Betty Arenson | Citizens’ Votes Don’t Count Here
By Signal Contributor
Thursday, December 6th, 2018

Jim de Bree, in his “I’m Holding Onto My Wallet” commentary of Nov. 27, reminded readers of a very daunting fact about our California Democrat-dominated politics. That fact is that the citizens’ votes do not count if they go against what this majority demands. If voters prevail on an issue, there’s always a back-up scheme to override voters’ wishes.

Mr. de Bree and I agree that it’s a travesty (my word) that a freedom exists allowing an unfettered path to write ballot wording with misrepresentations and confuse voters. I’ll add that this hostile tactic of prevaricating is commonplace for this majority to get their way.

Opposing voters be damned.

Voters continually miss the absolute fact that voting for any bond is voting for DEBT regardless of how good the message might feel. Much of such debt falls to homeowners in the form of property taxes. That affects renters, too, so voting for your landlord to be taxed is a vote for your rental increase.

Mr. de Bree and I also agreed on a number of the propositions, but not all.

I was against Proposition 2 because of the deceptive message. It’s a money-shuffle of $140 million of one pot to another to allegedly house the mentally ill, with no taxpayer impact. Not so. The next proposition will be for a bond to replace the $140 million taken now from the first pot. It’s just one more shell game.

As for Proposition 4’s bond for more money for children’s and university hospitals, universities are sitting on literally billions and billions of dollars of endowments. It’s past time to put that money to good and visible use and fund such hospitals and lift the burden from taxpayers.

Mr. de Bree found it “odd” I didn’t discuss Proposition 3’s water bond “largely sponsored by Republican interests in the Central Valley” — the strong implication being I didn’t address it because it was a Republican thing. To set the record straight, there were three reasons why I didn’t mention it. One: It didn’t have as much deceptive wording. Two: Voters saw through it and didn’t pass it. And 3: I had reached the column length allowed by The Signal’s rules.

My household heartily voted a resounding NO on Proposition 3. I want no one in my pockets but me.

Betty Arenson

Valencia

About the author

Signal Contributor

Signal Contributor

Betty Arenson | Citizens’ Votes Don’t Count Here

Jim de Bree, in his “I’m Holding Onto My Wallet” commentary of Nov. 27, reminded readers of a very daunting fact about our California Democrat-dominated politics. That fact is that the citizens’ votes do not count if they go against what this majority demands. If voters prevail on an issue, there’s always a back-up scheme to override voters’ wishes.

Mr. de Bree and I agree that it’s a travesty (my word) that a freedom exists allowing an unfettered path to write ballot wording with misrepresentations and confuse voters. I’ll add that this hostile tactic of prevaricating is commonplace for this majority to get their way.

Opposing voters be damned.

Voters continually miss the absolute fact that voting for any bond is voting for DEBT regardless of how good the message might feel. Much of such debt falls to homeowners in the form of property taxes. That affects renters, too, so voting for your landlord to be taxed is a vote for your rental increase.

Mr. de Bree and I also agreed on a number of the propositions, but not all.

I was against Proposition 2 because of the deceptive message. It’s a money-shuffle of $140 million of one pot to another to allegedly house the mentally ill, with no taxpayer impact. Not so. The next proposition will be for a bond to replace the $140 million taken now from the first pot. It’s just one more shell game.

As for Proposition 4’s bond for more money for children’s and university hospitals, universities are sitting on literally billions and billions of dollars of endowments. It’s past time to put that money to good and visible use and fund such hospitals and lift the burden from taxpayers.

Mr. de Bree found it “odd” I didn’t discuss Proposition 3’s water bond “largely sponsored by Republican interests in the Central Valley” — the strong implication being I didn’t address it because it was a Republican thing. To set the record straight, there were three reasons why I didn’t mention it. One: It didn’t have as much deceptive wording. Two: Voters saw through it and didn’t pass it. And 3: I had reached the column length allowed by The Signal’s rules.

My household heartily voted a resounding NO on Proposition 3. I want no one in my pockets but me.

Betty Arenson

Valencia