Sunday, November 7, 2010

Sierra Madre 2010: Final Election Totals

On Planet Sierra Madre we do care who wins the big statewide races. After all, it must be recognized that we are a part of it all. But equally important is who or what got the most votes here in town. And now, thanks to the Office of the Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, we can finally share those figures with you.

It has been a wait, I know.

Some rather baffling numbers to point out to you. Jerry Brown carried Sierra Madre handily, while fellow Democrat Barbara Boxer only eked out a victory here. Yet Republican David Dreier also carried the town and got more votes than Boxer. And despite the terrible bashing both the Sierra Madre Weekly and its out of wedlock spawn the Sierra Madre Patch gave him, Republican Tim Donnelly carried Sierra Madre as well. The biggest vote getter here? Republican Steve Cooley.

Prop 23 went down to a very sound defeat in town despite all our fine efforts. But then again so did the Pot Prop, although the numbers were much closer. Maybe there is a connection? Here in the 1/4 Mile High City not all Bud is served cold in a can.

Anyway, here's the totals. Enjoy the nice chocolate cake.

Governor
Laura Wells (Green) - 48
Meg Whitman (Republican) - 2,073
Dale F. Ogden (Libertarian) - 83
Jerry Brown (Democrat) - 2,306
C Nightingale (American Independent) - 38
Carlos Alvarez (Peace & Freedom) - 18

Lieutenant Governor
James Castillo (Green) - 69
C T Weber (Peace & Freedom) - 42
Jim King (American Independent) - 79
Pamela J Brown (Libertarian) - 230
Gavin Newson (Democrat) - 2,192
Abel Mondonado (Republican) - 1,803

Secretary of State
Christina Tobin (Libertarian) - 98
MaryLou Cabral (Peace & Freedom) - 38
Debra Bowen (Democrat) - 2,160
Merton D Short (American Independent) - 53
Ann Menasche (Green) - 125
Damon Dunn (Republican) - 1,891

Controller
John Chiang (Democrat) - 2,145
Lawrence G Beliz (American Independent) - 44
Ross D Frankel (Green) - 85
Andrew Favor (Libertarian) - 121
Tony Strickland (Republican) - 1,934
Karen Martinez (Peace & Freedom) - 57

Treasurer
Debra L Reiger (Peace & Freedom) - 36
Edward M Teyssier (Libertarian) - 81
Charles Crittenden (Green) - 103
Mimi Walters (Republican) - 1,746
Bill Lockyer (Democrat) - 2,378
Robert Lauten (American Independent) - 37

Attorney General
Diane B Templin (American Independent) - 38
Steve Cooley (Republican) - 2,424
Robert J Evans (Peace & Freedom) - 39
Peter Allen (Green) - 97
Kamala D Harris (Democrat) - 1,719
Timothy J Hannan (Libertarian) - 96

United States Senator
Duane Roberts (Green) - 43
Barbara Boxer (Democrat) - 2,208
Gail K Lightfoot (Libertarian) - 66
Marsha Feinland (Peace & Freedom) - 45
Carly Fiorina (Republican) - 2,140
Edward C Noonan (American Independent) - 39

26th Congressional District
Randall Weissbach (Libertarian) - 138
Russ Warner (Democrat) - 1,885
David L Miller (American Independent) - 164
David Dreier (Republican) - 2,243

59th Assembly District
Tony Tyler (Libertarian) - 136
Tim Donnelly (Republican) - 2,084
Robert Gosney (American Independent) - 88
Darcel Woods (Democrat) - 1,992

State Measure 19 (would have legalized pot - lost)
Yes - 2,155
No - 2,316

State Measure 20 (gerrymanders Congressional districts using outside help: passed)
Yes - 3,054
No - 1,212

State Measure 21 (would have provided extra cash for parks by increasing license fees by $18: lost)
Yes - 1,891
No - 2,494

State Measure 22 (prevents state govt thieves from taking tax money from the local ones: passed)
Yes - 2,609
No - 1,670

State Measure 23 (you will not believe what Jerry Brown is going to do with AB 32: lost)
Yes - 1,703
No - 2,703

State Measure 24 (would have given some businesses a reason to stay here: lost)
Yes - 1,484
No - 2,811

State Measure 25 (state budget approvals by simple majority - makes California a de facto one party state: passed)
Yes - 2,103
No - 2,155

State Measure 26 (some state and local fees now take a 2/3s vote to approve: by some small miracle it passed)
Yes - 2,185
No - 2,077

State Measure 27 (an attempt to get the state back into the gerrymandering game, though I doubt it was ever actually out: lost)
Yes - 1,130
No - 3,084

So there you have it. The mysterious political voice of Sierra Madre has spoken once again. Monday we will have an article detailing just what exactly the majority here may have helped to unleash upon our little town.

If only they'd known.

http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

28 comments:

  1. They didn't call Jerry Brown Moonbeam for nothing. He was into the religion of saving the earth before it was popular. So, just wait what happens to the regulations that we'll have for AB32 and SB375. Small manufactoring business, look out. Or, move out of state. Any benefit that comes from AB32 is strictly financial for the "green" business who will have things manufactured in China to be sold and installed here.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If "green jobs" are the next employment powerhouse, why is unemployment at record levels in California?

    ReplyDelete
  3. That's interesting. The decidedly uncivil Tim Donnelly got
    300 more votes than Joe Mosca.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Crawford?
    I've been hearing on the John and Ken show and the Wayne Resnick show on KFI 640 that Prop. 26 may just help negate the bad effects of Prop.23.
    I don't really understand it, perhaps some of our readers can offer some information on this?
    John and Ken and Wayne all said that the reason the big money did not come in to support 23 was because they felt they would win 26 and it would counter it? True or not true?
    Thanks for any information, this Prop.23 not passing is disturbing to say the least.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I love Tim Donnelly.
    He is a lot like the bobblehead's description of "uncivil" as in MacGillivray, Crawford, Watts and Alcorn. In other words- an honest representitive of the PEOPLE, not SPECIAL INTERESTS.
    Thank you to all Sierra Madre voters who voted for Tim! I know his campaign worked very hard, going door to door.
    For those of you who didn't vote for Tim, he'll represent your best interests, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  6. SF Chronicle on 23 vs 26November 7, 2010 at 8:37 AM

    But celebrations have turned to fears about the impact of what some have called its "evil twin" - Prop. 26, which passed Tuesday. That's the initiative relabeling environmental mitigation and other fees as taxes, requiring the virtually impossible to get two-thirds vote, thus starving state and local treasuries even further.

    "In effect they will stop (AB32, the climate change law) with this," said Scott Hauge, president of Small Business California, who supports the law, "along with many of us in the business community." Hauge was referring to San Ramon's Chevron Corp. (which was "neutral" on Prop. 23) and the California Chamber of Commerce, both of which poured millions of dollars into Prop. 26.

    According to a UCLA School of Law study last week, the initiative "could have substantial and wide-ranging impacts on implementation of the state's health, safety and environmental laws," including AB32. Noting that the state imposes regulatory fees for such programs, the study said Prop. 26 will "make it harder to fund these programs in the future."

    Responding to reporters' questions on the matter, Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the state Air Resources Board, said, "We have an administrative fee in place now under AB32. As far as any future fees and how they would fit into a regulatory program, that's something we would have to take a look at on a case-by-case basis. Undoubtedly there will be issues raised as a result of (Prop. 26) passing."

    But, said Nichols, whose agency is in charge of implementing the law beginning next year, "We do not believe our efforts will be derailed as a result of Proposition 26 passing."

    One thing is for sure: There will be lawsuits.



    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/04/BU1O1G76RL.DTL#ixzz14cCt3CAg

    ReplyDelete
  7. Interesting, 8:37. Were they so obsessed with Prop 23 that Prop 26 sailed through without any questions? Who knows, maybe Prop 23 was designed to be a distraction all along.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Good news from a "progressive" San Fran blogNovember 7, 2010 at 9:04 AM

    But the passage of the low-profile Proposition 26 – which requires a two-thirds vote for all fee increases in the state legislature and at the local level – will make it virtually impossible for Democrats to seriously address the budget crisis, or combat global warming. It was heartening to see voters defeat Prop 23 and pass Prop 25, but the passage of Prop 26 renders these victories practically meaningless.

    http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=8645#more

    Good news from a "progressive" San Fran blog.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks, law experts, you just made my day.

    I hope all our favorite attorneys who read the Tattler ( as in those for slow growth) will be able to take advantage of this and make some big $$$$$$$$$$.
    I really wondered why no really big money came in for 23. Now it makes sense, and all I can say is WOW......best of luck to our attorneys!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Two oil companies supported Prop 23, the rest put their money behind 26. Looks like the ruse worked.

    The results are truly California, though. The voters got to think they were voting their "green" hearts on 23, yet refusing to pay for it with 26.

    Sometimes you just gotta larf.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The key issues buried in Prop 22 involve the abuse of eminent domain and the steering of local monies towards development. Much like Prop 13, most of this initiative is "bait" for the vote to structurally change constitutional law so that development can continue to drain public dollars. Not too many folks figured this out, and the ones who did, like the local press and the League of Women voters, did not take a position on this one. It takes years for the impact to play out before the dysfunction is clear, much like Prop 13 stands now.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I wish California would just have a moratorium on Propositions for the next 5 years.
    It would save everyone a ton of money!

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm confused (as usual); I thought it was prop 13 that kept my property taxes (somewhat) afforable, and at least, predictable. I remember pre-prop 13, my parents paying 3-4% of our home's value. What am I missing?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I wonder what the percentages are for people who actually
    know what is going on in this town? 20%? 15%? Doesn't seem
    to be a whole lot.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hey! That's cheating. Patch just stole all of Sir Eric's research
    and put it up on his site like he did it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hi, Howard, as you well know, Prop 13 redirected all the property taxes to Sacramento instead of directly to local jurisdictions for schools and libraries which were under the purview of the LA Co Tax Assessor and its abusive practices. Yes, it capped the tax for a now vanishingly small group of residential taxpayers, but also gave huge tax breaks to existing businesses which pass property along through trusts so the income-producing assets never get taxed at a regular rate; it's relatively tax-free immortality for these big land trusts. Meantime most of the residential population is NOT under Prop 13 any longer. It's a nasty one. And now there's a sales tax on home sales to begin in 2012. Pile on.

    Meantime, the schools and libraries are no longer funded except through Sacramento and its increasing fees and surcharges. That's why most of the public school districts now have private foundations to keep them going, since Sacramento is no longer obligated to fund them, it's just been in the state budget as a line item.

    ReplyDelete
  17. A loyal Democrat sezNovember 7, 2010 at 1:42 PM

    Vote Democratic ! Just don't ask questions, or ask why California is in the toilet financially, it's none of your business.. Just vote Democratic.
    They will send you voter's guides so you know how to vote, ... if you know whats good for you, who cares what a shit hole California will turn into.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Prop 26 reclassifies many fees as taxes, which means they need 2/3s approval to become active. Is this true everywhere in California? Does this mean a new UUT hike will need 2/3s to pass? I'm pinching myself here, sounds almost too good to be true.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Mod, I think we have a Jerry Brown operative hereNovember 7, 2010 at 2:28 PM

    1:36, are you suggesting that California property owners foot the bill for everyone else in the state? Which residential taxpayers are not under prop 13 . . . do you mean renters who pay no property tax?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Sales Tax on Ca Real Estate SalesNovember 7, 2010 at 2:32 PM

    False according to snopes.com but keep up the propaganda, comrade.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Another take on prop 23 vs. prop 26

    http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kgrenfell/proposition_26_will_not_stop_a.html

    ReplyDelete
  22. 2:28, what do you mean renters pay no property tax? Landlords pass the property tax along to renters. Always has been; always will be.

    Jeeze are you ever deluded.

    ReplyDelete
  23. What about those property owners who's property taxes are so low because they bought prior to 1978? Do they give their renters a break by lowering their rent? You better believe they don't. They charge the going rate.

    ReplyDelete
  24. To Have and Have NotNovember 7, 2010 at 2:58 PM

    I guess I was right: it's us vs them, renters vs property owners. Except most of us property owners aren't landlords, and you renters better hope they don't raise property taxes back to pre prop 13 levels and those nasty landlords pass on that burden to your innocent souls.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hopefully California can revert back to the the agricultural state it was before the war.That was before huge development and floods of people pored into what was once Paradise.I recommend you all go home from where you came from.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Yes, there's to be a sales tax on capital gains on real estate for the wealthier folk.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Thanks to Barbara Boxer and Diane Finestein, the central valley is dead. Drive up Hwy 5 and see the dead and dying fruit trees, and hallow fields. No water because of the insane desire to save a minnow in the Sacramento Delta. Most of the water that flows in Northern California flows to the sea instead of to our farmers. Congress and the greenies made sure to save the little fishies.

    ReplyDelete
  28. $$$$ AT CITY HALL CASH REGISTER $$$$
    1)THE CITY MANAGER YELLS AT THE TOP OF HER VOICE & CALLS OUR CITY RESIDENT A LIAR>>>
    2) THE RESIDENT REPLYS...ELAINE< YOU STATED THAT THE CITY NEEDS TO BORROW $30 MILLION DOLLARS MORE MONEY FOR IT'S WATER DEPARTMENT...
    3) WHEN IN FACT...THE CURRENT CITY BUDGET, EXECUTED BY ELAINE (OUR CITY MANAGER) STATES THAT THE CITY NEEDS $50 MILLION DOLLARS MORE MONEY, NOT $30 MILLION AS THE CITY RESIDENT STATED. THE BUDGET STATES IT'S FOR THE WATER DEPARTMENT & ASPHALT STREETS...
    4) OUR CITY RESIDENT STANDS TO BE CORRECTED ...
    5) YOU ARE RIGHT ELAINE...LETS PUT THE CITY INTO BANKRUPCY AND BORROW $50 MILLION MORE DOLLARS

    SOLUTION...
    THE RESIDENTS NEED TO TAKE AWAY THE CITY MANAGERS & CITY COUNCIL'S PRINTING PRESS REQUIRED TO BORROW MONEY!!!


    from a concerned Sierra Madre Resident

    ReplyDelete