Proposition 13 (1978) requires voters to approve certain tax increases by a supermajority vote. Proposition 39 (2000) lowered the threshold to 55% for certain bonds. Are you suggesting that voters pass an initiative that would require "all large investments by taxpayers" be required to gain voter approval? What is the definition of "large investment"? While I appreciate the sentiment behind giving taxpayers opportunity to weigh in on decisions involving their tax dollars, a line has to be drawn somewhere that separates "Voters, may we...?" to "Voters hired me to..." Voters have a voice on matters of tax dollar investments -- they can use that voice to vote incumbents out of office when they make poor decisions and can threaten to do so when incumbents are on the verge of doing so. I'm all for taxpayers having a stronger voice, but to cease all "large investments by taxpayers" until they receive election day voter approval is, in my view, a mistake. Ballots in California are confusing enough as it is with their multiple languages and so many propositions -- adding propositions for "all large investments by taxpayers" would make our ballots look like phone books. No thanks -- I'd rather elect smart, fiscally conservative, responsible, community-minded people to represent my interests.

I don't know for sure, but I imagine preliminary polling showed she started with a severe disadvantage and with so many challengers, she either faced losing in June by not placing in the top two (like incumbent Waters' did when he failed to secure a November 2010 runoff position since D. Fong and Ryan Chin ranked as the top two June 2010) OR losing outright to a challenger who would win 50%+1 (ala Ashby's historic 51-42-7 definitive defeat in June 2010 over incumbent Tretheway in a hotly contested three-way race). I think she saw how painful those defeats were to her former colleagues and she decided to end her political career on her own terms rather than subject herself to the humility of a defeat on election night. It's also worth noting that she had no challengers at all in 2008, so she did not have to campaign at all that year. Attending debates, walking precincts, etc., is all very hard work, let alone the emotional investment and the political attacks she would endure along the way. At 68 years old, that's a big commitment with very little down time without any assurance of success at the end of it all -- and even if she did manage to win the election, the council would no longer be the elitist officious impenetrable politically entrenched mob it was over the previous decade, so the four years that followed would probably be more challenging than in previous years. The timing is also interesting because Sacramento Police Officers' Association endorsed challenger Kim Mack a few days ago. It is therefore likely that Sacramento Area Fire Fighters Local 522 will follow suit. Those public safety employee associations supported Ashby very early in the 2010 race and their support was critical in delivering Ashby's grassroots message to voters in what was the most populous council district at the time. Now Sheedy is in the position of a lame duck councilperson between now and November 2012. That's a long time and a lot of damage can be done. She literally has nothing to lose because she has no accountability whatsoever to her constituents anymore. Let us hope she does not do anything too extreme against the wishes of her communities in a Hail Mary pass for the sake of her legacy at the expense of taxpayers. Let's keep our eyes peeled for efforts to have streets, public buildings, and/or parks named after her or her husband.

Do tell.

"And we don't want to see a bunch of sly foxes (Ashby) -- I-will-be-quiet when their [sic] is foul play, misinformation- just to get in office on the council." Care to elaborate on that accusation, Rhonda? Or is it just the usual empty rhetoric?

Interesting article. I knew it was a 1911 bridge and definitely looked it, but I didn't know it had undergone a renovation in 1993 and other interesting facts. I too would like to see the bridge made less, uh, gritty. Cities on both sides of the bridge are trying to develop that area. But if the bridge is privately owned by the railroad, then compelling them to make it more aesthetically pleasing is not a wise investment for them, and I don't think I'd want taxpayer money spent on that endeavor -- so I guess we're stuck with it.