Opinion
- Details
- Written by: Becky Curry
But buried inside this poorly written proposition are provisions that will cost the state and counties large sums of tax money. Money we don't have. Provisions like mandating unnecessary additional bail hearings for nonviolent crimes. Provisions that increase the standard parole denial period to 15 years up form its current maximum of five years. Provisions that prohibit the early release of prisoners to comply with court-ordered reductions in jail and prison populations. This alone could cost the state untold millions of dollars as we are forced to build new jails and prisons.
Proposition 9 also restricts the Parole Board's flexibility to use nonprison responses when paroles make technical violations of parole when no new crime has been committed.
Worst of all, Proposition 9, as poorly written and unnecessary as some of its provisions may be, can only be changed by a three-fourths vote of both houses of the state Legislature. Normally state statute requires a simple majority vote in both houses. That means if Proposition 9 were to pass it would be virtually impossible to change any part of the law as the needs of the states prison and parole system change in the coming years.
Don't be fooled by law and order get tough shouting, Proposition 9 is bad law and deserves a no vote on Nov. 4.
Becky Curry lives in Kelseyville.
{mos_sb_discuss:4}
- Details
- Written by: Dante DeAmicis
Public access is based on public forum decisions in court cases. The courts take public forums very seriously as vehicles of free expression under the 1st Amendment. Therefore, any citations in support of banning candidates’ forums that are not in the context of public forum law are irrelevant. Please review articles from “Communications Lawyer” and “The Florida Bar Journal” to familiarize yourself with public forum issues.
This could be the end of the matter. However, the day-to-day policies and procedures are also spelled out in the “Community Programming Members Manual.” This manual has guided TV 8 operations for six years. The current edition has been approved by the joint city/county PEG Board, a body Clearlake City Administrator Dale Neiman has deferred responsibility for PEG matters to in the past. Residents who submit content assume full responsibility for their productions.
This manual states in section 3.8 under “Programming Policies”: “Special political programming shall be scheduled for each election, with reasonable guide lines as to time, place, and manner of such programming to be established by the PEG Committee in cooperation with the PEG Manager.”
The Members Manual, now under the authority of the PEG Board, is the operational interface between Lake County residents and the cable franchisers. The city of Clearlake’s ability to take unilateral action is now limited by not only public forum law but by the voluntary agreement with the county. Clearlake’s status as “lead agency” does not mean “only agency.”
It is my position that public forum doctrine and TV8’s own operation guidelines, now ceded to the PEG Board, give Lake County residents the right to cable cast political programs subject only to the regulation allowed for type two fora. They are residents’ productions, not government productions. Allowing residents to use a public forum, such as TV 8, is not subsidizing the activity with government funds.
Putting a ban on legal programming that people are now producing is taking away a free speech resource that residents already have and must be justified by legally established compelling reasons and not convenience or irrational fears.
Dante DeAmicis lives in Clearlake.
{mos_sb_discuss:4}
- Details
- Written by: Evan Willig
Lake County Democratic Party recommends a no vote on Proposition 7, the Renewable Energy Generation Initiative.
California cannot afford to once again jeopardize the economy of our state by accepting a flawed electrical system policy. A portion of your electric bill today goes to pay off the costs that resulted from the ill-conceived deregulation law of the1990s. We cannot afford a repeat of that disaster.
Proposition 7 would mandate California utilities use renewable energy for 50 percent of electrical energy production by 2025.
A 50-percent mandate may well be beyond the ability of power producers, electrical grid operators and utilities to deliver with reasonable prices and reliably. Proposition 7 does not adequately address the size, complexity and cost of the huge infrastructure building program required to achieve its goal. The state has made great strides in increasing the amount of renewable energy, but to force the rate of growth required by Proposition 7 is not in keeping with the concept of a sustainable economy.
Many of the renewable technologies that will come online to meet the energy requirements of the future are still in the very early stages of development and must be given the chance to grow organically. California should move towards a renewable energy future that rewards efficiency, reliability and cost effective delivery of green power.
By locking in a 10-percent price premium and requiring a two-thirds vote to modify, Proposition 7 cannot respond to a renewable energy industry that is experiencing rapid growth and technological innovations. California can and should set far-reaching and aggressive renewable energy goals; but they must be based on a thoughtful and deliberate electrical system policy.
Proposition 7, though well-intended, is the wrong plan for our state. No on Proposition 7.
Evan Willig is vice chair of the Lake County Democratic Central Committee. He lives in Cobb.
{mos_sb_discuss:4}
- Details
- Written by: Patricia An Schmidt
The medical profession is trained with the conviction to heal and save lives. It's almost like "breaking the rules" when the patient becomes terminal and unable to respond to available treatments. I have met and witnessed an oncology doctor emotionally overwhelmed at having to find the words to say, "The tumor started to grow back, and I feel ..." His/her life-saving recommendations "have failed," but not really. Efforts to heal is now over.
I believe to give the patient and the family information they want and need helps define what is necessary to prepare for the final moments of life and the continuing process of living IN grieving for family and friends. Hospice is highly recommended, however, the gray area leading to that decision can be filled by this act (AB 2747). Note: Some people may think hospice is "giving up." It is not. Hospice lays down a foundation of the reality of the dying process wrapped with compassion for the parties involved.
As far as Sen. Sam Aanestad saying, “ ... a humane way to deal with people who are dying." Do we deal with a woman giving birth? The lifecycle starts with birth and continues THROUGH death. This statement may not be understood by some people. A patient deserves the dignity of the living-through-dying process as well as the family, who must survive and must expect to be treated the same way when it's their turn to face this cycle of life. Dignity is the key word.
Patricia An Schmidt lives in Lakeport.
{mos_sb_discuss:4}
How to resolve AdBlock issue?