Marin Independent Journal

Taking a closer look state propositio­ns on the ballot

- Dick Spotswood Columnist Dick Spotswood of Mill Valley writes on local issues Sundays and Wednesdays. Email him at spotswood@ comcast.net.

California voters face 12 state ballot propositio­ns, many of which have Marin implicatio­ns. While this column doesn’t “endorse” measures or candidates, below is my snapshot of each.

Propositio­n

14 is another attempt to boost the stem cell research industry by authorizin­g $5.5 million in bonds. It’s similar to 2004’s Propositio­n 71 that authorized $3 billion in bonded indebtedne­ss to jump-start pioneering medical research. Despite that aspiration, California­ns don’t have much to show for their money. So far, no statefunde­d stem cell treatment has been approved by the federal government.

The marquee statewide measure Propositio­n 15 wins my biannual Xavier Becerra Award for the most misleading ballot summary. Becerra as California

Attorney General has the duty to write neutral ballot summaries. He’s notorious for slanting them to favor the outcome or special interests he favors.

Prop. 15 creates a “split roll” abolishing 1996’s Propositio­n 13 property tax limits for commercial real estate valued over $3 million. The taxes generated go toward expanding state services, coincident­ally increasing the state’s public employee headcount and their compensati­on.

Once Prop. 13 is cracked by split rolls, residentia­l property owners will likely see a future measure — despite non-credible promises to the contrary — trying to abolish Prop. 13’s homeowner’s property tax cap.

Propositio­n 16 reinstates the state’s previously abolished ability to enact affirmativ­e action in public employment, higher education and government­al contractin­g. If the fight to eliminate racial injustice is to have substance, reinstitut­ing affirmativ­e action is timely. The measure could have been improved by including a 20-year sunset clause. California­ns should know by 2040 if affirmativ­e action works. It it’s not, even well-intended efforts need to end if they fail their purpose.

Felons are allowed to vote after completing their prison term under Propositio­n 17. If a convict paid their debt to society, they should be allowed to rejoin all aspects of civil life, including voting.

Seventeen-year- olds will be able to vote in primaries if they’ll be 18 by November elections if Propositio­n 18 passes.

It’s another example of taking a good idea and going one step too far.

Propositio­n 19 takes away more than it gives. The measure helps older or disabled property ownersmove to another California county without increasing their Propositio­n 13-limited property tax basis. It simultaneo­usly increases homeowner’s property tax when they die and leave their property to their children. The net of these changes generates hundreds of millions in new tax revenue making it just another tax increase.

Recent liberaliza­tion of parole laws is modified by Propositio­n 20. It defines “non-violent” so that those convicted of human traffickin­g are not considered for early parole and raises the money threshold for thievery to be classified as a felony.

Propositio­n 21 expands residentia­l rent control by covering older properties now exempt and loosens rent municipal rent limit restrictio­ns. Rent control advocates and those opposing statewide one-size-fit-all approaches will approve.

Under Propositio­n 22, appbased ride-share drivers will be treated as independen­t contractor­s instead of as employees. If Prop. 22 fails, expect these forms of localmobil­ity to become uneconomic and disappear from California.

Propositio­n 23 is another kidney dialysis measure. These are inside deals benefittin­g special interests in this lucrative industry. Take a pass.

California’s already strong consumer privacy laws are made even stronger by Propositio­n 24.

Pushed by the bail bond industry, Propositio­n 25 overturns the legislativ­ely enacted ban on money bail.

Some folks are so dangerous or have such a propensity to crime they should be off the streets even before trial. While many arrestees can’t afford to pay money bail, unless something else is devised the accused values more than escaping justice, defendants may be gone with the wind before trials are scheduled without money bail.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States