Breaking down the state ballot measures
Proposition 1
A $4 billion bond for housing What it would do:
Give the state permission to borrow $4 billion to fund affordable housing construction and rental and home loan subsidies.
The money would be used to build and renovate rentals ($1.8 billion), to offer home loan assistance to vets ($1 billion), to construct additional housing in dense urban areas and near public transit ($450 million), to offer down payment assistance and other aid to low- and moderate-income homebuyers ($450 million) and to provide loans and grants for agricultural workforce housing development ($300 million). Arguments in favor:
The state faces an unprecedented housing crisis. All told, this will help more than 55,000 people meet their housing costs, while also adding some desperately needed affordable supply. Arguments against:
This bond will result in a one-time boost in housing construction, a blip in supply that will do nothing to combat the long-term and persistent shortage that the state faces. For that minimal benefit, taxpayers will be saddled with billions more in debt.
Proposition 2
Mental health money for housing What it would do:
Give the state permission to borrow $2 billion to fund supportive housing (affordable housing with on-site social and medical services) for those suffering with mental illness. That debt would be repaid with money previously set aside for county-run mental health services. Arguments in favor:
Providing housing paired with social and health services is one of the most effective ways to help the chronically homeless who suffer from mental illness. Arguments against:
If the state wants to fund new supportive housing, it shouldn’t come at the expense of basic mental health treatment. And while supportive housing may be a noble idea in theory, cities often drag their heels when it comes to approving new housing for the mentally ill, making it less likely that the money will be spent on its intended purpose. Instead, millions will go to administrative costs and into the pockets of housing developers.
Proposition 3
An $8.9 billion water bond What it would do:
Give the state permission to borrow $8.9 billion to fund watershed protection ($2.5 billion), water supply improvements including wastewater treatment ($2.1 billion), habitat restoration ($1.4 billion), groundwater management ($1.1 billion), flood
protection projects ($500 million), as well as upgrades and repairs to traditional water infrastructure, like canals and dams ($1.2 billion). Arguments in favor:
From the Oroville Dam to groundwater depletion in the Central Valley to the Salton Sea, California faces no shortage of water woes. Yes, the state of California has borrowed big to fund water projects in the past. But bonds provide long-term, recession-proof, dedicated streams of cash, exactly what the state needs to upgrade and update its aging infrastructure. Arguments against:
Not only have taxpayers foot the bill in the past for big water bonds, we did it again in early June! And the state still hasn’t spent all of the money it borrowed in 2014 with Prop. 1. There are additional concerns about how the money will be spent. Why should taxpayers statewide pay for regional projects, like canal repairs, that are usually paid for by local water agencies? And maybe we shouldn’t be doubling-down on environmentally destructive projects like big dams anyway.
Proposition 4
Children’s hospital bond What it would do:
Give the state permission to borrow $1.5 billion to fund renovations, expansions, and upgrades at hospitals that treat children. Most of the funding is reserved for the state’s eight private non-profit children’s hospitals ($1.08 billion) and the five hospitals run through one of the University of California campuses ($270 million). Arguments in favor:
Kids deserve the best possible care. Medical technology is constantly changing, but because children’s hospitals are dependent on the low reimbursement rates from Medi-Cal, the state’s public insurance program for low-income residents, they often can’t afford to keep up. These bond funds would allow the state’s health care providers to make these necessary investments. Arguments against:
Why should the taxpayer throw more money at hospitals, many of which are privately-owned and operated? And if they insist on doing so, why borrow rather than make use of existing funds?
Proposition 5
Portable real estate tax break What it would do:
Allow older or disabled homeowners to take a portion of their lowered property tax base with them if they sell their home and move.
If you want to get into the weeds, here’s how it works: someone who buys a more expensive house would no longer be required to pay property taxes based on the full market price of the new home, as they would be now in many cases. Instead, the new taxable amount would only increase by the difference in market
price between the new and old home.
Likewise, someone who moves to a less expensive house would actually see their property fall, dodging a higher property tax bill based on the full market rate of the new property. Instead, their assessed value would decline by the percentage difference in price between the new and old property. Arguments in favor:
Because many homeowners are penalized for moving, empty-nesters across the state are living in houses and large apartments that are bigger than their needs. There are plenty of first-time homebuyers and young families who could use all that extra space. Encouraging the first group to sell to the second is a win-win. Arguments against:
Of all the ways to address the state’s housing crisis, this is one of the least direct and most costly. This proposition won’t increase the housing supply by a single unit. It won’t subsidize rents. It merely switches homes from one group to another. Meanwhile, it costs the state an extra $1 billion while handing a massive tax break to some of the wealthiest people in the state.
Proposition 6
Gas tax repeal What it would do:
Repeal a recent increase in the gas tax and other fuel and car fees and require voter approval for all transportation-related tax increases in the future. Taxes to be rolled back include a 12-cent hike in the gasoline excise tax, a 4 percent increase in the diesel sales tax, as well as a new annual vehicle fee based on the value of the car or truck. Arguments in favor:
Californians already pay some of the highest taxes in the nation, including one of the highest state gas taxes. Lawmakers should be forced to trim spending and improve efficiency before asking drivers for more money. Arguments against:
California hasn’t raised its gas tax in decades, and the state’s transportation infrastructure is crumbling as a result. Conditions are unsafe for drivers and bad for business. Cities and counties are already using this money to improve our streets, highways and transit systems. The idea that state and local governments could still make these necessary investments without this funding source just by “trimming the fat” is a fantasy.
Proposition 7
Daylight Savings Time forever What it would do:
Repeal the 1949 law that created Daylight Savings Time. If passed, the Legislature would then be able to pass a law with a two-thirds majority finally nixing the biannual tradition of moving clocks backward and forward every spring and fall. That is, assuming the federal government let’s us get away with it. Arguments in favor:
Resetting our clocks every year is antiquated, annoying and bad for our health. Canning this tired tradition would improve the quality of our sleep and allow us to enjoy some extra afternoon daylight between November and March. Arguments against:
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Daylight savings time may be a little annoying, but being on separate clock from the rest of the country half of the time is liable to be even more inconvenient. Plus, more dark mornings in the dead of winter would likely lead to more traffic accidents in the hours when children are going to school and adults are on their way to work.
Proposition 8
Dialysis clinic profit pruning What it would do:
Require companies operating dialysis clinics to payback any profits over 15 percent of qualifying business costs. Payments would be made to insurance companies or to individuals who pay out of pocket. Arguments in favor:
The two companies that operate most of California’s dialysis clinics are enormously profitable. In 2017, for example, DaVita netted $1 billion. And yet over the last five years, the California Department of Public Health has received 18 complaints a month about health and safety conditions at dialysis clinics. The state needs to make sure that these companies aren’t putting profits over the quality of care and to force them to invest more in equipment and training. Arguments against:
This is just a pressure tactic from a union who wants to organize dialysis clinic workers. And it’s a poorly thought out initiative at that. In regulating profit, the measure doesn’t count basic administrative costs, like payroll management and legal expenses, as qualifying costs. This has very little to do with improving patient care. The industry may not be perfect, but this proposition could result in clinics closing, putting the lives of the thousands of Californians who need dialysis in jeopardy.
Proposition 10
Bringing back rent control What it would do:
Allow cities to introduce new restrictions on market rents or expand existing rent control policies. Arguments in favor:
The rent is too damn high! California renters are being priced out of the state’s big cities, driving them out into the suburbs, out of state, or onto the street. This is a crisis that needs an immediate solution, even as lawmakers work on a longer term fix. Arguments against:
If rents are kept artificially low, it becomes less profitable to build new units or maintain and improve old ones. That’s counterproductive: a shortage of housing is how we got into this mess to begin with.
Proposition 11
Paramedic break time What it would do:
Continue to allow private ambulance services to require their emergency medical service employees to remain on call during meal and rest breaks. Also guarantees technicians additional training and some paid medical health services. Arguments in favor:
Just like police and firefighters, emergency medical response technicians need to be on-call when the worst happens. This proposition would ensure that workers are compensated for missed or interrupted breaks. Arguments against:
This initiative is being pushed by an industry looking for a special carve-out from state labor law. They should just follow the rules.
Proposition 12
Bigger cages for farm animals What it would do:
Place specific size requirements on the coops and cages used to contain breeding pigs, veal calves, and egg-laying hens. By the numbers, these news standards require at least:
• 43 square feet of floor space per calf by 2020
• 24 square feet of floor space per pig by 2022
• 1 square foot of floor space per hen by 2020 and cage-free by 2022
It would also require all egg-laying hens be raised in specified “cage-free” conditions by 2022. California businesses would be prohibited from selling any food products that come from animals not raised in compliance with this law, even if they come from out of state. Arguments in favor:
Proposition 2 showed that we can improve the welfare of animals on farms without jeopardizing our food supply. Let’s write specific cage-size measurements into law so that the California agricultural industry can’t wiggle their way out of these rules. And California is such a large state that when we act to make our food system a little less cruel, egg layers and other farmers across the nation are forced to follow. Arguments against:
Agricultural industry groups say this will require farmers across the country to completely overhaul the way they operate, potentially driving some out of business and raising the prices of eggs, pork, and veal.
Other animal welfare groups argue the proposition does not go far enough. This law wouldn’t require egg-laying hens to be raised in cagefree conditions until 2022, something Prop. 2 should have banned by 2015. Forget this half measure, they say — ban the cages now.