No on propositions 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89 and 90

Along the way, there might be some good, but generally speaking, special interests with questionable financial backing still lead the way in the initiative process. On the surface, there are some propositions that seem like no-brainers — restricting sex offenders, revamping campaign financing or limiting the government’s ability to seize private property. However, too often they are Trojan horses that will do more harm than good.

It is just the case with Proposition 83. It is difficult to not like this proposition at its face value. There are too many sexually violent predators and sex offenders in California, period. However, 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.

Current law requires that parolees convicted of specified sex offenses against a child from living within 1,320 or 2,640 feet of a school. Requiring all sex offenders to stay 2,000 feet away would unfairly push them into suburban or rural areas and a new law authored by state Sen. Jackie Speier, D-San Mateo, already changes the two-year involuntary civil commitment for sexually violent predators to an indefinite time. 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.

Proposition 83 means well, but it is best to allow elected officials to take sensible steps to keep sexual predators both off the streets and away from children. Vote 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. Vote 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. We can all agree that smoking kills and it should be avoided, but smoking is still legal. It is also unfair to tax a segment of our society — usually the poor — so much to fund new state programs with little oversight. Vote no.

Proposition 87 is a tax on 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. The point of this proposition may be to create $4 billion for research and development of alternative energy sources. That may be a lofty goal, but its source is wrong. The foreign oil market is too unstable for us to depend solely on it. Vote no.

Proposition 88 would create a $50 a parcel tax for education funding across the state. It would create $450 million in new tax revenue each year. Supporters say it is a modest investment to help ensure students have updated textbooks, smaller classes and safer classes. Here in San Mateo County, districts struggle for funding every year and have similar parcel taxes for teachers, programs and classes. 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. Vote 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 also imposes new campaign contribution limits and restricts contributions by lobbyists while limiting certain contributions by corporations. In essence, the proposition will tax corporations and prevent their first amendment rights of expressing their point of view through political contributions. The measure is the brainchild of one special interest group — the California Nurses Association — and will limit the ability of other groups to oppose their plans. It also limits small companies from making political contributions that are currently allowed. Proposition 89 may sound good, but it is flawed and unfair.

Proposition 90 gained steam after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a local government that wanted to take homes in Connecticut to generate higher tax revenues with a new development. Since the ruling, eminent domain has become an issue of individual rights versus communities’ desire to improve.

However, 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. In San Mateo, the City Council recently approved the Delaware Place project with 111 units — less than the maximum allowed density of 143 units. With Proposition 90, the city would be required to pay the property owner for the 32 units it could have built under the existing law.

Those who want to allow city officials to have flexibility to ask a property owner to create a smaller development than the maximum allowed should vote no on Proposition 90.