Proposition 1 - This is a general obligation bond measure to support housing affordability. It is big - $11.25 billion, but overall looks pretty good to me. The largest chunk ($5.1 billion) goes to build and rehabilitate multifamily rental housing, with smaller but still substantial chunks for supportive housing for those experiencing homelessness, mortgages for veterans, plus some for farmworker, tribal and student housing. The money would flow as grants or low-cost loans to local governments, nonprofits, and private developers, typically for low income housing. Given our current economic structure, this looks like a good approach, and there is no organized opposition. Yes.
Proposition 2 - This measure would increase the size of California's "Rainy Day Fund," the money kept in reserve for when state revenues fall significantly. Because of California's relatively high reliance upon income taxes, especially for high earners, this happens a lot whenever things like a stock market crash hit, so it is really hard for CA to accurately predict future revenues. This bumps the reserve up to 20% from the current 10%. In general, this seems like a good idea to me. The opposition comes from the anti-tax folks, who want excess revenues in flush years returned to taxpayers rather than being kept for lean years. That does not seem like a great argument, as (among other things) it would just tend to emphasize the whipsaw effect. Yes.
Proposition 3 - This one would keep in place and make permanent the current higher tax rates on the top 2% of Californians, with the revenues flowing mostly to K-12 schools. It would hit single filers making over $371,000 and couples making over $742,000. Again, the only opposition to this comes from the anti-tax folks, who have nothing specific to offer on this proposition, which does not even increase taxes. Given the rampant income inequality in California, and the substantial numbers of high earners and the billions of dollars the current rates provide to education, this one is worthwhile. Yes.
Proposition 4 - Current California law prohibits state and local governments from publicly funding elections (except for charter cities like LA, SF, Oakland and Berkeley). This proposition would repeal that prohibition, and allow for (but would not create) public funding of state and local elections. The opposition comes from people opposed to public funding of elections. Given the current dismal state of election finance, I think this proposition is a step in the right direction. Yes.
Proposition 5 - Under current California law, when there is a recall election the voters are asked to vote both yes or no on the recall AND who replaces the recalled politician (if the recall is successful). This proposition splits things up, so the selection of a replacement follows a separate process instead of being combined with the recall election. I like this, as in recent years it has felt to me like there have been too many politicians essentially using the recall process to get another shot after losing an election. This cleans things up. Yes.
Proposition 37 - This one would provide for the issuance of up to $25 billion in revenue bonds to create a down payment assistance program for middle-income home buyers. Because they are revenue bonds, they would be paid off by the people receiving the money, so here home buyers would be getting a loan to reduce their down payment amount (up to 17% of the home price), but would then pay off the loan over time, presumably at a relatively low rate. The thing I don't like on this one is that the buyer has to be the first purchaser of the home. In other words, this is only for new homes, not existing homes. The proponents specifically say that one of the goals is the building of more homes. I'm not really a fan of subsidizing more development, but that is me. (We can have a separate debate on that, especially if you have drunk the Kool-Aid of the "Abundance" movement.) There is no organized opposition, but according to Ballotpedia, the League of Women Voters opposes it, because while it could help a family buy a home, it does not necessarily make it affordable to keep, as they would have to pay off the Prop 37 loan on top of all their other loans and expenses. No.
Proposition 38 - This one sounds superficially inoffensive or even good, but the deeper you dig the stankier it gets. It would authorize $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds (the kind that we pay off via our taxes) for immunology and immunotherapy research into things like cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer's. That sounds nice, but there are couple of problems with this. One, general obligation bonds are a good method for funding large capital outlays, like for bridges or housing. Research is an ongoing thing that really should have an ongoing funding source, not a one-time windfall. Second, why the narrow focus on this one topic, and having it decided by the voters as a priority for taxpayer money? Answering the second question leads to the dodgier part of this. About half of the proceeds ($4 billion+) would go to support a research institute that meets certain criteria. Guess what? When you parse the selection criteria, only one research institute qualifies - the one founded by the main backer of this proposition! In other words, this ultra-wealthy guy (Gary Michelson) is trying to get California taxpayers to give his pet project a $4 billion handout. The San Francisco Chronicle calls it "one of the most noxious deposits on California’s political dung heap in years." A hard NO.
Proposition 39 - This is a thinly-veiled right wing effort to disenfranchise voters while claiming it will "increase trust in our elections." If you look at the website for "The Transparency Foundation" where proposition proponent Johnathan Hale is executive director, one of their recent web posts says: "[W]e have an initiative to recruit and train hundreds of conservative activists to apply for and get a part-time, seasonal paid job at their local county election office to process the ballots and check the signatures properly! We know this effort will pay substantial dividends in our fight to restore election integrity in California because we piloted this program in two counties in 2022 and 2024 and produced spectacular results. In our Orange County and San Diego County pilot projects, our workers helped TRIPLE the percentage of signatures on ballots rejected for not matching election records!" Yeah, this is the same Trumpian BS that is claiming to be about "election integrity" but is really just about rejecting ballots. Another hard NO.
Proposition 40 - This is the "billionaire tax" measure that has gotten a lot of attention. It would put a one-time 5% tax on specified assets over $1 billion. The money would primarily go to offset cuts to healthcare made by Trump's "Big, Ugly Bill." I'm not enamored of ballot-box budgeting where money is earmarked for one thing, and I would rather see something ongoing to address our serious problems with wealth/income disparity instead of a one-time tax, but given the weird realities we are facing, the plusses of this outweigh the negatives. To give a clearer idea of what it means to have even $1 billion, if you can make 2% on your $1 billion, your annual (simple) interest income is $20 million. And you still have $1 billion. Yeah, billionaires (or wannabe billionaires) are threatening to leave the state if this passes, but chances are if you are here, you made all your billions in part from being in California, with its resources including its highly educated workforce and technology sector and investment community. So maybe you could give back a little rather than grabbing your precious horde and running away. Vote yes.
Propositions 41 and 42 - These are stealth "poison pills" to undo Proposition 40 even if it passes, AND to prevent future taxes like Proposition 40. Yeah, they look technical or innocuous or even kind of good. But they are not - they only exist as a sneaky billionaire-funded counterattack on Proposition 40, adding sleaze to the greed. Vote no and no.
Proposition 43 - This is the latest missive from the anti-tax folks, and no surprise, it would make it harder to raise taxes. It would take certain local taxes that currently can be approved by a majority (over 50%) and require them to be approved by two-thirds (66%). I have no affection for the anti-tax folks since they decimated California's public education system, but if you feel different, and have concerns about your local tax levels, you might not agree with my recommendation to vote no.
Proposition 44 - This would impose a new requirement that community health clinics spend at least 90% of their revenue on patient care. If they don't meet that threshold, they have to pay a penalty to the state. It is not clear why this proposition is needed, and even less clear where the 90% number came from. Most community health clinics can't meet that standard, which is not surprising, given the other costs of operating in California. Proposition 44 is opposed by virtually every medical and health care organization that has taken a position. Vote no.
Proposition 45 - This is an effort to "reform" the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which is the law that requires government agencies to do an environmental review and sometimes complete an Environmental Impact Report when approving a project. CEQA is not perfect, and has been used as a cudgel by opponents of a project to delay or kill it, not necessarily for environmental reasons. But this proposition is not a good fix, and creates more problems than solutions. For certain types of projects (housing, transportation, water, health, wildfire mitigation, educational facility, internet access, and clean energy) this proposition would put in place new rules. A number of those new rules are problematic. One, under current law, an agency can consider multiple alternatives to a proposed project, the proposition would change that to only allow one alternative to be considered, and it must be proposed by the project proponent, not the agency. This seriously reduces the ability to minimize the environmental impact of a project, such as the size of a housing development or the location of an energy project. Two, the proposition would limit consultation with native Tribes to those that have been federally recognized. California has a significant number of Tribes that are recognized by the state but not by the federal government, and currently they need to be consulted on projects that could affect their land and cultural resources. The proposition would no longer require their participation. Three, even if a court finds that the CEQA review of a project was not done properly, it could not halt the whole project, but only the part that did not comply with CEQA. In many cases this is nonsensical, and could result in adverse impacts on the ground that could not be remedied. CEQA can be improved, but this proposition doesn't do it. No.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment