Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: No on Prop 224!

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Count me in as a strong opponent of Prop 224.  Read the fine print, then
Vote NO!

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Parkerres(--nospam--at)aol.com [SMTP:Parkerres(--nospam--at)aol.com]
> Sent:	Monday, June 01, 1998 2:09 PM
> To:	seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
> Subject:	No on Prop 224!
> 
> To all:
> 
> While I am normally not very involved in politics, I would strongly
> encourage
> all of you California voters to vote tomorrow (June 2) and VOTE NO ON
> PROPOSITION. 224.
> 
> This is an anti-competitive measure that would raise taxes, lower quality,
> and
> really hurt privately owned architectural and engineering design firms
> such as
> Parker Resnick.
> 
> More info can be found at "www.no224.org". (a little bit of which I copied
> below).
> 
> Even if you are not from California, please copy this message and forward
> it
> to everyone on your mail list.  If you send it to 50 people, and they send
> it
> to 50 people, etc., etc., ... soon the whole state will get the message!
> 
> Thanks for you help and support,
> 
> Bruce
> 
> 
> 
> From the "www.no224.org" Web Page:
> 
> HEADLINE NEWS!
> 
> "Nothing on this June's election ballot threatens the economy and budget
> of
> California more seriously than Proposition 224, a poorly drafted, ill-
> conceived initiative pushed by self-serving special interests."
> 
> Sacramento Bee (May 5, 1998)
> 
> "A sneaky sham... Proposition 224 is a bad idea in every way"
> 
> San Diego Union Tribune (May 14, 1998)
> 
> 
> Beware! The so-called "competitive bidding" initiative is NOT what it
> pretends
> to be. It's a wolf in sheep's clothing. If you support competitive bidding
> and
> taxpayer savings, you'll want to vote AGAINST Prop. 224.
> 
> Prop. 224 is opposed by California Taxpayers Association, California
> Chamber
> of Commerce, PTA, Structural Engineers Association of California and many
> others because it would mean bigger state government and higher taxes. In
> fact, Prop. 224 would result in 15,000 new state employees at a cost of
> $1.7
> billion a year.
> 
>