The Votes Are In!
2023 Readers' Choice is back, bigger and better than ever!
View Winners → 
Council Authorizes City’s Stance on November Ballot Items
News Sep 27, 2016
by
share with
Although there seemed to be a consensus amongst council, with respects to the propositions/measures in question, the ever-diligent Council Member Hampton voted against supporting Prop. 56 and abstained his vote on Prop. 57. – Photo by Terry Miller
Formal Policy Supports Plastic Bag Ban, Increased Cigarette Tax – Opposes Lenient Parole for Non-Violent Offenders
By Gus Herrera
In light of the upcoming Nov. 8 elections, the Pasadena City Council formally approved the city’s support for four state propositions and two LA County ballot measures. Council’s actions also affirmed the city’s opposition towards two state propositions – Proposition 57 and Proposition 65.
This year’s state ballot fields 17 total propositions, but the legislative committee only recommended that the city formally address those that will directly or indirectly impact Pasadena.
The four state propositions which the city supports are as follows:
– Proposition 51: authorizes the issuance of $9 billion in general obligation bonds to support public education/schools. The money will fund new construction and the renovations/modernization of existing facilities, including public schools, community colleges, charter schools, and vocational education institutions. City staff’s report also noted that the Pasadena Unified School District approved a resolution formally supporting Prop. 51.
– Proposition 54: approves passage of a bill that “would prohibit the Legislature from passing any bill unless it has been in print and published on the internet for at least 72 hours before the vote,” according to staff’s report. Additionally, the bill will require audiovisual recordings of all legislative proceedings (except closed sessions). This bill is meant to increase transparency in state government affairs and hopefully stop the “practice of ‘gutting and amending’ legislation.”
– Proposition 56: increases the cigarette tax by $2. Although the predominant impetus behind the proposition is to deter smoking, according to Mayor Terry Tornek, the increase in state revenue, which is expected to be in the billions, will “be used primarily to augment spending on healthcare for low-income Californians.”
– Proposition 67: upholds the ban on single-use plastic bags. The proposition reaffirms the city’s ordinance, which already bans plastic bags.
Pasadena will formally oppose the following propositions:
– Proposition 57: attempts to address over-crowding in jails by proposing more lenient parole procedures for non-violent offenders. According to staff’s report, the proposition will “essentially increase parole chances for felons convicted of non-violent and give them more opportunity to earn credits for good behavior.”
– Proposition 65: redirects funds collected by grocery/retail stores through sale of carryout bags to a “Wildlife Conservation Board-administered fund.” Although the proposition appears to be pro-environment, city staff states that “it is meant to undermine support for Prop 65 and confuse voters. The proposition would only serve the interests of plastic bag companies … [It] is not about helping fund environmental programs but is simply intended to cause enough voter confusion that … Proposition 67, fails.”
With respects to the LA County Ballot Measures, the city supports the following:
– LA County Traffic Improvement Plan (Measure “M”): authorizes one-half percent sales tax increase to improve and expand infrastructure, hopefully creating jobs and improving transportation, traffic, and public safety. Pasadena would be impacted directly via the extension of the Foothill Gold Line and a new “Orange/Red Line to Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit Connector … ”
– Safe, Clean Neighborhood Parks and Beaches Measure of 2016 (Measure “A”): funding efforts that will allow the city the ability to fast-track/prioritize parks that need work.
There was a fairly evident consensus amongst the council, with respects to approval of the aforementioned propositions/measures. Approval of Prop. 54, Prop. 67, Measure M, and Measure A, in addition to the opposition of Prop. 65 were all approved without opposition as a single sweep motion.
Per the request of Council Member Tyron Hampton, Propositions 56 and 57 were addressed separately, as he personally held reservations towards both. Ultimately, city support for Prop. 56 and opposition towards Prop. 57 were both approved, with only Council Member Hampton voting against the former and abstaining from the latter.
More from News
