What won’t they say when they don’t get their way? Housing activists wanted RM4’s $20 billion in bonds (which would cost homeowners and renters over $48 billion). After a bipartisan group of concerned citizens pointed out that the measure was misleading, BAHFA pulled it from the ballot. Activists then hurled all sorts of fantastical insults at the group, as if participation in the democratic process were some kind of extremism. Marin Post’s Bob Silvestri writes.
Read MoreCertainly, the climate crisis is real and deserves a considered response. However, Proposition 4 is representative of the failed statewide financial planning characteristic of Newsom's administration, and wastes most of the money that should be made available for a valid priority, says MCC Vice Chair Gregg Dieguez in the excellent Coastside News.
Read MoreLocal contractor T. J. Nelsen expresses his concern that Proposition 5—lowering CA's “infrastructure” tax approval requirement to 55% from 66.6%—removes Bay Area citizens' needed protection measure against corrupt, money-hungry gov'ts. From a newsletter published by the Marin County GOP.
Read MoreOf the many ways to fund a housing project, bonds are the least efficient. Yet RM4 would have saddled Bay Area homeowners with more than $48 billion in taxes to pay off housing bond debt, with little to show for it. In his breakdown of what went wrong, Marin Post’s Bob Silvestri asks if BAHFA considered intelligent housing solutions that cost much less than bonds—developer tax credits, for example, or low-risk private housing debt insurance.
Read MoreWhat to do after blowing a $100 billion surplus? Borrow another $10 billion for the “climate,” it seems. In his commentary for CalMatters, Senator Brian Jones questions the seriousness of the State’s environmental mission, not only when it had the cash on hand, but now when it’s deeply in debt—Prop 4 asks voters to pay for pop-up tents at farmers’ markets and galleries at zoos. Is that worth taking out another high-interest loan?
Read MoreA sexy mailer recently went out to Angelenos, promising them a homeless redo. It didn’t disclose that Measure A adds a half cent sales tax for six LA cities. Special interests must hope this subterfuge can convince a bare majority, because that’s all they need—no more two-thirds supermajority if you call yourself a “citizens’ initiative,” like SF’s 2018 commercial rent tax. If only we had a way to identify a cheater. LA Times’s Doug Smith reports.
Read MoreSan Jose Unified's whopping demand for a $1.15 billion bond next Tuesday gets a big thumbs down from the SJ Mercury editorial board, as the paper cites the excessive size of the bond and serious questions about SJUSD's financial (mis)management. The Merc also criticizes deceptive ballot language regarding bond requests up and down this year's ballot.
Read MoreRM4 fell off the November ballot, so taxpayers dodged a $48 bn asteroid. This time. But if Prop 5 passes, the $50bn boondoggle could make a direct hit. Marin Post’s Bob Silvestri writes.
Read MoreShouting matches at local universities. Vitriolic online rants. Hasty—even angry—dismissal when you try discussing politics with others. Below, Opp Now asked Bay Area political science professors for their exclusive literature rec's on bringing folks together to better their community, in today's age of increasing ideological polarization.
Read MoreNational Review asks a pertinent question as SJ residents consider Measure R: if the most valuable education resources in our schools—teachers—aren’t getting the money, then who is? A lot of it, no surprise, is going toward administrative bloat and surges in non-teaching staff.
Read MoreRemember that '89 movie "Dead Poets Society" (the one with Robin Williams)? Law & Liberty's J. R. Gage has an interesting take on it that's relevant to Silicon Valley voters, especially this election season. He says the true message of the movie is that we have to chart a path between passionate impulses (It's for the kids!) and soulless utilitarianism (Raw majorities rule!).
Read MoreWe're all attuned to the overt ways that local colleges force political ideology (remember when SJSU prof Jonathan Roth was punished for defending himself against an aggressive anti-Israel protester?). But, as Law & Liberty's John Grove indicates, simply promoting “free speech” or manipulating an artificial balance of ideas won't fix things. The Bay Area doesn't need anemically neutral universities—it needs them to “disinterestedly” pursue truth.
Read More
