Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Constraining State Ballot Initiatives

To whom it may concern,

Across the nation the State Ballot Initiative has been a growing force in local, regional, and state politics. Traditionally, these ballot initiatives have been used to advance issues that are not always popular with politicians. Political “third rail” issues like medical marijuana or gay marriage end up on state ballot initiatives through a relatively easy process. Through a ballot initiative, minority voices with powerful allies and large purses can bring an issue before the public. In some instances, this is the most direct form of democracy where the populace is essentially self-legislating. However, as is the case in California, these ballot initiatives have become ubiquitous. Of particular concern are ballot initiatives that mandate certain spending levels or have a permanent effect on the tax structure, budget, and policy. A democracy is supposed to change with the times and with its people. It is meant to be flexible. To have a ballot initiative passed 30 years ago tie the hands of the legislature today is counterproductive. State Ballot Initiatives do have their place. They should be used locally and regionally to generate funds for specific projects like mass transportation or cultural institutions. For States, they should be used to direct the legislature to address an issue instead of usurping the legislature. How can the federal government work to limit ballot initiatives that have disastrous effects on the long-term solvency of States?

GUNNAR HAND, AICP

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Why Defend Torture?

To whom it may concern,

Over the past few weeks, there have been an increasing amount of attacks on the Obama administration for its change in policy on interrogation techniques (i.e. water boarding and other internationally understood forms of torture). The chief supporter of the Bush administration's approach, Vice President Dick Cheney, is also probably the one who is chiefly responsible for the initial decision. While he claims he is defending the President, one has to wonder who in their right mind would defend the practice of torture. The results of these "enhanced interrogation techniques" are defended by the Republicans without evidence, and usurped by the Democrats through the testimony of former interrogators, lawyers, and other Justice Department officials from the previous administration. Regardless of their effectiveness, which is at best inconclusive, it is bizarre to see a former Vice President in the limelight to defend a decision and a strategy that he no longer has any control over or say in. Until the Bush administration, the United States and its military had been regarded as a beacon for human rights. The Germans marched West in order to be captured by Americans instead of the Russians. The Civil Rights Movement gave the world hope for equality. And virtually every international agreement or treaty for the last century is written with language to bolster human rights protections in foreign countries. With our reputation now tainted by unilateral military action, Abu Ghraib prison, and the torture of suspected terrorists, how will this administration restore our moral standing with the world?

GUNNAR HAND, AICP

Thursday, May 7, 2009

The First Response from President Obama!

To whom it may concern,

It was not much and it was automated, but at least I finally heard back from them:

Dear Gunnar Hand:

Thank you for contacting the White House to share your thoughts with President Obama. We are glad to have your comments and hear the thoughts of all Americans.

The President greatly appreciates the outpouring of messages expressing different views from across the country, and from Americans around the world. Some comments are supportive, some are critical, but all reflect the desire of Americans to participate in a dialogue about our common concerns and challenges.

Thank you again for contacting President Obama. We invite you to visit www.WhiteHouse.gov to learn more about the President's actions and views.

Sincerely,

F. Michael Kelleher
Special Assistant to the President and Director of Presidential Correspondence

To be a part of our agenda for change, join us at www.WhiteHouse.gov

Monday, May 4, 2009

Gas Tax

To whom it may concern,

As soon as demand dropped off with the recession, oil prices and profits plummeted from their record levels. At the height of our oil exploitation, the United Stated public began to radically shift their consumption and transportation behavior. More people took transit and in the process converted millions from the single occupancy vehicle. As the economy stabilizes, the federal government should increase gas taxes as a means to finally shift consumer patterns away from our dependence on foreign oil. This strategy would improve foreign relations, reduce the burden on the military, alleviate congestion, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and propel the green industry movement. The petroleum based economy must be replaced by an alternative, renewable energy economy. The profits from the tax measure would be used to bolster the ailing Highway Trust Fund. With this reauthorization would come an opportunity to reform the funding program to completely realign its priorities. Instead of building highways it would promote the creation of a multi-modal transportation network. These funds could transform our entire roadway network into both green streets (storm water management, permeable surfaces, urban forest, and expanded open space) and complete streets (two-way pedestrian, bike, bus, transit, and automobile streets). The monies used to create more capacity for highways should be used to build bike lanes on every street, expand sidewalks and street amenities, and provide efficient and accessible transit options. All of this would feed into a more livable, efficient, and productive built environment that would encourage social cohesion and economic competitiveness.

GUNNAR HAND, AICP