Propositions! November 2020 (Second Batch)

 

There are a bunch of propositions on the November ballot, and some of them are pretty dense, so I had to break them down into two batches - here is the second batch.  The first batch is here: https://peterallenforag.blogspot.com/2020/09/propositions-november-2020-first-batch.html

Proposition 19 - Maybe no?  This one is a bit tricky to figure out what to do with, as it has some good parts and some less good parts. Under Proposition 13's limits on property taxes, properties are reassessed at market value (usually a significant increase) when they are bought/sold/transferred, but there are some exceptions/exemptions, and Proposition 19 tweaks those exemptions.

Under current law, certain people (over 55, disabled, fire and disaster victims) can take their (low) Prop 13 tax assessment with them when they buy a new house, but only to certain counties, and only if they buy a new house that is cheaper than their old one. (This is because the purpose of the exception was to allow old people who wanted to downsize to do so without getting hit with a big increase in their property taxes.) Proposition 19 would allow these sellers to take their tax assessment anywhere else in the state (a good thing, as the county-by-county limitation is bizarrely arbitrary), but would also allow the Prop 13 assessment to be used to reduce the assessment on a more expensive house (this is not so good - essentially a tax subsidy for someone who likely has plenty of money and is upgrading rather than downsizing).

Under current law, transfers from a parent to child do not trigger a reassessment - in other words, the children get to keep the parents' Prop 13 assessment.  This is true whether the children live in the house or not - they could rent it out or use it as a vacation home. Proposition 19 narrows this exemption, and only allows the children to keep the Prop 13 assessment if they live in the house. This seems like a good thing to me, as it reduces the tax subsidy granted by Proposition 13, and would likely result in increased property tax revenue.

Proposition 19 would earmark the increased proceeds for a California Fire Response Fund. I don't have a problem with the state spending money on fire response - I think that is a good thing. But budgeting-by-initiative that locks in funding for things, no matter how good, makes it harder for the state to adjust its budget. The legislature and the governor (no matter what you think of them) can no longer re-prioritize spending to meet the state's changing needs.

Overall, it is a close call, but I think we are a bit better off without Proposition 19, so I would lean towards a no vote.

Proposition 20 - No. This proposition goes deep into the weeds of criminal sentencing and parole, but its intent is clear - longer prison sentences for criminal convictions (including non-violent ones), make it harder to qualify for parole, and require many more DNA samples to be taken and maintained by the government. And it would reverse prior propositions approved by the voters. It is basically trying to turn the clock back to an earlier "tough-on-crime" approach that failed in everything but ballooning California's prison population. It was a bad idea then, and is a bad idea to repeat now. Vote no.

Proposition 22 - No. This is the Uber/Lyft/DoorDash sponsored measure to undo a state law (AB 5) that categorized their drivers as employees, rather than independent contractors. Under Proposition 22, app-based drivers would be considered independent contractors rather than employees. (Proposition 22 does not affect other businesses covered by AB 5.) It also requires that app-based drivers get certain benefits, such as insurance coverage.

I tend to dislike initiatives like this one that are put on the ballot by deep-pocketed companies for their own benefit. This is an attempt by corporations to protect their profits at the expense of their workers by overturning legislation passed to protect those workers. (Who will all probably be out of work anyway once autonomous cars become feasible, so it is not clear how long the impact of this will last.) Slimy. Vote no.

Proposition 23 - No. This is sort of like a proposition that we voted "no" on a few years ago, and would impose more regulations on kidney dialysis clinics, such as having a physician on duty all the time. I can't say that I'm a fan of corporate dialysis clinics, but this one is weird, and appears to be the latest manifestation of a fight we don't have a dog in rather than a response to a specific need to have these particular regulations imposed on dialysis clinics.  Looks to me like another abuse of the initiative process. Vote no.

Proposition 24 - No. Proposition 24 tweaks another recently-passed law on data privacy.  This one is really complicated and detailed, and has some decent stuff in it, but it has a couple of things that give me pause.  One, it creates a new state agency for data protection, rather than just having the attorney general's office address it.  Creating a new state agency when one is not needed is a bad (and expensive) idea. Second, it allows for "paying for privacy" schemes, where businesses could offer discounts to those who waive privacy rights.  For more details, EFF has a nice analysis here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/07/why-eff-doesnt-support-cal-prop-24

My inclination is to vote no.

Proposition 25 - Yes. The legislature recently passed a bill, SB 10, that replaces cash bail for criminal suspects with a risk-based assessment that considers risk of not showing up and risk to public safety. (Low risk suspects get released, high risk suspects stay locked up, medium risk suspects could go either way.) Not surprisingly, the bail bond industry does not like this, and have sponsored a "veto referendum" (which I didn't even know was a thing).

The way the veto referendum works is like you are voting anew on SB 10, so voting yes means to approve SB 10's shift from cash bail to a risk-based assessment system. Voting no would repeal SB 10.

There are some valid criticisms of SB10's risk-based assessment system, including that it would likely incorporate racially-biased criteria. But overall it seems like a step in the right direction. Additionally, Proposition 25 (like Proposition 22) is another attempt by an industry to use the ballot box to protect its bottom line, regardless of the public's interest. My inclination is to vote yes.

Propositions! November 2020 (First Batch)

There are a bunch of propositions on the November ballot, and some of them are pretty dense, so I haven't had the mental bandwidth to analyze all of them yet, but here is a first batch.

Proposition 14 - Probably yes. This proposition would authorize the issuance of $5.5 billion in general obligation bonds to fund grants for stem cell and other medical research and therapies, medical training and construction of research facilities.  This is a follow up to a 2004 bond issue to fund stem cell research. (Which I recall being an in-your-face move to the Bush II administration refusing to fund it because stem cells could come from fetal tissue.)

According to the Secretary of State’s website, the cost to California will be $7.8 billion to pay off principal ($5.5 billion) and interest ($2.3 billion) on the bonds, and the average annual debt payments would be about $310 million for 25 years.

On the one hand, this is a worthwhile and potentially useful thing to fund, and there is likely a lack of federal funds for this research.  On the other hand, there are a few questions to ask: 1) given the significant cost, is this the highest priority use for this money, or is there something else we should be spending it on; 2) how much debt should California take on, and how risky is it for the state to add this debt; and 3) should bonds be used to pay for ongoing expenses rather than large capital projects (like bridges, etc)?

So if you like the purpose of the bill, and you are okay with the borrowing and spending necessary to fund it, vote for it.

Proposition 15 - Yes. This proposition modifies the existing Proposition 13 limits on property taxes, by creating what is known as a “split roll” system.  Right now, property taxes on all real estate in California – houses, apartment buildings, farms, factories, high rises, shopping malls, etc. are capped in how much they can increase (I think it is 2% a year), regardless of how much the actual value of the property has increased.  But it does get reassessed at market value when a property is bought/sold. So if you bought a property one year ago for $500,000 and now it is worth $1 million, your assessed value for calculating property tax would only be $510,000, not $1 million.

Proposition 15 would have property taxes for commercial and industrial property (but not residential or farm property) calculated based on the actual value of the property, and no longer subject to the cap of Proposition 13. There is an exemption for commercial and industrial property with a value of less than $3 million.  While Proposition 13 has helped keep property taxes on peoples’ homes more manageable, it has also acted as a subsidy for real estate speculation and has created weird market distortions.  This proposition would result in significantly higher property tax revenue, and allocates that additional revenue to schools and local governments. (Local governments and school districts took a big hit from Proposition 13.) This type of reform to Proposition 13 is long overdue. Vote yes.

Proposition 16 - Yes. This proposition would repeal Proposition 209 that was passed in 1996 and prohibited the state from “discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. The California Constitution defines the state for these purposes to include the state, any city, county, public university system, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of, or within, the state.”

Proposition 209 resulted in more than just barring affirmative action in school admissions or hiring, and has more broadly limited or prevented the consideration of and support for diversity. Proposition 209 did not magically result in a color and gender blind society, and in fact appears to have had the opposite effect - a marked loss of diversity. (Spoiler: racism and sexism still exist.) While there may be disagreement on what measures should be used to promote diversity, doing so should not be barred by law. Vote yes.

Proposition 17 - Yes. Right now, people cannot vote in California if they are in prison or on parole for a felony, or if they are mentally incompetent. (That last criteria seems to be rather laxly applied, at least in some states.)  This proposition would allow people out on parole to vote.

This makes sense to me – we want former criminals to feel like they are part of society. Once they are out of prison they should be able to vote. Vote yes.

Proposition 18 - Probably yes. Right now you have to be 18 to vote in California. This proposition would allow 17 year olds to vote in primaries and special elections if they will be 18 at the time of the next general election.  I am not sure about the judgment of many 17 year olds (although the judgment of lots of older people seems to be pretty questionable, too), but it is a pretty minor change, and to the extent it encourages younger people to vote that is a good thing. I would lean toward yes.

Proposition 19 and 20 - Coming later.

Proposition 21 - Probably no. This one will change state limits on local rent control ordinances.  If your city does not have rent control (and is unlikely to enact it), this does not directly affect you.

Under current state law (known as Costa-Hawkins), in cities with rent control there is “vacancy decontrol,” meaning that when a tenant moves out of a rent controlled unit, the landlord can raise the rent to the market rate. Costa-Hawkins prohibits cities from limiting rent increases when a tenant moves out and the unit becomes vacant. Under Proposition 21, a city could impose limits on how much a landlord could raise the rent on a vacant unit, with the condition that the landlord could raise the rent by up to 15% over three years.

To illustrate how this would work, assume you have a duplex in a rent-controlled jurisdiction, and you rent out one unit. Market rate on that unit is around $2500/month. Your tenants have been there for a number of years, and are paying rent of $1000/month. Under current law, when the tenants move out, you could raise the rent for the new tenants to $2500. Under Proposition 21, when the tenants moves out, you could only raise the rent for the new tenants to $1,150 over three years.

Proposition 21 makes some other changes as well; the most significant one is that Costa-Hawkins exempts buildings built after 1995 from rent control, while Proposition 21 would change it to a rolling 15-year period, with newer buildings exempt.

Adding rent control to vacant units would have a range of impacts, some intended, some not. The intended effect would be to try to maintain a larger number of rental units at more affordable below-market rates, and it might do that. On the other hand, it will have some other effects. First, small landlords who are on the fence about whether or not to rent out a vacant unit (like half of a duplex or a backyard cottage) will be more likely to not rent it out, taking rental units off the market. (This happens a lot in Berkeley, even under current law.) Second, landlords will never offer reduced rent to anyone (like a friend, a relative, or a fire victim) because the effect of that reduced rent will be carried forward to every other successive tenant. (Not that they are likely to do that now under rent control, except possibly for short-term tenants.)

Because in general rent control hits small landlords harder, and new construction is exempt from rent control, there has been a shift in rental housing from smaller, individually-owned older buildings to larger, corporate-developed apartment buildings. This is particularly true in the jurisdictions with high land costs that are most likely to have rent control. Proposition 21 will likely exacerbate that shift and result in more small buildings being taken off the market, with proportionally more rental housing being larger and not locally owned. I don’t know enough about the economics of apartment buildings to know whether Proposition 21 will be a disincentive to the construction of new rental housing or not, but it may increase the incentive to build new rental housing in non-rent controlled cities.

If you are a renter in a jurisdiction with rent control, you should probably vote for Proposition 21. If you are a landlord or property owner in a jurisdiction with rent control, you should probably vote against Proposition 21. If you are not in a city with rent control, it won’t directly affect you, but don’t be under the illusion that Proposition 21 or rent control will fix our housing affordability problem.

Rent control helps tenants in rent-controlled housing, can help rein in abusive landlords, and can slow gentrification, but neither rent control nor Proposition 21 will do anything significant to address the real problems caused by California’s high housing costs. We have a significant problem with housing affordability due to high property values and relatively low incomes, which needs a major social/governmental response (such as public housing or a universal basic income or the like), and a privatized band-aid approach like rent control won’t fix that, with or without Proposition 21. But approval of Proposition 21 would allow us to pretend for a little longer that we have actually done something significant about housing costs, when we really have not.

Disclosure: my wife owns a four-unit rental building in Berkeley, which has been quite the learning experience. If I didn’t live in Berkeley (or hadn’t read their rent control ordinance), I might feel differently, but if you don’t otherwise have a strong opinion, I would suggest voting no.

Propositions 22 through 25 - Coming later.

 

 

Privilege for All! Or Maybe "Privilege" is the Wrong Word...

You have likely seen arguments like this: "Hey, Congress gets 100 days off a year and a pension!  That's not fair - I only get two weeks off and no pension, so Congress should only get two weeks off and no pension, too!"  I understand the envy, but I don't like the argument, which essentially boils down to:  "Since I have been fucked over, others should be similarly fucked over, too."  I prefer the reverse approach of unfucking everyone: "Hey, if Congress gets 100 days off and a pension I should get that, too!" That would be better for everyone.

There is a somewhat similar dynamic around the term "white privilege," which I think makes it harder for white people to accept the legitimacy of the idea.

I saw a description of white privilege as encompassing things like being able to go jogging without being shot or walk into a store without having security follow you around; not getting arrested for trying to open the front door of your own house or driving a nice car; being able to have a barbecue or dance in the street without someone calling the police. But these are things that everyone should have. In other words, if these are "privileges," everyone should have them.

But the word "privilege" tends to connote something that you did not do anything to earn - it just comes to you. When you hear that someone comes from a "privileged" background you understand that their family was wealthy. You do not have to work to become privileged, and in fact the word indicates that you did not work for your privilege.  With white privilege this is true - you get it just by being born white. That's it: if you are white, you have white privilege.

The status of being white is different than having a privileged background - there are plenty of white people who are poor, or who live in dangerous places or are subject to violence. So even though they have white privilege, they understandably do not think of themselves as "privileged," and hearing themselves described as having privilege feels jarring and unfair.

Adding to that, the American ideal of the self-made individual relies upon the story: "I am responsible for my success; I worked hard to get here."  In other words, success is earned. You can see the darker side of this ideal with the denigration of welfare recipients: "Hey, I worked hard for my money, but they get money for just sitting around, doing nothing. They don't deserve that." But white privilege is not earned - it is just conferred.

So if you put together the idea that privileges, such as material wealth or living in a nice neighborhood should be earned, with the fact that white privilege is not earned, the resulting implication is that white people do not deserve their privileges.  This can trigger a visceral response in some white people, as an accusation of having white privilege sounds like someone wants to take away their white privilege. (Just like some people want to take away vacations and pensions from Congress.)

But that is not the desired goal. Rather than fucking over white people to the same extent as black people, the better solution is to make everyday life for black people just as easy and safe as it is for white people. It is preferable for everyone if we unfuck black people rather than fuck over white people. In other words, everyone should have the same privilege as white people - privilege for all. 

But privilege for all is an odd construct, given the meaning of the word privilege, which is exclusive. Not everyone has privilege. Which is why I think "privilege" may not be the best word to use to describe what white people have. Because it is not that white people have something that they don't deserve, and that should be taken from them, but rather they have something that everyone deserves.

Maybe instead of white privilege we should call it "white normal," or better yet, just "normal." It shouldn't be something special, and it isn't something that you don't deserve or that should be taken from you - it is just normal. But it should be normal not just for whites, but for everyone. When everyone gets there it is just normal. For everyone. I think that would be nice.

Propositions! November 2018

Proposition 1 – Yes, with minor reservations. This one would authorize issuance of $4 billion in general obligation bonds to pay for low-income and veteran’s housing programs.  General obligation bonds are paid back through taxes, and I have concerns about California’s overall debt levels, so that gives me some concern about adding to California’s debt. 

That said, housing affordability is a serious problem in California, and I think it is a societal problem (see my discussion of Proposition 10 below), so I think it is appropriate for California as a state to do something about it.  In addition, this proposition looks to be relatively well crafted to accomplish its goals, so on balance I think it is worth a yes vote.

Proposition 2 – Yes, I think. This one is weird and pretty technical.  As best I can figure out, this proposition would allow the state to use county mental health funds to pay off bonds used to pay for housing for mentally ill people who are homeless or at risk of being homeless. (And there is a pending court case and a previously-passed law involved.)

I think the bottom line is whether you want the money at issue to be used by counties for mental health treatment and services, or if it should be used by the state to pay for housing for the mentally ill. I don’t have a strong opinion on this one, but am somewhat leaning toward yes.  

Proposition 3 – No. This is another bond proposition, which would authorize $8.9 billion in general obligation bonds to pay for water and water-related projects.  So again, this triggers concern about debt (this one would cost about $430 million per year for about 40 years to pay off). 

While some of the water projects that this would fund seem worthwhile, others are pretty questionable. The worst one to me is funding of repairs to the Madera and Friant-Kern Canals.  These are federally-owned canals, primarily serving large agriculture, and a lot of why they need repair is earth subsidence due to over-pumping groundwater by the same agribusinesses that use the canals. Since these are federal canals, it seems like the federal government (and taxpayers) should pay for their upkeep, not just state taxpayers. And maybe their users (and the people who helped create the need for repairs) should pay for their upkeep.  So while this proposition is not all bad, I think what they did was load a bunch of pretty good stuff on top of their self-interested pork so overall it doesn’t look too bad (and makes their pork look small).  But I think the price tag is too high, so I recommend voting no.

Proposition 4 – No. Proposition 4 would authorize issuance of $1.5 billion in general obligation bonds to pay for “construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing, equipping, financing, or refinancing” of certain hospitals that treat children.  Again, issuing more general obligation bonds adds to California’s debt, and would need to be paid for through taxes.

Under this proposition, 72% of the money raised would go to private non-profit hospitals, 18% would go to five UC hospitals, and 10% would go to a variety of private and public hospitals. I have a serious problem with public bonds and tax funds being used to support private hospitals. This is a straight subsidy, designed to play on our sympathies for sick children (and it throws some money at public hospitals to make it a bit more palatable).  And the money – that you would be paying back via taxes - could be used for things like remodeling the lobby or refinancing a previous loan. If we want to spend tax money on hospitals, they should be public hospitals, not private ones. Vote no.

Proposition 5 – No, but not a strong no. This is another tweak to the weirdness that is Proposition 13, which commonly results in properties’ taxable value being significantly less than their market value. (For example, your house might be worth $900,000, but it could be taxed on a value of $60,000.) Under existing law, if you sell your house and buy a new house also worth $900,000, your property taxes will now be based on a value of $900,000.  This creates a serious disincentive to move, even if moving makes sense. 

Existing law has an exception to this – if you are over 55 or disabled and move to a house in the same county (or certain other counties, but not all counties) that has a market value that is less than your current home’s value, you can take your reduced Prop. 13 tax value with you, but you can only do this once.  The idea behind this is that older people may want to downsize, but would avoid doing so because of the tax hit.

Proposition 5 loosens the requirements for taking your tax value with you.  First, the good things: 1) It allows you to move anywhere in the state, rather than only certain counties. The fact that you could only take your tax value to some counties but not others always struck me as arbitrary and unfair, so I think this makes sense (and makes things simpler). 2) You can use it more than once. You may want or need to move again, to be closer to children or medical care, or to a more accessible home. There is no reason to create a disincentive to that – it does not reduce tax revenue.

But there are some not-so-good things: 1) If you move to a less expensive home, your tax value actually goes down. So if you move from the $900,000 house to a $450,000 house, the taxable value would go from $60,000 down to $30,000. (It is reduced by a proportionate percentage.) C’mon already – getting to pay taxes on $60,000 for a house worth $450,000 is already a major subsidy. We already have problems resulting from getting too little revenue from property taxes, and this would make those worse for no good reason. 2) You can move to more expensive home and still get most of the tax break. Example: You sell the $900,000 home and buy a $1 million home. Your tax value would go from $60,000 to $160,000. (The increase in market value is added to the tax value.)  This is not such a subsidy or a big deal, but it seems inconsistent with the idea of downsizing.  In addition, when combined with the ability to use the exemption more than once, it would appear to most benefit relatively wealthy homeowners.

Overall, I would be inclined to vote no, mostly because it would reduce tax revenue while exacerbating the weird subsidies caused by Proposition 13.

Proposition 6 – NO, NO, NO! This proposition would repeal recently enacted fuel and vehicle taxes that are paying for road and highway repair and mass transit, and would require any future fuel and vehicle taxes be approved by the voters, not just the legislature.

In case you had not noticed, California could benefit from road and highway repair and better mass transit.  Infrastructure is worth spending money on, and it is appropriate to be paid for via taxes.  Since it is for road and highway and transit purposes, it is also reasonable for it to be paid for by vehicle users.  This proposition is just another greedy, selfish, short-sighted move by the anti-tax people. Vote NO.

Proposition 7 – Yes. This one makes it possible for California to go to year-round daylight savings time or standard time (but does not actually make it happen – that would require a 2/3 vote of the legislature and maybe some other stuff). I think changing the time back and forth is annoying, and doesn’t really make sense.  Most discussions (both pro and con) seem to think it would be a step toward year-round daylight savings time rather than year-round standard time, but I’m not clear exactly why, and I don’t have enough interest to dig that deeply.  But I like daylight savings time, as it stays light later. So even though this doesn’t do much, I think yes. 

Proposition 8 – No position. This proposition would regulate the costs charged for dialysis. I know firsthand that for this type of regulation, the devil is in the details, and I haven’t dug that deeply into it. Sorry.

Proposition 9 – Removed from ballot.

Proposition 10 – No (but it is complicated, and if you believe all landlords are evil you should vote yes). This proposition would repeal a state law (known as Costa-Hawkins) that placed limits on local rent control ordinances.  If you live in a city without rent control (and unlikely to enact rent control), this proposition will have no effect on you, whether you are a tenant or a landlord. (Full disclosure: we live in Berkeley, and are landlords, so we would be directly impacted by this proposition.)

First, as a general matter, housing affordability is a major problem in many parts of California.  As I mentioned in my discussion of Proposition 1, it is a societal problem.  Rent control is a band-aid on that problem that does not really address it, and essentially tries to privatize a non-solution by regulating the behavior of landlords, rather than taking on the actual causes of unaffordable housing.  That said, moderate rent control can mitigate the worst abuses of greedy and unethical landlords, and protects some (but typically not all) tenants from excessive rent increases. (If coupled with eviction protections, as most rent control regimes are, it can also protect tenants against unfair or arbitrary evictions.)  In some situations, however, more aggressive rent control can actually make the overall housing problem worse.

The existing Costa-Hawkins law allows for local rent control that caps the rent increases for an existing tenant, but it also requires “vacancy decontrol,” which means when a tenant moves out, the landlord can raise the rent to a market level.  For example, under current law, if a tenant is paying $700 a month, and the market rate for that unit is $1200 a month, when that tenant moves out, the landlord could set the rent for the next tenant at $1200. In Berkeley, if Proposition 10 passes, the landlord would most likely be required to rent to a new tenant at $700 a month. This will make it increasingly uneconomic to be a landlord, particularly for smaller landlords with only a few units. (The economics are different for large developers of new units.) Berkeley’s rent control regime has already caused problems with rental housing supply, with many small landlords either taking their units off the market or renting them short-term via Air BnB, and Proposition 10 will exacerbate this problem.

If you think all landlords are evil and greedy, vote yes. If you are a strong believer in property rights, vote no. Looking at it from self-interest perspective: If you think you may be a tenant in a city with rent control or that might enact rent control, vote yes (if you think you might get a unit with low rent) or no (if you think it will make it harder to find housing). If you are a landlord (or may become a landlord) in a city with rent control or that might enact rent control, vote no. If you are a tenant or a landlord in a city without rent control, you don’t have a dog in this fight. 

If I didn’t live in Berkeley (or hadn’t read their rent control ordinance), I might feel differently, but if you don’t otherwise have a strong opinion, I would suggest voting no.

Proposition 11 – Yes. This proposition would make it clear that privately-employed paramedics and EMTs (typically under contract to local government) would remain available and on-call when taking meal breaks. Under a recent court decision (re security guards), it is possible that paramedics and EMTs would have to take uninterruptable meal breaks. So if an emergency happened and the paramedics were right around the corner eating a burrito, they would not respond. This proposition would maintain the existing system, where they would put down the burrito and respond. Seems like a good idea to me. Vote yes.

Proposition 12 – Yes. This proposition would set forth some minimum square footage requirements for confinement of farm animals, such as veal calves, breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens. The square footage required is pretty modest, and some provisions don’t kick in for several years, but it looks like an improvement, and should not be too hard or expensive to implement, so on balance I would vote yes.

Propositions! 65 and 67

The Battle of the Bags! (In reverse order.)

Prop 67 - Yes. If it passes, Prop 67 would enact a statewide ban on single-use plastic bags (like some of us are already used to due to local ordinances), with a minimum 10-cent charge for paper or reusable bags. The money charged for the bags would go to the store. (I actually reused "single-use" bags, so I never quite understood why thicker bags or paper bags are that much better, but that is just me.) Please note that Berkeley and Patagonia and Gov. Brown and Trout Unlimited support Prop 67, while Dow Chemical and the plastic bag manufacturers oppose it. Enough said, vote yes.

Prop 65 - NO. This measure was put on the ballot by the plastic bag manufacturers to counter Prop 67.  It does not require or implement a ban on plastic bags or a fee for bags, but if there is a fee charged, this proposition would require the money to go to a new state environmental fund, rather than to the store.  While that sounds okay, I think this is just a move to get retailers to oppose bag fees. (Especially since this is sponsored by the plastic bag manufacturers.)  This is yet another bullshit proposition that should not be on the ballot, and whose only purpose is to confuse and mislead voters.  Fuck that, vote NO on 65.

Propositions! 61, 63, 64

Another batch of propositions - now we get to drugs, guns, and pot!

Prop 61 - Yes?  Maybe - it is kind of weird. The state of California buys drugs, generally for MediCal and CalPERS.  This proposition would prohibit state agencies from purchasing prescription drugs at prices higher than the price paid by the VA, which tends to be able to negotiate low prices.  That sounds good, except for a few things: 1) This proposition doesn't order to drug companies to sell at the lower price, but only orders the state agencies to buy at the lower price.  What if the drug company refuses to sell at the lower price? Then the state agency has the quandary of either not buying the drug or violating the law (or the other likely option of being paralyzed).  Not good options. 2)  The state agencies have generally been able to negotiate decent prices, so it is not clear how much this will save. 3) This gives the drug companies an incentive to raise prices to the VA, which would not be a good thing. 4) Why is the price paid by the VA the only criteria?  Seems like that could cause some problems or anomalies. On the other hand, the drug companies are spending massive amounts of money to defeat this, which must mean they think it would cost them even more.  That by itself tends to indicate that this might save the state some money.  So while I have some reservations, on balance I think maybe a yes vote would be okay.

Prop 63 - No. (Surprise!)  This proposition would require permits to buy or sell ammunition and ban large-capacity ammunition magazines, along with some other tweaks to California's gun control laws.  Most of the provisions are well intended, although it is not clear how effective they will be.  The problem with this proposition is that it largely duplicates legislation that was just passed into law this year - despite that, Gavin Newsom kept pushing ahead with this initiative.  I think this do-little proposition is just Newsom grandstanding in preparation for his run for governor - not a great reason for a proposition to be on the ballot.  And because this would be enacted by popular vote, if problems show up or adjustments need to be made (which is common - laws rarely work exactly as intended), any attempt to fix it would require another popular vote - the legislature couldn't do it.  As I read more propositions, I am getting tired of shit being on the ballot that does not need to be there (like Prop 59 asking you how you feel about Citizens United, and Prop 60 requiring condoms for porn actors).  Maybe I am just getting cranky about seeing even more of that in this election, and I don't want the NRA to think I agree with their extreme position, but I am still inclined to vote no on this one.  But if you want to vote yes just to say "fuck you" to the NRA, I won't mind.  Your call.

Update on 63 - I talked to a friend who knows more about the legislative maneuvering on this one, and that person's take was that the legislature was playing more games than Newsom, and that Newsom had legitimate reasons to continue to push this initiative (i.e. he was not just grandstanding).  Still considering what this means for my vote; you decide what you want yours to be.

Prop 64 - Yes! Please!  This proposition would legalize marijuana for recreational use under California law. (It would still be illegal under federal law.)  Prohibition of marijuana has been a dismal failure that has done little but drive up the profits of drug traffickers and the growth of violent cartels, and result in environmental degradation from illegal grows.  Alcohol prohibition gave rise to organized crime, and marijuana prohibition has done more of the same. (Duh.)  This proposition would legalize, tax and regulate recreational marijuana.  The arguments against Prop 64 from the right are the same old prohibitionist scare tactics that gave us the expensive-in-every-way "war on drugs;"  there are some arguments against it from the left, but they are also pretty weak.  It is important to push the feds to legalize marijuana, and California voting to do so would be a good push.  Please vote yes.

Propositions! 58, 59, 60

I am getting tired, so this fourth installment may be a bit shorter in the descriptions.

Prop 58 - Yes. This would allow for bilingual education in schools, repealing the "English only" Proposition 227 from 1998.  Having the state mandate "English only" for all schools never seemed like a good idea to me - it always felt like it was intended to be more punitive than educational.  Vote Yes.

Prop 59 - Yeah, I guess so, but whatever.  This one doesn't really do anything. Do you want to tell California that it should work to reverse the Citizens United decision?  You can vote yes to do so.  But it seems kind of wasteful to put things like this on the ballot.  And some potential fixes (via constitutional amendment) could cause serious problems, if done wrong. So overall I guess voting yes (assuming you don't like Citizens United) is okay.  Or you could just skip voting on this one.

Prop 60 - No.  This one would require adult film actors to wear condoms during vaginal or anal sex.  Is it just me, or this just a weird thing to have on the ballot?  I found some of the opponents' arguments pretty compelling; I tried to verify some of them by looking at the text of the proposition itself, but it is really detailed and long, and I didn't have the patience to wade through it, but it seems to set up a complicated (and expensive) regulatory and enforcement scheme.  I don't think this is worth doing that for, and I think it has the potential to cause unforeseen problems. And my guess is that it would drive a lot of commercial porn producers out of California, among other things.  Vote no.