Policy

SDCTA Voter Guide June 2016   Date: 05/23/2016

Author: SDCTA Staff
Media Source: Miscellaneous

One of the most important functions of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association (SDCTA) is to provide you -the voter- with ballot recommendations that satisfy our criteria for accountable, cost-effective and efficient government. We take pride in the depth of our analysis and the care taken in arriving at our positions. SDCTA has completed its review of the June 2016 Primary Election local ballot measures, and we take a position only with a supermajority (60%) vote of the SDCTA Board of Directors. We offer detailed analyses of each proposition at www.sdcta.org, and they are also linked in this document. We hope our guide is helpful as you vote on June 7th or cast an absentee ballot beforehand!

More

SDCTA supports City of San Diego Proposition B   Date: 05/20/2016

Author: SDCTA Staff
Media Source: Position Paper

The SDCTA supports Proposition B because it would help clarify and bring uniformity to the City Charter’s bond section. It will strike out outdated requirements for General Revenue bond issuance and authorizations that have been superseded by State law. In addition to updating the General Revenue bond section of the City Charter to reflect current state law, the proposition condenses 17 pages of the Revenue Bond section into one concise paragraph. Staff supports these revisions to the Charter because it strikes out unnecessary legalese, and replaces it with language that is clear, concise, and easy for Citizens to understand.

More

SDCTA supports City of San Diego Proposition A   Date: 05/20/2016

Author: SDCTA Staff
Media Source: Position Paper

The SDCTA staff supports this amendment because it follows SDCTA redistricting principles and creates a clearer charter, where the Council, Appointing Authority and City Clerk will be able to exercise good governance while expanding the representation of all the City Council districts. The amendments would clarify the selection of the Redistricting Commission as well as the resulting “appointing authority,” their voting regulation and use of the federal consensus resulting in a geographically diverse appointing panel. The proposition addresses the concern brought forward by the Grand Jury and community feedback in regards to the inherent conflict of interest that exists when elected officials draw voting lines. Finally, Staff recommends support because empirical evidence has shown that the likely effect of increased homogeneity in representatives due to the goal of one commissioner per existing district is likely to result in a more heterogeneous and thus representative City Council (i.e., better able to represent diverse interests). Contemporary studies also encourage the addition of commissioners to lower paid staff costs and increase the overall quality of the districts to avoid expensive judicialization, and this change also resets the size of population represented by each commissioner to the number of people when the Redistricting Commission was first formed in 1990. Staff wish to point out that future amendments on redistricting ought instead to reference the number of City Council districts instead of a discrete numerical figure.

More