|
Prop 16
Jun 4, 2010 15:26:30 GMT -6
Post by agito on Jun 4, 2010 15:26:30 GMT -6
I'm kind of worried about prop 16 because there have not been any accurate polls presented in the media. IN fact- there haven't been many polls at all.
|
|
|
Prop 16
Jun 4, 2010 16:10:30 GMT -6
Post by jeffolie on Jun 4, 2010 16:10:30 GMT -6
Cities under President John Kennedy's leadership in 1960s bought and built electrical transmission and production. It was a big deal. It took a virtual political revolution to do this.
As part of my working life I worked for the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) and for a while I worked on legal their matters. The hostility between Private utilities of all types and Municipal utilities of all type has never ended.
LADWP was no angel and did acquire water and power agressively. Private utilities were worse and often went International with all the corruption that come with foriegn contracts.
Private utilities are evil often.
I am against Prop 16.
|
|
|
Prop 16
Jun 5, 2010 23:38:13 GMT -6
Post by agito on Jun 5, 2010 23:38:13 GMT -6
the relative silence even on this board has me worried.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jun 6, 2010 9:30:12 GMT -6
the relative silence even on this board has me worried. Maybe somebody on the forum could briefly summarize Proposition 16. Somebody that's well-versed in California's legislative double-talk and triple talk. I vote "no" on California propositions about 99% of the time, because I'm rarely sure what either a "yes" or "no" vote means. (This used to be the subject of comedy skits--such as: "I voted 'no' on Proposition Yes.") My thinking is that if any proposition fails, at least it won't make things worse. So my default vote is always "no," unless there's clear and overwhelming evidence that the proposition is beneficial.
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Jun 6, 2010 9:59:48 GMT -6
Prop 16 makes it very difficult for a CA City to have a new City owned electric utility.
If Prop 16 passes, electric rates will certainly rise in CA cities.
Historically, CA cities in modern times have been able to create their own electric utility and kick out the private electric company. Sometime the CA city started producing their own electricity, often they just buy it on the 'grid'. Cities lower their citizens costs always when this happens.
Just having the ability to threaten the private utility with starting their city owned electric utility has helped cities bargain for lower electric costs from the existing private electric utilities.
|
|
|
Prop 16
Jun 6, 2010 10:20:13 GMT -6
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jun 6, 2010 10:20:13 GMT -6
I just read-up on it. The arguments in favor sound good—superficially. But en total, it seems like an obvious an attempt by power companies to eliminate competition, and preserve their monopolization of the market. It's especially disgusting that the power company is using it's income from customers from it's government-granted monopoly to even further monopolize the market. Here's a link from Wikipedia: ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_16_(June_2010)This is an easy "no" vote for me. ------ Another thing that helps me vote "no" on any proposition is the amount of TV advertisement I see. If a lot of money is spent on TV advertising, it's because some special interest will profiteer off the public from the proposition's passage. I'm especially disgusted listening to ads for Proposition 16 describing it as " taxpayers' right to choose." It should be described as the " power companies' right to monopolize & pillage—by legislative decree."
|
|
|
Prop 16
Jun 6, 2010 11:13:40 GMT -6
Post by jeffolie on Jun 6, 2010 11:13:40 GMT -6
'It should be described as the "power companies' right to monopolize & pillage—by legislative decree."
Yes
|
|
|
Prop 16
Jun 8, 2010 21:30:48 GMT -6
Post by fredorbob on Jun 8, 2010 21:30:48 GMT -6
What's prop 16?
And the Constitution guarantees every state a Republican form of government, meaning state propositions are Democratic in form and therefore illegal under the Federal Constitution.
I hate these things, it lets the politicians shrug off their responsibilities, and point their fingers at others for their failings. It's also very prone to corruption, it's far easier to scam a voter who doesn't study the issue in detail then a politician who's job is to be elected.......what the hell i'm rambling again.
|
|
|
Prop 16
Jun 9, 2010 10:32:55 GMT -6
Post by agito on Jun 9, 2010 10:32:55 GMT -6
"republican" and "democrat" forms of governance are not binary opposites. The first democracies in greece were also republics. (although much less so than ancient rome or even our current american government).
In california, all propositions have to pass the legislature before appearing on the ballot, thus satisfying the "republic" aspects if you wish to consider it important.
(and yes, in that light, you could say the politicians are passing the buck and putting the hard decisions onto the populace, I personally enjoy having a chance to be a little more proactive in matters of legislation)
|
|
|
Prop 16
Jun 9, 2010 23:31:11 GMT -6
Post by waltc on Jun 9, 2010 23:31:11 GMT -6
Prop 16 was a easy "no" vote for me as well given that big power was pushing it. Look anything that big business is supporting in the way of ballot initiatives is generally very bad for the people.
|
|