Serving Beverly Hills, Bel Air, Holmby, Century City, Trousdale, Brentwood, Westwood

The Courier’s 2016 Election Endorsements

Measure HH (Hilton Initiative): Yes
In addition to a new 26-story building at the City’s gateway, “yes on HH” means a new 1.7 acre garden that will be open to the public (the covenant has been recorded by the county) and will bring $33 million in additional revenue on top of all the previously guaranteed development fees. All that, with no additional impacts.

Measure M (Metro transportation sales tax): No
Even Metro admits this is a “forever tax.” We cannot support a bureaucracy that is self-sustaining for its own purpose. Measure M creates an approximately $860 million annual tax bill for transportation projects that we may never see come to fruition in our lifetime.

Measure Y (school building bond): Yes
Beverly Hills schools are in desperate need of renovation and a yes on Measure Y ensures that our children are learning in the safest, most modern schools.

L.A. County Supervisor: District 5: Kathryn Barger

Superior Court Judges: Office #11: Stephen Schreiner; Office #42: Efrain Matthew Aceves; Office #84: Susan Jung Townsend; Office#158: David A. Berger

Proposition 53 (revenue bond approval): Yes
Proposition 56 (tobacco tax increase): No
Proposition 57 (parole for non-violent criminals): No
Proposition 58 (bilingual public education): No
Proposition 62 (repealing death penalty): No
Proposition 63 (ammo background checks): No
Proposition 64 (marijuana legalization): No
Proposition 66 (death penalty acceleration): Yes
Proposition 67 (plastic bag ban referendum): No
Measure A (parcel tax for parks): No
Measure FF (taxing hillside land parcels): No
Measure GG (taxing hillside land parcels): No
Measure HHH (L.A. homeless housing bond): No

2 responses to “The Courier’s 2016 Election Endorsements”

  1. Lorelei Shark says:

    I had no idea just how ultra conservative the Beverly Hills Courier really is. These ballot recommendations are beyond conservative, they are not in the best interests of “we the people”. They are cruel and non-exclusive. Some of the propositions are to improve the quality of life for our citizens and the planet.
    Yet, I see:
    Proposition 57 NO parole for non-violent criminals
    Prop 57 would allow earlier parole consideration for some nonviolent felons, authorize sentence credits for good behavior, rehab and education, and mandate that a juvenile court judge decide whether a juvenile will be tried as an adult. Proponents say it will save taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. While opponents envision violent criminals running around on their streets 🙁

    Proposition 63 NO ammo background checks
    Prop 63 would require background checks and authorization by the US Department of Justice to buy ammunition, and prohibit possession of large-capacity magazines. Seriously – the Courier opposes this restriction!! 🙁

    Proposition 64 NO marijuana legalization
    Prop 64 would legalize marijuana for adults 21 and over and establish standards for marijuana products. It could result in added tax revenue of up to $1 billion annually, according to the state. But the courier doesn’t approve 🙁

    Proposition 67 NO plastic bag ban referendum
    Prop 67 would prohibit stores from giving away single-use plastic or paper bags, but would permit the sale of recycled paper bags. Seriously, we need to stop our over use of plastic and paper products. We’re destroying our Earth, but the Courier doesn’t see it that way 🙁

    Measure A (parcel tax for parks): No
    Measure A would add a tax of 1.5 cents per square foot of improved property to replace expiring funding for parks and playgrounds, anti-gang efforts, senior and recreation centers safe drinking water, protection for beaches and rivers and preserving natural areas and open spaces. Expiring is the operative word here.

    Measure HHH (L.A. homeless housing bond): No
    Well, why would the Courier not want to encourage housing for the needy?
    This $1.2 billion bond measure would allow for the construction of 8,000-10,000 units of safe, clean affordable housing for the homeless and for those in danger of becoming homeless, such as battered women and their children, veterans, seniors, foster youth and the disabled. It would also provide facilities to increase access to mental health care, drug and alcohol treatment and other services. Property owners would be required to pay an average of $9.64 per assessed $100,000 value. The bond would have citizen oversight and annual financial audits. Two-thirds support is required for passage. For each $1million of value, $96.40 is assessed. That’s well worth while and would save countless lives.

    I have only described the most egregious, anti-people “NO” votes the Courier is endorsing. Shame on you Courier!!

  2. J. Anthony Vittal says:

    You oppose repealing the death penalty (Prop. 62). Since the overwhelming majority of scholarly research around the world clearly establishes that the death penalty does NOT provide a disincentive for the commission of capital crimes, the arguments against repeal ring hollow indeed. On the other hand, death penalty administration shows that it is exceptionally expensive and also may constitute Constitutionally impermissible “cruel and unusual” punishment. It also is imperfect, and the execution of even one factually innocent convict is intolerable. In watching the pro-Prop 62 commercials airing recently, it becomes clear that the proponents are interested only in protecting their “iron rice bowl.” Anyone paying attention to the real facts knows that the proponents are peddling a myth. Why are you?

    At the same time, you are supporting Prop 66 (death penalty acceleration). Expedited executions, without fully-funded specialized legal representation and investigative support (which Prop 66 neither provides nor guarantees), runs an unacceptable risk of affirming defective convictions and taking the lives of innocent individuals. A rush to retribution affords no justice to the victim, the victim’s family, our society, and certainly not to the defendant. What is your interest in supporting this initiative?

    I would hope that the Courier will publish these comments and provide explanations for its positions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sign up for Breaking News & Alerts