By Alex Lane - And now, our continuing report on the Propositions you’ll be deciding on in the November ballot. Today we’ll discuss Proposition 7, which would require government-owned utilities to generate 20 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2010, 40 percent by 2020 and 50 percent by 2050. Also known as the Solar and Clean Energy Act, it would require all utilities to provide more solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, tidal, and small electric energy. Supporters call Prop 7 a “balanced solution that will reduce the rising costs of energy, limit the dangers of global warming” and lessen the demand for foreign oil. Supporters say that “if utilities fail to meet energy standards, utilities are prohibited from passing on penalty costs to consumers.” Supporters say “Prop 7 is guaranteed never to add more than 3 percent to our electricity bills.” But opponent see Prop 7 as a “deeply flawed” measure backed by an Arizona billionaire. They say that “Prop 7 contains a competition elimination provision shutting smaller renewable energy companies out of California’s market.” Opponents say it undermines the power of local government and vests too much authority in the California Energy Commission to make crucial decisions. On November 4th, you’ll have the opportunity to help decide.

By Alex Lane - And now, our continuing report on the Propositions you’ll be deciding on in the November ballot. Today we’ll discuss Proposition 8, which would change the constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. The California Supreme Court ruled to allow same-sex marriages in May of this year, becoming the third state to do so behind Massachusetts and Connecticut. Supporters, including the California Family Council and the Coalition of African American Pastors, say Prop 8 will “restore the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and human history has understood marriage to be.” They say the ruling to overturn a previous similar amendment was made by “activist judges” and that Prop 8 protects children “from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage.” Proponents say that while “gays have the right to their private lives, they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else.” But opponents argue that “the laws of our land should guarantee the same freedoms and rights to everyone, and no one group should be singled out to be treated differently.” Opponent ‘The Sacramento Bee’, calls this Prop “a stain on history”, saying, “just as an individual’s sexual orientation is not a legitimate basis on which to deny housing or a job, it is not a legitimate basis on which to deny individuals the right to marry.” Opponents say, “The court ruled that the constitution does not allow those who are homosexual the right to marry- just as it decided 60 years ago that the California Constitution does not allow the state to deny individuals of different races the right to marry.” On November 4th, you’ll have the opportunity to help decide.

In a related story, the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, or SNC, has just announced it will give away another 17 million in state grants to approved projects this year. The SNC is a state agency created by bi-partisan legislation and signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2004. The SNC region, which is made up of all or part of 22 counties and over 25 million acres, “is one of the most significant natural and biologically diverse regions in the world” and includes Amador County. According to the group’s website, the SNC “initiates, encourages, and supports efforts that improve the environmental, economic and social well-being of the Sierra Nevada Region, its communities and the citizens of California.” In fiscal year 2007/08, the SNC distributed nearly 17 million dollars to 146 projects throughout the Sierra Nevada, some of which went to Amador County groups. Most of that money came from Prop 84, or the 2006 Safe Drinking Water Bond Act.

An attempt to freeze state elected officials' salaries when California is battling budget deficits got a frosty reception last Wednesday from a Senate committee. The Rules Committee voted 3-1 to reject a constitutional amendment that would bar the Citizens Compensation Commission from handing out raises to the governor, legislators and other state elected officers in any year in which the legislative analyst determines there is a deficit. The measure would also stipulate that the commission has the power to reduce officials' salaries as well as grant raises or impose pay freezes. The author, Senator Abel Maldonado, a Santa Maria Republican, said the amendment was a common sense measure that basically says if the state doesn't have money then we in the Legislature shouldn't take a pay raise. "It's really tying our salaries to the financial health of the state," he said. "Every other business has to evaluate finances before granting raises. I'm asking the same thing for the California Legislature." But Republican Senator Jim Battin said the threat of a pay freeze or pay cut could give legislators the "perverse incentive" to support tax increases to balance the budget. "That is when you get bad action on an incentive that shouldn't be there," he said. Another opponent, Democratic Senator Gil Cedillo of Los Angeles, said the commission considers the state's financial picture in determining whether to grant raises. Not all legislators have outside income to supplement their state salaries, and they can't look forward to getting a state pension when they retire, he said. That benefit was eliminated when California voters approved term limits in 1990.

By Alex Lane - And now, our continuing report on the Propositions you’ll be deciding on in the November ballot. Today we’ll discuss Proposition 11, which would reform how the state draws legislative districts every decade. Lawmakers currently have the power to draw their own districts - a method criticized by many because it can be used to ensure that incumbents are reelected and the status quo is maintained. “There is a serious conflict of interest when legislators are allowed to…divide up neighborhoods and communities to create districts where they are virtually guaranteed reelection,” say the Prop’s supporters. Prop 11 would establish an independent citizen’s commission made up of different political affiliations to draw districts under uniform standards. Supporters of the Prop include the League of Women Voters, the California Taxpayer’s Association and The Sacramento Bee. Supporters say that on the “no side of this measure are politicians, political insiders, and political party elites…who will do and say almost anything to stop change.” But opponents call Prop 11 “another nonsensical scheme” that “undermines democracy” because it gives the “entire state to a 14-member redistricting commission.” Opponents say “Prop 11 doesn’t keep politicians out of redistricting- it just lets them hide behind a tangled web of bureaucrats picked for their political ties.” Opponents, who include the California Federation of Teachers and the Fair Political Practices Commission, believe that because 10 of the 14 commission seats could be “partisan members of the two biggest political parties, infighting will be encouraged and few decisions will be made. On November 4th, you’ll have the opportunity to help decide

By Alex Lane - Amador County District Attorney Todd Riebe sought the Board of Supervisor’s support in his adamant opposition to Prop 5 during Tuesday’s meeting. Riebe has been a vocal opponent of the Proposition, which would expand rehabilitation services for drug offenders in prison, on parole, and in the community. More commonly known as the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act, Riebe has said the title is misleading and attorney’s groups made unsuccessful efforts to have it changed. In his proposal to the Supervisors, Riebe said “Proposition 5 could provide, in effect, a ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ card to defendants charged with crimes such as domestic violence, child abuse, elder abuse, mortgage fraud, identity theft, vehicular manslaughter, insurance fraud and auto theft.” Riebe said criminals would be able to self-regulate drug treatment. In an exclusive Television Interview with TSPN, he said, “You can’t leave it to people who are in the throes of addiction to determine when they’re ready to get serious treatment.” In order to illustrate the Propositions potential hazards, Riebe recalled a warning from a lawyer friend: “(My friend) said that criminal defense attorneys are advising clients to carry a dime bag in their pocket. That way they can say ‘The drugs made me do it’.” The Supervisors unanimously and formally supported Riebe’s position.

The official results are in statewide- California voters on Tuesday rejected Proposition 98 but passed Proposition 99, two eminent domain initiatives that restricted ways the government can take private property. Proposition 98, the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act, would also have banned cities and counties from enacting new rent-control ordinances and would have phased out existing ordinances when current tenants depart. The less-restrictive Proposition 99, the Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act, prohibits government agencies from using eminent domain to take an owner-occupied home and transfer it to a private owner or developer. The proposition also allows homes to be seized to protect public health and safety, deal with criminal activity or in an emergency.

Amador County - In response to the Governor’s State of the State address last week, Senator and Amador County Representative Dave Cox delivered an address outlining “the many challenges” California faces in the immediate future. In his address Thursday, Governor Schwarzenegger pleaded for bipartisanship as the solution to closing the state’s budget hole. There has been a long running stalemate between Democrats and Republicans over how to shore up a $41.5 billion budget deficit. “Conan's sword could not have cleaved our political system in two as cleanly as our own political parties have done," Schwarzenegger said, referring to an action hero he played in Hollywood. "Over time, ours has become a system where rigid ideology has been rewarded and pragmatic compromise has been punished,” he added. The Governor focused almost entirely on ways to fix the budget and bypassed more sentimental celebrations of the State’s past and future. “There are no easy choices…no sacred cows. We must all put our differences aside to resolve this budget crisis,” said Cox in his response. California’s problems are linked to the collapse of the housing market and a national economy in decline. Cox noted that “as the Governor and lawmakers discuss ways to bring the State’s finances back in order, it is important to note that there will be real affects on residents.” He added that “the people of California deserve a government that works together to find common ground and implement solutions that make sense.” Story by Alex Lane (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.).

State - Caltrans announced yesterday that, 15 months after breaking ground on the state’s first Proposition 1B project, work is now complete on the $66 million Interstate 5/Lomas Santa Fe Interchange and Carpool Lane Project in Sacramento. “Today’s milestone represents the type of action California voters asked for when they passed Proposition 1B,” said Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. “Unfortunately, the budget situation in Sacramento threatens to derail progress on other Proposition 1B projects that could otherwise provide sorely needed jobs and stimulate California’s fragile economy,” said Caltrans Director Will Kempton. Citing California’s inability to fund transportation projects due to the state’s budget predicament, the California Transportation Commission, or CTC, yesterday declined to allocate $293.5 million for 27 transportation projects, including $253 million from Proposition 1B, the 2006 voter-approved transportation bond. The Proposition 1B allocations would have gone to seven projects across the state, including $189.6 million to construct a fourth bore of the Caldecott Tunnel in Alameda and Contra Costa counties in the San Francisco Bay Area. When completed, this project will save an estimated 10,000 hours of delay for commuters each day. “Proposition 1B funded projects support thousands of jobs and create improvements to California’s infrastructure that will last for decades,” said Caltrans Director Will Kempton. “Without a budget solution, funding for Proposition 1B projects has come to a standstill. This places needed jobs at stake and could further jeopardize the state’s fragile economy,” he added. The CTC did, however, allocate about $4.5 million for three safety projects with the stipulation that the allocations are contingent on the state's fiscal condition and the ability to fund projects. For information about these three projects and the 27 projects that did not receive funding allocations, visit the web address on your screen. Staff Report (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.).

By Alex Lane - And now, our final report on the Propositions you’ll be seeing on the November ballot. Today we’ll discuss Proposition 12, which “would authorize 900 million in general obligation bonds for veterans to buy homes and farms, extending a program that originally started in 1921. Supporters say Prop 12, or the Cal-Vet Home Loan Program, “enables veterans to obtain low-interest rate (home) loans…without costing the taxpayer one cent.” Supporters say that “all costs of the program, including all administration costs, are paid for by veterans holding loans” and that Prop 12 will “generate thousands of housing industry-related jobs with millions of dollars in annual payroll.” Supporters include the Chairman of the Committee on Veteran Affairs and State Assemblymen. But opponents argue that claims that the program poses no cost to taxpayers are “deceptive.” To finance loans to veterans, California would sell bonds to investors. But since the interest paid to bond holders is tax-free, “state and federal taxpayers end up subsidizing the program and the homes purchased under it,” supporters say. According to the Sacramento Bee, these loans would “leave taxpayers on the hook for some $59 million in annual debt.” Opponents say that as of July of this year, there were “still about 102 million remaining from past bond issues for veterans, so there is no urgent need to pass a new bond issue.” On November 4th, you’ll have the opportunity to help decide.