Newspaper Editorials
Sacramento Bee’s SECOND Editorial Against Prop 10: Proposition 10 ranks at bottom of bad class
“In the pantheon of egregious ballot initiatives, Proposition 10 is the worst of the worst. In one fell swoop, this deceptively named “Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act” would worsen the state’s budget crisis, undermine its fight against global warming and enrich a Texas billionaire – T. Boone Pickens…Don’t let a Texas billionaire pull another Enron swindle on California. Say “No” on Tuesday to Proposition 10.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Los Angeles Times Editorial: “Reject Proposition 10″
“Billionaire Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens, listed by Forbes as the 131st richest American, really, really wants your money. So much so that his natural-gas fueling company has shelled out $3.2 million to further the reprehensible scam known as Proposition 10″.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
San Francisco Chronicle Editorial: “Why Proposition 10 is a Boondoggle”
“California needs low-polluting alternative fuels in its future. But voters shouldn’t be misled to think this measure is a balanced answer. Vote no on Proposition 10.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
San Jose Mercury News Editorial: “Prop 10 looks ‘green’ but it’s the wrong shade
“The billionaire oilman turned pitchman for alternative energy is the force behind Proposition 10, the initiative on the November ballot that calls for floating $5 billion in bonds to develop alternative energy. As it happens, he’d also profit from it.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
La Opinion: “Two Measures to Reject”
“The measure is being pushed by oil and gas industry millionaire T. Boone Pickens, who is its primary benefactor. This deal by Pickens requires California to assume $10 billion in debt to be repaid over 30 years for a natural gas system of dubious advisability…Proposition 10 is more a personal windfall for its sponsor than a benefit for Californians.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
San Diego Union Tribune Editorial: “Energy measures are ill-conceived fiascoes”
“How does it make sense to float 30-year bonds to pay for vehicles that would last just a few years? How does it make sense to have the $50,000-per-vehicle subsidy available on a first-come, first-served basis sure to be gamed by interstate trucking companies that don’t even have to use the vehicles in California?”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Orange County Register: “Big problems with energy measure - Vote no on Prop. 10″
“There’s something for everyone to object to in Proposition 10. Groups as varied as unions, anti-tax organizations, consumer watchdogs, environmentalists and chambers of commerce oppose the so-called Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy Bonds Initiative.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Los Angeles Daily News: Props. 7 and 10 aren’t good green initiatives
“Proposition 10 would give subsidies of up to $50,000 per vehicle to corporate fleet operators to purchase or lease natural gas trucks - at taxpayers’ expense, using bond funding that would siphon general fund money from education, health care and public safety.“
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Fresno Bee: “Vote no on Props. 7 and 10″
“Along with short-changing buyers of electric or hybrid cars, it provides much higher incentives to businesses than to those buying passenger vehicles. And it has no provisions to keep people from getting rebates here, then driving to another state and selling the vehicle — in effect negating any advantage. Here in the San Joaquin Valley, where the air is frequently dangerous to breathe, we’re keenly aware of the necessity to cut vehicle pollution. We just think there are better ways to do it — ways that will make winners of us all, and not just T. Boone Pickens. “
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bakersfield Californian: Vote NO on Proposition 10
“T. Boone Pickens wants to pick your pocket. The Texas billionaire, listed by Forbes as the 131st wealthiest American, is going about it legally with Proposition 10, a scheme with something for almost everyone to dislike.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Eureka Reporter: “State ballot propositions: The Reporter’s recommendations”
“Proposition 10 — Alternative fuel vehicles (would subsidize the purchase of natural-gas-fueled vehicles and would benefit primarily one company) — NO.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Press Telegram: “No on Proposition 10″
“Proposition 10, which would fund the development of renewable energy and help consumers purchase alternative-fuel vehicles, has a certain green appeal. And after reading the details, it leaves us feeling green - green as in queasy.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Modesto Bee: “Let’s go green, but Props. 7 and 10 won’t get us there”
“Here in the San Joaquin Valley, where the air is frequently dangerous to breathe, we’re keenly aware of the necessity to cut vehicle pollution. We just think there are better ways to do it — ways that will make winners of us all, and not just T. Boone Pickens.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Contra Costa Times Editorial: “Reject Proposition 10″
“Little wonder he has already spent millions to qualify Proposition 10 for the ballot and underwrite the upcoming campaign. He stands to make a hefty profit at your expense if the initiative passes. Don’t let him get away with it. Vote no.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Santa Rosa Press Democrat Editorial: “No on Prop. 10″
“This is another attempt to use tax funds to benefit a billionaire…Natural gas certainly burns more cleanly than gasoline. But it’s not a renewable resource, and California should not make this the centerpiece of the state’s energy policies no matter what T. Boone Pickens says. The Press Democrat recommends a no vote on Proposition 10.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Inland Valley Daily Bulletin: Not the kind of green we need
“Let’s not compound a bad situation. We should be suspicious of an initiative that so closely aligns public policy with private profit. On Nov. 4, vote “no” on Proposition 10.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Salinas Californian: 3 of the 4 state bonds merit a ‘no’
“It is sponsored by Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens whose investments in natural gas stand to gain from support of California taxpayers. The state cannot afford any more public indebtedness, no matter who profits. Strange political bedfellows - unions, anti-tax groups, consumer watchdogs, environmentalists and chambers of commerce - have lined up against Prop. 10. Vote “no.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Santa Cruz Sentinel: “Vote no on ‘green’ measures, 7 and 10″
“What Proposition 10 will bring to California is more bond debt. That $5 billion in bonds will be repaid over 30 years, bringing the cost to an estimated $10 billion.California does not need to take on additional debt to finance the purchase of vehicles.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Press Enterprise: “State Bonds? No”
“But borrowing money to offer car rebates and financial incentives is fiscal nonsense; bond funds should go for long-term public investments. Nor is such largesse a sensible use of public funds for a state with so many more pressing needs.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Press Enterprise: “State Bonds? No”
“But borrowing money to offer car rebates and financial incentives is fiscal nonsense; bond funds should go for long-term public investments. Nor is such largesse a sensible use of public funds for a state with so many more pressing needs.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Daily Democrat: “Prop. 10 a bad investment for state’s economy”
“Guess who controls a company with the largest network of natural gas refueling stations in the country? That’s right, it’s Mr. Pickens. Little wonder he has already spent millions to qualify Proposition 10 for the ballot and underwrite the upcoming campaign. He stands to make a hefty profit at your expense if the initiative passes. Don’t let him get away with it. Vote no.“
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Daily Breeze: “`No’ on vehicle subsidies”
“State shouldn’t spend billions on a faux-green special interest…We should be suspicious of an initiative that so closely aligns public policy with private profit. On Nov. 4, vote “No” on Proposition 10.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“Sounds good - until you look at the cost of paying off the bonds, which adds another $5 billion in costs to taxpayers. Do you really want to pay your neighbors to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles? Market forces will do that, without a Prop. 10 boondoggle.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
San Gabriel Tribune: Vote no on Prop. 10
“Prop. 10’s annual price tag for the state (the same state that is always in a deficit) is $335 million per year for 30 years. That will have to come from somewhere. Where would Pickens want that to come from? Schools? Healthcare? Law enforcement?”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tracy Press Editorial: “The title of Proposition 10 sounds green, but it would also put plenty of taxpayer money into corporate coffers”
“This proposition is opposed by both consumer groups and champions of alternative energy, such as the California League of Conservation Voters, which calls it a corporate raid on the state’s coffers. Just say no.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
