Posted on 03/17/2006 3:51:44 PM PST by calcowgirl
I'M ALMOST tempted, given the bad behavior of politicians in Sacramento over whether to upgrade California's decaying levees, roads, reservoirs and other infrastructure, to just sit back and hope a nasty 500-year flood inundates the Capitol with thick muck.
Too bad few politicians would suffer. Instead, thousands upon thousands of far-too-blissfully ignorant residents would lose their homes, and even their lives, if a catastrophic flood should strike Sacramento ... As if taunting the heavens, local Sacramento politicians have insanely allowed developers to construct thousands of residences on the bottomlands of floodplains.
What's needed is a measure that focuses like a laser on infrastructure, such as the cracked and scary Highway 99 in the San Joaquin Valley. But no.
Republicans oppose the latest plan because it is a costly and strange compromise, filled with projects that have nothing to do with public works or infrastructure. Democrats, perhaps not wanting to hand the governor a successful bond measure as he approaches his re-election bid later this year, have insisted on poison-pill social engineering, including low-rent housing constructed on "transportation corridors."
When will elected Democrats give up their badly aging and failed dream to persuade intelligent Californians to live in crowded buildings on busy streets, all for the pleasure of jamming onto buses to get to "nearby" jobs?
The "infrastructure" bond package contained so many pet projects that it would violate the state Constitution - by jamming disparate issues in one ballot measure. So the Legislature had even proposed a constitutional amendment, Assembly Constitutional Amendment 10, to make this crazy quilt measure legal.
Like I said at the top, it's tempting to wish a major disaster upon our Capitol. Funny thing is, the Legislature is managing to achieve that all by itself.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
The writer has no clue about the geography of Sacramento. The portion subject to potential flooding is on the other side of the river from the capitol. The "blissfully ignorant residents," as she call us, would not be affected if the capitol got flooded.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
The Senate passed AB 135 that appropriated $1 billion for levee repair (no bond), yet to pass the Assembly.
The Assembly passed 2 of Perata's bills (SB 69 and SB 74) as a give-away-vote since at that point the June Ballot was dead-on-arrival and the Senate had gone home.
Although her rant center around the bond battle:
So it has been fascinating to see our badly divided state Legislature fighting in recent days
She did come closer to touching upon the heart of the principled objections over the bonding than any of the other liberal hacks who have profundicated since Wednesday.
This is due to the fact that the city, county and state have never built up flood barriers .. As if taunting the heavens, local Sacramento politicians have insanely allowed developers to construct thousands of residences on the bottom lands of floodplains.
Simply, the bonding package ran into problems on the right side of the aisle because Schwarzenegger and the Democrats wanted to fund local infrastructure/feel good projects with GO bonds. A no no under traditional, legal precedences and procedures.
If the Sacrament Valley residents want better protection from their river, then Sacramento Valley residents can pay for it. If SoCal's teaming masses want more freeways, then SoCal's masses can pay for them. If the LAUSD wants more and newer schools then the district's residents can pay for them.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
But, but, but... who pays for affordable housing?
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Jamming is right. It is flat out wrong. The "single subject" rule in the Constitution is there for a reason. This bundling maneuver into a single mega-bond is nothing more than a method to mask all of their pork. It was also combined with bypassing the Constitution's "single object or work" requirement for borrowing. You can't get your freeway fixed unless you approve of affordable housing, new soccer fields, and retrofitting school buses to fight global warming. We should let all of our legislators know what we think of this SHAM!
I agree. But developers (big campaign donors) want to keep building.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.