You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Measure T’ tag.
I can’t criticize this year’s list, several of which have direct bearing on Sohum. There are some other stories which maybe should have been in the top 10, but I don’t know which stories could have been replaced.
My suggestions would include:
1. The Reggae War settlement – despite extensive coverage throughout the now two-year-old battle (although some would argue it began years before that), when the settlement came it didn’t go out in the media with so much as a wimper. You would have expected the papers to have trumpeted the settlement with a detailed list of the provisions. Bob reported it on his blog when it happened, but I never saw any follow-up by anybody in the media about the details until recently when the payments came due unpaid. Mostly the terms trickled out through rumors and anonymous postings on this blog, and I’m still not sure I know all of them. People keep asking me to comment on the settlement, what it means, and whether it’s fair. But I’ve never seen enough of it to make any reasonable assessment.
2. The overturning of Measure T – Passed by a healthy majority (which did not include me), Humboldt County’s effort to prohibit extra-county corporate campaign donations and perhaps establish a precedent against what has been termed “corporate personhood” was defeated in court with what some have argued was a lackluster effort at defending the law from the county legal team. What’s interesting is that the county went through several elections before anybody filed a challenge. In this instance the republican aspect of the political system triumphed over the democratic, for better or worse, and local campaign finance reform folk are back at the drawing board.
3. The political near-stalement in Eureka continues – despite a very blue electorate, the City of Eureka continues to elect Republicans, while tossing in an occassional progressive to maintain that constant 3 to 2 conservative majority. “Stalemate” is probably not the best word because one side does retain a distinct advantage, and it’s not unreasonable to interpret the results in two city council elections thus far as a cautious mandate for some version of the Marina Center proposal. The question is whether it is a mandate for Home Depot or another big box. Oddly enough, the one progressive candidate who expressed any support for the Marina Center Proposal, George Clark, was defeated handily. Sectarian politics on the left may also be a factor, as the progressive candidates in Eureka have refused assistance from Local Solutions, which has had great success elsewhere (constituting a very important part of the prevailing coalition down here in the Second District). A couple of years ago there was a serious falling out between certain very dynamic individuals, and some of the original group split off to engage their own efforts on behalf of local progressive causes. The groups haven’t yet found a way to get along at arm’s reach in order to pool resources and opportunities. Other factors are also at play, including Frank Jager’s popularity notwithstanding politics. Personally however, I believe it’s time for a summit of Eureka progressives, and a peace accord.
4. The backlash against diesel – Maybe a story with more local implications rather than countywide, but recent events and overwhelming concerns about the future have brought the issue to the forefront and it is an issue getting serious attention from both community and agency. The subject is touched upon in the NCJ’s list in the “pot backlash” story, but I think the story stands out on its own.
5. Gallegos defeats – Several of Paul Gallegos’ cases have gone sour, including the Pacific Lumber case and the case against the EPD officers around the Cheri Moore killing. It led to several angry editorials suggesting that the lawsuits were a waste of time and that resources are being diverted away from basic prosecution needs to support a political agenda. I do view this as an oversimplification. Everybody loves a winner, and if he had prevailed on those cases Gallegos would not be under fire for the “diversion” of resources, at least not from the mainstream of Humboldt County politics. We’ll have to wait until 2010 to see how the policies play out politically, and maybe someone can put together some empirical rather than purely anecdotal evidence one way or another as to whether the more mundane prosecutions are getting adequate and competent attention.
6. General Plan Update – It was a major issue in the Second District election this year. But it can be saved as a “top 10 story” until next year when, hopefully, it will be completed.
Any other stories to suggest?
Enforcement of Measure T has been stayed. I haven’t read the decision, but you can read the documents at the Pacific Legal Foundation website. The NCJ blog has a post with links as well.
Kevin Hoover asked the question last week. Apparently the California Dental Association donated 5 grand to the fluoride cause in Arcata. Measure T (not sure what ordinance number it was given) reads in pertinent part as follows:
Section 7. Statement of Law.The Prohibitions in Section Five shall apply to all municipalities, districts and special districts in which the jurisdictions are located wholly within the geographical boundaries of Humboldt County, California.
Now, as to whether this provision is enforceable, I can’t say.
…..
Also on the fluoride issue, a friend of mine was on my case the other night as we were waiting in the check line based on my comments in favor of fluoridation and against Measure W on my last radio show. A very nice woman in front of us chimed in to differentiate between “calcium fluoride” which she says is found in food naturally, and “sodium fluoride” which she said is a waste product of aluminum and dangerous for all the reasons stated by opponents. So I just looked it up on Wikipedia and apparently Naf isn’t used in most fluoridization processes anymore, although it is added to toothpaste. The entry for calcium fluoride makes no mention of the controversy. The entry for fluoride in general has a little information, but not much.
Found an interesting fluoride history here. I’m trying to find some impartial analysis.
Also, I’d like links to any studies of 1. dental benefits and 2. health detriments.
Thanx to Kevin Hoover for including my piece against T in this week’s edition. Didn’t realize how long winded I was until I saw that it took up half a page.
And hey, he plugged this blog as well. The villagers may be on their way with torches and pitch forks!
A good part of me was relieved that Measure T passed last night. My worst nightmare was that Measure T would fail by just a few votes and figuring that maybe I’d swayed one or two people, I’d wake up with Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap’s fingers wrapped around my throat.
I have odd anxiety dreams actually. Before the Bar Exam I dreamt that they had incorporated linear algebra into the exam and everybody but me knew about it. Even worse, during our second adoption process I dreamt that the agency notified us that they were out of children and tried to persuade us to accept a penguin instead. So I imagine if I’d dreamt the above somehow after today’s Eureka Reporter photo gaff, my dream Belknap would probably transform into Bonnie Neely, then Michelle Malkin.
Like I said, my mind goes into weird places sometimes, and the randomness of my dreams tend to undermine in my eyes any Jungian notion of universal symbols or the collective unconscious.
Yes, as a matter of fact I do need some sleep.
According to KHUM, with 83% counted, Paul is ahead 54 to 46 percent.
Measure T is ahead 55 to 45%.
Geist appears to have avoided a run-off. Not so for Neely, though she’s way ahead of Fleming.
Update 10:00 –
I was wrong about Orange County. They’ve hardly begun to get their count in. In fact, for such a low turnout, I have to say that this is one of the slowest counts in recent history. Aren’t all these new machines supposed to speed this up?
SF seems to have its act together, with over 60 percent counted. But LA, Santa Clara, San Diego, Alameda, and even many rural counties are sending results in a trickle.
In any case, Angelides is maintaining a 4 point lead with about 13% of the count in.
Prop 81 is at about 45%. Prop 82 is at 41%.
Update 11:22 – Prop 81 is making a move and is at 46.2% with 37.8% of precincts reporting. LA counts are coming in. But unfortunately, nearly all of Orange County and 9/10 of San Diego remain to be counted. Disappointed in my fellow Humboldt County voters on this one too.
Update 11:43 – Lt. Gov race still close. Check out the map below. Blue is Garamendi, Green is Speier, Yellow Figueroa.
Did some phone banking tonight at Carlson Wireless Technologies, who were very kind to lend the Gallegos campaign their offices and telephones for the effort. They will be hosting the GOTV effort tomorrow, no doubt with some sacrifice to their business. Kudos.
Southern Humboldt seems pretty solidly pro-Gallegos and Pro T, neither of which should be much of a surprise. I expect that Humboldt County’s turnout is going to be a bit higher than the state average due to the spirited local campaigns. So it’s a matter of getting out the base. As I was calling people, a few of them were annoyed, but many of the people we reached were happy to be talking to a real person. Some households had received as many as eight or nine automated messages about the election. I can’t believe those automated calls are effective! I wonder if they ever lose votes for a candidate.
Meanwhile, pro-Gallegos folk are circulating a mock Dikeman campaign photo, which isn’t going to sway those left on the fence (always wonder about people who haven’t made up their minds by now – and I hope they tip their waiters and waitresses well!), but has provided some amusement for those in the base who don’t think Gallegos has been hitting back with enough force.
I was in Eureka today for a deposition and spoke with the opposing attorney who will be voting for Dikeman. He believes that Gallegos is incompetent, but says that his vote is primarily based upon the fact that the police don’t like him and is concerned that they won’t have their hearts into their work and may not investigate cases as effectively. It’s an odd argument from my perspective. If the police are going to select our District Attorney, then why bother to have an election? It’d be cheaper just to bring all of armed law enforcement into one gymnasium and take a hand count. But it does tell you that the philosophical debate about prosecutorial independence is at the core of this campaign. The attorney was very put off by the photo posted above – apparently it was displayed somewhere at the North Coast Co-op. He also agreed that Dikeman has run a very poor campaign and may lose as the result.
I’ll start posting results tomorrow night as they become available to me. Wouldn’t mind help from anybody, particularly with news in Mendocino County and beyond.
So yesterday I missed Steven Lewis’ interview with Chris Crawford (I heard Allison Jackson was a no-show) on KMUD as I was tabling for Gallegos at the Summer Arts Festival in Benbow. It was a little disappointing as the planners relegated the non-profit booths to a ghetto in the far corner this year. We had a stage behind us, but we got very little traffic unless someone of moderately popular interest was performing. We a few interesting discussions. Raised some pocket change. Not very eventful actually. I did get one scowl, but who knows what that was about?
Oh, and somebody forgot to tell me that the table was a joint Gallegos/Measure T operation, so there I was sitting at a table surrounded by signs for a cause I oppose – as if my Measure T experience hadn’t been surreal enough. How can I fit this into my baseball metaphor? I was relieved to finish my shift, as was my son who seemed to prefer an ice cream cone and a trip down to the river to cool his feet in the water to the profound political discussions he had been treated to for two hours.
As mentioned below, my letter was published in the Eureka Reporter, along with a legion of others for each side. The lines are obviously well drawn. All about turn-out here on in.
The Eureka Reporter is the only local paper that publishes its letters online. They don’t have anything new or interesting this morning. They do have a cute cartoon.
I don’t see anything new on either campaign website, other than GOTV info on Gallegos’ site.
So unless something extraordinary happens, I probably won’t post anything about this race until tomorrow evening, when I’ll try to post all of the returns of interest as they come it.
Update 4 thirtiesh: Just visited Fred’s Blog where a poster named “rose” is pasting in several different comment sections a few paragraphs containing references to some allegations of corruption with regard to the husband of Kay Rackauckas whose piece about the CAST program was published in the ER this last weekend. It appears to be purely ad hominem with as yet no substantive response to Rackauckas’ arguments. However, you may believe it’s important to your voting decision – assuming there’s a soul in the county who hasn’t made up his or her mind. At this point “rose” cites only allegations and the existence of a probe. Of course Orange County politics are as goofy as ours, if not more so.
Second update: Hmmm. Apparently “rose” has her own blog entitled “watchpaul” full of, well, whatever. Don’t know anything about her other than some of her posts over at Fred’s, but she certainly has an axe to grind with Gallegos.
This is the piece that I wrote for the Arcata Eye. It may be published in the next issue, but I’m not certain at this point.
When I was 8 years old I played in a pre-little league exercise referred to as “Summer League.” It lacked the formality of little league, and we barely had enough kids to cover four teams. As the play took place in the summer, players were often on vacation with their families, and sometimes one team didn’t have 9 players for a game. On those days we on the other team would draw lots to see who would turn his jersey inside out and switch sides for the day. When it came my turn I felt an awkward sense of conflict, half tempted to deliberately strike out for the benefit of my real team. It’s a very odd feeling as a child to be looking into the opposing dugout at your regular teammates from without, not a part of them, but not really feeling a part of your new team – knowing that you will be back across the diamond in the next game.
Deja vu 34 years later as I’m reading the text of Measure T over and over again to find some way to follow my gut and stick with the team. Can’t do it. I should be phone banking, licking envelopes, writing pieces like this one from my usual dugout. I agree with the proponents that corporations have far too much influence in what remains of the democratic processes locally and nationally. I believe in campaign finance reform where it doesn’t violate the First Amendment, and I would heartily support proposals involving the public financing of campaigns, reservations of FCC jurisdiction media air time, and ballot status conditioned upon debate attendance. And I agree that corporate personhood should not be considered anything in excess of an analogy to describe the aggregate collective interests of those who own the corporation. I appreciate the heart and sweat of Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap and many others working hard and long to get the measure passed.
But I cannot support Measure T. My objection is not that it won’t hold up in court – it may very well survive the court challenges. I am not concerned about the fact that an ordinance may not override Supreme Court decisions re corporate personhood – the challenge to corporate personhood is a minor component of the measure. It is not because, as the opposition claims, it is unfair to the proverbial “little guy” – the measure places no limitations on what individuals may contribute, and I see nothing in the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness that requires the ability to funnel political contributions through corporations which are after all simply legal arrangements that protect investors from potential liability for actions and omissions out of their control. The reason I cannot support Measure T is that it is unfair to some of the big guys. The black hats.
By now most of you have heard the arguments. The provisions define as “non-local” any corporation with even one shareholder or employee residing outside the county – a provision that reads more like xenophobia than anti-corporatism. The provisions define as “local” any union with even one member residing inside the county. It is not required that the member even work here, let alone that the union have a local here, or at least a union representative. Yes, as the proponents point out, corporations and unions are different institutions and it isn’t rational to treat them identically. But the difference in treatment in this case is extreme. The argument that unions don’t often involve themselves in local politics anyway is not persuasive. Why then make a special provision for them at all?
More importantly, I am concerned about the potential disparity the new law will place between scrupulous corporations and those willing to exploit the loopholes. The measure doesn’t define an “indirect” contribution, and I find it difficult to believe that the Deukmejian-Wilson-Davis-Schwarzenegger appointed judges are going to hold corporations accountable for donations made well in advance of the very existence of a campaign. That in mind, I suspect that letter-of-the-law Measure T compliant 501(c)(4) corporations will be set up ahead of time, soliciting donations and generating funds to be distributed to campaigns at the discretion of somebody hired to protect certain interests or represent certain ideologies. Those corporations adhering to the spirit of the law will find their interests vulnerable not necessarily to unions and activists, but to competing corporate interests.
Lastly, I see a conflict between the desire to limit corporate power and the emphasis on localism. The distinctions between “local” and “non-local” being very arbitrary under the proposed law, I am left with no reason to believe that those few corporations meeting the rigorous requirements for a “local” designation will possess any level of relative benevolence justifying the extreme advantages over competing interests that may or may not be more in line with the interests of the community in general. Corporate influence of the democratic process is corporate influence -local or non.
Unfortunately, I’m also at odds with my own dugout in the present game. Rob Arkley’s threats to take the measure out by pouring his own money into a court battle only confirm the proponents’ points about the influence of money on democratic processes. Is that a double dare Mr. Arkley? And though Mr. Crawford is a very articulate Measure T opponent, he speaks with a language that might have had more sway in the Humboldt County of a decade ago, with the notable exception of his commitment to support a cross-the-board $500.00 limit to any contribution, by individual or business entity. Ironically, this proposal may allow for fewer loophole possibilities and accomplish the ultimate goals of the proponents more effectively than Measure T. Still, he should be making more joint public appearances with his progressive allies, and spending less time mischaracterizing the motivations of his opponents by using phrases like “power grab.” If Measure T passes, as I suspect it will, he and other principled opponents of the measure have PALCO and Walmart to thank. A firm acknowledgment of the improprieties of those corporations in recent elections would go a long way towards broadening his coalition.
But my issue now is with the progressives of the community. Yes, the county is changing, and with the continued flow of retiring baby-boom equity refugees from the Bay Area, the trends are not likely to change any time soon. This means that progressives, “counter-culture” variety, are going to have more opportunities to influence county policy. This new power is accompanied by responsibility to the rest of the community. Progressives can no longer afford to simply act in opposition. We must articulate our own visions of economic development, political climate, and community values, and we must do our best to sell them to the community as a whole. I empathize with the warlike sentiments of some progressive activists given the current national political climate, and the local climate of the past. They (the bad guys) abuse their power. They misuse the recall process. They gerrymander congressional districts to create artificial majorities in Texas (while the Democrats passed on a similar opportunity in Illinois). They hold secret meetings with special interests to generate policy in favor of those interests to everybody else’s detriment. They claim sweeping mandates with slim wins and refuse to compromise with the political factions out of power.
But as frustrating as it may seem to some, we shouldn’t reciprocate with undemocratic tactics of our own. We shouldn’t, because we’re supposed to be the good guys. I know that King Solomon isn’t around to reward us for the virtuous fight, but leaders of progressive movements throughout history have insisted that we link our means to our ends even if it means short term sacrifices. That’s part of our legacy as progressives. That’s why I look forward to getting back into the right dugout.
Sohum Parlance II 
Recent Comments