, but most importantly, specifies that 48% go to transit, 8% of the funds would go to bicycle and pedestrian projects, and 5% would go to sustainable land use and transportation projects.

Proposition 30 - YES on 30 - The state economy is a mess, and one of the no-brainer ways to help fix it and get additional funding for education is by increasing taxes on the wealthy (people earning $250,000 or more a year). It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing.

Proposition 32 - NO on 32 - It's a clear attempt by big corporations, PACs and their moneyed friends to try to limit the voice of unions, while they continue to spend lots on buying elections.

Proposition 33 - NO on 33 - Another attempt by insurance companies to increase their profits. They're spending $16 million to try to get their way.

Proposition 34 - YES on 34 - The death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent, is hella expensive to implement, and too many innocent people across the country have been wrongly executed. It's telling that most of the countries that still have the death penalty are ones like China, North Korea and Iran that we regularly ding for human rights violations. Even if you don't agree with the moral aspect of opposing the death penalty, the finances of it and its failure to work should be reasons enough.

Proposition 36 - YES on 36 - "Three strikes" was a good idea, but went a little too far. 36 will dial it back a little, by making it so the 3rd strike has to be for a serious or violent crime. It will save the state money, reduce prison overcrowding, and provide fairer sentencing for lesser crimes.

Proposition 37 - YES on 37 - This measure isn't perfect, but is a big step in the right direction. Genetically modified food hasn't been sufficiently tested to prove it's safe; some of the studies that have been done show unexpected side-effects. Consumers (that's all of us that eat food) deserve to know what's going into our food.

I live in city council district #4, which isn't being contested this year, but it also means I haven't been following the races in districts 1, 3 and 5 as closely. If there's something I haven't listed, the race either doesn't apply to me or I haven't figured out how I'm going to vote on it. Or I forgot.

6 comments:

Becks said...

Thanks for your support Gene!

Andy K said...

Agree with most of these, but still need some thinking about A1.

Ruth Malone said...

If you still need some thinking about Measure A1, please visit www.saveknowland.org for information about the specific language in the measure that explicitly allows tax funds to be used for this or any future expansion into Knowland Park, about Knowland's native wildlife and plants, and about the social justice aspects of Measure A1. Then Vote NO! Thanks, Gene!

Karen Smith said...

Zoo management's lack of ethics is not limited to its campaign violations. Measure A1 is zoo managements' attempt to obtain 25-years of no-strings-attached funding for whatever it chooses, with no meaningful oversight or limitations. At the top of its to-do list is paving over 54 acres of native wildlife habitat in Knowland Park, the zoo's best kept secret (with the help of the city of Oakland). The Save Knowland website (www.saveknowland.org) is fact-based, unlike the manipulative PR the zoo has been churning out on its website and campaign materials. And read the full text of Measure A1, to see how full of holes it is.

Unknown said...

I love animals too, that's why I have to vote NO on A1. Knowland Park is wildland - habitat and home to rare and endangered animals and plants. Why doesn't the zoo care about them? If we don't protect our wildlife, no one will. Prop. A1 is written so that the zoo can use the money to fund the destructive expansion of the zoo onto 54 acres of Knowland Park. Don't let it happen! A "canned" zoo experience is a sad replacement for the real thing which we have now. If you need another reason to vote against A1, check out the zoo's finances and the millions of dollars they already get from tax payers.

Katarina said...

These recommendations are helpful - thanks!! Reading the text of A1 was what pushed me over the edge into a definite NO vote. Does anyone have any thoughts on Oakland's measure J?