I am no drug warrior, but if a ballot measure is written badly I am always ready to challenge bad ideas. I would like reasonable safe access for marijuana in all cities in our state, but Measure U is no free market and will be just as destructive as prohibition.
Measure U is going to establish a monopoly where one business interest will control marijuana in the city of Upland. Namely the people who own T&A Video in Upland. Maybe they are thinking the digital market is killing adult video and they need to branch out in the marijuana business. They will want to concentrate the marijuana sector near Cable Airport in the city, but its going to lead to negative externalizes such as crime in the north west part of the city.
If the proponents wanted to try again, they should limit it to 1 marijuana business per individual or corporation. Also they could make set asides for ethnic minorities and even veterans to add some diversity to the marketplace. Maybe establish 2-3 stores in each quadrant of the city instead of just three owned by one owner. The San Bernardino County Republican Party is located above a marijuana dispensary and it leads to vandalism, loitering and other crimes around the business park where its located. I think a private security officer should be employed by the landlord to help facilitate the customers to get in and out of the business. I think when Proposition 64 happens, marijuana is going to be super saturated where the price of the product is going to be reduced which will hopefully kill down the value.
Monopolies suck, spreading the brunt of the establishments in one part of the city is also wrong.
Believe it or not, its legal for people to run for more than one office in California as long as you are not running for two legislative offices. Paul Vincent Avila is running for State Assembly and Ontario City Council and two members of the Galvez family Sarah is running for Ontario City Clerk and Ontario-Montclair School District, while Richard is running for Ontario City Council and also on the ballot against me for the Chaffey Joint Union High School District this November.
When I ran for State Senate in 2014, I knew that I had to expend my energies only on that race. I could not splinter off in two directions and run for a local office as well. I know the Galvez family wants to build some name ID, but running for two offices makes people wonder which office will the members of the family want to keep if they ended up winning both races?
The only secondary office someone should be allowed to run for in addition to the local or legislative office should be is county party committee seats and President/Vice President.
Local politics watchers should also realize that the last man Christopher Agrella who did this in 2010 ended up being a last place finisher in Montclair City Council and Ontario-Montclair School District race.
This would be one piece of electoral reform I would like to see in the state legislature. This loophole should be closed in the next session.
Hello residents of the Chaffey Joint Union School District, I am here to run for the governing board in November. The district covers the cities of Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga and portion of Fontana. I have lived in the area for over 35 years, graduated from Chaffey High School, Chaffey College and UC Riverside.
My goals for the governing board are the following:
Increased trades education and partnerships with organizations and schools to help get our students into these opportunities. Perhaps work with the carpenters union in Ontario, get more guest speakers at our high schools about other various fields such as computer networking, air conditioner repair and cooking to name some other fields. I want our young people successful and productive.
Offer options for students to utilize a digital version of textbooks instead of taking home the book at home depending if the textbook vendors have digital versions available. Students could use the family PC or a tablet to view the books. This is also implemented in the Chino Unified district.
Schools with high traffic congestion should consider staggering their start times so traffic would even out throughout the day. It is one way we can maximize our school sites and make it easier for parents and community members to navigate through the neighborhood. Medical studies have shown that middle and high school students should start school later in the day. Perhaps we could have juniors and seniors start their day at the second period and end with the seventh period as an example. Students who have activities such as marching band would still follow a conventional schedule as well.
Over 60% of the Measure P bond money is still available. I support prudent expenditure of the funds so the money people pay in their property taxes is spent well. This money should last us for the next 16 years at the earliest. Since we borrowed 848 million over 40 years we should not be coming back to property owners unless an earthquake ravages our schools or we have a massive baby boom.
Yes, you may have gotten a flyer from a PAC ran by Charles Munger Jr. stating that these individuals may be good picks for central committee in San Bernardino County’s 4th Supervisor
District. However I have an issue with one of those members on this slate mailer, DO NOT vote for Steve Davey, he has had a horrific attendance record in 2015. If you want a conservative member to represent you, there are other quality individuals you can consider such as Ben Lopez or Earl DeVries.
If people do not regularly attend central committee meetings they should not be running for central committee. I am not against conservative people representing my county party, but people need to be active participants and Ben Lopez has done more for the county party than Steve Davey has ever done.
UPDATE: Steve Davey failed to show up for the May meeting.
Look at the recommendations from the Chino Tea Party or the Redlands Tea Party group for ideas.
Proposition 50: NO
The California Federation of Republican Women have something to say about it.
You will find one ballot measure on the June Primary Ballot- Prop 50. The CFRW recommends a “NO” on Prop 50! This proposition is titled, “Suspension of Legislators”, so many voters will think that this is a good measure protecting them from bad legislators. This bill was authored by Senator Darrell Steinberg in the wake of three Democrat Senators being either indicted or convicted of multiple felonies last legislative session. All three Senators were suspended with pay during the ordeal. At the time, Senator Steinberg was Senate President Pro Tem and attempted to save face with this proposed ballot measure. But Prop 50 does nothing to protect constituents, instead it perpetuates the culture of corruption by not allowing the legislature to expel indicted or convicted felons, but instead suspend them with or without pay. Californians deserve better. Prop 50 is also written so that members of the majority of the legislature could suspend a col-league just for disagreeing over legislation. This is potentially dangerous and unethical. The CFRW does not agree with this smoke and mirrors measure.
I don’t have any tears for the plight of Cheryl Brown being opposed by progressives in the Democratic Party (Re: Democrats vs. Democrats: Assembly moderates face challenges) on Jan 12 in the Sacramento Bee. I would love to see more ‘moderate’ Democrats in our legislature, but finding a moderate in the caucus is like finding a unicorn in a forest.
Her Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Score is 23.6 percent and she lent her name to a regional government agency to retrofit freeways we already paid for to add toll roads on I-10 and I-15 in Southern California. If Assemblywoman Brown was not a supporter of toll roads and had a score around 40-50 as a Democrat with the Howard Jarvis scorecard, then she would deserve to be spared for another term.
Republicans should run their own candidate in her district so Brown cannot survive solely on their votes as how she was spared by them in two elections.
Fellow Paul supporters are pondering voting for Rand Paul in 2016 after his father runs his final campaign for president, but Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky is showing that he has some slight different views on the issues of the day in particular how President Obama said he was open to marriage equality. Ron may of supported the Texas state marriage ban and does not care that New York has marriage equality, but Rand would be more likely to have an olive branch with the Santorum and the Romney camp in restricting marriage nationwide. Even though Rand decided to express his views on the issue it is not going to affect my vote for June 5th for his father. I will be more than please to take my vote elsewhere for 2016 if he believes in a marriage amendment to nullify federalism in New York and Massachusetts as an example. However Rand’s co-sponsorship of the Human Life Amendment is a good sign he would likely consider a permanent ban on marriage equality nationwide.
I know Rand wanted to do some outreach for his father, but it might of hurt in the long run. Statements like this should have been done after the election season when he enters the spotlight entirely on his own.
So basically we might see a swap of supporters for election 2016. We might see the liberal end of the Ron Paul collation moving to Gary Johnson in the next presidential election if Rand runs next. Liberty is not liberty if liberty is selective. Rand may be Libertarian on issues such as the NDAA or economic policy, but on personal liberty he could likely be drinking buddies with former senator Santorum.
Recently the Republican Party was given a poll from one of President George W Bush’s former pollsters that shows that America and even Republicans are gradually accumulating to equality for LGBT Americans mainly due to knowing a friend or family member who may be LGBT and they are starting to realize they have to treed carefully in how they deal with the issue. Rand is indeed entitled to his beliefs, but the context of what you say matters.
There is a small problem with what Republican national party chairman Priebus stated in a Los Angeles Times article about Rand’s remarks. “People in this country, no matter straight or gay, deserve dignity and respect. However, that doesn’t mean it carries on to marriage,” But if people are not going to be considered as equal Americans then it is not going to make any difference when Priebus tried to smooth over these remarks in an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press. Even if we try to provide dignity and respect to non-heterosexual relationships, politicians including Romney are unwilling to give the same 1,138 rights and responsibilities of marriage to same sex couples and only willing to give a pale fraction of them.
Rand may have some Libertarian sensibilities, but he is more in the Tea Party camp. Personally I think he would be better as a Senate Majority Leader than President. Any Republican would rather see him than Mitch McConnell run the Republican caucus in the senate.