My name is AlphaGeek, and this is my analysis of the candidates for office in California's November 2006 general election. This edition of the guide also covers many local candidates relevant to Fremont, CA. Be sure to also read my separate report on the ballot measures up for voting on Tuesday.
To give the reader some context for my analysis and conclusions, please permit me to introduce myself. I am:
* A libertarian Democrat who believes in efficient government and progressive social policies
* Married with three children, ages 8, 6 and 3;
* Co-founder and CTO of a 6-year-old Silicon Valley software company
* A regular participant and occasional contributor at DailyKos.com
I believe in transparent government, efficient spending, and the absolute requirement for a trustworthy election system. I believe that the Constitution exists to guarantee human rights, and should never be used as a means for denying them.
The 2006 California Election: a few general comments
This year, we will be voting on an staggering array of candidates and initiatives. The latter, in particular, are more complex and difficult-to-understand than ever. I am writing this report to share the results of my own study of these ballot choices, to explain how I will be voting on each, and the reasoning for each decision.
For local races in Fremont, I'm sad to say that most voters make their choice based on name recognition. One of the candidates lives down the street from me, and I have never received a mailer or had a personal conversation with him regarding his run for office. For these local races, I will share what information I have been able to find. Please note that I have NOT made recommendations in races where there are no clear criteria to distinguish among candidates, other than incumbency. In these cases (ACWD board, Washington Hospital board) I plan to simply vote for the incumbent, however much I might wish to be able to make a more-informed decision.
I have PDF voter-reference sheets available if someone could volunteer to host them. I can't easily do so myself without violating my anonymity.
2006 California State-Level Candidates
Governor
Short form: This year we have a choice between Arnold "Janus" Schwarzenegger (wears his centrist-Dem hat in election years, his GOP-activist hat in off years) and Phil "campaigns like a kitten" Angelides. Sigh.
The non-aligned voters in CA seem to have forgotten the $120M++ that Arnold wasted on his special elections just last year, where voters soundly rejected his GOP-driven agenda. On the other hand, he has demonstrated that he's a masterful politician, able to recover from seemingly fatal missteps by coopting his opposition's agenda and even their staff.
Angelides, coming off a bruising primary against mildly conservative Democrat Steve Westly, has been a tremendous disappointment in the main event. He committed the cardinal sin of letting Arnold define him -- not just once, but relentlessly. As a result, Arnold has dominated the conversation, leading to pitiful moments with Angelides whining to the press about how nobody wants to cover his campaign.
That said, there is a point to voting for Angelides even if Arnold has locked up the swing vote and the election: to send him a message that he does not hold office with a huge margin for error. A narrower-than-expected win over Angelides will remind Arnold that the people of California don't all buy his on-again/off-again posturing. He's still the same guy who helped deliver Ohio to Bush in 2004.
Finally, the policies and proposals put forth by Angelides are a better fit for California. Regardless of his (nonexistent) campaign prowess, Phil Angelides gets my vote for Governor, regardless of the outcome.
Vote: PHIL ANGELIDES (D) for Governor
Lt. Governor
Few people realize just how much power the Lt. Gov wields in California
Short form: We have a great Democratic candidate, John Garamendi, running against a hard-line right-wing conservative legislator, Tom McClintock. That much most people already know.
What you don't know, and what you MUST tell your 'independent' swing-voter friends and family, is that the Lt. Gov wields tremendous influence over state government -- including the Stem Cell Initiative approved by voters in 2005! Read that again. The Lt. Gov effectively holds the reins of power over the Stem Cell Research Initiative approved in Prop. 71 last year, including the ability to effectively derail the $4B approved by voters for this critical research.
Tom McClintock has an unambiguous record on stem cell research: McClintock is a radical opponent of stem-cell research in all forms.
John Garamendi, on the other hand, has a stellar record on every issue that matters to California. He supports stem-cell research, he is a proven environmentalist, and has received the endorsement of every progressive organization in the state.
Two of my grandparents lost their lives, day by day, to the creeping horror that is Alzheimer's. The other two spent so much time doing volunteer work for traumatic-brain-injury patients that they have a therapy facility named after them. I'm sick of crazy talk about how a clump of cells in a dish is a human being, when those few cells (already destined for waste disposal) could hold the key to life for millions.
Vote: JOHN GARAMENDI (D) for Lieutenant Governor
Secretary of State
If you want your vote to count, pay attention to the SecState election!
Short form: Here we have ANOTHER great Democratic candidate, State Sen. Debra Bowen, running against an appointed Republican corporate stooge, Bruce McPherson. You only need to know two things about this race:
First, Bruce McPherson trusts the electronic voting machine companies implicitly, takes them at their word that their products are secure, and that's good enough for him.
Second, Debra Bowen has put forth a 10-point Voter's Bill Of Rights which clearly outlines how she will ensure fair elections in California. (Oh, and she doesn't believe in blindly trusting Diebold and friends.)
Folks, in my book the SecState race is right up there with the Lt. Gov race in terms of importance to our state. Spread the word: if you want your vote to count, vote Bowen. I feel strongly enough about this race that I have volunteered my own time to support Debra Bowen's campaign for SecState.
Vote: DEBRA BOWEN (D) for Secretary Of State
Controller
The Republican "Club For Growth" mounts their takeover attempt
Short form: John Chiang (D) is chairman of the CA state tax board, and has degrees in law (Georgetown) and finance (honors, U of South FL). He is eminently qualified to manage the state's financial operations.
Tony Strickland (R), on the other hand, is the president of the CA chapter of the odious Club For Growth. This radical-right organization is dedicated to destroying responsible government through their save-the-wealthy programs.
The choice is clear.
Vote: JOHN CHIANG (D) for Controller
Treasurer
Short form: Bill Lockyer is the visibly superior choice to anyone else in the race. It's his to lose.
Vote: BILL LOCKYER (D) for Treasurer
Attorney General
Short form: In the (D) corner -- Jerry Brown: attorney (Yale Law), former Governor, former SecState, current mayor of Oakland.
In the (R) corner -- Chuck Poochigian, attorney (somewhere), burdened with inexperience, unpopular positions and an unfortunate name.
This isn't a contest, it's a test to see exactly how many CA voters will reflexively vote (R) regardless of candidate qualifications. That number seems to be hovering around 31% according to the most recent Field Poll.
Vote: JERRY BROWN (D) for Attorney General
Insurance Commissioner
Could someone please explain why Cruz Bustamante hasn't retired from politics?
Short form: After being damaged beyond rehabilitation in the recall fiasco that brought Arnold to power, Cruz Bustamante has somehow secured the Democratic nomination for Insurance Commissioner. My theory is that he won the primary based on name recognition, as nobody really gives a crap about this post unless the officeholder is noticeably incompetent.
Guess what, California Dems? You may just get to find out what that scenario looks like first-hand. Cruz Bustamante is damaged goods in statewide elections, period. The swing voters are staying away in droves, choosing instead to support Republican Steve Poizner, who has name recognition from previous electoral efforts.
Therefore, I am supporting Green Party candidate Larry Cafiero as a protest vote. CA Democratic Party: don't send us damaged goods in statewide elections. Life is too short to put forth obviously bad candidates.
Vote: LARRY CAFIERO (G) for Insurance Commissioner
2006 California Local/Regional Candidates
State Senate (CA-SEN-10)
Short form: After a tumultuous primary, Democrat Ellen Corbett is running against a (R) opponent so weak he didn't even bother supplying his profile information for the smartvoter.org CA-SEN-10 page (League Of Women Voters).
Vote: ELLEN CORBETT (D) for CA-10 State Senate
State Assembly (CA-ASM-20)
Short form: In an exact mirror image of the CA-SEN-10 race, incumbent Alberto Torrico (D) is apparently so confident of reelection that he also did not bother to supply information for the smartvoter.org CA-ASM-20 page. Nonetheless, he has done a good job in the CA Assembly and deserves re-election.
Vote: ALBERTO TORRICO (D) for CA-20 State Assembly
Superior Court Judge, Alameda County
A rare treat: an actual election for a Superior Court Judge post
Short form: Because the June election was within the minimum margin, the November election is a run-off between two qualified candidates: Sandra K. Bean and Dennis Hayashi. Ms. Bean is currently filling this post in an interim appointment.
A fair and impartial judiciary is one of the cornerstones of our democracy. Mr. Hayashi has demonstrated that he is unclear on this concept by posting an endorsement from the Alameda County Democratic Party on his website. Despite my own Democratic affiliation, I find this to be unsettling in a candidate for a position where independence from the political process is a crucial quality.
Sandra Bean, on the other hand, has the trust and respect of the judiciary, as witnessed in her list of endorsements by sitting and former judges. She also has the good sense to avoid endorsements by overtly political organizations, and therefore receives my recommendation.
Vote: SANDRA K. BEAN for Alameda County Superior Court Judge
Fremont City Council (2 positions)
Two qualified candidates, two open posts
Short form: Anu Natarajan is the first Indo-American woman councilwoman appointed in the Bay Area, and as a highly qualified candidate, deserves to be elected to a full term. Her academic and professional career experience combine to make her an ideal fit.
Bill Harrison sits on the Fremont Planning Commission, and is involved in numerous other government and community organizations. He is also clearly qualified in education and experience for this post. Fortunately for Mr. Harrison, there are two positions open, avoiding a difficult contest between himself and Ms. Natarajan.
In the kooks-and-newbies department, we have our homeless candidate Linda Susoev and our clueless newbie candidate Alan Stirling. Ms. Susoev accosted my spouse in a darkened restaurant parking lot one evening and spouted a bit of the ol' crazy talk, firmly cementing her position as the "alternative to the mainstream" candidate. Mr. Stirling, on the other hand, apparently filed his candidacy with $143 in self-funding, then dropped out of sight.
Vote: ANU NATARAJAN and BILL HARRISON for Fremont City Council
Fremont Unified School District Board
Two open spots, one incumbent, six candidates
Short form: We'll get the incumbent out of the way first: Larry Sweeney has performed adequately in his first term on the FUSD board, and I see no reason that he should not build on that experience with a second term.
Let us then discuss the five challengers for the second open position:
Hiu Ng has self-funded his race to the tune of around $4300. This demonstrates his personal commitment to winning election to this post, but doesn't really say anything about who (if anyone) would support him within the community. His three-point agenda statement, while laudably complete, is awkward and contains grammar errors.
Jonathan Simon has self-funded about half of his $2300 spend. His agenda statement is more coherent than that of Ng, with good goals. Unfortunately, in his newspaper interview he displays an determined ignorance of the political process that is startling coming from someone trying for a post that involves an awful lot of politics.
Ray Bilodeau has self-funded at least $2000 and may spend up to $5000. Mr. Bilodeau currently sits on several District committees. He has avoided seeking endorsements or donations for fear of appearing beholden to a particular interest group. Ironically, however, I see this as a sign of weakness in a candidate, diminishing his stature rather than improving it.
David Richards has self-funded around $400 and received in-kind donations of signage worth $3000 from a former employer. He has also elected to take a purely grassroots approach (see: Bilodeau) rather than seek donations or endorsements. Independence or lack of coalition-building skill? You decide...
Last but not least, Lara York has demonstrated commitment, relevant experience, political savvy, and the ability to forge alliances. She has also managed to out-fundraise all other candidates combined, without creating any perception of being bought-and-paid for by her donors. As a result, she has definitively earned my recommendation for the second open post.
Vote: LARRY SWEENEY and LARA YORK for FUSD Board
2006 California State-Wide Ballot Measures
Part 1: Legislative Propositions
1A
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING PROTECTION. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Short form: This is a legislative constitutional amendment. Fuel taxes are supposed to pay for infrastructure. The state gov't has been redirecting these funds and neglecting our roads and highways. 1A ends this practice. Funds can be borrowed (not taken) in a severe budget crunch no more than twice every 10 years, and must be treated as loans and repaid within 3 years.
Overwhelmingly approved by state Senate and Assembly.
Economic impact estimate: Increases pressure on state legislature to find other sources of general funds. CA has significant untapped sources of revenue, including taxation of energy resources removed through mining or drilling. Not likely to drive an increase in individual taxation.
Opposed by: "California Taxpayer Protection Committee" ("CTPC"), a front organization for the national anti-tax cabal funded by wealthy and ultra-wealthy conservatives. No tax is a good tax to these wingnuts, unless it puts money in their pockets.
Vote: YES on 1A
1B
HIGHWAY SAFETY, TRAFFIC REDUCTION,
AIR QUALITY, AND PORT SECURITY BOND ACT OF 2006.
Short form: $20 billion bond measure, to be repaid over 30 years. Funds desperately-needed maintenance and growth of CA's transportation infrastructure. Includes funding for increased port security, compensating for the failure of the Federal government to properly fund and implement such measures.
Overwhelmingly approved by state Senate and Assembly.
Economic impact estimate: Investment in general transportation projects directly drives economic growth, resulting in huge return-on-investment (ROI) over time.
Opposed by: Guess who? The "CTPC"; see above for details. Frickin' wingnuts.
Vote: YES on 1B
1C
HOUSING AND EMERGENCY SHELTER TRUST FUND ACT OF 2006.
Short form: The SJ Mercury News says it better than I could:
Opponents argue that the state should not be in the housing business. But the housing market is so out of control in California that the state must help some of our low-income residents. This measure would provide $2.85 billion for battered-women's shelters, low-income senior housing, home ownership assistance for the disabled, veterans and working families. Nearly half of the funds would go toward providing water, sewage and environmental cleanup for housing sites in downtown areas.
Approved by Senate 27-11, Assembly 54-16; this looks to me like a party-line Dem/Repub vote.
Economic impact estimate: Negligible cost in terms of general budget. Immense social impact, creating economic opportunity and contributing to the reduction of crime and poverty.
Opposed by: Just about every right-wing and anti-tax organization you've ever heard of. Why do they hate veterans, old people, and victims of abuse? Because it costs society actual money to help people, of course, money that a totally unregulated market would never produce.
Vote: YES on 1C
1D
KINDERGARTEN-UNIVERSITY PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES BOND ACT OF 2006.
Short form: $10 billion bond measure, to be repaid over 30 years. Funds construction of new K-12 schools, repairs to existing schools, and earthquake retrofit work. Funds vocational programs within defined constraints. Funds repairs and expansion of existing state-owned college and university classroom facilities to accomodate growth.
Approved by Senate 29-8, Assembly 58-12.
Economic impact estimate: Investment in education is tremendously profitable over the long term. The economic benefits far outpace the cost of repaying this bond measure.
Special comment: While I am in favor of Measure 1D, I am increasingly disgusted with the inclusion of 'repairs' in bond funds for things like school infrastructure. Bonds should be used to fund the creation of durable assets like roads or school campuses -- not to repair school buildings, which should be covered as an operational expense. This is the equivalent of using your credit card every time you need to repair something around the house, then making the minimum payment on that card for 30 years. California MUST begin properly allocating funds for school maintenance instead of foisting this sort of measure on the taxpayers every few years.
Opposed by: Surprise, it's the "CTPC" again. Apparently, if they can send their kids to private schools and universities, then what happens to the public education system doesn't matter a bit.
Vote: YES on 1D (but stop sending us bond measures to pay for repairs!!!)
1E
DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND FLOOD PREVENTION BOND ACT OF 2006
Short form: $4 billion bond measure, to be repaid over 30 years. California's water infrastructure is astonishingly vulnerable to earthquakes. A serious quake in any of a dozen regions of CA could severely diminish access to water supplies for millions of people for a period of 2 years or more. California could experience a public-health emergency which dwarfs Katrina in scale if nothing is done, and in fact there is a significant risk of such an event occurring.
Approved overwhelmingly by Senate and Assembly.
Economic impact estimate: We can't afford NOT to invest in our water infrastructure, including critical levees. $4B is cheap considering how dependent urban California cities are on non-local water sources.
Opposed by: The CTPC apparently hates flood prevention. Oh, and government spending of any type, no matter how much sense it makes.
Vote: YES on 1E
2006 California State-Wide Ballot Measures
Part 2: Ballot Initiatives
83
SEX OFFENDERS. SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATORS. PUNISHMENT, RESIDENCE RESTRICTIONS AND MONITORING. INITIATIVE STATUTE
Short form: Expands use of GPS monitoring to all sex offenders. Increases penalties and restrictions for all sex offenders. Enhances the state's ability to keep sexually-violent predators in confinement. Increases effective prison terms for most offenders through various means. Broadens the definition of sex offenses. (Much, much more.)
Based on "Jessica's Law", passed in Iowa. Iowa now regrets passing this legislative package, as it has proven to be ineffective, expensive, and laden with unexpected consequences. For a complete summary, please see the SJ Mercury News article on Measure 83.
Economic impact: Potentially very, very large. Hundreds of millions of dollars per year in prison and mental-health spending, not to mention missed-opportunity costs when mental-health resources are tied up dealing with people who should be incarcerated.
Opposed by: Me. Oh, and the voters of Iowa, who passed a law like this and are now dealing with the consequences. Also opposed by a number of other prominent organizations.
Vote: NO on 83
84
WATER QUALITY, SAFETY AND SUPPLY. FLOOD CONTROL. NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION. PARK IMPROVEMENTS. BONDS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Short form: Clean, safe drinking water, coastal protection programs, and water quality programs -- implemented with accountability for results and verified through public audits. This is basic infrastructure which has been sadly neglected for years.
Economic impact: This is a basic-infrastructure investment. Without it, we're screwed.
Opposed by: Unsurprisingly, the "CTPC" hates drinking water and coastal protection too. I guess they can water their lawns with bottled water when the shortages hit, or something.
Vote: YES on 84
85
WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR'S PREGNANCY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Short form: The organizations and individuals who seek to curtail basic reproductive rights, including access to birth control, see this as an opening wedge to drive their agenda in California. Also, this is a constitutional amendment -- and our state constitution should be used to grant rights, not to deny them.
Opposed by: Just about every sane person who's watching this issue. For more details, see the excellent No On 85 website.
Vote: NO on 85
86
TAX ON CIGARETTES.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
Short form: Impose a tax of $0.13/cigarette, $2.60/pack. Raises $2.1B revenue based on current cigarette sales volumes, declining over time. Money goes to offset societal costs of smoking -- hospitals, asthma programs, and so forth. Increased cost to smokers acts as a disincentive to smoking, contributing to improvement in public wellness.
Opposed by: Arnold (wearing his Republican hat), every Chamber Of Commerce you've ever heard of, every Republican in state Senate and Assembly, and of course the tobacco companies who have spent tens of millions of dollars in opposition
Vote: YES on 86
87
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY. RESEARCH, PRODUCTION, INCENTIVES. TAX ON CALIFORNIA OIL PRODUCERS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
Short form: Tax oil extracted in California and use the proceeds to fund renewable-energy research and development. CA, unlike many other oil-producing states such as TX and LA, does not levy extraction taxes on oil producers.
Special comment: This is a chance for California to once again lead the US in change for the better. The clock is counting down on our supplies of fossil fuels. If we don't kick our addiction to petroleum, it will lead to more than just dependency on foreign oil -- it could be the end of civilization as we know it, within just a few generations. Supported by President Clinton, VP Gore, and many other visionary leaders.
Opposed by: Our friends at the oil companies, and the White House. (Same thing, really!)
Vote: YES on 87
88
EDUCATION FUNDING. REAL PROPERTY PARCEL TAX. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
Short form: Add a real-estate parcel tax of $50/year to increase educational funding. Strongly opposed by just about everyone, including the California state PTA. It is also regressive in that it increases the tax burden of a McMansion or office building just the same as it does a one-room bungalow in a small town.
See also this excellent smackdown on Prop 88 by the SJ Mercury News editorial board.
Opposed by: Everyone, apparently. Even the sponsor of the bill (Reed Hastings, CEO Netflix) has largely abandoned this ill-fated effort.
Vote: NO on 88
89
POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS. PUBLIC FINANCING. CORPORATE TAX INCREASE. CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION AND EXPENDITURE LIMITS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Short form: Getting elected is expensive, and politicians depend on fund-raising and donations to power their campaigns. Increasing campaign costs mean that big donors, who expect a return on their 'investment', are able to gain influence over our elected officials. Arizona and Maine have already passed Clean Elections/Clean Money laws to purge dirty money from their electoral systems. California stands ready to join them by passing 89.
Some organizations (notably, the SJ Merc editorial board) are opposing 89 because it includes both publicly-financed elections and campaign-finance reform provisions. It is important to realize that even if some portions of the finance reforms are challenged, the incredibly important Clean Elections portion of the bill will not be affected.
Special comment: The inclusion of the campaign-finance language in this measure borders on over-reaching by the measure's authors. A "good" ballot initiative, if there is such a beast, sticks to a single issue and does not try to lump together several closely-related issues. That said, I STRONGLY, repeat STRONGLY urge you to vote in favor of 89, and to tell your friends and neighbors that this is a MUST-PASS measure. I cannot overstate how badly our current electoral financing "system" has corrupted our democracy. Did you know that a typical elected office-holder must spend at least 20% of his/her time fund-raising instead of representing the constituents? This is disgusting, and Prop 89 is how we make it stop.
For more information:
http://www.cleanmoneyelections.org/...
http://www.89now.org/
Opposed by: The California Republican Party, every anti-tax organization you've ever heard of, and business organizations representing corporations whose taxes would be increased to fund clean elections in CA.
Vote: YES on 89
90
GOVERNMENT ACQUISITION, REGULATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Short form: Property-rights nutjobs want to hold government hostage for huge monetary windfalls in eminent-domain cases. Similar legislation in Oregon has legalized blackmail over zoning ordinances that would otherwise cost the government billions (with a 'B') to enforce because of compensation requirements.
Opposed by: An astonishingly bipartisan coalition of business, homeowner, environmental, and good-government organizations. See the list of organizations opposing 90 for a complete run-down.
Vote: NO on 90
2006 California Local Ballot Measures
Measure K
Open Space and Restricted Industrial Plan Designations
City of Fremont
Not-so-short form: Well-meaning environmental activists and their wealthy property-owner opponents have put the Fremont voters in a no-win position on this one. Gus Morrison, the former mayor of Fremont, is being paid $50K just to run the 'No on K' campaign, while the people-powered grassroots proponents of the measure have raised less than $50K altogether.
The "Yes on K" crowd has (justifiably) promoted the fact that theirs is a grassroots effort, a claim bolstered by the 13,000+ petition signatures gathered in support. At least part of their goal is admirable: protect the natural beauty and environmental resources of Fremont. Unfortunately, their movement also smells strongly of the "I have my house, why do we need more housing?" brand of selective environmentalism. The "Yes on K" crowd offers no suggestions as to where the 37,000 future residents forecast by the City of Fremont should find housing, only that it shouldn't be in the former agricultural region of Coyote Hills.
The property owners and pro-development Fremont city council members, on the other hand, seem to think that buying the election through disproportionate spending ($900K+ vs. >$50K) is a perfectly valid way to respond to a grassroots initiative. Don't discount the contribution of corporate spending, either, as Cargill Salt is a large contributor to "No on K".
The correct answer, sadly, lies somewhere between the dubious legal contortions of Measure K and the wealthy reactionaries opposing it. I say "sadly" because a compromise choice is not on the ballot -- there is no competing "Measure K-plus" to offer a reasonable alternative. Measure K represents a real failure of the ballot-initiative system.
The choice, therefore, is to vote 'yes' for a well-meaning but ugly ballot measure (which stands a non-zero chance of being partially or totally voided in court), or to vote 'no' remand this matter to the City to be handled through conventional means.
Despite my sympathy for the Measure K proponents, I reluctantly conclude that the balance weighs against it, and I recommend a NO vote on Measure K. However, the Fremont City Council must take careful note of the opposition to unconstrained development and destruction of open space, and avoid the inevitable lawsuits by co-opting the Measure K supporters into the planning process.
Vote: NO on K
Measure L
Utility Users Tax
City of Fremont
Short form: The City of Fremont proposes to increase funds available for vital services (emergency response, street maintenance) through a 4% tax on gas/electric utility bills -- unless you're a "large user", in which case your tax is 1%. Oh, and if your Large User bill is likely to exceed $50K, then you can simply pay $50K/year directly to Fremont to escape further tax liability.
This is, to put it bluntly, bullshit corporate favoritism. Because none of these "Large Users" maintain their own emergency services (e.g. private fire department) it seems grossly unfair to me that they get an exemption from the same tax that other utility users would pay under Measure L. Do their operations not require use of Fremont roadways, both for commerce and to transport their employees to and from work?
Unfortunately, it is painfully obvious that Fremont desperately needs this additional revenue. Reduced police presence is translating directly into a surge in gang activity. Cheap road repairs today are being deferred in favor of expensive road repairs later. The Fire Department has changed their focus from maximizing the number of lives saved, to minimizing the number of lives lost due to extended response times. If the library is open any less, you'll need an appointment to check out a book.
Statewide reform of government funding is desperately needed, but until then, we are compelled to hold our noses and vote for Measure L.
Vote: YES on L