The Uncomfortable Truth

Sure as Winter follows Fall, comes now the post-election rhetoric. First, we were treated to the pundits explaining why people voted the way they did. After a time—usually a couple of weeks—we’re treated to the “What might happen� scenarios.
This past week, the ER posted a brilliant, funny (and only a tad mean-spirited), editorial on what might happen since the so-called liberals are now in command of a 5-2 majority on the Chico City Council. Naturally, this got me to thinking of what might happen if the pro-development slate had been elected.
Council chambers would have to be expanded so that the developers lining up to build in Chico will have a place to sit.
Of course, that new parking structure will be required so these guys can have a place to park. I suggest it be built in the City Hall parking lot so they don’t have to walk as far.
At the first meeting of the new council, the Green Line will be erased and development will be allowed out to the River. 25,000 new homes will fill the area West and South of Highway 32. At the same meeting, developer fees will be slashed 50% on a motion from Dan Herbert.
I know the county would have to agree on this, but I’m doing a worst-case scenario that includes Steve Bertagna winning his race also. This means that from the city limits north to the county line, a sea of overpriced housing and strip malls will be built. Of course, Chico will have three Wal-Mart supercenters.
When the homes are built, the neighborhood becomes a high-crime area because, without enough fees to cover infrastructure, West Sacramento Avenue remains a two-lane cattle trail, and police response time is thirty minutes. Air pollution intensifies as the new residents idle in traffic for an hour a day.
200 acres of Bidwell Ranch will be sold for 30 million dollars. Unfortunately, building roads and sewers costs the city 45 million dollars and the city’s projected 10-year deficit soars to 55 million. To close the gap, more of Bidwell Ranch gets sold, but the conservatives just can’t seem to get it into their heads that it has to be sold for more than it costs to develop, so the city goes further into the red. East Avenue is turned into a parking lot.
The new council will try to pass a 9% local sales tax rate to pay bonuses for policemen and firefighters, who have left Chico in droves because they can’t afford to live here. The new tax will also pay for street maintenance and for levee work to protect 15,000 of those new homes that get flooded every year. (At the meeting, Larry Wahl is overheard asking, “Why should the developer have to pay for what is clearly God’s wrath against the liberals in this town?�)
Chapmantown will be annexed, razed, and developed as low-income housing because, as the conservatives explain, “We don’t pay the guys who work for us enough for them to live anywhere else.�
I was at a Thanksgiving Day dinner and my hostess was truly thankful for the way the election turned out.
I couldn’t agree more. It could have been worse.

Posted by Quentin Colgan at 12:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I noticed that within forty-eight hours of the polls closing, gasoline prices shot up ten cents per gallon. That meteoric rise has been tempered though. Prices have only risen an additional penny since.
Back in August, I was pleased to note the decline in gas prices. Although I thought it was temporary until the Labor Day weekend. The Friday of Labor Day weekend, I noticed that gas prices actually fell. I mentioned it to my girlfriend and she said, “Well, of course! They’re gonna keep going down ‘til the election.�
I had to give her credit. With all my cynicism, I hadn’t suspected that. But then, my girlfriend is pretty clever.
That same day, I tuned in to Rush Limbaugh. He mentioned the falling gas prices and said to watch out for those people who’ll tell you that prices are falling so you’ll vote Republican in November. Watch out for what? The truth?
In the weeks before the election, I had a friend tell me he was going to vote a straight Republican ticket because he liked the cheaper gas. He was also voting no on 87 for the same reason. I wonder how many others did the same.
You can’t really blame someone for voting their pocketbook, principles are nice to have, but they won’t keep the tank filled. I suppose that’s the main reason proposition 87 failed. Who wants to pay more for anything? Personally, I was willing to pay less than three-and-a-half cents per gallon on the chance that we could get away from oil eventually. Alas, the majority wasn’t.
But what good did it do them? Did the oil companies show any gratitude to the people of California? Did they have any thanks for the voters in our district who voted overwhelmingly Republican? Wholesale oil prices have fallen since the election, why haven't gasoline prices? Apparently, they’re so upset with their loss of power in Congress, they’ve forgotten their anti-tax, Republican friends here in the North State.
It’s hard not to laugh at the irony. All those people trying to save fifty cents on a tank of gas, and instead of saving, they’re paying three times that much!
What’s that old joke from the sixties? “I didn’t want a war, so I voted for Johnson—and I got a war.�

Posted by Quentin Colgan at 08:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I have mixed feelings about endorsements. I feel everyone should do their own research and vote their conscience, or else stay home. I feel that if the whole truth were known about a candidate or issue, the proper vote would be cast.
On the other hand, people are busy and may not have time to research the truth. It’s hard for me and I’m a political junkie.
On yet another hand, who cares what I think? Based on some comments I’ve received, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone voted exactly the opposite of me because I’m a “liberal whacko,� and they view themselves as a conservative. (It’s bad enough to label others, but to label yourself demonstrates a serious lack of brain power.)
And still, on another hand, my brother wrote and told me he just might change his mind and vote yes on 87 because of what I wrote earlier.
So maybe, just maybe, I can convince others.
I shall try.

Governor: Phil Angelides
I misspoke when I wrote that Arnold was giving in to Chinese interests when he vetoed hemp. I have it on good authority that he was also giving in to the Mexican gangs that are growing marijuana in California’s forests. Makes sense. The ones who would be hurt the most by legalized hemp would be the people growing huge crops of marijuana. The pollen from the hemp would render their product worthless. Arnold could have solved several problems at once—including people getting killed by the pot growers—but he chose to give in to criminal interests.

Lieutenant Governor: Tom McClintock
True, he’s an incumbent state senator, but he’s not as big a crook as incumbent job-swapper John Garamendi.

Secretary of State: Debra Bowen
Again, another incumbent State Senator, but the only candidate with a chance to get the appointed lackey out of there.

Comptroller: Laura Wells
There is no incumbent. I’m voting Green.

Treasurer: Claude Parrish
No incumbent here. Unless you count the fact that the incumbent attorney general is trying to swap jobs. Send him home.

Attorney General: Chuck Poochigian
This man has a firm grasp of what the second amendment is about. Besides, the only other guy with a shot is Jerry Brown. Oh, come on! Jerry Brown??!!

Insurance commissioner: Steve Poizner
Another incumbent job-swapper in the race. Send him home.

Member Sate Board of Equalization 2d district: Willard Del Michlin
In matters of taxation, a Libertarian is always the best bet.

US Senator: Dick Mountjoy
I trust this guy as far as I can throw him. BUT, he didn’t cheat Californians out of thirty billion dollars by getting into bed with Ken Lay. That makes him a far better choice than Diane Feinstein.

US Congress 2d District: A.J. Sekhon
Again, the only candidate with a chance to unseat the incumbent.

Us Congress 4th District: Charlie Brown
I don’t live in the fourth, but I was bombarded with radio ads for this race. Brown’s ads are correct. Doolittle through his (illegal) connection with future convict Jack Abramoff actually supports forced labor and forced abortions in the Marianas Islands. Besides it will save voters the cost of a special election when (not if) Doolittle goes to jail!

State Senator: Paul Singh
Once more: Throw the incumbent out

State Assembly: Michael Harrington
I only know he is not the incumbent

Chico Unified : Anthony Watts
Say what you will about Anthony. I disagree with his political philosophy. I disagree with his well-known views on global warming and believe his judgment on that to be clouded by his political philosophy. Regardless, with the exception of the Jeff Sloan issue, Anthony has been excellent on the school board. Other members have told me that he researches the issues and learns fast. Plus, he just might single-handedly convert the entire district to solar energy and save us millions of dollars. Go Anthony!
The other candidates I have not researched yet. I was intrigued that a teacher was running, but it seems she teaches college, not in the Chico Unified. I’ll have to look further.

Third District Supervisor: Maureen Kirk
I first met Maureen when she was running for city council the first time. I was at the barber shop and she came in to talk politics. (Wow! Straight outta Mayberry!) I find her intelligent and honest. I’ve disagreed with her publicly, yet there is no doubting her integrity. I consider her a friend. Her opponent is a mortgage lender who will personally profit from unbridled growth in the county.

Chico City Council: l Scott Gruendel, Mary Flynn, Tom Nickell
This is perhaps the easiest choice to make. We have a choice of three people who will personally profit from growth, and three people who have dedicated their lives to public service. Chico is going to grow. We can’t get around that. Three candidates are in bed with developers. Two of the three work in property management and banking (mortgage lending). The denser, the faster the growth, the more money these guys make at their jobs. And haven’t they already made enough from the developers?

Chico Parks and Recreation
Alas, I have not done any research yet.

Proposition 1A: YES
Highway bonds are just a giveaway to the highway construction guys who bribe our legislators silly, and have caused the price of freeway construction to increase by 2,600 percent in the last thirty years. BUT, this bond was already passed yet the legislature gets around it every year by declaring an “emergency� and using the funds elsewhere—like paying off other bonds that Californians keep voting for. Highway taxes should go to highways—period.

Proposition 1B: NO
We can’t afford it.

Proposition 1C: NO
We can’t afford it

Proposition 1D: NO
We can’t afford it

Proposition 1E: NO
We can’t afford it.

Proposition 83: NO
This is one of those scare tactic propositions. It will force molesters out of the cities and into places like Chico. It will not stop molestations, the majority of which happens among families.

Proposition 84: NO
This one was dreamt up by some folks who have worthless land along rivers and such. By calling it a “riparian corridor,� or a “natural resource,� these guys can get the public to buy their worthless land at incredibly inflated value. Trust me, I used to work doing riparian restoration. While preserving riparian corridors and natural resources is a noble goal, some folks have turned it into a scam to bilk the taxpayers.

Proposition 85: YES
As a true liberal, I’ve always put humans first. Even unborn humans.

Proposition 86: NO
The sponsors of 86 say that 39% of the money goes to emergency rooms. What does smoking have to do with emergency medicine??? Sounds to me like someone wants to transfer even more wealth to the already-wealthy health care industry. And they’ve chosen the poorest Californians to transfer the wealth from.

Proposition 87: YES
I believe the oil companies will pass this tax through to the consumers even though it is prohibited. If so, that means an extra 50 cents per fill-up. Wow. Fifty cents a week to rid us of our dependence on oil. It's cheap at twice the price. For more good reasons to vote yes, please see my blog, “Ten Billion Reasons.�

Proposition 88: NO
“Public school funding� is codespeak for “Let’s make the textbook publishing companies as rich as Croesus.�

Proposition 89: YES
Not perfect, but a HUGE step in the right direction!

Proposition 90: NO
This one is just a ploy so developers can sue when their projects get turned down.

One more thing: Last June I asked for and received a paper ballot. I do not trust machines made by a friend of George Bush! If you don't trust the machines either, you don't have to use them.

Posted by Quentin Colgan at 12:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)