October 22, 2004

Election 2004

Ballot Recommendations

State Propositions

PROPOSITION 65; Local Government Funds, Revenues, State Mandates

An Initiative Constitutional Amendment

Prop 65 was submitted to the voters in order to protect local revenues that are used to provide essential services. For reasons unknown, Prop 65 was found to be inedecuate and a new Proposal was created by different players which is on the Ballot as Prop 1A.

Now the people who crafted Prop 65 have decided that we should vote No on Prop 65 and Vote Yes on 1A which evidently they think is a better deal for someone. At this point La Prensa San Diego finds that it can’t support neither Prop 1A nor Prop 65. They are both deeply flawed.

Suggest these folks go back to the drawing boards and come back with a new Proposal at the next election. Perhaps what seems like a problem now will turn out not to be the case!

Still we HAVE TO VOTE ON PROP 65 it’s still on the Ballot.


VOTE NO en La Proposición 65

PROP 1A: State Ballot Measure

Proposal 1A: Protection of Local Government Revenues

PROP 1A is a hastily written Constitutional Amendment that is asking you to vote for very significant changes to the Legislature authority over how certain taxes are used by local city leaders. This Proposal would limit the State’s authority/oversight on what taxes are imposed and how the monies are used. Currently the local governments levy taxes on Property, Vehicle License Fees, Local Sales Tax, and other assorted local taxes that can be imposed by the Cities and Counties. These funds can be used for police & fire protection, water, libraries, parks, recreation programs, water, transportation etc. Lately. It seems that our local leaders in public office have not been careful on how they spend the money that is derived from these taxes. San Diego has seen fit to spend major portions of these funds on supporting wealthy sporting enterprises i.e. the Padres, Chargers, financing national political conventions (the last Republican Convention, major corporations are having their water and electric bills paid for them, land has been provided to build their factories...etc. Certainly, very little of what has been done with these public funds would encourage the voters to seek less accountability from the State. In fact, increasing the authority over how these funds are spent would appear to be more in order.

In reviewing PROP 1A, the Editorial Board is stunned by the total lack in the Proposal to protect the State, the Cities and Counties, and residents from overzealous politicians. There are NO FISCAL Accountability regulations in the Proposal! I guess the backers of this Proposal are going to make up the rules as they go along! PROP 1A is a receipt for fiscal disaster! Go back to the drawing board and design a new Proposal that is carefully thought out!


San Diego County Propositions

Prop A: San Diego County Transportation Improvement Program.

At a time when the City and County are practically going bankrupt, along with the State, our very own San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), perhaps fearing that the Nation will soon be bankrupt, is asking the voters to extend the San Diego County “Transportation Improvement Program and Expenditure Plan” 4 years, even before the current plan expires! They want you to impose a transaction and use tax of ½ percent in the “incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County of San Diego! This tax is to remain in place for 40 years! Prop A will be a 14 Billion slush fund in the pockets of the Developers, Road Builders, Bankers, and the Automobile industry and SANDAG, who will see this TransNet spending as a go-ahead signal to pave over more and more of our limited open space.

SANDAG state that those funds will be used for improvements of transportation facilities and services and related environmental mitigation. Talking about a boondoggle! These folks at SANDAG are attempting to pull of the biggest rip off in history! The interest on the proposed Bond sale to finance this Proposition will more than double the cost for this Bond Proposal. Sorry folks by the time this program is overwith,this Editor will long be dead as will be most of the readers of this edition of La Prensa San Diego. Guess who will be stuck with trying to pay off this foolish proposal from SANDAG? You got it ...The legions of the yet unborn children of the City and County of San Diego.

VOTE NO on Prop A!

City of San Diego Proposals

Prop D Amends the Charter of San Diego to provide that the people have the right of access to information concerning how they conduct the people’s business.

The San Diego City Council has abused the privilege of going into closed sessions as a means of keeping the people in the dark of what they are doing. Perhaps, if Prop D would have been in place, the City wouldn’t have gone into secret negotiations with the Padres and Chargers organizations were in they arranged to finance the sporting teams, to the detriment of other more pressing needs for the public funds that were squandered. The current Mayor and City Councilman have continued the past practice of conducting the publics/city’ business in closed session to keep the people in the dark of what they are doing. If you can’t conduct the City’s business in open session perhaps you shouldn’t do it at all!

La Prensa San Diego SUPPORTS PROP D

Vote YES on PROP D

Prop E Would Amend the Charter of the City to provide independent Legal Counsel to the Ethics Commission.

The Ethics Commission finds itself in a tough position when it is investigating City Officials on Ethics violations. The City Attorney is required to defend many of these folks. The Ethics Commission is in a tough situation as they are dependent on the City Attorney for legal advise at the same time, he may have to defend them against the accusations of the Ethic Commission. It’s best if the Ethics Commission has its own legal advisor. Who knows, they may have a problem in case the City Attorney is the subject of an Ethics investigation.

La Prensa San Diego Supports Prop E


Prop F Amends the Charter to Provide for A Strong Mayor form of Governance.

The question being asked is: Shall we change from the City Manager form of government, as we have at present, or shall we change it to a strong Mayor form of Government for a 5 year trial?

It is a strange moment of time to raise the issue over the type and form of governance that we have. Without question, San Diego has been going through some very troubling periods of time. Unquestionably, the current leadership that San Diego has been straddled with, has left much to be desired. It is difficult to believe that placing all power in a Mayor would solve all the manifold problems that the City is confronted with. Unfortunately, there are no defining requirements to require of those desiring to hold the top post of the City. Should they be college educated? Should he have majored in administration of a major City? What prior experience should he have?

Truthfully, we in this country have absolutely no idea of the preparation one should have to be a top administrator or leader of a City. Of course, it must be said, that for the office of the Presidency any idiot that is of a certain age can run for President. And, we have had and have some flakes as President. Perhaps, it is best we have “professional Administrators “ to run the City! Oops, that’s what we have isn’t it?

What we need to do is figure out what to do with elected officials, who really have no real job, except to make the electorate feel good over the job the City Manager can do when he is left alone to do it!

Now is not the time to change from a weak Mayor to Strong Mayor (We have a real good weak Mayor). Perhaps, we should figure out how to make the City Manager a stronger position and place the Mayor and City Council in charge of ribbon cutting ceremonies and kissing babies at local Fiestas and Fairs.

For the good of the community please:


County of San Diego


Shall this Initiative be adopted for the purpose of preventing the future construction of the Gregory Canyon Landfill and Recycling Collection Center by repealing the 1994 voter approved Gregory Canyon Ordinance?

There is only one reason why PROP B is included in this Election: MONEY! The original Ordinance authorizing the construction of the Gregory Canyon Landfill Ordinance was well covered, vetted, discussed, analyzed and finally passed in 1994. All concerns were mitigated. So, why now has a new group of concerned citizens risen to try and stop the project? Where were they in 1994? Or more to the point, who is here now that was not concerned in 1994? The Indians and their gambling casinos are now here adjacent to the proposed landfill!

Money, lots of money is now in play. The Pala Pauma gambling Casino is off Route 76, as is the proposed Landfill. The problem is that the Indian Leaders feel that the use of Route 76 by the Dump Trucks are going to interfere with the automobiles & busses who are going to gamble! Having a place to expand the capability to handle trash disposal is not easy to come by. Gambling is entertainment even though it is a costly way to be entertained.

The pretext that the land fill will contaminate the water supply is a spurious argument fueled by mucho dinero from the gambling tycoons. Congested highways are a way of life in San Diego County. Indian as well as all others learn to adjust and live with it. Having waste disposal sites is a more urgent societal problem than providing gambling for some very bored patrons.

The Gambling Tribesmen have learned how easy it is to bribe our elected officials...It’s easy. I would suggest that in the long run it will not get our Indian Brothers the respect that they so much deserve. We suggest the Voters vote No on Prop B. We are dangerously low on places to get rid of the tons of trash that we generate in modern America.

Water to drink is also important. We have the whole Pacific Ocean to make drinking water for human consumption. Just ask any sailor. They will tell you how easy it is to make fresh water out of the ocean. There must not be sufficient profit in it, as in gambling.


¡Vote Contra la Proposición B!

Letters to the Editor Return to the Frontpage