I'm fine with this. We need to present this position to the CIWG on Jan. 7, right? Sue Eric Brooks <brookse32@aim.com> wrote: I think John-Marc has pretty much summed it up. I am going to be tied up by work and can't meet tomorrow. And with even the proponents suggesting a 'No' vote, we shouldn't put ourselves out over this one. Let's meet in January. I have no concerns about proposing a 'No' on 91 position based on my and John-Marc's comments. The California Alliance for Jobs is a big money donor for initiatives that is a tool for big construction corporations and unions. In short - they want to build highways, and the towns and cities that inevitably pop up, after construction of such highways.. cheers Eric John-Marc Chandonia wrote:
I can't find records of how the SFGP endorsed on 42, but GPAC opposed it:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article1.cfm?archiveDate=02-09-02&storyID...
I assume we probably did also, for the same reasons.
We supported Prop 1A, based on our key value of Decentralization-- the idea was to keep the Governor from stealing local transpo funds (for pothole repair) for state spending.
The current "loopholes" the 91 supporters refer to allow the governor, with the support of the legislature, to borrow against dedicated transpo funds for other purposes for up to 3 years. The Prop 42 money is only 20% public transit, and the rest is mostly for highways. I think the SFGP should support diversion of these funds for education, health care, or other higher priority spending needs if our elected officials think it necessary.
Does anybody have concerns about opposing 91, with a message similar to what I wrote above? If not, I don't thik we need to meet in person. Most people said they couldn't meet this week, so I think we could get more input from people on the list.
JMC
-- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." Che Guevara --------------------------------- Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.