State and federal offices

Governor — Arnold Schwarzenegger

U.S. Senate — Dianne Feinstein

U.S. House of Representatives, 12th District — Tom Lantos

U.S. House of Representatives, 14th District — Anna Eshoo

Lieutenant governor — John Garamendi

Secretary of state — Bruce McPherson

Controller — John Chiang

Treasurer — Bill Lockyer

Attorney general — Jerry Brown

Insurance commissioner — Steve Poizner

Board of Equalization, District 1 — Betty Yee

State Senate, District 8 — Leland Yee

Assembly, 21st District — Ira Ruskin

Assembly, 19th District — Gene Mullin


State propositions

Proposition 1A — Solidifies previously passed Proposition 42 that calls for the gasoline tax to be only used for transportation improvements and ensures the $2 billion a year collected for it not be siphoned off for other budget needs. YES.

Proposition 1B — Asks permission to borrow nearly $20 billion for highway safety, traffic reduction, air quality and port security. The majority of the money — $11.3 billion — will go to reduce traffic congestion and make highway and local road improvements. Additional money will go toward public transportation, the creation of better roads for better air quality to and from our ports and better security of all our transportation systems. YES.

Proposition 1C — Seeks $2.85 billion for development near existing urban areas and near public transportation. It will also create new opportunities for families priced out of home ownership in addition to multifamily and other housing programs. YES.

Proposition 1D — Asks for $10.4 billion for earthquake safety and new or upgraded facilities in schools, colleges and universities throughout California. It will offer relief for overcrowded schools by allowing schools to replace portable class rooms and offer $500 million in matching grants for new construction and modernization of charter schools. Will have a direct impact in San Mateo County as some school districts have been unfairly saddled with the cost of charter school facilities. YES.

Proposition 1E — Proposes the state borrow $4.09 billion to rebuild the Delta’s levees and improve flood control throughout the Central Valley. The levee system’s problems received more attention after Hurricane Katrina caused the a devastating levee breach in New Orleans that caused billions in damage and much loss of life and property. Proposition 1E also provides money for flood control outside the Central Valley. YES.

Proposition 83 — Seeks to prohibit registered sex offenders from living 2,000 feet from any school or park, requires GPS monitoring of felony registered sex offenders and changes the two-year involuntary civil commitment for sexually violent predators to an indefinite time. The measure means well but requiring all sex offenders to stay 2,000 feet would unfairly push them into suburban or rural areas. In addition, requiring GPS monitoring would be expensive and wouldn’t keep repeat offenders from finding victims in places other than parks and schools — like the Internet. NO.

Proposition 84 — A catch-all proposition that made it onto the ballot through signatures. It seeks $5.8 billion to flood control, safe drinking water, open space and parks. While its ambition is enviable, it tries to do too much with too little and it is vague in its message. In addition, similar propositions have been approved in the past. NO.

Proposition 85 — Aims to amend the state Constitution to prohibit abortion for unemancipated minors until 48 hours after a doctor notifies a parent or legal guardian. Teens in certain situations can find help in a number of social programs and not everyone lives in a supportive family environment. NO.

Proposition 86 — Seeks to add a $2.60 tax to each pack of cigarettes sold in California for hospitals, nursing education, health insurance for eligible children and health programs. It is also unfair to tax a segment of our society — usually the poor — to fund new state programs with little oversight. NO.

Proposition 87 — Taxes California oil production in the state. It is not a tax on the gasoline we pump into our cars, but has a chance of raising that price by creating a disincentive for oil companies to search for new oil supplies here. The further oil must travel, the more it may cost. NO.

Proposition 88 — Creates a $50 a parcel tax for education funding across the state. It would create $450 million in new tax revenue each year. Do we really want to send our money to other places in California? Or would we rather have local control over our school funding? Keep local money local. NO.

Proposition 89 — Seeks to increase the tax rate of corporations and financial institutions by 0.2 percent to allow certain candidates for public office to receive public funding for their campaigns. It is the brainchild of one special interest group — the California Nurses Association. NO.

Proposition 90 — The fear of eminent domain is being used to mask what will ultimately destroy local land control, lead to overdevelopment and create years of legal battle that could cripple cities. If passed, Proposition 90 will require municipalities to pay property owners for regulations that damage their property. NO.


Local candidates

San Mateo County Board of Education

Area 3 — Rhonda Ceccato (incumbent)

Area 4 — Rod Hsiao


South San Francisco Unified School District Board of Trustees

Maurice Dupra Goodman

Philip Weise (incumbent)

John Sanna


Peninsula Healthcare District Board of Trustees

Helen Galligan (appointed incumbent)

Donald Newman (incumbent)

Sue Smith (incumbent)


Sequoia Healthcare District

John Oblak (appointed incumbent)

Don Horsley

Arthur Faro (incumbent)


Local ballot measures

Measure A — Will raise approximately $16 million a year for county parks by increasing the sales tax one-eighth of a cent. YES.

Measure H — $44 million bond measure that will repair levees, storm drain pipes and creeks, increase pollution control, seismically retrofit Burlingame’s recreation center and city hall while making basic improvements to its police and fire stations.

Measure M — $298 Million bond for capital improvements at schools in the San Mateo Union high School District. YES.

Recommended for you

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.

Thank you for visiting the Daily Journal.

Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading. To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.

We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.

A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!

Want to join the discussion?

Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.

Already a subscriber? Login Here