Proposition 7
Renewable-energy generation
NO
We're all for more renewable energy, but this measure and the politics around it smell worse than a coal-burning power plant.
Proposition 7 would require all investor-owned and municipal utilities to procure 50 percent clean energy by 2025. It would allow fast-tracked permitting for the new power plants and suggests they be placed in "solar and clean energy zones" in the desert while still meeting environmental reviews and protections. There's a hazy provision that the solar industry groups argue would discredit any power sources under 30 megawatts from counting toward renewable portfolio standards (RPS), which the Yes on Prop. 7 people refute.
The measure is confusing. The California Energy Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission would play somewhat unclear roles in the state's energy future.
Overall, the CEC would site power plants and the CPUC would set rates. Penalties levied to utilities that don't meet the new RPS would be controlled by the CEC and used to build transmission lines connecting the desert-sourced solar power with cities.
The coalition supporting Prop. 7 is an interesting mix of retired public officials, including former San Francisco supervisor Jim Gonzalez, former state senator John Burton, former mayor Art Agnos, and utility expert S. David Freeman. Interestingly, Gonzalez was a staunch ally of Pacific Gas and Electric Co. when he was a local politician, and Burton has done legal work for PG&E. The bankroll for the campaign comes from Arizona billionaire Peter Sperling, son of medical marijuana proponent John Sperling.
A number of solar and wind companies, which would presumably profit by its passing, are lined up against it, but the No on 7 money comes entirely from PG&E, SoCal Edison, and Sempra, which have dumped $28 million into the campaign. That, of course, makes us nervous.
But other opponents include all the major green groups — Environmental Defense, the League of Conservation Voters, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and the Union of Concerned Scientists — none of which were consulted before it was put on the ballot.
We're obviously uncomfortable coming down on the side of PG&E, but renewable energy is a major policy issue, and this measure was written with little input from the experts in the field. Gonzalez told us it's mostly aimed at pushing giant solar arrays in the desert; that's fine, but we're also interested in small local projects that might be more efficient and environmentally sound.
Vote no.
Proposition 8
Ban on same-sex marriage
NO, NO, NO
Same-sex couples have been able to marry legally in California since June. Their weddings — often between couples who have spent decades together, raised children, fought hard for civil rights, and been pillars of their communities — have been historic, joy-filled moments. San Francisco City Hall has witnessed thousands of these weddings — and to date, there has not been a single confirmed report that gay ...
Children’s Hospitals are very fortunate to have strong philanthropic support. But private donations alone cannot make up the difference between the cost of care and the serious underpayments for the increasing numbers of government-sponsored children cared for by these charitable Children’s Hospitals. Because of this shortfall, Children’s Hospitals cannot reserve sufficient funds to make essential capital investments. Proposition 3 is a public-private partnership that fosters both public funding and private philanthropy to save children’s lives.
In 2004, more than 58% of California voters approved Proposition 61. But the capital needs of children’s hospitals far exceed the funding available. While not all of the Prop 61 funds have actually been spent, nearly 70% of the funds have been awarded for approved projects, and all the funds have been planned for.
People often express their admiration for Children’s Hospitals and their respect for the life-saving work done. Please make this admiration meaningful by voting “Yes” on Proposition 3. Join Senators Boxer and Feinstein, the California Business Roundtable, the League of Women Voters, California Chamber of Commerce, California Nurses Association, the California Federation of Teachers, and many other leaders who have endorsed Proposition 3.
"...Second, it is unclear if this taxpayer money is being used in the public interest. Eighty percent of the money will go to private hospitals (the other 20% goes to University of California facilities). Just looking at one of these private institutions, Children's Hospital of Oakland, one finds that the President/CEO was paid $673,000 in compensation in 2006, and the Chief Operation Officer was paid $420,000 that year."
Thank you.
-Sarah
Not a penny from Proposition 3 can be spent on anything but construction (expansion, remodeling or renovating) or medical equipment purchase at children’s hospitals. The funds cannot be used for salaries, administrative overhead, or operational expenses. These funds cannot be raided or used for other purposes.
As to the salaries of the CEO and COO, the faculty of UCSF is paid similarly as noted in this article from SF gate:
"When the University of California hired David Kessler as dean of the UCSF School of Medicine two years ago, the university announced he would receive "total compensation" of $540,000 a year.
Turns out he actually got much more.
In addition to his salary, he received a one-time relocation allowance of $125,000, plus $30,000 for six months' rent and a low-interest home loan. "
[link]
Thus the salaries are similar for the faculty of the private and public institutions and should not be used as a reason NOT to support the capital improvements needed in our state's Children's Hospitals.
Comment on: Endorsements 2008: State ballot measures
In order to comment on an article, you must Log In.
