it's nearly election time again. here are my picks and comments for upcoming ballot measures. these opinions will update as i get more information. read them, comment on them, dispute them. but most importantly, whether you agree or disagree, get out and VOTE!

the opposition seems bent on attacking the municipal bond market rather than the true issue of much needed funding for City College. their proposition that these improvements should be financed on a "pay as you go" basis out of existing tax revenues is ridiculous. if this were reasonable, or even feasible, then it already would have been done. the simple fact is our public education system is woefully underfunded and City College is no exception.

the opposition's contention that a million and a quarter dollars will be "wasted" in bond interest is correct. but until the state and federal governments place a higher priority on education and provide adequate funding to keep our schools and colleges sufficiently safe and healthy, there is no better option. besides, the amount we're considering is a mere $4.20 per $100,000 property value to $14.70 per $100,000 value. i think our education deserves that.

while some are afraid of the power it gives the Board of Supervisors to issue municipal bonds, this measure is a good push in providing an alternative to pollution-based energy generation to the city and its residents. it will be the largest solar energy bond in the country and what better way to encourage the development of new energy technologies than through demand.

currently, by filling vacancies on the Board of Supervisors and elsewhere, the Mayor has enormous power to affect policy and legislation without answering to the voters. "from 1996 to 1999, the Mayor appointed six members to the Board of Supervisors -- a majority of the old Board," reads the proponent's argument. this measure limits the time a vacancy can be filled by a mayoral appointee before standing for election, returns power to the voters, and promotes open debate. it's a no-brainer.

don't be fooled by opposition arguments, this is NOT a vote against bay fill nor expansion of the San Francisco airport. it does not do any damage to airport safety or the tourism industry. aside from the obvious fact that there are many different plans to solve SFO's problems, this is not a vote for or against bay fill.

this measure gives you, the voter, a say in whether or not we can dump dirt in the Bay for a variety of projects. it is possible that this voter power could even support bay fill SFO expansion. but the fact is, it promotes open debate rather than sneaky political maneuvering. it gets the issue of the use of our precious bay lands and waterways out for all to see.

don't buy into the assertion that this is a vote about filling the bay. it is a vote about democracy.

on one hand, this seems to create an impartial body to monitor elections. that sounds good. but is there really a need? the existing Ethics Commission lacks some power but seems capable of doing the job. and by appointee the Election Committee members, does this not politicize the body? the measure has good intentions but is it truly well thought out?

public power is a great idea. it works. you have no complaint from me there. but a poorly designed infrastructure and organization can successfully kill the idea of public utilities.

these measures may very well be a great solution. i need more information.

the idea of adjusting official US Census numbers is a good one. unfortunately, without setting forth strict standards to those adjustments, those numbers become folly to political battles. additionally, the amount of time given to the Elections Task Force to process these numbers and redistrict accordingly is insufficient. nice idea, poorly achieved.