Rights or Money: Prop 16

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Your Opinion

WE would love to know your opinion on this issue and which way would you vote. So what are your thoughts, how are you going to vote?

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Proposition 16 [New Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Local Public Electricity Providers. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.]

Overview on prop 16: The proposition requires a majority of vote approval, before local governments provide electricity service to new upcoming costumers or place a community option program in which the it would require the usage of public funds and bonds.
Fiscal Impact: Anonymous net encounter on state and local government costs and revenues—not being significant—due to the measure’s uncertain effects on public electricity providers and on electricity rates.

Yes or No

Yes on Prop. 16

-Voting yes on the proposition says that you agreed
that there should be a two thirds vote, received by
local governments, before they could spread their
electricity services into new land.

-Avoids letting the government take over small
electrical companies without letting the public know.

No on Prop. 16

-If opposing the proposition, you agree that local
governments are able to prolong electric services
elsewhere, through an approved majority of voters.

-Allows for monopolies with no competition and
eventually the spike of rates.

Groups supporting proposition:

YES:
1) California Chamber of Commerce: Requiring a vote will help to ensure the risky choice to create a government-run electricity business gets the public discussion it deserves.
2) Sacramento public relations: Why shouldn't the people who are going to pay the bill have the right to vote on that?
3) California Taxpayers’ Association: Voters should have the right to decide.
4) California Chamber of Commerce and Pacific Gas and Electric Company: Opportunity for public to get involved and have a voice in local governments.

NO:
1) Sierra Club: Proposition 16 requires a two thirds super majority vote before any community can purchase clean power and other power at competitive prices.
2) Consumer Federation of California: Just like Wall Street, PG & E had to pay big bonuses to its executives, even after it had gone bankrupt.
3) League of Women Voters of California: They want for people to compete for their own service, local non-profit utilities.

Jose Cardenas' Analysis:

Personally, I think it is a vote between two propositions with bad additions. The reason as to why I would possibly vote in favor of prop 16 is simply because of the logistics of it. A two thirds vote means that only a much larger more defined majority would be able to overcome the other portion of the population, whereas the current method would allow for a two point differentiation. This means that, as of now, a 51 percent majority could overcome the rest of the population. The proposition would make it harder for companies to become the actual providers of certain regions with a two thirds vote. However, that’s to say that the entire population is given the opportunity to vote for their electrical providers. A defining percentage of individuals whom don’t vote might create a majority of a more active minority. Further, because the nominated electrical providers are predetermined it will push the smaller companies out of the election and leave only the larger more efficient providers at work. The only thing that bugs me is that although it becomes harder for companies to rise to power their fall is likewise just as hard. It will require a two third vote for the electrical company in power to be changed meaning that they could change their rates. What might initially look like a cheap price for electricity might develop into a higher rate than people pay now. Monopolies are sure to rise because all that a company needs to do is be able to stay in power for maybe a few years and it will eliminate all its competition. With no competition, the public is bound to a single provider with no other option. The reason that PG&E, Pacific Gas & Electric, supports this proposition is to essentially leave the entire state electric rates up to three major providers. So in the end, I lean a bit towards voting against the proposition just because the enactment of it will create many future problems.

Joanna Jaramillo’s Analysis:

If I could vote, I would probably vote Yes on this proposition. I believe that everyone should have the opportunity to decide whether electricity companies have the right to install themselves in inconvenient areas. With this proposition people will be able to vote on what they would like as their electrical service company, and how much they are willing to be paying. Some people decide not to vote because they see information and it is to much to read. Without basing their decision on any facts, they cast an arbitrary vote without actually putting thought into what they are voting for. An example would be the length of the name of the prop. The name of the proposition can be intimidating for some people, and it may trick the voter into voting a different way than what he had planned. The whole title of the proposition is, “prop 16 imposes new two-thirds voter approval requirement for local public electricity providers. Initiative constitutional amendment.” Just by looking at the title, people give up trying to learn more about it.