Tim Cavanaugh | June 6, 2006
Continuing my full disclosure campaign, here is how I voted on June 6, 2006. Click links to see the full ballot offerings. I was voting on the Libertarian ticket; otherwise there would have been more write-ins:
Governor
Lawrence Olivier, deceased actor
Lieutenant Governor
Lynnette Shaw, caregiver/musician
Secretary of State
Gail K. Lightfoot, retired nurse
Controller
Rafael, painter/ninja turtle
Treasurer
Marian Smithson, city treasurer/CPA
Attorney General
Kenneth A. Weissman, attorney at law
Insurance Commissioner
Dale F. Ogden, actuary/insurance consultant
State Board of Equalization; District 1
Kennita Watson, retired quality engineer
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Diane A. Lenning, educator/author/businessowner
Member
of the State Assembly
Starchild, journalist/performance artist
United States Senator
Michael S. Metti, parent/educator/businessman
United States Representative
Doktor Zumf, psychoanalyst, childcare expert
Superior
Court Judge; County of San Francisco; Seat 8
Lillian K. Sing, judge
Proposition 81. California Reading and Literacy
Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act
of 2006 -- State of California (Bond Issue - Majority Approval
Required)
Shall the state sell $600 million in bonds to provide grants to
local agencies for the construction, renovation, and/or expansion
of local library facilities?
No
Proposition 82. Preschool Education.
Tax on Incomes Over $400,000 for Individuals; $800,000 for Couples
-- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment and
Statute - Majority Approval Required)
Should the California Constitution and state law be amended to
create and support a new, publicly funded, voluntary preschool
program for children to attend in the year prior to kindergarten,
to be funded by an increase in personal income tax rates for high
income individuals?
No
Proposition A. Additional Funding for Homicide
Prevention Services -- City and County of San Francisco (Charter
Amendment - Majority Approval Required -- 50%+1)
Shall the City allocate an additional $10 million primarily
from the City's General Fund for each of the next three fiscal
years for violence prevention and intervention services, establish
a Homicide Prevention Planning Council to develop and annually
revise a Homicide Prevention Plan, and create a Survivors' Advocate
and a Survivors' Fund in the Office of the District
Attorney?
No
Proposition B. Eviction Disclosure Ordinance -- City and
County of San Francisco (Ordinance - Majority Approval Required --
50% + 1)
Shall the City change its laws to require landlords who offer
to sell buildings of two or more residential units to disclose to
all potential buyers the specific legal grounds for any evictions
that result in vacant units at the time of sale and whether the
evicted tenants were elderly or disabled?
Yes
Proposition C. Appointing Elected Officials to the
Transbay Joint Powers Authority -- City and County of San Francisco
(Ordinance - Majority Approval Required -- 50% + 1)
Shall the City change the appointment process for the City's
three representatives to the Transbay Joint Powers Authority by
specifically designating the Mayor and two members of the Board of
Supervisors to represent the City?
No
Proposition D. Zoning Changes to Limit Services at
Laguna Honda Hospital and Other Residential Health Care Facilities
-- City and County of San Francisco (Ordinance - Majority Approval
Required -- 50% + 1)
Shall the City amend the Planning Code to create the "Laguna
Honda Hospital Special Use District" that includes the site of
Laguna Honda Hospital, limit the patients who can receive services
at Laguna Honda Hospital and certain other residential health care
facilities, and allow both publicly and privately-owned residential
health care facilities in "public" districts throughout San
Francisco?
No
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
Controller
Rafael, painter/ninja turtle
Tim, I think most non-California-based HnR readers will some help
with this one:
The lone LP primary candidate for State Controller was an
accountant by the name of Donna Tello.
So it appears that Tim wrote in Rafael, as some kind of sophomoric
joke, and apparently in complete ignorance of Ms. Tello's sweet
bo-staff skills.
Hey Tim,
We're all still on the lookout for affordable real estate for you
down here in Los Angeles. So far we've managed to find some places
in Pico Union, Van Nuys, Santa Ana and Huntington Park. Consider
this: they are all VERY libertarian areas!
For example, the wholesale lack of zoning enforcement means you'll
have a few thousand extra individuals living in the houses on your
block. And that's what libertarianism is all about anyway, the
individual, right?
In addition, I hear you get a great listen to the local musical
tastes coming through your window at night too in most of these
neighborhoods -- for free!
Heck -- you can even walk out in the morning and sample the local
culinary fare straight off an unlicensed food cart.
And if you get sick from such a meal, there are plenty of
shamanistic rural folk healers transplanted from their indigenous
villages to help you heal.
Furthermore ... if you get laid off from your job while you
recuperate, don't fear! You can simply accompany several dozen of
your neighbors down to the local hardware store parking lot where
they will help you find plenty of untaxed and unregulated
work.
In between customers, you'll have the afternoons to while away,
catching up on the finer points of libertarian philosophy while you
put it into practice.
Yeah, the pay might be a little low for some of these gigs and the
conditions harsh, but we all know that you're such a sincere
libertartian that you'll make the sacrifice and make the move down
here to one of these neighborhoods.
Well, take care -- we look forward to seeing you join this latest
"historic migration," Mr. Cavanaugh. You should have no problem
making the trip. In the finest tradition of libertarianism, just
hitch a ride with one of the many thousand unlicensed, uninsured
drivers in our community.
Can't wait 'til the housewarming!
Almost perfect on the propositions.
With very few exceptions, my first thought with propositions is: If
this is such a freakin' good idea why hasn't the legislature done
it already? I suppose it's not exactly going to be %100 percent, as
there really is some stuff those losers won't touch. (For instance,
I wonder how an honest-to-god state legalization of weed would do
as a proposition)
You know, when I stop to think about it, I like S.F. proposition B,
hopefully it'll reduce demand for and prices of real estate owned
by the unscrupulous. Since I don't like old people, maybe I can get
a deal! :)
While I was living in Oakland (around 2 years ago), a prop passed to make it illegal to evict a tenant who was elderly or disabled (I can't exactly recall the details). Surprising that SF still allows these evictions for big time landlords who own -gasp- duplexes! At least they'll have to disclose what heartless bastards they are to potential buyers.
I voted no for all of the props. Why did you vote yes on B,
Tim?
As a decline to state kind of guy, I got to choose between a few
different primary ballots. I chose the Dems, so I could vote
against Angelides. I've hated that guy for years!
looks like meathead's prop went down in flames by 60% -- same with the library bonds issue -- w00t! Glad I voted twice.
And in November we could end up with some Austrian as Gov. Tom McClintock as Lt. Gov. and Gerry Brown as Attorney General -- I'd like to attend those staff meetings...
I fulfilled a life-long ambition today when I had the chance to
vote for RICHARD NIXON!
http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/06/06/ca/la/race/01030000/
Unfortunately, it looks like he's lost Judge-Superior Court to the
(I assume) telegenic Davian L. Mitchell. Won't have, kick around,
etc., etc...
"I had the chance to vote for RICHARD NIXON!"
From his e-mail address ("pres37th@aol.com") I would say that he at
least has a sense of humor about the name.
Got it, Tim.
It's not like it'll cost the taxpayers any money. I just thought it
was an unfair burden to place on property owners. If we as a
society are concerned with the well-being of the elderly and
disabled, then I think that we should share the burden of caring
for them. We should not place that burden on individual property
owners. Nonetheless, this prop shouldn't be a very large
burden.
I do know of one couple here in SF that wouldn't buy a building
because it would have resulted in the eviction of an immigrant
family. I suppose the possible cost of this regulation is slightly
lowered selling prices for the affected properties.
I stumbled upon this during an internet curiousity search today,
and I do have to say... I smiled.
~Donna Tello
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245