I’m scheduled to give you an update on what’s happening around
nation and I will, in a minute.
First, I want to talk about
One Bay Area/PLAN BAY AREA and Agenda 21/Sustainable
Keep in mind that globalization is the
standardization of systems. Making systems uniform so that they can be managed
through a computer with the most efficiency and control is the goal. When the
systems are controlled the people are
Efficiency is the mask for this
totalitarian takeover. Regionalization is the interim step to globalization and,
ultimately, to a single central
control. In order to implement
regionalization local political boundaries must be blurred and erased.
Although the forms may exist for a period of time, there will be no actual power
in the local governments. Unelected boards and commissions will dictate
local action for common good. The common good is identified as that which
fragments and destroys social cohesion. Individuals will serve
Communitarian ideal. So this is a circle that is made tighter and tighter
as time progresses. Dissent necessarily becomes a threat to the common good
and individual expression will be restricted to whatever supports the common
The individual who functions well in this
society is insane.
We’re seeing the results of this pressure now in
You know that an integral part of Plan Bay Area
is the identification of Planned Development Areas in specific narrow locations
in existing or proposed transit corridors. When this plan was being
developed as the Compact for a Sustainable Bay Area back in 1997-2003 much of
the funding was expected to come from Redevelopment property tax
diversion. Conceptually the idea was that areas could be declared blighted
under the Health and Safety Code and then bonded debt could be sold to pay for
high density development---development for which there is little demand so it
needs government subsidies. Redevelopment areas could be rezoned via
Specific Plans which also made them perfect for smart growth. Transit
oriented development and infill development could be designed into the
Redevelopment projects and would basically be immune to challenge because of the
Health and Safety Code blight findings.
California ended in 2012 and this is an inconvenience for SB 375 and AB32-- the
Sustainable Communities Strategies laws that implement Agenda 21 for land use
here in California. HUD grants, the Partnership for Sustainable
Communities Grants, the One Bay Area Grant program, and Transportation grants
all step up to fill in the infrastructure financing gap. We know that even
though CARB has established greenhouse gas reduction targets of 7% below 2005
levels by 2020 and 15% below 2005 levels by 2035 it doesn’t say how to do
that. Rather than having, say, better CAFÉ standards or increasing bus
service, we’re seeing mass transit fare increases and service reduction all over
the Bay Area.
Money for high speed rail will bleed us for decades,
and the North Bay SMART train won’t even link to the ferry system to San
Francisco. If it’s not making sense you can be sure it’s Agenda
The Hegelian Dialectic is at play here: Create a
crisis and then
propose the solution. The so-called compromise is the
plan you would never had considered without the crisis.
Now I want to talk about action. Legal
When PDAs were proposed to cities they had no idea that PDAs were
a restriction on development inside of the Urban Growth Boundaries for a
generation. Cities thought this was just a way to get funds for development and
infrastructure in their core transportation areas. The One Bay Area Preferred
Scenario, already passed by MTC and ABAG, states that roughly 80% of all new
housing units are to be built in the Priority Development
Areas. Enforcement appears to be based on whether or not the affected
cities will be receiving transportation grants to support the new
development. Non-compliance would mean less money for the cities that do
not go along with the plan.
One Bay Area states that 66% of
all new employment is to be within PDA boundaries. Properties with
commercial space, office buildings, factories, and industrial uses could be
worthless under this plan if they are outside the
How would permits be granted and employment
rights be given? Do the quotas for the PDAs have to be achieved first and
then go to the respective 20% and 34% figures? What if those numbers are
not achieved? What criteria will be used to decide who gets development
rights and who doesn't? It is significant that ABAG population projections are
roughly double those of the Department of Finance. ABAG and MTC project
the Bay Area population to increase by 2 million by 2035, while the Dept of
Finance estimates just 1.7 million by 2060. Over-predictions of population
virtually guarantee that we will not reach the target development thresholds set
Most cities have voter approved urban
The ordinances "encourage residential, commercial
and industrial growth in areas served by urban services'. Development is
to be encouraged on all property within the UGB.
these boundaries property owners have a reasonable expectation to develop their
property supported by city infrastructure in accordance with local
regulations. The PDAs ignore these Urban Growth Boundaries and effectively
create new ones; the new non-voter-approved PDAs for 25 years. This is a
violation of local and state law.
In addition to that,
under the 5th amendment of the US constitution, the takings clause states that
no land shall be taken without just compensation. Effectively creating an
artificial restricted new Urban Growth Boundary within the existing Urban Growth
Boundary is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of
the US constitution.
Most cities in California have
increased density in all of their zoning—not just on residential zones. The
General Plans have increased development potential at the same time that it will
be restricted by One Bay Area.
Furthermore, state law
permits all single family residences in California to build a second unit if
certain criteria are met. This law effectively upzoned all single family
properties so that most have development potential. What the PDAs do is
damage every SFR --single family property-- that does not have a second unit on
it. That means most of us have legal standing.
agreements with three law firms to independently review
One Bay Area's
Final Draft Plan when it is released next month.
We want to stop this
plan. If MTC and ABAG are able to push this through we will lose our
constitutional protections all across the nation. We're not interested in
a CEQA challenge. This is a fight to stop the plan itself. We need
to get ready to get our wallets out because this will be the fight of the
One last thing about this: When Hitler
marched into Austria he met little resistance. Why? Because the
dissenters had been rounded up in a single day and arrested. How were
thousands of people identified in such a short time? Every gathering, like
this one, had its spy.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were
a spy here in this room. This is a very serious action we are proposing
and could have far reaching impacts on the entire country. So with that in
mind I will say that if we lose against the MTC we will sue the cities and
And as far as the
news from the nation goes, the Resistance is growing fast and growing strong.
There are people all across the country who will contribute to this fight. This
year, 2013, will be the year that we reach critical awareness of UN Agenda
This year is the year that we break
DONATE TO STOP THIS PLAN.
CLOSE TO HOME --Submitted to the Santa Rosa Press Democrat
May 6, 2013
Post Sustainability Institute
We are suing to stop Plan Bay Area, the nine county land use and transportation plan which is a violation of your constitutional rights and a shocking overreach of the experiment in regional governance.
Our nation is a constitutional republic with a framework of direct election that rises from local government through county, state, and up to the federal level. This framework ensures that the peoples’ rights are protected and that our voices are heard. Plan Bay Area is designed to empower a layer of regional government between state and county, and ultimately between state and federal which renders our voices irrelevant. These regional boards are not elected by the people; the board members are selected out of elected officials who support regional goals.
Regional boards like the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) are holding the purse strings for state and federal transportation and grant dollars. MTC and ABAG have fabricated Plan Bay Area though they claim that it was crafted in response to the needs and desires of Bay Area residents. Most people have never heard of Plan Bay Area. Of the seven million residents of the Bay Area approximately three tenths of one percent have participated in the so-called planning sessions. These planning sessions were tailored to elicit responses that favor high density urban development (Smart Growth), the preferred scenario of Plan Bay Area. Those voicing a dissenting opinion were virtually ignored, labeled as NIMBYs, or as political fringe. As a liberal Democrat, registered since 1974, I recognize this kind of smear as a way of chilling our civil rights by attempting to intimidate those who reject Plan Bay Area’s blatant violation of property rights.
PLAN BAY AREA violates the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution by taking property rights without just compensation. By the creation of Priority Development Areas this Plan restricts 80% of residential development and 66% of commercial development to just a few small areas of your city--until the year 2040. If your property is outside of the PDA (96% of property is outside) you will likely not be able to build or expand your building--and you won't be paid for this loss.
PLAN BAY AREA violates the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution--the Equal Protection Clause. Owners of properties in the Priority Development Areas will receive development permits at a rate of approximately 80 times more than owners of property outside of the Priority Development Areas.
PLAN BAY AREA violates voter-approved Urban Growth Boundary ordinances. Because the Priority Development Areas are within the UGBs but are much smaller restricted areas they are in violation of ordinances that clearly state that development must be encouraged out to the limits of city services: Urban Growth Boundaries. These ordinances are found throughout the Bay Area and cannot be changed without voter approval.
PLAN BAY AREA permanently strips all development rights from rural properties in the nine county Bay Area. Plan Bay Area is effectively taking conservation easements on all rural lands without paying for them.
PLAN BAY AREA restricts development rights of property within the Priority Development Areas, too. Construction will be limited to mixed-use high density Smart Growth development. Existing buildings are likely to be out of compliance with your city's General Plan (legal non-conforming) and permits to make additions or changes will likely not be granted.
This Plan is dependent on tax subsidies and handouts and will devastate the Bay Area for more than a generation. Property rights are a foundation of our freedom and are non-partisan. Join us now in stopping Plan Bay Area.
GOT PROPERTY RIGHTS? NOT UNDER PLAN BAY AREA/ONE BAY AREA.A power legal challenge is being launched against this new regime of restricted property rights. Please click here for more information and to donate.
If you're new to learning about UN Agenda 21/ Sustainable Development you'd be understandably confused about what it is and how it impacts you and your area. You may be wondering how something that affects every aspect of your life including education, health care, law enforcement, energy, land use, and economic development could have eluded your attention for more than 20 years.
How could this have happened?
This is a public relations campaign--the biggest. Your government knows that if you knew what the plan was about in 1992 you would have objected to living under a dictatorship. You would have objected to having your educational system converted to a social indoctrination camp. You would have been distressed to learn that representative government was to be transitioned to non-representational government by appointed boards and commissions that you have no control over. So the propaganda campaign was in full force to hide the source and goals of 'Sustainable Development.'
It's only recently that the press even admits that UN Agenda 21 exists. Did the United Nations chose to call it the 'Agenda for the 21st Century' purposely in order to block further investigation? It sounds crazy. Up until very recently anyone who referred to UN Agenda 21 was labeled a 'conspiracy theorist' or a nut. Now the press acknowledges its existence but says it is a non-binding, twenty year old plan that has no impacts on local government. The United Nations, you are told, is ineffectual and the US just ignores proclamations and agreements it doesn't like.
The rallying cry of Communitarianism pervades your newspaper, television, workplace, and school room as you are encouraged to 'give back,' to volunteer and to think about the common good. If you question you are considered selfish and you won't be invited to the communal bike rides and neighborhood parties.
If you're like us you were a young progressive Democrat in November 1992 and thought Clinton was doing fine (well, a bit later we thought Don't Ask Don't Tell was rotten, and the war in Kosovo looked like a battle to control the heroin trade into Europe, and we thought it was nuts to give loans to people who couldn't afford them). Yes, you thought Clinton was doing fine now that Bush was out of office. You were excited to be part of a movement to encourage recycling and creative reuse. You felt good about yourself and thought Republicans were a bunch of flag-waving rednecks who ate raw meat and slept with their spurs on. You didn't know any Republicans personally, and you didn't want to. Your magazines--Earth Island Journal, Mother Jones, The Nation--were full of the degradation of the planet and the destruction of biodiversity. You were disgusted with developers, oil men, and big corporations and you blamed all of this on Republicans. After the Clinton impeachment trials you were even more convinced of the viciousness of the Republicans. You joined MoveOn.org and hosted political parties in your home. Later, 8 years of Bush Jr cemented your outlook even further. Hanging chads, yellow cake uranium, Jessica Lynch, Shock and Awe, Valerie Plame, Karl Rove, mailing anthrax to the Democrats, all of this and more drove a huge wedge in between the parties. As a Democrat you wouldn't even consider hanging a flag up on July 4th--people might think you were a Republican.
Meanwhile, all of this time, the Sustainable Development machine moved forward. Both parties (feeding on corporate dollars) supported it, furthered it with legislation, strengthened the Environmental Protection Agency, and brought UN Agenda 21 principles into every federal agency--without your knowledge. When you did hear about it from the corporate owned mainstream press it was in glowing terms about saving the planet.
You watched and suffered as your school systems were subjected to Goals 2000 and No Child Left Behind and Outcomes Based Education and Common Core never knowing that no matter how much money was thrown into these experiments in teaching and testing that your children would come out less able to live independent creative lives. Those who were diagnosed with learning disabilities were doused with drugs and warehoused for a dozen years--the silent illiterates. The kids who did well were overloaded with homework and staggering schedules that made office work seem like a relief.
Right around 2002 the planning revolution exploded across America as Growing Smart: Legislative Guidebook with Model Statues for Planning and the Management of Change was brought into every planning department, university and college in the nation. Written by the American Planning Association and funded by a partnership between the federal government, Siemens Corporation, and wealthy foundations, this is the blueprint for the new laws and regulations being trotted out by your local city council and county supervisors. This planning revolution was sponsored by the President's Council on Sustainable Development (1993-1999) as the first major step in bringing UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development into the US. Every federal agency changed their policies to adhere to it. Those federal agencies are giving grants to local governments to implement it.
The tracks of UN A21/SD are everywhere but the corporate press has lied about it for 20 years. When the press isn't pretending that it doesn't exist it does the next best thing: mocks anyone who questions or calls out Sustainable Development as a corporate takeover plot to eliminate pesky national boundaries and representative government.
Using the lie of 'consensus' the corporation-funded non-profits go into neighborhoods and propagandize for programs and plans that give the illusion of strengthening the voice of the people. Instead that so-called consensus crafts public opinion and blocks anyone from dissenting. Yes, if you disagree with governance by unelected boards and commissions you'll be shamed and cut out of the herd.
Money talks, baby. Left, right, center--money talks. Now that the Democrats are on top the rhetoric has changed but the big money corporations are still calling the shots. BP is Green! Siemens (the Nazi corporation) makes high speed trains and light rail and owns water rights and solar and wind and makes huge amounts of money from GREEN. Siemens also funded Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook. IBM (Nazi collaborator) makes biometrics technology and smart grid and retinal scans and systems for water agencies to monitor you.
If you're a Democrat and you start saying the Emperor has no clothes you'll be rejected, mocked, shamed, and smeared. Not many people will be brave enough to QUESTION AUTHORITY if it means rejection from the tribe. Most Democrats will ignore objections to Sustainable Development as a right wing Republican attempt to sway hapless followers. It's easier than standing up and recognizing that the 1% is using green to manipulate the left.
And the press? The corporate press is tasked with selling this to you and using the hard sell. The threat is that you'll be destroying the planet if you don't go along. They make it sound so good that you won't ask the question: If this is so good why has it been a secret for the last 20 years? If this is so good why was the economy pumped and dumped? If this is so good why are my kids struggling to read? If this is so good why did I lose my house? If this is so good why are we still in Iraq and Afghanistan? If this is so good why is every single land use plan in the United States identical? If this is so good why are corporations persons? If this is so good why can't Democrats and Republicans work together? If this is so good why was the National Defense Authorization Act passed? If this is so good why are we subject to domestic surveillance? If this is so good why are we on Prozac, Wellbutrin, and every other drug prescribed to make us not care?
If you're identifying yourself as a Progressive Democrat you'll be inclined to think UN Agenda 21 is some fantasy of the right wing and laugh it off. Do you have the guts to admit that you've been wrong? Or will you listen to the corporate press and be duped? What does it take for you to realize that the left and right are fighting the same fight? It's the banks and big corporations buying off the government and non-profits. Global governance. New World Order behind the green mask.
AWARENESS IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE RESISTANCE.
Looks like some kind of epidemic around here. A small one, but just big enough to remark on. A serious epidemic of pseudo-princes in this little Machiavellian wonderland we call home.
Three cities lying in a crooked row found themselves without the full contingent of council members just after election time. Rather than honor the citizens who voted and move the next competitor on the ballot into the seat, the cities have decided to take the low road.
Three cities in adjacent counties all SELECTING a council member. Yep, just after the election, too. Now, like it or not, it seems as if the next highest vote getter should drop into the slot left vacant a scant three weeks or so after seating the current councils. But the towns of Cotati, Calisotga, and Santa Rosa are all SELECTING a city council member. Selecting. As in the-council-on-the-dais sits in judgement and with a featherweight majority will pick a new council member off of a list...regardless of the fact that thousands of voters have chosen the next runner-up.
The unjustified and unjustifiable 'reasoning' by these nascent councils is that the runner up is a loser. Yes, that person lost, didn't they? And doesn't that mean that it's now completely irrelevant that this runner up campaigned, raised funds, spoke to groups, shook hands, kissed babies, debated, and--did I mention?-- garnered thousands (in some cases) of votes? Yes, that means absolutely nothing if the council doesn't like the idea of that next person dropping into the seat. Because that person doesn't fit in with the council's idea of consensus. Or maybe there are political shenanigans going on and someone wants to retain the majority or be the swing voter on the council. And of course the council wants to save the cost of holding another election--after all the voters would only vote the way they want to and that wouldn't be good.
In one case at least (Santa Rosa) everyone knew that a sitting council person was running for another office (Susan Gorin) and if she won she'd be vacating her seat. Well she did win. Here's the idiotic, insulting logic that this group of slimy rascals is shoving down the throats of citizens in this town: Because Susan Gorin sat in her seat for the first two or three meetings of the 'new' council instead of cleaning out her desk and getting out, her replacement has to be 'chosen' because it's MID SESSION. Oh for crying out loud. The cronies running this inwardly rotting Peyton Place wanted to select her successor and planned it in advance.
Tomorrow they'll be sitting in a special session where 17 hopefuls will parade themselves in front of the dais even though the successor has already been chosen. And that's how you pick winners and losers in a small American town.
FLOOD OF WATER RESTRICTIONS
Buried deep in the bottom of an article about Water Agency funding in a small town newspaper in California we find the wave of the future---Do-It-Yourself Cap and Trade.
Really, you must brace yourself for the full implications of this program. First, allow yourself to contemplate a system in which a government agency, Sonoma County Water Agency, providing 352,000 people with water, will accept a grant from a non-profit organization. The California Water Foundation which 'supports investment in sustainable management of the state's water supply' is in the process of finalizing a $255,000 grant, some of which would go towards this:
Launching a pilot program that would allow the sale of efficiency credits between customers who come in below their normal water usage and those who exceed their threshold.
Should we say that again? Customers who come in below their normal water usage will sell their 'efficiency credits' to those who exceed their 'threshold.'
Did you get that? Those customers who exceed their allotment of water will have to buy credits from those who do not. Cap and trade for the average user of water. Will you buy water through an exchange. Will you bid on credits through a third party? Will you go to an auction where you struggle to acquire enough credits to water your garden, or take a shower every day? This is not an exaggeration. Just as Cap and Trade is being developed at the state-wide level in California to establish a market for carbon-based emissions, this program will establish a 'local cap and trade for water.' Penalties and credits for water usage. Yes, Sonoma County, known for 100% membership of cities and the county in ICLEI, known for having a County Supervisor (Valerie Brown) on the National Board of ICLEI, will now be known for creating a pilot program in individual cap and trade for a substance fundamental to sustaining life.
The Sonoma County Water Agency has put out a publication in which they say that every part of the county is in a watershed. This concept of expanding the idea of watersheds until it includes every property in the United States and beyond is catching hold.
Right now 40% of the United States is considered to be in a watershed, and that percentage is growing. Water run-off, drainage, in urban areas is being regulated and is giving Planning Departments the justification for denying building permits based on 'streamside thresholds.' The translation for this term encompasses any property, fully developed in an urban area or not, that stands in the way of rainwater moving toward some collector stream or body of water.
In Marin County, CA, any property owner who might wish to, for instance, build a garage on her suburban hillside property, will find that the local planning department will not allow that until it has mapped the direction of run-off on that hill. These maps are created when the property owner applies for a building permit and are paid for by the property owner at that time. In other words the property owner has no way of knowing whether she'll be able to build that garage until she pays for the study. The study establishes streams in fully developed urban areas where the 'stream' is the way that the rainwater finds its way through your property. Because these rules only affect one property owner at a time and only when he or she tries to get a development permit most people are unaware that the rules have changed.
Whether you're watering your yard, or taking a bath, or building a shed you will find UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development flooding into your life and drowning you in regulations, fees, and penalties. This is how you are driven out of rural and suburban areas. This is how you are priced out of your single family home. This is how you end up in Smart Growth. This is how you lose your business. This is Agenda 21.
It looks like Michael Allen has lost. While we can regret that he was ever elected to the State Assembly in the first place, we can rejoice that voters recognized his sleazy behavior and rewarded him by giving him the boot. Perhaps it took Marin County voters to recognize that a man who threatens his opponent and takes money to vote shouldn't be (re) elected.
That was the good.
The bad is that Erin Carlstrom and Julie Combs were elected to Santa Rosa City Council. Erin will undoubtedly show her self-serving dog-eat-dog ladder-climbing colors when tested. Julie, who has anger management issues teetering in balance with toadying supplication, will demonstrate her community skills early. And Gary Wysocky, who was the target of someone calling themselves the 'Anyone But Wysocky' PAC was barely re-elected.
Because Susan Gorin moved into a supervisory seat her position on the City Council is now open and it's unclear who will fill it. So it's 3 to 3 on the council now with the so-called Business Friendly faction pitted against the Progressives. The next closest vote-getter, Don Taylor, restauranteur, is not the shoo-in, though one would expect that the next highest vote-getter would be. Not in this town though. The progressives want the majority and they'll bloody faces to get it. They'll ride their bikes over anyone who gets in their way. Even if Erin, who pretended to be a cross-over candidate so that she could latch onto voters who wouldn't have chosen her, even if she swings with the Biz Friendly she'll be sharpening her teeth on someone. Did someone make a contribution to her war chest? Was it Herb Williams perhaps?
People who are just out for money and power are much easier to deal with than those with an ideology. They can be bought. Maybe that's what we'll see with this new council. As a friend's father said when he saw the writing on the wall "Enjoy the ride."
Oh, and the Ugly? Having to see Gary Wysocky as Mayor if the Progressives get the majority.
This video lays out why and how you are being manipulated. Who is making the money from the Smart Grid? What does this mean? Canadian presentation directly impacts us in California.
I gave a speech at the Wake UP America rally in West Los Angeles on why people should vote NO on Proposition 31. I thought I'd share my speech with you.
Yes, I'm a liberal Democrat, and probably the only one here in the crowd, but I think you'll like what I have to say.
I’m here to urge you to vote NO on Prop 31 and to tell you why.
Because we’re nearing Halloween I thought you’d appreciate this analogy.
Prop 31 is like the razor-blade in the candy apple. You aren’t expecting to find something dangerous wrapped in a nice package, and your inattention can hurt you badly.
Prop 31 is a Trojan horse proposition.
Called the Government Performance and Accountability Act, this new law will amend the California Constitution. The ‘candy apple’ part, the Trojan Horse, is that it restricts the Legislature’s authority to enact any law that increases state costs or decreases state revenues by more than $25 million dollars a year.
That seems like a good thing. But there’s more to this law.
It also expands the Governor’s authority to implement reductions to appropriations in the State budget. You might like that too. Or the shift to a 2 year budget. Sounds good.
But now we’re getting to the razor blade.
This new law, this amendment to the California Constitution, will shift state funds to local governments for the purpose of implementing new ‘Community Strategic Action Plans.’ What does that mean?
For the purposes of quote ‘a prosperous economy, quality environment, and community equity’ unquote state revenue will be shared in supra-governmental, unelected regional entities. Those who are paying attention will recognize the 3 E’s of United Nations Agenda 21/Sustainable Development in this deceptive proposition. Economy, Environment, Equity. This is not just some happy coincidence. This is the legal and funding mechanism for a regional layer of government. You don’t vote for regional representation, as you know. You vote in city, county, state, and federal elections. Agenda 21 is a global plan implemented locally and you see it as regional plans.
Far from being a black helicopter paranoiac fantasy UN Agenda 21 is real and Prop 31 is what it looks like. It is a plan to take state money and allow local entities-- counties and cities--to determine how that money gets allocated as long as it goes for Smart Growth, the preferred development style of UN Agenda 21. The Agenda for the 21st century was signed onto by George HW Bush in 1992. President Clinton created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development for the sole purpose of implementing Agenda 21 in the US.
All federal agencies changed their policies to conform to Sustainable Development principles, and it then moved into the states and local municipalities via General Plans and regional boards.
This is not a conspiracy theory, it is a conspiracy fact. Regionalization is the stepping stone to global governance by creating a parallel government and then funding it. These regions already exist and are administered now by Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Councils of Government like the Southern California Association of Governments.
New urbanism is the goal and you’ll see this as these new Community Strategic Action Plans dictate that your tax dollars go for shifting funds to high density cities. That’s what they mean by ‘a prosperous economy, quality environment, and community equity’. It’s code for redistributing money to cities that agree to the blurring or erasure of jurisdictional boundaries.
The Democrats and Unions are against Prop 31 because they fear a loss of funding. Seeing that in the voter guide might make you Conservatives vote yes.
Here’s your chance to agree with Democrats for once! Finally, something you and your relatives can agree on!
When you see Prop 31 on the ballot remember that ‘razor blade’ in the apple and vote NO.