The Chronicle specializes in simplistic house editorials, and today’s endorsement of Proposition 1 was certainly a good example.
Indeed, the headline really tells you all you need to know about what’s coming: Proposition No. 1 is useful and desirable; Proposition No. 2 isn’t
In the interest of providing an alternative voice, this political scientist will offer some voting advice:
If you are serious about limiting the growth of municipal government by constraining the revenues it takes in from all sources, then you should vote for Proposition 2.
If you think there should be no such artificial limitations on the growth of municipal government (one reason being we elect representatives to make that determination), then you should vote for neither proposition.
If you fear that your fellow voters, if given the choice between a true revenue limitation mechanism or none at all, will choose the true revenue limitation mechanism (Proposition 2), then you might consider a defensive vote in favor of Proposition 1, which limits some income streams for the city, but not in a very stringent manner. The vote would be defensive, since the proposition with the most votes takes precedence if both win a majority. Mayor White’s a shrewd politician who understands Houston moderates. That’s why Proposition 1 is on the ballot.
Anyway, there’s something to chew on for those of you who still haven’t made up your mind on the dueling propositions.
