News & Opinion » Endorsements

Brown, Boxer, McLaughlin, and Santos

We also endorse Beier, Maio, Novosel, and Wozniak in Berkeley, Brooks, Schaaf, and Kernighan in Oakland, Kolakowski for judge, and all the pot measures.

5 comments

Page 3 of 3

Measure H (Berkeley Unified): Yes. We support this special tax for school-building maintenance.

Measure I (Berkeley Unified): Yes. We also support this $210 million bond measure to renovate schools.

Measure J (Emery Unified): No. Normally, we support school bond measures, but we opposed this $95 million one because it calls for the demolition and rebuilding of Anna Yates Elementary School just two years after the district spent $9 million renovating it.

Measure L (Oakland Unified): No. Although we agree that California schools are underfunded, particularly Oakland, we oppose this measure because we think the district needs to solve its main financial problem before asking voters for more money. Namely, Oakland has far more schools than it can afford, and it needs to close some of them. Once it does, we would be happy to support another parcel tax.

Measure M (San Leandro Unified): Yes. We endorse this $50 million school bond measure.

Measure N (Albany): Yes. We have no objection to changing the city attorney's position from being elected by the voters to being appointed by the city council.

Measure Q (Albany): Yes. Taxing and regulating medical cannabis is smart.

Measure R (Berkeley): Yes. This is an advisory measure for developing downtown, and we strongly endorse it. It's also received broad-based support from both the business and environmental communities.

Measure S (Berkeley): Yes. We endorse this medical cannabis tax, too.

Measure T (Berkeley): Yes. We also strongly support Berkeley's effort to tax and regulate medium and large medical cannabis growers within the city. It also fixes a loophole in city law that prohibited pot clubs from being near public schools, but not private schools.

Measure V (Oakland): Yes. This is Oakland's medical cannabis tax increase proposal and we support it. It also establishes a 10 percent tax on marijuana should Prop 19 pass.

Measure W (Oakland): Yes. We endorse this reasonable tax on phone lines that would raise about $8 million in much-needed revenue for the city.

Measure X (Oakland): No. We strongly oppose this measure. We won't endorse a $360 annual parcel tax put on the ballot at the request of the police union until union members first agree to pay 9 percent of their pensions like other city employees.

Measure BB (Oakland): Yes. This measure changes the wording in Measure Y, a 2004 initiative approved by voters, to allow the city to keep collecting an existing parcel tax without having to maintain specific police funding levels. The money generated by the tax is needed for community policing, firefighting, and violence prevention programs.

Measure Z (San Leandro): No. We generally oppose sales tax increase measures, like this quarter-cent proposal, because they're overly regressive and they hurt small retailers.

Contra Costa County

Measure M (West Contra Costa Unified): No. West Contra Costa, which includes Richmond, already has too many special taxes on the books.

Measure O (countywide): Yes. We also support CoCo County's version of the $10 vehicle registration to raise funds for road repair, public transportation, and bicycle lanes.

Measure R (El Cerrito): No. We oppose this regressive half-cent sales tax increase.

Measure U (Richmond): Yes. We support this advisory measure on the proposed Point Molate casino because it keeps open the possibility of a potentially huge revenue source and job creator for the city.

Measure V (Richmond). Yes. Of course we endorse Richmond's cannabis tax, too.

Comments (5)

Showing 1-5 of 5

Add a comment
 

Add a comment

Anonymous and pseudonymous comments will be removed.