First off, I'm just going to explain that, as a registered Democrat, I tend to vote across the board, Democrats, with few exceptions. Here's that exception: Knute Buehler for SoS.
Buehler is a Rhodes Scholar and started his own REAL business (as opposed to a wealth-building financial machine as Mitt Romney). Education, intelligence and real-world experience matters to me. It's not that I don't think Kate Brown's credentials aren't impressive enough, but I think it takes someone who has tried to start and operate a business, to understand which regulations and red tape need to be trimmed back, or at least consolidated, so that you don't need to think about it. And if it doesn't work out, I'll simply vote for someone else, four years from now.
The rest, that are't obvious choices, are as follows:
Mayor -- Charlie Hales.
This is equally a vote against Jefferson Smith as it is an affirmation for Hales. Smith comes off as a hot head, and I'd rather have the hippie-loving community builder. Had Adams run for reelection, I would have considered voting for him, despite the issues of integrity from the start, over his relationship with a young intern; it seemed that the whole incident pulled his ego down from the clouds, making him a better mayor.
Council Commissioner #1 -- Mary Nolan.
I voted for Fritz four years ago, and she seems like a rebel (a net positive to me) but as a manager, she hasn't done as well of a job as I'd hoped. From first-hand experience with the new 911 system, I would have to say, she failed to manage the transition and the expectations of the new system. Nolan, with experience as majority leader in Salem, seems like an appropriate fit for the council.
State measures:
Measures 77 / 78 -- No one wrote to oppose; neither one was controversial, so I voted yes on both.
Measure 79 -- The ads just annoyed me to no end. This measure would prevent the legislature from creating a property transfer (death, sale, etc) tax or fee. We don't have one, except in Washington County, but unincorporated WaCo has very low property taxes to begin with. More to the point of the measure, why do we want to prevent legislatures from legislating? If you're going to create laws that restrict what lawmakers can and can't do, why bother having a representative democracy? Go straight to the Plutocracy or the Autocracy that some people apparently want. I mean really, you have to laugh at the gall of the Oregon Association of Realtors for writing this measure and complaining about high taxes, even though they've uniformly supported the increase in realtor fee percentages associated with real estate sales; it's cynical, is what it is.
Measure 80 -- I don't partake in marijuana, and unlike Bill Clinton, I've never even not not-inhaled it. Still, it seems that smoking pot is more of a lifestyle choice as drinking a glass (or two) of wine a day, is. No one I know, is a loser pot head; they're all functional members of society with good paying jobs. A lot of people who abuse marijuana are dysfunctional, but so are alcoholics, and Cliffy would have died if he had been speeding while drunk, but he was more or less okay, speeding while high, though obviously speeding at night is very close to a death wish.
Measure 81 -- When in doubt, always vote NO.
Measures 82 / 83 -- No freaking way am I supporting the legalization of non-tribal gaming casinos. If people want to create an entertainment facility, they could easily do it without gambling. It's been done all around the world; I don't see why gambling needs to be a part of an entertainment facility. More importantly, I don't want to see the Indian tribes revert to the conditions they were in, two decades ago. Apparently polling for these two measures were so bad, that the backers of the casino in question, gave up. Not entirely unexpected either, because they misused the name, "grange" in their casino, which was a slap in the faces of grange halls across the state.
Measure 84 -- Absolutely not. If you can afford million-dollar homes, you can afford to pay your tax on shifting ownership to your heirs, sales, etc.
Measure 85 -- Yes. Does anyone actually notice their corporate kicker? I don't think most corporations want the kicker, if it means that the state might have to consider higher corporate tax rates or fees, in the future. Kids are our future...or so they tell me. Personally, I'd like to have a wife first.
This next set, local measures, are initiatives that will cost money. As a homeowner, I am particularly sensitive to the tax bill that comes in the waning weeks of October each year. First, allow me to say that there has been a rather substantial drop in my property tax, over the last three years now, so if it went up, it wouldn't be the end of the world. Second, I think if these measures pass, then people are feeling good about the direction of the economy, especially locally, but also nationally.
Local measures:
Measure 26-143 -- Yes. Heck, Multnomah County libraries are just incredible. The only thing I wished they'd do, is increase e-book volumes. I do think their free MP3 program is superfluous, though. Less homeless people in the Winter would be nice, but who am I to complain, when I mostly just walk in and out with materials, and sit at the Starbucks?
Measure 26-145 -- Yes. I support unions, but I also am realistic in terms of pensions and the cost of them. Reforming the Portland Police and Fire pensions makes sense, and not some extreme cutback.
Measure 26-146 -- Yes. I know the Willamette Week and the Oregonian are against it, but even if half of the money went to nonprofit arts organizations, that would still be a good thing. Also, I find it amusing that either group is calling it a regressive tax, when neither has thrown a fit over those state fees to access certain public parks. I really don't harbor any expectations that this will pass; most of the time, people really don't support the arts at all.
Measure 26-144 -- Yes. Stuart Emmons, a respectable local architect had previously argued against the last school bond bill because it lacked focus; this one most certainly has a solid, limited priority list and received Emmons' backing.
By the way, a 3/8" thick Voter's Pamphlet is no way to get people to read it. As soon as I saw it, I freaked out. I hate elections with voluminous pamphlets; when they get thick, I stop reading the paid supporting and opposing comments submitted.
No comments:
Post a Comment