Mountain Views News     Logo: MVNews     Saturday, November 3, 2012

MVNews this week:  Page 15



 Mountain Views News Saturday, November 3, 2012 


President/Vice President of the United States 

Barack Obama/Joseph Biden, Democratic 

United States Senate

Dianne Feinstein, Democratic

US Congress - District 27

Judy Chu, Democratic 

California Assembly - District 41

Chris Holden, Democratic 

California Senate - District 25

Carol Liu, Democratic 

District Attorney County of Los Angeles

Jackie Lacey* 

 *Jackie Lacey is Chief Deputy District Attorney of Los Angeles County, the second-in-command to 
District Attorney Steve Cooley. She is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the nation’s largest 
local prosecutorial office with nearly 1,000 attorneys, approximately 300 peace officers and more than 
800 support staff members. She has served under both Steve Cooley and Gil Garcetti.

 As a member of the DA’s executive management team, Jackie has reviewed almost every major case 
involving public corruption, police misconduct, organized crime, complex fraud and other crimes 
since 2004.

 She is an innovative and respected leader who has overseen the development of several ground 
breaking crime-fighting initiatives within the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. These 
include the nation’s first Animal Cruelty Prosecution Program, the Graffiti Prosecution Program and 
the Project Safe Neighborhoods Gun Prosecution Program.

 Jackie represented the DA’s Office in the creation of alternative courts to deal with specific nonviolent 
offenders. These include the Los Angeles County Veterans Court, the Los Angeles County Women’s 
Reentry Court and the Los Angeles County Co-Occurring Disorders Court.

 And, contrary to misrepresentations in her opponents television ads, she is a woman of integrity 
with a deep commitment to serving the people of Los Angeles County.

 Jackie Lacey has a long list of other endorsements including the endorsement of US Senator Dianne 
Feinstein, CA Attorney General Kamala Harris, The Los Angeles Times (partial listing), 

 Leading the largest District Attorney’s Office in the United States is no job for a fresh out of trial law 
attorney. Management experience, creativity to meet today’s challenges, and the leadership ability to 
direct such a large organization, especially during tough financial times are qualities that only Jackie 
Lacey has in this race. To learn more go to:

Susan Henderson, Publisher/Editor

Mountain Views News


November 2, 2012

Dear Editor:

On November 6, the voters of California will have a say on the future of the children in our 
communities. In the last decade, our schools and classrooms have endured repeated and 
damaging funding cuts. Districts have closed campuses, raised class sizes, laid off teachers, 
shortened the school year and shuttered school libraries. These decisions were made not 
for the educational betterment of our students but instead dictated by budget necessity. If 
Propositions 30 and/or 38 pass, we will have some budgetary relief that will finally free us to 
make decisions in the best interest of our students. 

To bridge funding gaps, our school districts have stitched together a patchwork of one-time 
federal funds and generous support from our educational foundations, PTAs, private donors 
and local businesses. They have helped to preserve things such as art and music programs, 
smaller class sizes, athletic teams and high quality instruction. 

But after years of multimillion dollar funding cuts, we are on the precipice, facing 
automatically triggered and unprecedented budget cuts if both propositions fail. The 
academic achievement of the students and teachers that have made our communities proud 
will be gravely imperiled. This current school year could be shortened by as many as 15 days, 
closing some schools by mid-May. Make no mistake, our schools will have fewer teachers, 
larger class sizes and reduced opportunities for educational enrichment that our kids so 
desperately need.

Proposition 30 would protect K-12 schools, colleges, universities and public safety from 
midyear budget cuts and is sponsored by Governor Jerry Brown. Proposition 38, backed 
by Pasadena civil rights attorney Molly Munger, would mean new revenue streams for 
K-12 education that would bypass Sacramento and instead go directly to schools. Both 
propositions on Tuesday’s ballot would bring much needed help to our schools, but only the 
one that passes and gets the most votes would go into effect. School boards across the state 
recognize the potential impact of Propositions 30 and 38 and have endorsed one or both of 
these initiatives. 

California schools have provided countless opportunities for generations of students. We 
feel that the students of today deserve that same world-class educational experience. Our 
schools and students are counting on you to make that happen.


Superintendent Jan Britz, Burbank Unified School District

Superintendent Jon R. Gundry, Pasadena Unified School District

Superintendent Joel Shapiro, South Pasadena Unified School District

Superintendent Richard M. Sheehan, Glendale Unified School District

Superintendent Wendy Sinnette, La Cañada Unified School District



YES on PROP 30 - Temporary Taxes to 
Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety 

Should the California Constitution be amended 
to (a) temporarily increase sales and personal 
income tax rates; (b) guarantee certain revenue 
transfers to local governments; and (c) eliminate 
state funding of certain mandates to local governments? 
- We simply cannot continue to under 
fund education. In California, we spend over 
$48,000 per inmate annually and less than $9,000 
per year per child in school. We need to get our 
priorities straight and this proposition will prevent 
further cuts to our schools. The Governor promised 
to bring any tax increases to the public for approval 
and he has with Prop 30. 

NO on PROP 31 State Budget. State and Local 
Government Constitutional Amendment.

 “Political columnist Dan Walters says, “California 
needs a top- to-bottom overhaul that connects political 
decision-making to its unique social and economic 
reality and creates cause-and-effect accountability 
for those we elect to office. Proposition 31 is 
akin to giving someone with a flesh-eating infection 
an aspirin to relieve the pain momentarily when 
the patient truly needs radical surgery or powerful 
drugs to stop the infection.” 

NO on PROP 32 Proposition 32 Political Contributions 
by Payroll Deduction. Please note that 
employees that are currently making payroll deductions 
for political campaigns are NOT asking that 
this Proposition be passed. Advertisements would 
lead you to believe that this was the case. This measure 
claims to be aimed at cleaning up campaign 
finance, but is is just putting handcuffs on union 
workers and allowing corporations to give freely.

NO on PROP 33 Auto Insurance Companies. 
Prices Based on Driver's History of Insurance 
Coverage . This measure is put forth by MERCURY 
INSURANCE. That’s enough in our opinion to 
mistrust it forever. But wait, there’s more.....”Voters 
should once again see through Mercury’s longstanding 
attempts to change state insurance law in a way 
that would not only discourage some motorists from 
buying auto polices, but would also encourage them 
to drive without any coverage, which costs the rest 
of us.” San Jose Mercury News

YES on PROP 34 Proposition 34 Death Penalty 
Should the death penalty be repealed and 
replaced with life imprisonment without possibility 
of parole when someone is convicted of murder 
with specified special circumstances? Setting 
aside the obvious arguments against the death penalty 
- i.e., the state should not be in the business of 
killing any human being or the death penalty is too 
final and the system is too flawed to prevent innocent 
humans from being executed, there is a more 
important, overwhelming reason to stop this practice 
- MONEY! The cost of implementing the death 
penalty since it was restored in California in 1978 
exceeds $4 billion! Since 1978 California has executed 
13 criminals — about $308 million for each! 
(There are 727 on death row currently and most will 
probably dies on death row from old age. . And if 
you want to know why so many law enforcement 
agencies are in support of the death penalty, consider 
this, every time a death row inmate has to, lets 
say go to the doctor, multiple gaurds and extraordinary 
security measures have to be taken. And 
to prison gaurds, it protects their jobs. The savings 
could be allocated to pay for increased investigation 
of unsolved crimes and much more. 

YES on PROP 35 Human Trafficking. Penalties 
- Should the definition of human trafficking 
be expanded, penalties for traffickers be increased, 
convicted sexual traffickers be required to register 
as sex offenders, and additional training for law 
enforcement officers be required? While the language 
is not perfect, it is a fact that “Prop. 35 protects 
children from sexual exploitation. Many sex 
trafficking victims are vulnerable children. They are 
afraid for their lives and abused—sexually, physically, 
and mentally. The FBI recognizes three cities 
in California—Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San 
Diego—as high intensity child sex trafficking areas. 
That’s why we need Prop. 35 to protect children 
from exploitation.” Ballot Argument Yes on 35

YES on PROP 36 Three Strikes Law. Repeat 
Felony Offenders. Penalties - Should California 
law be amended to provide that a life sentence 
should not be imposed for a third felony conviction 
unless the third conviction is for a serious or 
violent felony? While every responsible citizen 
wants the law to protect them from habitual criminals, 
especially violent ones, the current 3 Strikes 
was poorly written. After years of prosecution It 
will “make the punishment fit the crime”; specifically, 
“Precious financial and law enforcement resources 
should not be improperly diverted to impose 
life sentences for some non-violent offenses. Prop. 
36 will assure that violent repeat offenders are punished 
and not released early. Law enforcement, the 
people who see the imperfections in the current law, 
including LA Police Chief Charlie Beck, say YES to 

YES on PROP 37 Proposition 37 Genetically 
Engineered Foods. Labeling - Should labeling be 
required on foods containing genetically modified 
ingredients when such foods (whether raw or processed, 
plant or animal) are offered for sale to consumers 
in California? Thirteen characters - “Contains 
GMO’s” on food labels have created a reaction 
that should be a warning sign to consumers. Who 
is against the measure? Monsanto chemicals, E.I. 
Dupont De Nemours & Co. and Pepsico to name 
the top three. The list goes on. All companies that 
profit off of the business of producing food as profitably 
as possible. The choice of what you eat is yours. 
Labeling doesn’t stop the consumer from buying the 
product. It simply educates them on what is in it. 
If you want to eat food that has been grown with 
seeds inbred with pesticides, you should at least 
be aware of that before you eat it. Then perhaps 
when you eventually go to your doctor you can let 
them know you have a history of ingesting genetically 
modified foods! We don’t know the long term 
impact, probably because we have never made the 
associations......because we did not know what we 
have been eating!

NO on PROP 38 State Income Tax Increase 
to Support Education - Should California's 
personal income tax rates be increased during 
2013-24 to provide funds for public schools, 
early childhood education programs, and state 
debt payments? A measure put on the ballot to oppose 
Proposition 30. There are some fundamentally 
troubling issues with the measure, most importantly 
that Molly Munger spent $44 million plus to get 
this passed.(Ballotpedia) Imagine what an impact 
that could have had on the school district in Molly’s 
hometown of Pasadena. Other opponents say (per 
Ballotpedia) “If you earn $17,346 or more per year 
in taxable income, Prop. 38 raises your California 
personal income tax rate by as much as 21%, on 
top of what you pay the Federal government.” and 
“Instead of creating jobs and improving the economy, 
Prop. 38 will force family businesses to cut jobs, 
move out of state, or even close. If they can stay in 
business, they’ll raise prices to pay the higher taxes, 
which will ultimately be passed on to consumers.” 

YES on PROP 39 Tax Treatment for Multistate 
Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency 
Funding - Should the California tax code 
be changed to require multistate firms to pay income 
taxes based on a percentage of their sales in 
California, with roughly half of the resulting tax 
increase to be used to fund clean/efficient energy 
projects for five years? “The current tax loophole 
lets corporations pay less tax to California if they 
have fewer employees here—giving companies a 
reason to send jobs out of state. In fact, the state’s 
nonpartisan, independent Legislative Analyst has 
cited studies showing that the tax policy in Prop. 39 
will bring California as many as 40,000 jobs. That’s 
why the independent Legislative Analyst has called 
for eliminating the present loophole.” (Ballotpedia) 
Largest contributors against the measure - General 
Motors, Kimberly-Clark Corporation and International 

YES on PROP 34 - Proposition 40 Redistricting. 
State Senate Districts Should the current state 
Senate districts be retained? The Districts are already 
in place. A no vote will not reverse them.



NO POSITION Measure A -Appointment 
of County Assessor -- County of Los Angeles (Advisory 
Vote Only - Advisory Vote Only) o you 
support seeking to change the California Constitution 
and the Los Angeles County Charter to 
make the position of Los Angeles County Assessor 
an appointed position instead of an elected 

YES Measure B Safer Sex In the Adult Film 
Industry Act -- County of Los Angeles (Ordinance 
- Majority Approval Required) Shall an ordinance 
be adopted requiring producers of adult films to 
obtain a County public health permit, to require 
adult film performers to use condoms while engaged 
in sex acts, to provide proof of blood borne 
pathogen training course, to post permit and 
notices to performers, and making violations of 
the ordinance subject to civil fines and criminal 

NO Measure J Accelerating Traffic Relief, Job 
Creation -- County of Los Angeles (Continuation 
of Voter-Approved Sales Tax Increase - 2/3 Approval 
Required) To advance Los Angeles County's 
traffic relief, economic growth/ job creation, 
by accelerating construction of light rail/ subway/ 
airport connections within five years not twenty; 
funding countywide freeway traffic flow/ safety /
bridge improvements, pothole repair; keeping senior/ 
student/ disabled fares low; Shall Los Angeles 
County's voter-approved one-half cent traffic 
relief sales tax continue, without tax rate increase, 
for another 30 years or until voters decide to end 
it, with audits/ keeping funds local? LA County 
Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich voted against 
placing Measure J on the ballot. He said that if Measure 
J is approved, fares will increase. He also said 
it is false advertising because it will not fund any 
near-term projects. In fact, the measure currently 
on the ballot covers the period 2031 through 2069. 
That is too far into the future to project what our 
needs will be. A more appropriate time to consider 
this measure would be in 25 years, 5 years before it 
is set to expire.


YES Measure ALF Density Limit re Assisted 
Living Facility -- City of Sierra Madre (Ordinance 
- Majority Approval Required) 

Shall an Ordinance be adopted to amend Sierra 
Madre Municipal Code Section 17.35.040 ("Core 
Density Limit") of the People's Empowerment Act 
(aka Measure V) to permit development of an 
assisted living facility consistent with the Kensington 
Assisted Living Facility Specific Plan not 
exceeding two stories, thirty feet in height and 
seventy-five assisted living suites, for the parcels 
located at 33 North Hermosa Avenue an 245 West 
Sierra Madre Boulevard? 

For just about 8 years, Sierra Madre’s Skilled 
Nursing Center has been sitting vacant. A number 
of proposals were brought forth to buld on the 
property but in the end, the only acceptable project 
was presented by the Fountain Square Development 
group. The project, known as The Kensington, will 
provide assisted living units for senior citizens. The 
project was approved by the Sierra Madre Planning 
Commission and the Sierra Madre City Council, 
however, it is on the ballot for resident approval in 
order to apply with current ordinance Measure V. 

The project “potentially creates over 200 new construction 
jobs during an anticipated 16 month build 
period culminating in the hiring of as many as 90 
full and part time professional staff that will help 
care for residents. Residents will be accommodated 
within 75 assisted living suites where family and 
loved ones will be welcome. Additionally, generous 
community and common space will available, 
a café where residents can gather with friends and 
family, a fireplace parlor, library, media and art 
studios and ample courtyards and gardens for outside 
seating and relaxing as well.” (Mountain Views 
News 9/29/2012 -