How will the 32 percent U.C. tuition increase affect you?
As I post this question, the UC regents are meeting to vote on a proposed 32 percent hike in the cost of a University of California education. UC President Mark Yudof had recommended increasing annual tuition to $10,302 next year to help close a $535 million budget gap. Responding to more than $1 billion in state funding cuts since last year, the UC recently let go almost 2,000 employees, cut faculty pay through furloughs and reduced the number of courses offered to students. The new fees are expected to generate more than half a billion dollars, and allow the UC to restore some of the most painful cuts.
Students and parents (not to mention faculty and staff) are understandably dismayed. Angry protests took place at several UC campuses around the state, and supporters joined in at California State University campuses, which also face severe reductions. The impact of the state’s fiscal crisis on its lauded college and university system is leading some Californians to question whether its quality and accessibility can be sustained.
Are you a student, or parent of a student? How will the 32 percent tuition increase affect you or your family?
Comments
One Response to “How will the 32 percent U.C. tuition increase affect you?”
Have you driven the S-curve, and if so did it feel safe to you?
More than 40 accidents have taken place on the Bay Bridge since the S-curve opened Labor Day weekend as part of a temporary bridge bypass. Some critics assert the S-curve is too sharp to be safe for motorists, but CalTrans says it is safe if drivers follow the 40 mph speed limit.
Concerns about its safety continue to plague drivers and CalTrans. The fatality of a big-rig driver on Monday resulted in a lawsuit against the transit agency, which recently posted new speed limit warnings to encourage slower speeds and repainted the guard rails with a highly reflective paint. Late Wednesday night and Thursday morning, the California Highway Patrol handed out more than 35 tickets as it stepped up speed limit enforcement.
Have you driven the S-curve? If so, what were your impressions? Did it feel safe to you?
Comments
5 Responses to “Have you driven the S-curve, and if so did it feel safe to you?”
-
Dan Brekke on
November 13th, 2009 11:52 am
When I first saw the curve back in September, I was sure it would become a bottleneck. And it has — because it does force people to slow. It requires you to be extra-vigilant, but it's never felt dangerous. On the other hand, I don't really feel comfortable when I find myself next to a truck or bus on the curve.
Yesterday on KQED Radio News, we talked to Simon Washington, director of the Safe Transportation Research and Education Center at UC Berkeley. His take: He doesn't feel the section is poorly designed or unduly hazardous. Interview is here, if you're interested: http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R911121730
-
Morey Miller on
November 13th, 2009 7:23 pm
The curve is dangerous… period.
The tendency of traffic on a freeway (never mind they are traveling on a bridge), is to move as fast as possible. As a result, drivers will take that attitude into that curve, and will collide with the wall, or worse, fly over it.
The solution… a LARGE wall with LARGE warning signs, as one might see in Europe where dangerous curves are encountered. Lots of flashing lights… the radar camera reminding them of their speed… all the above. If CalTrans doesn't take every effort to maximize the communication to drivers of the danger of the curve, there will undoubtedly be more accidents, and God forbid, more deaths. -
Pam Peirce on
November 13th, 2009 9:11 pm
I drove the S-curve only once. I drove our Toyota Camry, which handles very well and never before have I felt it was at the edge of its capacity to stay on the road in a curve when I was going at the recommended speed. I felt a pull on the steering wheel, and that the car was just barely under control at 40 mph. I slowed quickly and got through it OK, but from this I conclude that the speed limit of 40 mph is too high.
-
Ben on
November 13th, 2009 9:16 pm
Yes the s-curve is quite safe but there have always been drivers who drive far too fast on the bridge even before the s- curve and those are the people who are having trouble with the bridge. I drive this bridge a lot as an Oakland resident who works in San Francisco. I maintain my lane at the s-curve and otherwise slow down to the posted speed limit. At 40 mph it was quite safe now the speed limit is 35 mph so even safer again. The S-Curve was designed obviously by people who knew what they were doing. As for steel dropping on the bridge is a different story which I believe is now being addressed. You cannot just interrupt a span of steel like that and expect it to be the same as before. Thanks so Much Ben
-
Shirley Suhrer on
November 13th, 2009 9:50 pm
I haven't driven the s-curve on the Bay Bridge, but I believe it is safe if driven at the proper speed, which is probably 35 mph. Drivers should keep in the mind this is not the permanent configuration of the bridge's roadway, and be willing to accommodate the situation.
Would you support a bond request to finance a new state water plan?
This week the state legislature and the governor found enough common ground to agree in principle on a group of long awaited and much negotiated water bills.
As important as that step was according to Dr. Peter Gleick of the non-partisan Pacific Institute, an Oakland-based think tank, there's still a long way to go. Dr. Gleick is a well-respected water expert. This is what he had to say on his SFGate blog:
"Despite the happy face being put on by some of the bill's supporters, including Governor Schwarzenegger, I doubt anyone is truly happy with the end result. Perhaps that's too much to expect for a topic as complex as California water and for a bill that tries to do so much at once. I'm certainly not happy, but I believe there was a (mostly) good faith effort on the part of the governor and the legislators and all the other water interest groups to try and produce something."
»Read Dr. Peter Gleick's full assessment of the plan including what issues remain unanswered with the package of bills. (at sfgate.com)
Based on Gleick's comments, and San Jose Mercury News reporter Paul Rogers' report on This Week, would you support an estimated eleven billion dollars in water bonds on next November's ballot to finance a new state water plan?
Comments
2 Responses to “Would you support a bond request to finance a new state water plan?”
-
Kelley Snider on
November 9th, 2009 7:47 pm
The people who want this outrageous water grab need to pay for it, i.e. they should be taxed. I'll be damned, or is it dammed, if I would vote to go further into debt and then pay more out in interest because the inability to raise taxes in California because of the Republican minority tail wagging the dog. NO, NO, NO, on any such bonds, let alone the plan to suck all the water out of NoCal for the pools of SoCal despite the extinction of various species, like salmon.
-
Colleen Wilson on
November 10th, 2009 2:29 pm
For even more context, see this map showing a detailed breakdown of where the $11.14 billion in bond money is supposed to go.
http://www.kqed.org/news/climatewatch/water.jsp
(Map prepared by KQED Radio editor Dan Brekke)
How will the California state park closures and cuts affect you, and the state?
Frankly, I was surprised when I read the headline, "Schwarzenegger to receive national park award."
How could that be…didn't he just propose cutting $70 million dollars out of the state's park budget? Didn't he just propose closing about a third of the 279 state parks? And didn't he just announce as an alternative to all of the above, server cuts in services and reductions of hours that will among other things cause many parks to close except on weekends?
The governor had to make some hard choices this year, his supporters say in response to California's record $43 billion dollar budget shortfall. The proposed cuts his spokesman said do not mean that Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't support parks. After all he has protected over 400,000 acres of park land, more than any governor in 50 years.
Never-the-less, according to San Francisco State Senator Mark Leno, the timing of the award is a "tragic irony."
These ironic moments are very difficult for politicians who have to live with the ebbs and flows of big challenges and for the public who has to live with the results.
How will the California state park closures and cuts affect you, and the state?
Comments
3 Responses to “How will the California state park closures and cuts affect you, and the state?”
-
diane carter on
October 30th, 2009 8:01 pm
If money is going to be raised for parks by fees, the fees should be optional and should be imposed on those who really use the state parks. As a senior, I do not use the parks and can little afford the addition of a state park fee on my driver registration. The fee should be assessed on those who use the parks, not on those who live in this state generally.
-
diane carter on
October 30th, 2009 8:24 pm
Jerry Brown has a tested record of being alert to issues which impact the people of California. The fact that he is seeking to become Governor of California is not primarily a reason for his actions. If you look at the person and his record you will see that he is dedicated to the good of everyone in the state.
-
Virginia E. Fehrenbacher on
November 2nd, 2009 4:22 pm
I like the new program but I miss Paul Rogers and some of the "regulars." I loved the beautiful suit that you were wearing Friday evening, Belva. A perfect, muted color for you.
Is Jerry Brown using his job as Attorney General to further his political ambitions?
Attorney General Jerry Brown wants to be Governor of California, and while he has not formally declared his candidacy he has raised millions of dollars to finance such a run in the 2010 elections.
Meanwhile, Brown has been filing high profile lawsuits almost every week against some suspected wrong doer. Just in the last month he's sued a Beverly Hills investment advisor who had ties to Bernard Madoff, had a former healthcare clinic manager arrested in what he called a $2.2 million dollar medical rip-off, and sued six businesses and eight individuals for operating a scam targeted at small business. These filings, a legitimate part of his duties as Attorney General, have kept his name in the news, which is good for any candidate.
His chief rival San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has no vehicle that provides him as much free media statewide.
On a CNBC business show Wednesday, Brown announced a lawsuit against Boston-based State Street Bank and Trust for allegedly overcharging California's two largest pension funds $56 million dollars. During Brown's much touted encounter with the show's anchors, CNBC's Michelle Caruso-Cabrera asked, "What do you say to people who look at this who say this is a perfect example of the demagoguery of attorneys general when they want to run for governor?"
Brown says he is only doing his job. "In my book, there's nothing quaint about corporate fraud. There's nothing quaint about ripping off pension funds. And, I — along with attorneys general from across the nation — will continue to bring these high-priced rip-off artists to justice."
Is Jerry Brown using his job as Attorney General to further his political ambitions?
Comments
7 Responses to “Is Jerry Brown using his job as Attorney General to further his political ambitions?”
-
Shirley on
October 23rd, 2009 5:14 pm
Indeed Jerry is. It is so blatantly obvious and should turn off any thinking, informed voter in the upcoming election. He already nearly ruined the UC system his first time as governor. We cannot endure another fiasco led by Jerry Brown.
-
Jacob Wang on
October 23rd, 2009 5:30 pm
I heard some scuttlebut about him running for governor.
-
Alan on
October 23rd, 2009 7:49 pm
Strange question indeed. Every politician uses every
political position they have occupied to further
their political ambitions. So what is the point
of putting this question Re: Brown, to discredit
his campaign in some way implicitly?
Belva, are you a declared or covert supporter
of the Brylcream Mayor as goober-natorial candidate? -
Michael Perin on
October 23rd, 2009 7:54 pm
Yes, he is using his job to boost his visibly and help his chances of becoming gov.
But, I might vote for him considering the other candidates
-
Bruce on
October 23rd, 2009 8:00 pm
Permit me to re-phrase, "Is a politician using his political office to further his political ambitions?" The only way that the answer to this question is other than "yes" is if one or more of the following conditions exists. 1) The individual is not a politician. 2) The individual does not hold a political office. 3) The individual does not have political ambitions. Since none of the conditions is true with respect to Jerry Brown, it seems to me that there are two possible answers to the question: 1) yes and/or 2) DOH! How does Gavin Newsom measure up with this question?
-
Richard Morgese on
October 24th, 2009 10:30 am
What an inane question! Very disappointing performance of your part.
Aren't you glad he's doing his job? Would you have him not do it to level the playing field? Your question evades all logic.
Brown, as governor, was the first to argue against Prop 13 which has come to cause much, if not most, of California's budget problems.
While I much like Newsom and, hope he continues to grow in political life, I hope Brown runs, no one has his experience and ability on my political side of issues.
-
judy on
October 25th, 2009 12:01 am
The timing is interesting. Never hear a peep from him, then about a year ago he is everywhere making statements and talking about all the cases. He never publicly talked about state cases before becoming the 'out there' AG. He is definitely playing his office to the hilt. He could do his job and handle the cases without opening his mouth. AG is normally a very low profile position.
Is it politics or the governing structure that has paralyzed California?
There is no shortage of places to have your voice heard on almost any topic, including this site. But even with all of the opportunities to create and comment, scientifically conducted polls continue to serve an important purpose. They are the best instrument we have to track the opinions of a diverse group of citizens on important issues.
This week the venerable Field Poll released three polls that measure our optimism about the direction of the state and the country, the job performance of the Governor and the Legislature, and whether we should change the way we govern ourselves.
Surprisingly, in the poll released Thursday about our optimism, 48 percent of the registered California voters in the Field sample think the country is moving in the right direction, with 41 percent believing the opposite. Those numbers are in stark contrast to where they were in July of 2008 when only 15 percent thought the country was headed in the right direction and 75 percent believed the opposite.
When we turn to California the picture is entirely different. Not surprising in a state with 12.2 percent unemployment and a governor and legislature that were locked in a budget impasse for months, finally resulting in draconian cuts to many cherished programs.
Only 15 percent felt the state was generally going in the right direction while 78 percent think things are seriously on the wrong track. You have to go back to March of 2007 to find a majority 52 percent who felt the state was heading in the right direction, with 38 percent believing the opposite.
So how did the leadership drift so far from the expectations of the people who elected them, even during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression?
That leaves us with the question — is it politics or the governing structure that has the state with a reputation for innovation stopped dead in it tracks?
The Field Polls provide some answers. http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/
What do you think?
Comments
9 Responses to “Is it politics or the governing structure that has paralyzed California?”
-
Henry on
October 16th, 2009 4:27 pm
I think the governing structure in the legislature, where 1/3 of the people can paralyze the majority, stops us from getting anything done. I can see 51% or maybe 55%, but not 2/3.
-
Cathi on
October 16th, 2009 8:08 pm
The initiative process has left the legislature hamstrung and impotent. California's system of governance has become a joke. Citizen initiatives have been taken over by well funded special interests. Prop 13 has finally strangled local governments after a long period of near death experience. Why do Californians refuse to pay for the way of life they hope to achieve?
-
Ted on
October 16th, 2009 11:01 pm
Do we have to attribute all this to one thing or the other? And didn't each one beget the other? I think a better question is where to start on a solution. With the gerrymandered districts, the fix is probably not going to be in electing moderates. If I had to bet, I'd bet on an initiative that would eliminate the need for super-majorities. It's a long shot, but remember why we got initiatives in the first place. They were made for stalemates like this.
-
allen pross on
October 18th, 2009 5:33 pm
The initiative process has been corrupted by special interests. The radio/TV ads should have a larger, more readable disclaimer read aloud but would not count as part of the 30/60 second spots.
In addition, legislative hearings should be held on EVERY initiative and the State supreme court would review the constitutionality of each initiative prior to it being placed on the ballot.
-
David H. Eliaser on
October 19th, 2009 5:29 pm
I am a teacher of government. I have studied the California government and believe that there a combination of three structures to our government that makes the current dysfunction almost inevitable.
1) Current structure of legislative districts — Providing "safe" seats for the current party holding each seat favors party partisans. These partisans are generally closer to the political extremes (liberal for Democrats and conservative for Republicans)and value principles over pragmatism. Compromise is a "dirty" word to many of these legislators.
2) Term limits — Having limited terms leaves the most knowledgeable people regarding legislative history, issues and process as being in the staff and lobbyists. Staff members tend to be professional partisans. Good governance is not necessarily the top priority for lobbyists. Additionally, the short term nature of the legislative members lowers the priority of trying to develop positive relationships among members from across the isle. It is difficult to conceive a relationship like the one between Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch to develop in a term limited legislator.
Term limits also provides the members with a short-term motivation. Instead of looking at implications five to ten years down the line, there is a tendency on both sides to achieve short-term victories.
3.Two-thirds vote of each house of the legislature to raise taxes and to pass a budget — This rules makes a well disciplined minority as powerful as the majority. Since members of the legislature tend to be highly partisan, and tend not to develop relationships with members from the other side, the priority is to hang together with fellow members of the party. If a member votes against the leadership on an important vote he/she may find that there will be a more "loyal" opponent in the next primary election. This promotes the party disciple which allow the "big five" to make all the decisions while the other 116 members of the legislature to sit around waiting to be told what to do.
The people have already voted to change the method of apportioning seats in the legislature. Unfortunately this will not take effect until 2012. Most likely one of the other two structures must also be changed to create an atmosphere more conducive to compromise.
-
judy on
October 25th, 2009 12:08 am
It is politics, the need for fair & legitimate REdistricting, and term limits. The structure is fine…tampering would make it worse. Tampering with term limits made thing worse. We desperateing need fair, competitive, respresentative districts, that look like districts…not checking the registration of every house and running the boundaries down the middle of the street and turning at every corner…a real insult to the people.
-
judy on
October 25th, 2009 12:12 am
It is the need for fair & legitimate REdistricting, and term limits. The structure is fine…tampering would make it worse. Tampering with term limits made thing worse. We desperately need fair, competitive, respresentative districts, that look like districts…not checking the registration of every house and running the boundaries down the middle of the street and turning at every corner…a real insult to the people. The caliber of legislator is scary…cranking out crap just to get their name on a piece of legislation. NO new laws would be great.
-
judy on
October 25th, 2009 12:15 am
The site is fabulous !!
-
judy on
October 25th, 2009 12:23 am
The 2/3 budget is the only thing saving CA families today. Without that protection the greedy special interests would dominate the airways with lies, adding taxes, thus every business would leave the state, taking YOUR job with them !
This Week has a new look, new format, and new website. What do you think?
Welcome back. If you are reading this you know that This Week in Northern California has scrubbed its cool blue look and is returning to the air with a brand-new set, and a brand new snazzy website created with bright, vibrant hues. I've never been one who paid a great deal of attention to the desk fronts and background screens on television programs, but I have to admit that considering the precarious social and financial situation of our world, this sunny new look does lift one's spirits. We are excited about the change but would like to know your thoughts.
As we enter our twentieth season please be assured that this is not a superficial overhaul of This Week. Our change is much deeper and more profound than new colors. For the past three months, a group of very dedicated people at KQED has spent many hours trying to tackle some of the same problems you might also be facing at home. Foremost among them: How can we do more with less?
I think of public television as the "soul food" of the broadcasting industry. It exists to serve our most basic needs, to inform, to educate, and to quiet our souls with the best of the arts and culture we share as humans. But no matter how noble the goals of public broadcasting, there is still the daunting task of generating the resources to create content.
The time away from our weekly program schedule accomplished two important things. It allowed the production team sufficient time to rethink the show's mission and objectives, and to bank some resources that can now be used to present a richer programming experience. We will welcome back our great local reporters but we will also incorporate material from our arts program Spark and fascinating science stories with the help of QUEST, we will travel to the source of interesting stories and invite expert guest to share our studio.
The world of social media has opened to us with the launch of our new website. It allows the program to be streamed online with options for you to share it with friends and comment. However the most important element for me is the opportunity to engage you in conversation about what we do or should do as we continue to build the new This Week.
Now it's your turn, tell us what you think about this week's program, our new on air look, and our greatly enhanced website.
Belva
Comments
16 Responses to “This Week has a new look, new format, and new website. What do you think?”
-
Edward on
October 9th, 2009 6:01 pm
Looking forward to the new format, and loving the new, deeper website. When choosing guests, I hope you'll be sure you seek out a variety of opinions — force yourselves to look beyond the progressive orthodoxy of the region — and don't be afraid to challenge the status quo.
-
James L on
October 9th, 2009 8:20 pm
Just saw the show on air now.
I like the new format, where the show now has a more in-depth segment devoted to the three strikes law with no panel discussion. The past format of all discussion was very similar to Washington Week which comes on right after. The short segment on the NASA moon mission with only one panelist allows for shorter issues to be addressed with a smaller footprint. The variety will be interesting to see.
The "vibrant hues" hurt my eye when at the beginning of the show, but i think i adapted to it towards the end. Then again, colors are more a personal taste, i think viewers will get used to it soon enough.
Good job on the redesign.
-
michael t baublitz on
October 9th, 2009 9:40 pm
10.09 As a long-time viewer I waited with much anticipation of the new look. Well, I'm sorry to say I'm disappointed, though the web-site looks great. I found the 'color scheme' rather jarring at first, but I was hoping to see a 'panorama' of photos illustrating the state with 'map' graphics.
I also thought the program would be an hour long and see more new faces. Of course, Mr Rogers and Ms Marinucci always get top billing, and they're among the best, yet I was not satisfied with just 3 journalists. The old format worked for me, but will give you some more time to work it out…thx always for the good info. Always a loyal viewer.
"Blitz Media Reviews" -
Mary on
October 9th, 2009 10:17 pm
I have someone in Soledad State prison that was sentenced under the three-strike law, I am very interested in talking with you. Please contact me.
Mary Jones
President(Community Organization"WE AS ONE" fOCUSING ON JUSTICE FOR ALL.[edited posted phone number]
-
George Wilson on
October 10th, 2009 5:00 pm
I was a great fan of This Week in Northern California. I have seen the new format and frankly I hate it! It used to be so relaxed and interesting. This is not. It is sleek and impersonal.
-
Klaus & Ann Krause on
October 10th, 2009 7:05 pm
The new look is OK, but we definitely prefer the previous discussion format with panelists participating in the entire show.
-
Jose on
October 11th, 2009 11:03 am
I was not impressed with your new format. I was looking for an improvement, and did not find it. I was looking for expanded analysis and discussion of current topics which your show did not provide. I felt your new format was a half hour of editorial comment. If I wanted editorial commentary, I would have looked elsewhere. Looking forward to a better format, or if nothing else, the old format would do.
-
Mary on
October 11th, 2009 1:57 pm
The new look is great even though I am new to the web-site.
-
Lila on
October 11th, 2009 4:32 pm
I noticed the new format right away. Congratulations and welcome to the major leagues. Good looking new background, complements everyone nicely.
-
Jeffrey Fried on
October 11th, 2009 7:55 pm
I enjoy everything about the new show except the look of the set. It makes everything appear claustrophobic when compared with the old set which to me looked very open and inviting.
-
Ron on
October 12th, 2009 7:45 am
I dislike the new format. Instead of discussing the news, too much of this week's show was editorializing on the Three Strikes issue, slanting the coverage against Three Strikes and against public safety. Not mentioned was the fact that there are career criminals who commit robberies and burglaries, and the public is much safer when they are locked up for life if they have been convicted three times. Burglary is a non-violent crime but it is not a victimless crime, and career criminals who repeatedly burglarize need to be kept off the streets. A robber could have robbed hundreds of people before he was convicted for the third time. He should not be released to continue to victimize the public.
-
Ruth Peterson on
October 12th, 2009 3:01 pm
I love the new colored background. It's a perfect backdrop for you and the panelists. And it's good to see you, Belva, get out more on your own to be a real journalist exploring main issues. The panelists are familiar faces and are a nice segue to the new formatting. I hope you'll have more of Rachel Gordon. Change is not something we folks adapt readily to, but I like what I see.
-
Jeffrey Fried on
October 12th, 2009 10:29 pm
I very much enjoy the new format. I especially liked the extended review of the Three Strikes issue. I am against Three Strikes. I would have liked to see the Three Strikes segment a little more balanced and focused on numbers and analysis from both sides. Hearing from those convicted did add some personal information, however, the samples were a little biased towards rejecting Three Strikes – this is why i think it would have been better to spend more time with advocates on both sides of the issue.
-
Jacob Sun on
October 13th, 2009 9:04 pm
The only thing that kept me watching was the Host's startling resemblance to Brian Fellows from SNL–what with all the blank stares, nodding and whatnot. If I weren't intrigued by that, I would have been asleep by minute three. Also, what was going on during that first discussion? Maybe I was too sleepy to think straight, but the issues weren't clearly outlined and the discussion meandered too much for me to follow. Where did they start? Where did they end? New subject? The three strikes piece was interesting, but it still lacked critical questions that reflected what were, in my opinion, the logical questions that people would ask. Also, the visuals seemed random and stylistically questionable. I don't hate the new show, but it doesn't seem to be different enough in tone and energy to justify a change in the first place. Not interested in watching the next one unless there is another change.
-
Cathi on
October 16th, 2009 8:14 pm
What is that big screen in the background there for? I love this program and like the idea that some new concepts are being incorporated, but the TV experience is not wildly better. It's the content, baby!
-
timola on
October 16th, 2009 8:45 pm
Paleeese!!!
I was hoping as was my wife that the "new format" would bring significant change. Alas the format is superfluous. Our hope was you would finally find a new host. I think Belva is been dead weight to this show for far too long.
This will affect all Americans in the future of our state and country by the possibility that talented individuals who may not be able to afford the increase in fees will not develop their abilities through University training to help build our society.