Casting a vote is very important to me. As an environmentalist my decisions are always based in the belief that life on planet Earth is worth saving, not just human life but all life. That is why the March 7th elections are so vital to those of us who want to find a way past the culture of destruction.
Upon receiving your voter information pamphlet, some the choices are immediately obvious. For example, in the Senate race Dianne Feinstein is the clear environmental choice. The thought of local Republican Bill Horn representing our environmental needs in Washington DC is a joke of epic scale. Senator Feinstein may not be as "Green" as I would prefer, but she does enjoy 100% voting rating from the League of Conservation Voters. And we all know Mr. Horn shows nothing but contempt for anything not included in his world view, such as native habitat and healthy ecosystems. You do the biology.
When voting for President, again the choice is clear. Vice President Al Gore is the environmental candidate. Again, he may not be as "green" as I would like, far from it, but he does have a firm understanding of the environmental challenges America and the world will have to face in the next century. Regardless of how I feel about Bill and Monica doing the nasty in the oval office I will not let that get in the way of my making rational environmental decisions when voting. To do otherwise is irresponsible.
Speaking of irresponsible, Proposition 26 is just that. Currently it takes a two-thirds vote to pass bond initiatives that would raise property taxes as a funding school construction. And as we all know building schools is the one way to promote local over population. If we want to discourage more people moving to the our overcrowded communities voting NO on proposition 26 would help discourage families with children from moving into the area, and hopefully prompt families with kids to move communities where classes are not overcrowded. Voting no on 26, is voting no on more development.
I will also be voting a resounding NO on Proposition 13. Labeled the Safe Drinking Water, Watershed Protection, and Flood Protection Bond Act you would think I would be all for it. I'm not. Proponents of Prop 13 falsely believe that this is the "key to safe reliable, pollution-free drinking water without new taxes. First of all the only way to make our water "pollution free" is to stop polluting. No amount of taxation will do this. Secondly whenever I hear the phrase flood control I know a river of cement is sure to follow. If you doubt this, one needs only view the City Of Escondido's flood control efforts, to see how floods are "controlled" in Southern California.
The only way to protect our water resources from pollution, and property from floods, is to control the amount of development taking place. You only need flood control when you build in flood plains. In 1996 voters approved $995 million in bonds when they approved Proposition 204, the "Safe, Clean, and Reliable Water Supply Act. Was any of this money used to remove sewer pipes from beneath Buena Vista Creek? Obviously not, as evidenced by the recent sewer spills in Oceanside. Like Prop 204, Proposition 13 on the March 7th ballot also completely ignores the fact that over populated communities destroy watershed in such away that no amount of money will protect them. Taxing does create a healthy environment, common sense does.