322x267-Ballot-BoxVOTE NO

Proposition 1 – Authorizes bonds to fund specified housing assistance programs.

Authorizes $4 billion in general obligation bonds for existing affordable housing programs for low-income residents, veterans, farmworkers, manufactured and mobile homes, infill, and transit-oriented housing. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs to repay bonds averaging about $170 million annually over the next 35 years.

I agree with The Press-Enterprise: “If California’s leaders are serious about making California a more affordable place to live, they should concentrate their efforts on curtailing onerous regulations and restrictive land-use policies and making it easier for homebuilders to build. And if they insist on subsidizing housing, they should do so directly, rather than wasting taxpayer money on interest payments.”

 

VOTE NO

Proposition 2 – Authorizes bonds to fund existing housing program for individuals with mental illness.

Amends Mental Health Services Act to fund No Place Like Home Program, which finances housing for individuals with mental illness. Ratifies existing law establishing the No Place Like Home Program. Fiscal Impact: Allows the state to use up to $140 million per year of county mental health funds to repay up to $2 billion in bonds. These bonds would fund housing for those with mental illness who are homeless.

1 percent tax on income above $1 million for mental health services. Remember Proposition 63, the Homelessness Prevention Housing proposition in 2016? Well, it’s still in court and until that case is settled, the legislators need to do their job – not push it off to the voters.

 

VOTE NO

Proposition 3 – Authorizes bonds to fund projects for water supply and quality, watershed, fish, wildlife, water conveyance, and groundwater sustainability and storage. Authorizes $8.877 billion in state general obligation bonds for various infrastructure projects. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs to repay bonds averaging $430 million per year over 40 years. Local government savings for water-related projects, likely averaging a couple hundred million dollars annually over the next few decades.

Since 1996 there have been eight bond measures for water issues, totaling more than 29 billion dollars. So far, zero water projects. Despite the decades-long drought, not one penny of that $29 Billion went to build a new dam or reservoir.

 

VOTE NO

Proposition 4 – Authorizes bonds funding construction at hospitals providing children’s health care.

Authorizes $1.5 billion in bonds, to be repaid from state’s General Fund, to fund grants for construction, expansion, renovation, and equipping of qualifying children’s hospitals. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs to repay bonds averaging about $80 million annually over the next 35 years.

It bypasses the legislative process, primarily to benefit the same hospitals that are funding the proposition. Purely a special interest measure that our legislators were afraid to propose.

 

VOTE YES

Proposition 5 – Changes requirements for certain property owners to transfer their property tax base to replacement property

Removes certain transfer requirements for homeowners over 55, severely disabled homeowners, and contaminated or disaster-destroyed property. Fiscal Impact: Schools and local governments each would lose over $100 million in annual property taxes early on, growing to about $1 billion per year. Similar increase in state costs to backfill school property tax losses.

I’m with Howard Jarvis on this, Yes. Proposition 5 would allow all homeowners older than 55 to use this same tax break to buy a more expensive house, as many times as they want. Also starting Jan. 1, it would allow transfers from anywhere in the state

 

VOTE YES

Proposition 6 – Eliminates certain road repair and transportation funding, requires certain fuel taxes and vehicle fees be approved by the electorate.

Repeals a 2017 transportation law’s taxes and fees designated for road repairs and public transportation. Fiscal Impact: Reduced ongoing revenues of $5.1 billion from state fuel and vehicle taxes that mainly would have paid for highway and road maintenance and repairs, as well as transit programs.

Our State already gets Billions of fuel taxes for this – they just decided to not to use it to improve or repair the roads. The ads opposing this are stupidly deceptive.

 

Proposition 7 – Conforms California Daylight Saving Time to Federal Law. Allows Legislature to change Daylight Saving Time period

Gives Legislature ability to change daylight saving time period by two-thirds vote, if changes are consistent with federal law. Fiscal Impact: This measure has no direct fiscal effect because changes to daylight saving time would depend on future actions by the Legislature and potentially the federal government.

Yes or No – Whatever you like, I’m voting Yes.

 

VOTE NO

Proposition 8 – Regulates amounts outpatient kidney dialysis clinics charge for dialysis treatment.

Requires rebates and penalties if charges exceed limit. Requires annual reporting to the state. Prohibits clinics from refusing to treat patients based on payment source. Fiscal Impact: Overall annual effect on state and local governments ranging from net positive impact in the low tens of millions of dollars to net negative impact in the tens of millions of dollars.

This is just an effort by SEIU-UHW to organize their workers of two major dialysis providers.

 

VOTE NO

Proposition 10 – Expands local governments’ authority to enact rent control on residential property.

Repeals state law that currently restricts the scope of rent control policies that cities and other local jurisdictions may impose on residential property. Fiscal Impact: Potential net reduction in state and local revenues of tens of millions of dollars per year in the long term. Depending on actions by local communities, revenue losses could be less or considerably more.

Proposition 10 does not change existing rent control policies — it simply repeals Costa-Hawkins. So passage of the initiative would not, in most cases, immediately lead to new rent control rules. Instead, it would allow cities and counties to craft policies without restrictions.

 

VOTE YES

Proposition 11 – Requires private-sector emergency ambulance employees remain on-call during work breaks. Eliminates certain employer liability.

Law entitling hourly employees to breaks without being on-call would not apply to private-sector ambulance employees. Fiscal Impact: Likely fiscal benefit to local governments (in the form of lower costs and higher revenues), potentially in the tens of millions of dollars each year.

Yet another law our legislators should have enacted but were too afraid of the Union’s push-back.

 

VOTE NO

Proposition 12 – Establishes new standards for confinement of specified farm animals, bans sale of noncomplying products

Establishes minimum requirements for confining certain farm animals. Prohibits sales of meat and egg products from animals confined in noncomplying manner. Fiscal Impact: Potential decrease in state income tax revenues from farm businesses, likely not more than several million dollars annually. State costs up to $10 million annually to enforce the measure.

I, and PETA agree with the Sacramento Bee: “Voters should reject Proposition 12, which would ban the sale of eggs, uncooked pork and veal from farms that don’t meet new space requirements for hens, pigs and calves. … This is one more example of an issue that should have been resolved in the Legislature, not foisted upon voters through a ballot initiative.”

 

Share Button