Who'd of thought my horse racing knowledge would actually come in handy for voting? I certainly never did. I thought, at most, it'd open up interesting conversations with people, but for voting? Nope. Never.
I briefly touched on it in my last post, but Monterey has a ballot measure in November's election for rejecting Monterey Downs. Monterey Downs would be an almost 550 acre project right on the border of CSU-Monterey Bay and the Fort Ord National Monument (aka BLM lands). If you check out the link, it's a really intensive project that would take years and years to be completed. It's basically creating a mini-town in the middle of Fort Ord. Rumor has it (I haven't thoroughly checked this out) that the developer for Monterey Downs is actually from Malibu, which says a little about the project. It'll have housing, shopping (a movie theater?), a throwback "downtown," tennis courts and an Olympic size pool, huge indoor arena (apparently future site of CSUMB graduations), horse park (complete with Grand Prix arena), training horse track, hotels, offices, and some land that'll be utilized as a "gateway" to the BLM lands (i.e., leave your dog, horse, or bike there while you go off and enjoy "downtown" or a trail head). The tag for Monterey Downs is "Balancing nature with everyday living." Catchy, eh?
The campaign materials are clever...So clever, in fact, I actually got the measures backwards when discussing them with a co-worker. When reading them on a ballot, I get it, but discussing them I got them backwards! Measure K supporters (pro-Monterey Downs) is using the "K" to highlight phrases like "keeping promises." Good hook phrase and with the "k" and Measure K, you get that subtle hook in to vote FOR Measure K because of keeping promises. However, the proponents to Measure K who want you to vote for Measure M (against Monterey Downs) is solely highlighting the racetrack (Monterey Downs calls it a "training facility" in its literature) and gambling. They don't mention absolutely anything else about Monterey Downs. Well, they do mention destroying thousands of coast live oaks, but that's always a sub-point after the horse track. The racetrack is a good hook too since most people are adverse to gambling and horse racing (I always think of the "noise" when I see the literature against it). Little do most citizens know that getting Thoroughbred racing at Monterey Downs is not a guarantee. So, propaganda material is pretty good on both sides and since K is voting FOR Monterey Downs and M is voting AGAINST Monterey Downs, the ballot is kind of confusing on top of it all (which, according to Measure M supporters, was Monterey Downs point to put Measure K on the ballot -- to confuse the voters).
At any rate, I at first thought Monterey Downs was JUST the racetrack since that was all that was highlighted, but when I started to look into it, it's a HUGE project that's far more reaching than just the track. I think they plan like 1,000 new homes/apartments too. It's about 550 acres, which isn't monsterly huge, but it's not small either. It's always been in the works that Fort Ord would, eventually, create a state-of-the-art equestrian center. It's been in the works forever in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan. I did NOT see the racetrack (it's a racetrack, people, not a "training facility") or the housing or pool or anything else in there! Because I'm a horse racing fan and like my horses, I HAD to look it all up in detail.
The Monterey Horse Park really isn't that big of a deal (check the link for a detailed plan). It's pretty straight forward and, as I said, is not really a surprise to anyone who has remotely paid any attention to Fort Ord's future when it was decomissioned. It will be a nice facility -- if it ever gets made -- and having a Grand Prix (GP) level arena will be really cool! Pebble Beach actually holds some GP level dressage events, but their arena is absolutely horrible. I was reading one year that some of the better horses were withdrawn because the arena was so terrible. I'm sorry; I'm not sure which is sadder: The fact that a GP level event can be held at a terrible arena OR the fact Pebble Beach would ALLOW a GP level event to held on a terrible arena. Sure, fixing it wouldn't be cheap, but making a good arena would make it so the good competitors wouldn't withdraw or skip the event. Having good competitors compete would only help with notoriety and, in the future, more money! At any rate, the Peninsula is due for an upgrade of some sort. Plus, with the history of Fort Ord and all the BLM lands, it just makes sense it needs a better horse facility. Goodness knows Marina Equestrian Center could also use an upgrade. So, anyway, horse park...whatever. I do wish they'd put some seating around the GP arena...Come on. If you're going to have GP arena, you need seating!
The "training facility," though, is really interesting. It is mentioned that it could be used for future horse racing, but mostly mentions training. I guess since it's so small, it really wouldn't need a lot of stables, but it's not a dinky race track! It's going to a mile long oval, which is the same size as Santa Anita (if you do not include the grass downhill shoot). Technically, I think they're going to emulate Golden Gate Fields (GGF), which is a mile oval too. It has infield shoots to make the grass races longer, which is what the track looks like it'll have too. Del Mar has a similar looking track. Del Mar is wider than it is longer, whereas GGF is longer than it is wider (so the distance to the finish line is longer at GGF than Del Mar). The grandstand, supposedly, will only seat around 1,500 (from what I could find), which is pretty small. The arena they want to create near the track will seat almost 4xs more than that. I don't know what Del Mar or GGF seats, but I know Del Mar seats more than that by a lot and I've never been to GGF so I'm not sure. In comparison to Santa Anita, Santa Anita's grandstand is more than 10xs bigger than that. Obviously, it's a precaution in case they never DO get live racing so they don't have a huge grandstand for no reason. I'm sure if live racing was approved, they could redo the grandstand and make it bigger (Churchill redid their grandstands in the last decade to add in new "sky boxes") with any added revenue from the gambling. So, that's the track comparisons. It's not a dinky "training track."
Here's some random thoughts the general public don't know about horse racing. Horse racing at various tracks is approved yearly by the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB). They meet yearly and divvy up the racing dates amongst all the tracks/regions. They also approve tracks, date changes, training facilities, and so forth. It's quite the bureaucratic process. Thoroughbred (TB) racing, harness racing, quarter horse racing, and fairs all get different race dates. TB racing, though, is typically GGF is open almost all year (seriously, it runs in thirds through the year with 1 or 2 months closure between the meets) and SoCal tracks (Hollywood, Del Mar, and Santa Anita) get split up (order: Santa Anita, Hollywood, Del Mar, Santa Anita, Hollywood). With the closing of Hollywood Park at the end of this year, the future years will be Santa Anita, Del Mar, Fairplex, Santa Anita, Del Mar. (As a random note, Santa Anita closes out the year and opens the year so they run Dec 26-well into the new year.) So, in actuality, the opening of Monterey Downs would have no impact upon the SoCal circuit. The only thing it would do is make a potential new track to run horses at. With that said, GGF would lose some of their days to allow racing at Monterey. I think the plan is the late summer to early fall and would have 45-days of live racing ("live racing" is always used to say when there are actual races there because most tracks stay open for simulcasting). Those 45 days would have to come from GGF. Not to say GGF has really any say in it, other than petitioning, but it'd be kind of weird to open a new TB track and take some of its days away.
In addition, horse racing is not at a great moment in its popularity. I can't see how suddenly adding a new horse track is going to help things in the industry. In addition, two major tracks in California in the last 5-ish years were sold off and have been (or will be) bulldozed for housing (good bye Hollywood this year and Bay Meadows has been closed for a while). Gambling isn't even the "focus" of Monterey Downs (says interviews). Monterey Downs' thing is to promote some "fun" for the students. Really? Okay. Maybe. I find it fun! Horse racing is a new experience and cheap (I suspect a LOT of $1 beer days...it's practically a track tradition) and gambling, let's face it, will be a draw. Though, it is mostly done on-line these days (I stood next to a lady at last year's BC where she was on her iPad placing her bets at the rail). Besides, if you were going to be a horse racing fan and wanted to gamble, the Monterey County Fairgrounds is an OTB (off track betting) site and even has all the stuff you'd want (simulcasting, DRF, etc, other than a live race). I guess it will be a new temptation for people to start gambling since it'll be "there" for them. On the flip side, I enjoy it just fine and I haven't dropped a dime on a bet (or a penny, since you CAN bet a penny). It might be nice to corrupt (hehehe) youngin's to racing (sans gambling) and they do plan to add internships and stuff so you never know who might fall in love with racing, but still...I just don't see how this will really do anything for the industry or CA racing. I guess, locally, it might do something (if I'm around and you can't find me, check the track), but the big picture just makes me go, "What...?" I guess it is also a new area to take in new gambling profits, but if gambling made a track...New York's Racing Association (NYRA) wouldn't be in a constant state of struggle (though, the new thing is slot machines) nor would Hollywood have closed. GGF is near Berkeley and Hollywood was in Inglewood (close to UCLA, 20 minute drive south). Sure, it's not in the backyard of a college campus, but you can't say CSUMB is a "big" campus either (yet). It's random and with the location the track is in, it's likely to never be a BIG track location. So, in actuality, the track could end up being nothing and, instead, you have a nice big oval for car shows (I'm channeling Del Mar in that reference, even though we've got Laguna Seca nearby)!
So, basically, I don't get the necessity or interest in the "training facility." Honestly, I'd keep Monterey Downs for just the Horse Park and skip the "training facility." I don't see the need in the project at all and, seriously, who thinks of creating horse racing as "something for college students to do"?! That's just weird! And this coming from a horse racing fan...who would love to live at Santa Anita. LoL So, anyway, Horse Park, yes; training facility, no. Though, I admit that I am curious to see a race track be put in...
With that said, it concerns me that with everyone on the Peninsula so in tuned with the water crisis that is the Peninsula that VERY little mention is EVER said about where all the water for the 1,000+ homes, hotels, offices, etc is going to come from. Houses take a lot of water! Hotels do too! I'd be willing to say the horse track, horse park, and offices will take less water and can be "justified" (to a point -- that infield of the race track and the turf course is going to be water intensive, so...again...track, no). In fact, I might vote down Monterey Downs purely because of the water issues. If it was just the track and horse park, I might actually have been for the plan. The businesses might not even bother me that much, but the houses really concern me. What's the point of them? To draw some immediate business? I don't know. There are places that have so much trouble getting water and suddenly this HUGE project is going to get those water rights? How weird and...political...I'm not against growth and, frankly, I agree with the whole "saving 550 acres more is moot when 20,000 plus is already saved" is a valid point, but it needs to be "smart" growth and I don't see this as smart...and it's also so random...Horse track?! Houses?! Whose idea was this? LoL Frankly, I'm likely to vote no on Monterey Downs; however, I want to read Measure M first because I still want the horse park and the veteran's cemetery. If Measure M basically makes either of those impossible in the future, I'm against that more. I do believe in the somewhat promises that were made by FORA. To say the least, the results of this election will be VERY interesting towards the future of Fort Ord.
Random cute bunny photo to break-up the dense topics. I have no clue what Lodie is looking for! Those are the grids of their former pen so I'm not sure if she smells them so she's looking for her old home or what, but she's only done this once and she kept looking and looking...There were more grids behind those. No empty space or anything. Weird bunny!
Now, the Affordable Care Act (ACA)...I've given this rant about my situation a few times and thought I'd blog about it. Especially since we just finished our government closure over it and, apparently, some Democrats are now thinking of waiving the fee or pushing back requirements a few weeks or months due to the sign-up issues.
I am one of those people who does not have healthcare. I haven't had healthcare for about 2.5 years now. If I've needed healthcare, I've just paid out of pocket, which, up to this point, has been cheaper than me paying for healthcare monthly. Then again, I'm also avoiding some things I probably should have gone in for also (haven't had a physical in going on 3 years, my heart palpitations (though, those have mostly gone away)). My place of employment DOES offer healthcare, but I can't afford it. With the ACA open now, underneath their stipulations, I do, in fact, qualify for the tax subsidies! So, yay! Right? No. I, unfortunately, fall into the "no man's zone" of the law.
As of right now, I qualify because my company's healthcare costs just a little more than 9.5% of my salary. Underneath ACA, that is not deemed "affordable" and I qualify for the tax subsidies. Unfortunately, with my next raise, I fall just below that 9.5%. According to the ACA, this means that I now have "affordable" healthcare by my place of employment and I no longer qualify for the tax subsidies. This basically means that ACA is pointless for me and I might as well go get healthcare from my place of employment. Unfortunately, if I could AFFORD healthcare in the first place, I would have done it years ago.
On top of all this, my next raise would be next Aug or Sept (can't remember) and the month makes a difference. ACA gives you 3 months of not having health insurance and not get fined. If my raise is in Sept, I'll be okay because I'll be kicked off ACA with my raise, but can wait till Dec to do open enrollment at my company for health insurance. The health insurance would kick in Jan 1st. So, there are my 3 months and not being fined (if you count Sept as not counting); however, if my raise in August, I'll be delinquent. So, yes, I have to figure that out. I, luckily, don't have to worry YET because I'm waiting to hear if my company's insurance will go up or not. If it goes up, I should be okay after my next raise. If not, I'll need to start thinking about the differences in plans of the ACA and whether my company's is really the better plan and just pay the extra amount. Decisions, decisions, and lots of homework...
The problem with the ACA is it doesn't take into count those who are right in that non-poverty area, but don't make enough for their bills/living area. I have a student loan I'm paying back and rent in a costly area of living. I save a little, but if I have to pay health insurance at my place of business, there goes my saving and it takes even more than that away so my standard of living is going to change for the worse. And, before anyone mentions it, I make too much to qualify for MediCal (even with the raising of the maximum to qualify) and I don't fall underneath any of the other stipulations to remove yourself from the program (one being not needing to file taxes -- I guess it's hard to charge people a fee that will be charged when you do your taxes if someone doesn't have to file taxes). Then again, just making $2/hr more would make a HUGE difference.
So, in all, I spent a good deal of time looking through the ACA, looking at the webpage, going to California's webpage, and reading the mandatory handout from my company. I got all this information so it's possible to learn it, but I have people constantly asking me questions about it because I've done my homework. Some of the population is not going to be able to figure this out. It's complicated and takes looking through pages and getting lost on trails of information. A computer is required for the work I did. What happens to those who English isn't a first language? I guess, in many cases, it's pretty straight forward (don't get offered insurance, you qualify), but if you've got a job that does offer insurance, you need to figure out the 9.5% and everything else. I would not be surprised if the fee is waived for 2014 and if it's not waived again in 2015 or at least reduced. If they waive the fee in 2014, I can guarantee people are going to go back to the "Oh, well, I don't care anymore" and stop signing up. This means that in 2015, people are going to be scrambling again and things are going to break again. Or, maybe I'm being super pessimistic about this and maybe the extra year will help work out the kinks and it'll give people a year to trickle in their sign-ups. Who knows. Though, it would be nice if the government can decide quickly. There are many people and perhaps many good things about the ACA, but I am definitely one of those few people who is completely annoyed by the ACA. Sure, it's great if you qualify, but it's the complete pits if you're in my situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment