The despair of highly motivated voters

I’m what’s called a "highly motivated" voter.  Most of the people I hang out with are highly motivated voters.  We vote in every election.  

And I try to be informed.  I read and re-read the ballot initiatives… investigate and double-check the small print… pay attention to which group endorses which measure.  Sometimes, I gather friends and neighbors to comb through the ballot.  But let’s be honest: it still feels like a crapshoot.

The initiative process gives us regular citizens the option of by-passing our elected representatives (whenever deemed necessary) and taking matters into our own hands to make laws on our own.  It's a romanticized notion of vigorous direct democracy.

Wanna hear a dirty secret?  Ballot propositions are never clear-cut, transparent, or exempt from unintended consequences.  They demand value judgments – the same as all political actions. 

Wanna hear another dirty secret?  Ballot propositions have been known to send “highly motivated” voters into paroxysms of anxiety and guilt as they try to figure out the right answers to what are often trick or tricky questions. 

With 11 state proposals, 4 county measures, and 9 city initiatives on San Diego's current November ballot does it surprise anyone that “low propensity” voters (Latinos, Asian-Americans, African-Americans, ages 18-30, and low-income residents – statistically speaking) would rather skip the whole thing?  Haven’t you ever been tempted?

Here’s my attempt to ease the pain for voters who'll be giving it their best shot at their neighborhood polling places this Tuesday.  First, a few points to keep in mind when deciding your vote: 

1. Sometimes elected state, county, or city lawmakers put items on the ballot when they want to sidestep responsibility.
2. Often, powerful interest groups (with cash to burn) turn the initiative process to their own advantage.  With a multi-million dollar professional signature-gathering syndicate at their fingertips, private players can secure a place on the ballot for almost any one of their measures.  
3. Occasionally, community or nonprofit groups successfully turn to the initiative or referendum to assert public interests.
4. Maybe one day some reputable, civic-minded citizen groups will put their heads together and come up with workable ideas for repairing the initiative/referendum process. 

Now for a look at the State Propositions:

• Propositions 1 and 2 are bond measures which (like all bond measures) require a vote of the public.  Both deal with special housing assistance needs and both seem deserving.
• Props 3 and 4 are also bond measures.  Both found their way to the ballot through signature-raising petitions.  Prop 3 focuses on repairing groundwater infrastructure over-used by central valley agricultural interests and probably should be financed locally rather than statewide.  Prop 4 funds private and public childrens hospitals – a worthy cause, of course – but fundraising goals might readily be met through private endowments rather than long-term public debt.  

• Props 5 and 6 were put on the ballot by private interests.  Prop 5 involves preferential property taxes and Prop 6 involves gas taxes. Both would undo important provisions in previous initiatives and both are unwise.  

• Prop 7 gives the go-ahead to state lawmakers to fiddle with daylight savings time.  It's a popularity poll but why exhaust voters with yet another proposition to wrestle with?

• Prop 8 is a labor dispute involving dialysis clinics that asks voters to butt in on one side or the other.  Vote No on items that don’t belong on the ballot in the first place.

• (Prop 9 was mercifully removed from the ballot)

• Prop 10 is the rare case of a worthy measure placed on the ballot by public-interest signature gatherers.  It gives cities the right to set their own policies and laws concerning upwardly-spiraling rents.  I say Yes.

• Prop 11 (like Prop 8) is a labor dispute, placed on the ballot by private ambulance companies to get the public to intercede on their behalf on money issues.  It doesn’t belong on the ballot and gets a No vote from me.

• Prop 12 returns to an issue involving the humane treatment of farm animals that voters already considered in 2008.  The Humane Society and other groups put this initiative on the ballot to tighten and enforce standards and restrictions.  The inflexible nature of propositions is a good reason why some dilemmas should not be legislated and controlled through the initiative process.  Rule of thumb: when in doubt… vote No.

Now for a look at the County Propositions:

• Measure A is a “clean-up” Charter amendment that looks fine to me.

• Measure B is a bit sinister.  It would require gerrymandering county district lines to ensure that a majority of Supervisors will have a personal stake in the County’s rural back-country (perennially under pressure for denser development).   No, not a good idea.      

• Measure C wants voters to assume the role of fiscal taskmasters and put County pension stabilization funds in a lockbox.  yes? no? no? yes?  When in doubt… I vote No.

• Measure D brings standard voting practices to the County by requiring a runoff by the two top winners in a primary election to run again in the general election.  Fine with me.

Finally, San Diego City Propositions:

• Measures E and G are competing proposals to develop a huge chunk of city-owned property in Mission Valley at the site of (the former) Qualcomm Stadium.  Both are big on shiny promises but shockingly short on guarantees of what we’d end up with.  Land use planning by initiative, and surely on this scale, should be outlawed (if only…).  A hearty No on both of them.

• Measures J, K, L, and M are charter amendments that (with varying degrees of enthusiasm) deserve voter approval. 

• Measure N amends the municipal code (city's book of laws) to reinstate certain benefits to police officers.  It’s fine.

Oops… almost forgot the SD Unified School District:

• Measure H is a screwy response to a set of needed reforms that were recently recommended to – but ignored by – the San Diego School Board.  So this one is a No.

• Measure YY is the 3^rd and largest bond measure to be put to the voters in the past 10 years (previous measures were voter-approved).  Because of their high repayment costs, 30-year bonds should be reserved for durable capital improvement projects.  Long-term bond borrowing should not be used for routine acquisitions and day-to-day maintenance purposes.  Truth is, I have never turned down a school bond measure.  This may be my first.

And that's it.  Congratulations for hanging in there.  The rest of the day is all yours. 

Puny leadership: the San Diego conundrum

I was out for a mindful walk the other morning.  Here's how I once described it: you put one foot in front of the other while you notice what's around you.  First you notice... then you let it go.  Notice… let it go… notice…

Walking through the parking lot of my local Vons I noticed a small card table near the store entrance and, behind it, a (paid) signature gatherer.  Sign this for a new soccer stadium? he asked, offering me a pen.  

I smiled no.  I let it go… went inside… bought three pears plus a squeeze bottle of chocolate syrup (good for any emergency)… emerged from the store… noticed a nice-looking man at the card table talking to the signature gatherer.  

In his left hand he hefted a voluminous ballot proposal (weighed more than a sack of potatoes) to Replace-Qualcomm-Stadium-in-Mission-Valley-With-a-SoccerCity.   He was smiling and shaking the signature gatherer's hand while a nice-looking woman snapped a photo.  

Mindful walking puts me in a genial mood.  Don't tell me you've read the entire backup report! I kidded. Well, he said, still smiling… most of it.

I noticed the sign-in sheet on the table.  At the bottom of a short list of signatures it read: Michael Stone.  Could this be the founder of FS Investors, the promoter of the ballot proposal in question? I meditated on that for a moment.  Let it go?... I couldn't...

Oh, I know who you are, I said.   Your map museum is fantastic.  I just love it.   But I sure don't love your ballot initiative. 

Why not? he asked, maintaining a genial face.  Nothing's perfect… it's better than a huge parking lot... do you have a better suggestion for what to put there?  

It's not that I haven't given a lot of thought to Mission Valley.  It's not that I haven't noticed how we transformed a green riverbed into a noxious, exhaust-laden slapdash of strip-malls, dowdy motels, and cookie-cutter condos – a poster child for neo-blight and terminal urban uglification.  

So what's one more nail in its coffin?  Why not let it go?  One of these days it'll be developer Mike Stone or it'll be one of the others (take your pick: Doug Manchester, John Moores, Tom Sudberry, the Fentons, Oliver McMillin...) wearing a big, fat, satiated smile.

Here's the sentiment I conveyed to the genial fellow smiling at me in front of Vons: no matter the pros and cons, no matter my personal preferences, no matter how you look at it ­– the latest rage of using ballot initiatives for the purpose of city planning and large-scale urban, suburban, and rural development is a pernicious and destructive pursuit.  He shrugged. What else can you do in a city like ours? It was a rhetorical question.

I shook hands with my new acquaintance and went back to my mindful walk.  I tried…  I tried… but I couldn't let it go.  

Is he right? that the only thing you can you do in a city like ours (insider code for puny leadership and nasty NIMBY neighborhoods) is to take matters into your own well-connected, wealth-laden hands and finance a ballot initiative that trashes dependable environmental review, deceives the voters, and blithely ignores the public interest?

It could be that the guy is halfway right.  Puny leadership is a standard staple in a city like ours.

About a week ago I commented on how close our hometown elected officials are to us constituents.  And I noticed that these individuals are not equipped to resolve many of the city's complex problems.  Despite neighborhood planning workshops on local projects, despite city council hearings about city-wide problems, despite appointed committees doing technical work, despite nonprofits and volunteer agencies picking up the slack, despite the mayor's scripted platitudes – we're still left trying to penetrate a sea of silence and blank stares.  

After last Monday's marathon homelessness council session we're still dangling.  Who's in charge? Who's responsible? Who's answerable? Who's identifiable?  Who's voice can we count on?  Who will move our city beyond bandaids?  Where does the buck stop?  Does that sainted buck even exist? 

As for the billion dollar question about Mission Valley/ Qualcomm Stadium – shouldn't mindful planning for the future of our city be in the hands of responsible, sturdy professionals in a reconstituted San Diego Planning Department?  Shouldn't the city have a responsible, sturdy, professional Planning Director and City Architect?  Shouldn't the public and our elected officials have access to independent, informed, realistic, and exciting options for our city's future growth and development that could benefit all San Diegans?

I've come to a mindful understanding: the elite group of private profiteers, downtown interests, land developers, hoteliers, and the legal and financial services that serve them don't ever intend to relinquish their controlling iron grip on the city of San Diego.  It seems they feel genuinely entitled to run the show.   

Furthermore, they're perfectly right about San Diego's puny leadership.  But for them it's a golden opportunity that yields lucrative benefits and they're adept at eliminating elected officials who dare to flex their muscles.  For those of us on the public side of the fence, puny leadership is a brick wall, a dead end.

They're also right about the nasty NIMBY.  For them, community voices impede private wealth accumulation.  For the rest of us it's one of the few strengths our neighborhoods possess.  It's a defense that isn't easily snookered by genial, fast-talking faces.  

So I'm sure you know what to do when they try to hand you a pen.  Notice… and let it go.

Ballot on steroids: the burden of direct democracy

Still haven't tackled those 31 propositions on your bloated November ballot?  I counted 17 state, 2 county, and 12 city proposals on my sample ballot – enough to drive anyone nuts. 

If you've been beating up on yourself for procrastinating  – STOP!  You are not the problem.  The problem is the way we're overusing and abusing the supercharged, direct-democracy ballot tools we call the initiative and the referendum.  

Yes, let's debate the value of representative democracy versus direct democracy.  And weigh the pros and cons of ballot-box planning.  Let's juggle reform options for the signature-gathering process.  And agonize over how to finance ballot initiatives and candidates.  But let's save it for another day.

Today, let's get down to business, starting with some facts about ballot propositions:

• Ballot propositions are an exercise in direct voter control over the political process (call it direct democracy or government by petition).
• Ballot propositions deal with laws and statutes – legislative matters.  Once a ballot measure is approved by voters, elected representatives cannot make even minor adjustments or modifications to it, much less rescind it (not even when changes are clearly needed) unless language in the proposition explicitly permits legislative changes.
• Ballot propositions involve complex issues.  But during the campaign season they're invariably reduced to superficial sloganeering and misleading advertising.  
• Ballot propositions are often opaque and deceptive, which makes it crucial for voters to be aware of who was responsible for putting a particular proposition on the ballot.  Look long and hard to identify the one(s) behind the curtain.  It'll be more of an eye-opener than relying on lists of supporters and opponents. 

Ballot propositions come in two forms: the initiative (for creating new law) and the referendum (for confirming a legislative act or reversing a recently adopted law).

Here are 6 ways that ballot propositions (initiatives and referenda) find their way onto the ballot:

1. Registered voters can put a proposition on the ballot to initiate a new law or bond measure by submitting a written petition and a specified number of valid signatures. The term "registered voters" includes well-financed business groups, corporate entities, or your neighbors down the street.  On your ballot it's called an Initiative Statute.  (Measures B, C, D and State Propositions 51, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 are Initiative Statutes.)
2. Registered voters can place a proposition on the ballot to initiate an amendment to the state constitution/municipal charter by submitting a petition and a specified number of valid signatures.  This is called an Initiative Constitutional Amendment.  (State Propositions 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 are Initiative Constitutional Amendments.)
3. Registered voters can place a proposition on the ballot to nullify a law (or portion of a law) recently passed by state, county, or local legislators by submitting a petition and requisite signatures.  This is called a Referendum or "People's Veto."  A People's Veto can be put on the ballot by corporate, development, or large business interests as well as by community activists.
4. State, county, and city lawmakers can place a measure on the ballot to amend the state constitution/municipal charter, to propose tax and bond measures, or to amend a previous initiative.  These types of measures must, by law, be put to the voters for approval. This is called a Mandatory Referendum.  (Local Measures A, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, and N are Mandatory Referenda.)
5. State, county, and city lawmakers can place a measure on the ballot that transfers approval of a particular piece of legislation directly to voters.  This would be called a Legislative Referendum. (State proposition 67 is a Legislative Referendum).
6. State, county, and city lawmakers can place a measure on the ballot as a symbolic gesture that does not create binding law.  This would be an Advisory Referendum.  (State Proposition 59 is an Advisory Legislative Referendum.)

Okay fellow procrastinators, it's decision time.  Here's how I went about it:

First, I did a sniff test on each ballot proposition with questions like: Does a particular issue have too many moving parts? Could it have been resolved by our lawmakers without turning it into a ballot measure? Who is the main beneficiary?  Does it even belong on the ballot? Do I understand what it says or does it confuse the heck out of me? Is this a rat I smell?

Then I drew a big black dot in the NO oval next to the local propositions that failed the sniff test.  

The first to bite the dust was Measure B (Lilac Ranch: developer-driven ballot-box planning), then Measure C (Chargers Stadium: football planning fiasco), then Measure D (Cory Briggs-Donna Frye-John Moores: unsustainable packaging of numerous disparate issues). 

Then there are the 8 City Charter amendments that were put on the ballot by the City Council under the pretext of "it's only a cleanup."  The City Council and City Attorney made substantive changes to the City Charter without the benefit of a Citizens Charter Review Commission for ensuring balanced community input, analysis, and recommendations – an unacceptable way for city officials to do the public's business.  

There's more mischief here than meets the eye, which is why I marked NO on Measures E, F, G, H, J, K, L (a public Citizens Commission is the democratic way to go to when initiating changes to the city charter).

But I have a confession to make: I'm not as pure and ruthless as I sound.  I did mark YES on Measure I (to retain San Diego High School location at the edge of Balboa Park).

Finally, I marked a reluctant YES on Measure A (SANDAG  traffic/road/transit tax: transit also needs road work), YES on Measure M (Affordable Housing Limits) and NO to Measure N (Recreational Marijuana Business Tax: unwieldy, unworkable, unenforceable).

The 17 State Propositions also have us trapped by the shorthairs.  Only a few passed the sniff test.

Big fat dots in the NO ovals went to Prop 51 (school bonds: ignores equity issues),  Prop 53 (revenue bond approval: backhanded approach to block 2 particular projects re. water and rail), Prop 54 (legislative bill approval: undercuts open government with dubious regulations), Prop 60 (condom use: no way does this belong on the ballot), Prop 61 (state prescription drug purchases: benefits the creator of the measure, not the general public - Bernie Sanders didn't do his homework before backing this one), Prop 64 (marijuana legalization: creating this particular  industry belongs in the hands of legislators, not a popularity contest), and Prop 65 (charges for carryout bags: would eliminate plastic bag ban if 65 wins over Prop 67).

And just to prove I know how to say yes, I marked YES on Prop 52 (MediCal funding fees), Prop 55 (income tax increase on $250K individuals), Prop 56 (cigarette tax increase), Prop 57 (sentencing reform), Prop 58 (Bilingual education option), Prop 59 (advisory vote on political spending: sends a clear message that we oppose Citizens United), Prop 62 (death penalty repeal), Prop 63 (background checks for purchase of ammunition), and Prop 67 (plastic bag ban: affirms state legislation to ban single use plastic bags).

That's it.  Congratulations for hanging in there.  The rest of the day is all yours.