Recapping our endorsements for local races

Over the past week, we’ve shared our endorsements for Chico City Council and Chico Unified School District governing board, along with our recommendation for a “yes” vote on Measure H in Chico.

Here are those endorsements again, along with our endorsements for a few other things on the ballot. We’re including our reasons for a few of the items we haven’t mentioned before, along with repeating our reasons for supporting Measure H.

Chico races

Chico City Council, District 2: Kasey Reynolds

Chico City Council, District 3: Monica McDaniel

Chico City Council, District 4: Nichole Nava

Chico City Council, District 6: Tom van Overbeek

CUSD trustee, Area 1: Scott Thompson

CUSD trustee, Area 4: Tom Lando

CUSD trustee, Area 5: Logan Wilson

Chico measures

MEASURE H >> Yes. The city needs the revenue. The financial challenges aren’t going to go away regardless of who is sitting on the council by year’s end — and there are four seats up for grabs, so we don’t buy the “I don’t trust who’s sitting on the council right now” argument. With that logic, we should never pass any measures, because at least three councilors are on the ballot every two years, and who can predict how that’s going to turn out — especially in Chico? Bottom line, the city is grotesquely under-funded, and this is a long overdue step.

MEASURE L >> No. Obviously we all want “quality of life.” But is more legislation really going to make a difference? We already manage truckloads of codes and laws and ordinances and pay taxpayer money for hundreds of city workers toward that end. Besides, the public already has an avenue for complaints, and it’s called “call the city.” And again, kudos to Vince Ewing, Chico’s city attorney, for shooting down the original version of this measure, which as first written was a slam-dunk guarantee to land the city back in court.

State propositions

PROPOSITIONS 26 >> No. It’s a money (and power) grab for only the most powerful of tribes that has nothing to do with “responsible” gaming.

PROPOSITION 27 >> No. Out-ofstate interests will get 90 percent of the profits, which is a pretty poor trade-off for hooking more people — possibly including minors — on online gambling.

PROPOSITION 29 >> No. Another year, yet another attempt at unionizing dialysis clinics. How many times must the voters say “no” to this? Tune in again in two years for the latest chapter of this never-ending “Groundhog Day” sequel.

PROPOSITION 30 >> No. When interests as diverse as the California Teachers Association and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (not to mention Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Chamber of Commerce) all actually agree on something, that’s a good sign something funny is going on. Just say “no” to this Lyft tax grab.

PROPOSITION 31 >> Yes. Ban flavored tobacco. It’s hard enough to stop kids from getting hooked on tobacco as it is.