tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750357817175490357.post8421205280620822534..comments2023-05-19T08:12:47.216-07:00Comments on Riding in Riverside: State Parks Sacrificed for Suburban Car FetishAllie Cathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08388778275254352958noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750357817175490357.post-89990219277756186022010-11-04T14:43:16.349-07:002010-11-04T14:43:16.349-07:00The park prop was badly advertised.
For one, peop...The park prop was badly advertised.<br /><br />For one, people could have SAVED money if it had passed. Instead of paying up every time they visit a park, you only pay once a year. Second, the effect of tourism dollars to the state was not explained. They still have to pay park entrance and they get a nicer park. <br /><br />Maybe they can try again next time with a $15 fee and explain that it removes the entrance fee for california cars.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750357817175490357.post-33664660983672748812010-11-04T14:10:59.779-07:002010-11-04T14:10:59.779-07:00Anon- Prop 13 also requires a supermajority requir...Anon- Prop 13 also requires a supermajority requirement for personal income taxes- and, indeed, any tax that isn't revenue-neutral. Prop 26 cut it down to "any tax." And, as I mentioned above, "2/3 majority" means "impossible"- the CA Republican Party is among the most right-wing in the country, and every single member of caucus has signed the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Pledge promising to never, ever, ever raise taxes. It's not as if we can just decide to raise income or sales taxes a bit more. Prop 26 takes away many of the "creative" solutions that lawmakers have found over the years.<br /><br />And you're absolutely right. The vast majority of voters lack the knowledge necessary to decide on the complex budgeting problems put before them. But then again, earlier measures (like Prop 13) have made it so that the people who know what they're doing- the legislature- can't make the decisions they need to. The initiative process needs serious reform.Allie Cathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08388778275254352958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750357817175490357.post-77512731874621220932010-11-04T09:54:43.450-07:002010-11-04T09:54:43.450-07:00Prop 13 has significantly reduced the ability to r...Prop 13 has significantly reduced the ability to raise revenues...however, the State has been very clever in other ways. California is one of the highest taxed for personal income. <br /><br />Overall, I think the biggest problem California has is the overall lack of knowledge of the electorate and the probability the masses vote for whoever has the most and "prettiest" ad campaign.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750357817175490357.post-72353581274357070972010-11-04T07:26:41.927-07:002010-11-04T07:26:41.927-07:00I would argue that in a state with 12%+ unemployme...I would argue that in a state with 12%+ unemployment, it's very problematic to raise fees on cars to pay for parks. <br /><br />It's a worthy cause, but the details (and economic context) of how things are paid for matter. A lot of people probably wish they could take a trip to go see the parks right now, but they're probably so concerned about whether or not they'll have a job, whether or not they can pay the rent/mortgage, whether or not they can get health insurance and put food on the table, that they'll be reluctant to add fees to their transportation to pay for them.<br /><br />Parks are nice to have, but in a situation where so many people lack basic necessities I'd say a regressive fee to pay for them might not be as progressive as you suggest.<br /><br />For the record, I think that we have to make driving more expensive for environmental/survival reasons, but in the context of offering real urban design and transportation alternatives and financial support to the people most impacted by the decision.Chewiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06603530339215847111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750357817175490357.post-87553635332232151542010-11-04T07:13:53.655-07:002010-11-04T07:13:53.655-07:00Prop 26 is going to be a disaster for public servi...Prop 26 is going to be a disaster for public services. Anybody who has been watching state politics knows that the ability to raise fees with a majority vote was one of the few things taking the edge off of Prop 13's supermajority tax raising requirement.<br /><br />We need supermajority votes for amending the State Constitution, not for basic budgeting decisions like raising revenue. The dilemma is, if you change the constitution to make it harder to amend, you probably lock in all the crap that we've passed through the initiative constitutional amendment process permanently.Chewiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06603530339215847111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750357817175490357.post-11448185843723267842010-11-03T16:29:20.940-07:002010-11-03T16:29:20.940-07:00And I would agree with you, Anon, had Prop 26 not ...And I would agree with you, Anon, had Prop 26 not also passed with a substantial margin. 26 is ballot-box budgeting the likes of which we haven't seen since Prop 13.Allie Cathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08388778275254352958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750357817175490357.post-56000176989883427172010-11-03T16:26:32.663-07:002010-11-03T16:26:32.663-07:00I think part of the reason Prop 21 went down is be...I think part of the reason Prop 21 went down is because people are finally tired of ballot box budgeting. I for one voted no - not because I think $18 is outrageous to pay for our parks system, but more because the continual addition of referendums mandating revenues to go to a certain cause, greatly limits the flexibility of the Legislature and is (I think) the greatest reason CA is continually in a budget crisis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com