jj518

Comments by jj518

Proposition 39 opposition : "green energy" is not as green as it seems

Clearly you have not read Proposition 39. While the upfront language around clean energy is vague, the plan on how to spend the $1 billion gained by closing this corporate tax liability loophole is not. Proposition 39 stipulates that $500 million be used undertake badly-needed energy efficiency retrofits of public buildings throughout the state, meaning schools and municipal properties. Using existing, out-of-the-box technology like new lighting, windows and insulation, these buildings will reduce their energy bill significantly, saving the municipalities and taxpayers in the long run. They have an extremely sound return on investment and will also create tens of thousands of jobs for the long suffering California construction industry that bids on and undertakes these retrofits. Its also vital to note that the $500 million diverted to these projects is ONLY FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS. In 2018, all of the $1 billion will go to the State's general fund, rather than just half. Whatever your feelings about Tom Steyer and his previous investments, to suggest that this money will be used as his personal pocketbook to bring fracking to California is just plain incorrect. There will be an oversight committee that determines where and how to make these energy efficiency retrofits (which school, what is needed). That money is not going to be vied over in the Legislature because it has a very specific destination. And if you're are indeed pro-teachers and police officers, then giving the remaining half to the general fund for the first five years should make you happy since, as you know, And as you know, the general fund is the money we use to pay for our public schools. Please correct this article to include the facts about Proposition 39. Whatever your personal feelings about ballot box budgeting, you are simply spreading misinformation at this point.
— October 10, 2012 11:22 a.m.