Berkeley Measure Q. Yes or no? I live in District 2. (well, sometimes.) I'm naive. I always wondered why there were so many condoms on the streets. Who was leaving them there? I mean, it's not like the sidewlks are carpetted, but I'd have to be alert to keep xena from getting in to them. And chicken bones. How do so many chicken bones get on to the street? Am I naive again? What about the creepy men in the berkeley aquatic park? Are they looking for drugs or female prostituttes or male prostitutes or each other? That park is creepy in the middle of the day.
The green party says vote yes. But Barbara Lee is remaining quiet on the issue. The city council memeber endorsed by Lee, Darryl Moore, is against Q. The NOW said 30 years ago it favored decriminalization.
Casaninja 1 had prostitutes in the front yard on weekends. Rich folks would come down from the hills and come into my neighborhood to buy cars, drugs and sex. My house got broken into more than once. I lost stuff. I don't think that I want prostitutes hanging out in front of any house that I'm in. As far as I know (I'm still naive), I've never seen anyone working outside of my Berkleey place. What about a ballot measure to enforce anti-prostitution laws only within 500 feet of a residence or a park? Then, theoretically, creepy guys would leave the park and the condoms would (as they are now) stay confined to in front of warehouses. And what about child prostitution? I mean, consenting adults are one thing, but shouldn't kids get swept up into the system? In short, mix a desire for equal rights for women and workers with some NIMBYism and a what-about-the-children plea. Oh and a concern about property values, which I hate when I hear people say that, but I'm about to make a major transaction and I don't want my place to fall from its current value. It can stay put forever, but not down. That would make me sad.
Danica didn't vote on this, so I can't consult her blog. Arg. What to think?
Say something soon, I'm going to priority mail my ballot tomrrow. I thought it was a postmark deadline, but it's a reciept deadline. bleah!
[update: i voted yes for every single non-state ballot measure aside from Q, which i dunno about. i'm feeling very affirmative today. bart! sure! parks! ok!. Danica voted no on CC, but Barbara Lee signed the argument in favor of CC . . . Vote against the patriot act, get loyalty from me. . . ]
[update again - what about state props 60a, 61, 65, 67 & 71? state initiatives are not as fun as berkeley measures.]
4 comments:
got my ballot right here (i walk it into my polling place on tuesday).
60a yes, 61 no, 65 no, 67 yes, & 71 yes. either barbara lee's recommendations or my own take on who was in favor and opposed in the voter handbook.
Hi, it's Polly!
The Greens of San Mateo County say no on 60a, no consensus on 61, no on 65, yes on 67 & no on 71.
chicken bones? what do you think that's about?
olga
i dunno what the chicken bones are about. I imagine that it's people eating/living in their cars that just throw trash everywhere. For the first year or two I lived in my condo, people living in RVs would dump their sewage in the gutter right out front. I think they stopped once they realized the buildings were occupied and they might be disturbing people / get a ticket. But I also thought the condoms were from people who were just happy to see each other, so I could be completely wrong. I'm kind of glad that nobody is living in their car in front of the building anymore. I mean, if I were living in a car, I would want to do it in a residential neighborhood, because it would feel safer. But as a resident, it made me feel nervous, esp walking the little dog I had late at night. That stupid dog had to go out everynight at 4:00 AM or he would poop on the floor and I could not train him out of it no matter how hard I tried. Poor Bear. RIP.
I voted yes on Q and then all of Jean's reccomendations, except no on 60a or 61a or whichever it was, because it has very limitted financial impact and it seems like a pointless thing to amend the constitution about. In CA, we amend the constitution every time we sneeze, but I dunno if that's a good idea. Maybe we could just pass a law instead. If the legislature wants to do something about surplus property, then go for it. Anyway, the right thing to do with surplus property is to convert it into housing so people don't have to live in their cars or in RVs. We're sucha rich country, then why are so many people homeless? It's a disgrace.
There should be a Berkeley measure to allow free RV sewage dumping someplace, to keep it out of the gutters and the bay, too. Obviously, the people doing it can't pay for dumping at a pay site, so instead of pushing further financial penalty on them, it would make more sense just to give them someplace to do it and keep the streets cleaner.
Post a Comment