Propositions! November 2024

 

By request, here is my personal take on the propositions on the November ballot.

Proposition 2 – This is a bond issue for repairs, upgrades and construction at K-12 schools and community colleges.  Yes, bonds add to the state’s debt, but this is both a good and appropriate use for bond funding. Yes.

Proposition 3 – Removes language in California law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, undoing the older Proposition 8. While California, as a result of court cases, allows same sex marriage, this formalizes that in law and makes it less vulnerable to future court challenges. Yes.

Proposition 4 – This is a bond issue to fund various activities related to water supply, wildfire protection and climate change. There a lot of different things that might get funded under this, and while most of them seem like good and important things to do, there appear to be a mix of services and building stuff.  In general, funding large capital projects is a good use for bonds, but it is not great to fund services via bonds, as there is a cost for borrowing money. On balance, given the need for the stuff this would fund, I would say yes, but not enthusiastically.

Proposition 5 – Changes the requirement for passing local bond measures to fund housing and infrastructure from a 2/3 vote to 55%, making it more likely they will pass. Given the need for more housing and better infrastructure, this seems like a good thing. The only opposition comes from the Jarvis anti-tax people. Yes.

Proposition 6 – Removes language in California law allowing involuntary servitude for those convicted of a crime. In other words, prisoners could not be required to work, or punished for refusing to work.  This generally seems okay to me, and there appears to be no organized opposition to it. Yes.

Proposition 32 – This would bump up the California minimum wage from $16 to $18. While this might be hard for some small businesses, in the absence of a universal basic income this overall seems like a good thing. Yes.

Proposition 33 – This would repeal a state law known as Costa-Hawkins, which places limits on local rent control ordinances. If you are in a place without rent control, this proposition would have no impact. If you are in a place with aggressive rent control, your local government would likely respond to this measure by expanding rent control. The main thing that Costa-Hawkins does is to bar rent control from applying to vacant units. In other words, under current law, rent control can cap rent increases for an existing tenant, but when that tenant moves out, the landlord can raise the rent to the market price for a new tenant. Under Prop 33, a city could also cap the rent a landlord could charge for a new tenant moving into a vacant unit. While Bay Area rents are certainly high, this is not the answer, as it would likely result in more small landlords with older properties taking them off the rental market. Even in Berkeley, new apartments are not subject to rent control (because they would not get built), and there are more large, corporate-owned apartment buildings going up, while small landlords are struggling. What we really need is more publicly-funded housing, not more aggressive rent control. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation that is the main sponsor of this Prop 33 also has a record of opposing construction of more housing. While the current system is far from perfect, Proposition 33 does not make it better. No.

Proposition 34 – Things are getting weird here. If you thought it was weird that an AIDS healthcare organization is promoting rent control, that same organization (AIDS Healthcare Foundation) is arguing that this proposition is just an attack on it and its advocacy on housing issues, and it might be correct. But that does not necessarily mean that this proposition is a bad idea. Proposition 34 would require certain groups that get federal funds spend 98% of those funds on patient care. AIDS Healthcare Foundation is one of those groups, and apparently spends a lot less than 98% on patient care.  More detail re AIDS Healthcare Foundation can be found here: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-06-30/california-aids-healthcare-foundation-state-contract  I don’t really know what to do on this one. Whatever.

Proposition 35 – This one is kind of hard. It would make permanent an existing tax funds Medi-Cal. Currently that tax is temporary, so it needs to be re-authorized every few years.  Making such a tax permanent seems like a good idea – it provides more certainty of funding. But on the other hand, Prop 35 also spells out exactly how that funding is to be spent. I generally don’t like laws that do that, as things change, and the law makes it impossible to adjust.  The League of Women Voters makes what I think is a good argument opposing Proposition 35: https://lwvc.org/ballot-measure/2024-prop-35/recommendation/  So reluctantly I would recommend a “No” vote on this one.

Proposition 36 – This would provide for harsher sentences for certain theft and drug crimes. The promise is that it will make communities safer. It won’t. That is total BS, and it will not deter criminals. (If you want me to explain why in more detail, I can do so separately.) It will, however, increase our prison population and the corresponding costs. This is the same old failed “war on drugs” and “tough on crime” approach that has proven to be an expensive failure. Vote no.