THE NOV. 6 BALLOT PROPOSITIONS EXPLAINED
In addition to four bond measures, gas tax could be repealed and seniors could keep Proposition 13-capped tax rates
On Nov. 6, voters will weigh 11 state ballot propositions that, on their face, sound no more or less crazy than usual for a California ballot.
There is a high-profile fight over the gas tax and four (!) propositions about housing. Other major proposals would put money toward water conservation and hospital construction.
But, as ever, 2018 also will include propositions that seem aimed at narrower audiences.
Should ambulance drivers be on call during meal breaks? It’s on the ballot. Should farm animals live in bigger pens and cages before they’re slaughtered? On it. Should California be allowed to consider daylight saving time year round? It’s there, too.
Political buffets like this are nothing new in California. Since 1912, when the state first began to allow initiatives, voters have weighed 1,253 propositions, including 420 launched by fellow Californians.
Here’s a nonpartisan look at the propositions up for consideration Nov. 6. (Note: There was a Proposition 9, which addressed the question of splitting California into three states, but the state Supreme Court ruled in July that it be removed from the ballot. It could appear on a future ballot.)
Proposition 1
Want to spend $4 billion to help veterans and low-income Californians get access to home loans and lower-cost housing? That’s the question posed by the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act.
Supporters argue that the chronic shortage of affordable housing in California is a long-term drag on future economic growth and that any step toward fixing it — even one that would be only a partial salve, such as Prop. 1 — is a good idea.
Opponents say Prop. 1 is yet another instance of California diving into long-term debt to solve a current problem, noting that taxpayers would be on the hook for $170 million a year for 35 years.
Proposition 2
A yes vote on Prop. 2 — also known as the There’s No Place Like Home act — would aim $2 billion to help stave off homelessness among people in need of mental health care.
The money, a revenue bond, would come out of the so-called millionaire tax approved by voters in 2004, which takes 1 percent from incomes of $1 million and up and uses it for services and programs for the mentally ill. Because Prop. 2 would divert some of that money to house the mentally ill, rather than provide them with services or programs, it requires voter approval.
Advocates for the mentally ill can be found among both supporters and opponents of Prop. 2.
Supporters argue that it would produce as many as 20,000 permanent homes, not enough to house everybody who is homeless and mentally ill but a strong start. They also point out that by reducing the number of mentally ill people on the streets, taxpayers will spend less on everything from police to ambulance services.
Opponents want the money to be spent on treatment and other services, not housing. They believe that lawmakers will use some Prop. 2 money for purposes other than helping the homeless and that developers will take advantage of the funding. They also point out that Prop. 2 does nothing to prevent cities from refusing to accept housing for the mentally ill, a key roadblock to the broader goal.
Proposition 3
Prop. 3 would authorize the state to sell $8.9 billion in bonds to pay for water recycling, conservation, storm water capture, groundwater storage and projects to improve fisheries and protect and restore key habitat. It would Sunlight shimmers off the snow and water of Lake Tahoe in the city of South Lake Tahoe in March. Prop. 3 would, among other things, fund restoration of Lake Tahoe, the wetlands in San Francisco Bay and other areas.
fund restoration of the Los Angeles River, Lake Tahoe and wetlands in San Francisco Bay, along with some of the costs of repairing Oroville Dam. But it would not pay to construct new dams or build Gov. Jerry Brown’s controversial Delta tunnels project.
Supporters say California needs to be better prepared for droughts. Voters in June approved $4.1 billion for water and parks projects, but this is aimed at different situations and projects.
Opponents argue that Prop. 3 has been created by the very groups that figure to benefit from the spending, particularly Central Valley farmers. They say that while the water and environmental issues addressed in Prop. 3 do warrant attention, the “pay-toplay” way that its backers put it on the ballot (some donors to the campaign suggested which projects should be included) is flawed.
The average annual cost to the state budget over the 40year life of the Prop. 3 bond would be $433 million.
matter how much they’re paying for their new house, where that house is in the state, or how many times they move. As of now, Prop. 13 puts limits on all of those conditions, creating what is widely called the “moving penalty” for older buyers and sellers.
Supporters of Prop. 5 suggest the adjustment does what Prop. 13 initially intended — eliminates huge tax obligations for people on fixed incomes. They say older people selling homes will spur the overall market, something that would help, among others, entry-level buyers.
Opponents suggest Prop. 5 is a windfall for the real estate industry and home sellers that will be financed by taxpayers, schoolchildren and others. They also say that most of the buyers and sellers touched by the “moving penalty” are cashing in on gains in property values, making Prop. 5 a needless gift for the already well-to-do.
worst roads and bridges in the country and that upgrading them is a necessity, not an option. They say the 6,500 projects connected to SB 1 are essential for future economic development, and they disagree that existing money could finance those projects. determine how those rules might work.
A no vote would allow Costa-Hawkins, which limits the use of rent control in California, to stand. CostaHawkins prohibits cities from placing rent controls on housing built after Feb. 1, 1995, and on single-family homes and condominiums. It also ensures that landlords of rent-controlled properties can raise prices to market levels after a tenant moves out.
Supporters believe that if Prop. 10 passes, many cities in the state will impose new rent control rules or strengthen existing rules, helping to drive down rents. They point out that about half of California residents rent their dwelling, and that spiraling rent prices are a key factor behind rising poverty, income inequality and long commutes, among other issues.
They argue that with half of the state’s residents renting or leasing properties, a move to keep rents in line with inflation will help the state’s long-term economic health.
Opponents say that Prop. 10 will only exacerbate some of the problems it intends to fix and that housing will be in shorter supply if landlords and apartment developers don’t have an economic incentive to bring properties to market. If that scenario plays out, Prop. 10 opponents say, the people hit hardest will be low-income renters and seniors.
Proposition 11
The Ambulance Employees Paid On-Call Breaks, Training, and Mental Health Services Initiative would set oncall rules for ambulance drivers during their shifts. Drivers would be required to be available to roll on calls during their breaks and be reachable by cellphones or other devices during their meals and rest periods. They also would be paid while on break, and they would not be required to take their break at the beginning or end of a shift.
The proposition is backed by American Medical Response, which has about 29,000 clinician/drivers and about 6,600 ambulances, and provides medical transportation services in about 4,000 cities and towns nationally.
Supporters say the law would bring ambulance driver break rules in line with similar rules for police, firefighters and other emergency service providers.
Opponents suggest the proposal is aimed at helping American Medical Response dodge labor lawsuits pending against the company in California.
Proposition 12
The Farm Animal Confinement Initiative would ban the sale of meat and eggs from animals confined in small pens and cages, and define what is and isn’t “too small” by setting specific minimum sizes.
A similar law, Prop. 2, which voters approved in 2008 and which took effect in 2015, sets limits for pen sizes and cages, but those limits are based on animal behavior.
If Prop. 12 is approved, the specific size requirements would replace the requirements mandated in Prop. 2 starting in 2020.
Interestingly, groups that stick up for animals — including the Humane Society and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals — are on opposite sides of Prop. 12.
The Humane Society and other supporters of Prop. 12 say that the current cage rules in California are inhumane and that the new rules will prevent the sale of products that wring profit out of animal suffering.
The egg and pork farmers who oppose Prop. 12 say that the new rules will add costs that have to be passed on to consumers and that they’ll lead to shortages of some meats and eggs. The animal groups that oppose Prop. 12, including PETA, say the measure will perpetuate a system that includes what they believe are inhumane “multilevel” and “cage-free” factory farms.