NATURAL PERSPECTIVES:Environmental issues on the Nov. 7 ballot

Lou and I are in agreement about the various statewide environmental propositions on the ballot this year.

Proposition 84

We support Prop 84. One of the largest blocks of funding in this bond measure is targeted to the repair of levees in the critical Bay-Delta region of central California.

This levee system should never have been built in the first place, but now it has become an essential part of the hydrology of the Sacramento River, the San Joaquin River, San Francisco Bay and the California Aqueduct that provides drinking water to Southern California.

California simply must repair those levees or risk environmental catastrophe and loss of water supply for millions of people.

In addition, Prop 84 will provide funds for flood control and stormwater pollution control — issues that should be important to everyone who lives in a low-lying community like ours.

Proposition 87

We are strong supporters of Prop 87, the new tax on oil producers. Energy conservation and the development of alternative energy sources are essential if California is to develop a more diversified energy profile.

We are not opposed to petroleum. It is the fuel that has powered much of the 20th century. But it is a fuel that will decline during the 21st century, and now is the time to figure out what is going to take its place!

Proposition 90

We strongly oppose Proposition 90. If passed, Prop 90 would basically lock into place all existing zoning regulations and make it impossibly expensive for government to take any step in the future that would regulate a landowner’s use of property.

Government regulations, while hardly perfect, are a critical part of the construction of livable urban environments. They are also critical in the protection of wilderness from further urbanization.

We sympathize with the goal of eliminating some of the abuses of eminent domain by local government usually associated with redevelopment. If that were all that Prop 90 would do, we would vote for it in a heartbeat.

But Prop 90 is far broader than just reform of eminent domain. It would make it virtually impossible for local government to make the kinds of land-use decisions that we all count on it to make.

What is really remarkable to us is that Prop 90 is opposed not just by environmental groups but many business groups as well. The California Chamber of Commerce, for example, opposes it, and they are hardly tree-huggers. Prop 90 would definitely be bad law.

On the local ballot are two measures that are not as clear-cut as the statewide propositions.

Measure M

This countywide measure would extend a 0.5-cent sales tax dedicated to transportation improvements under the auspices of the Orange County Transportation Authority.

Lou and I are reluctant supporters. There is still a lot that needs to be done to upgrade the existing freeway system here in Orange County. For example, the 22 freeway is undergoing a massive widening project that has been a long time — too long — coming.

And a number of environmental groups have decided to endorse Measure M on the basis of OCTA’s commitment to do habitat mitigation and runoff control when they build new roads and highways.

Do Lou and I expect all the money raised by the sales tax to be well spent? Certainly not. Do we expect that Huntington Beach will get its fair share of OCTA spending on street improvements? That hasn’t happened in the past, and we don’t expect it will in the future, either.

But the need for further transportation improvements is so critical that we will bite the bullet and vote in favor of Measure M.

Measure T

This is the hottest item on the local ballot as far as we are concerned.

We have debated it endlessly within our household and have agreed to disagree. Lou has been an opponent almost from the outset. I have been badly torn, seeing merits — and flaws — in the arguments of both sides.

In the end, I have decided to vote in favor. I believe that a new senior center is badly needed in HB. When I was asked to endorse Measure T, I declined because I wasn’t confident that enough effort had gone into the search for an alternative site.

As the public debate has played out, I have come to the conclusion that the proponents are correct — that no other viable site really exists.

It is true that the site at Goldenwest and Talbert is of some ecological value. It supports a rodent population that in turn supports several locally breeding raptor species.

In some ways, I prefer the site at the corner of Goldenwest and Ellis. But this site, too, has the political liability of lying within Central Park, therefore requiring a Measure C vote and being opposed by many simply because it is within the park.

Without a viable alternative, I will vote for Measure T. Lou continues to recommend you vote against it.