Tomorrow's Election in California

I asked my friend Jay Chen, all-around SoCal politico and specifically School Board Member, Hacienda La Puente Unified School District, for his take on Proposition 98 and 99, which are being offered to California voters tomorrow. I thought his response was extremely insightful, and with his permission, here it is:

I think propositions are a bad idea in general. Asking voters to
create laws based on five sentence descriptions, with little thought
to cost or funding, is poor policy. It defeats the purpose of
electing legislators who are supposed to be doing this work for us.
It also gives more power to the wealthy interests that can afford to
pay for signature collecting. So if in doubt I say vote no on the
propositions.

99 was created to confuse voters from passing 98. 99 doesn't really
change the status quo. 98 can halt some corruption; sometimes you
have private developers who will donate big bucks to politicians, who
will in turn give them land on the cheap to develop that was acquired
through eminent domain. Big developers do stand to gain quite a bit
from eminent domain, and I think 98 will put a clamp on that. Then
again, the developments they create also benefit their surroundings
through increased tax revenues, enhanced property values, and enhanced
quality of life (usually). So I'm not sure it's always a bad thing
for private developers to benefit from eminent domain because their
developments tend to create more benefits down the line.

As for rent control, I think there need to be some adjustments
housing laws to it to make it easier for landlords to get rid of
really bad tenants, but I wouldn't support the complete eradication of
rent control.

Here are some objective views on the two ballots:

http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2008/98_06_2008.aspx
http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2008/99_06_2008.aspx

If in doubt, just vote no.

**end of transmission**

I particularly agree with Jay's position on propositions in general. I am a better-than-average informed voter, but I certainly don't think I know enough to contribute to decisions on, for example, whether or not to have a bond issue. We're all well aware of the problems with how a bill becomes a law, but at least elected representatives are (ostensibly) informed and educated. Of course, we as a society are disturbingly anti-knowledge and anti-expertise, so I don't suppose we'll be throwing out propositions any time soon.

A "no" vote motivated by skepticism of the process shouldn't be confused with a non-vote coming out of apathy or disgust. A lot of people describe the latter kind of vote as one still having political content. To me, that seems almost definitionally untrue.

Side note: I've learned the perils of moving too fast and posting too much, and that's not what's happening here. So don't get the wrong message; I'm not trying to rush things by posting twice in a day. It's just that this is timely. I will return to the desert/oasis model of posting very soon, don't you worry.