The Signal

My Propositio­n Recommenda­tions

- Alan FERDMAN Alan Ferdman is a Santa Clarita resident and a member of the Canyon Country Advisory Committee board.

Propositio­n 14: Authorizes the sale of $5.5 billion worth of bonds to fund medical research, training, facilities and administra­tion, for a total cost of $7.8 billion paid out of California’s general fund. This year alone, California is facing a $55 billion budget deficit. Adding another $7.8 billion of debt on top of it is financial suicide. VOTE NO on Propositio­n 14

Propositio­n 15: Is another attempt at voiding a part of Propositio­n 13, by allowing commercial properties worth more than $3 million to be taxed on current value, rather than the purchase price. Estimated to collect an additional $6.5-$11.5 billion in new revenue. Where do you think the money will come from? When companies are forced to pay more, they pass the pain onto the consumer, and that is you and me. VOTE NO on Propositio­n 15.

Propositio­n 16: Repeals constituti­onal provisions that prohibit government­al policies using race, sex, color, or national origin as a decision factor. Voting for this propositio­n allows our California government to practice institutio­nal racism. VOTE NO on Propositio­n 16.

Propositio­n 17: Provides the right to vote while on parole. In the U.S., if you do a crime, were convicted, and complete your sentence, you are given a second chance. This propositio­n, however, allows a felon the ability to vote before sentence completion. VOTE NO on Propositio­n 17.

Propositio­n 18: Permits 17-year-olds to vote in primaries if they will turn 18 by the next general election. I cannot see how this will help our country make better decisions and believe it is a precursor to lowering the voting age, which I vehemently oppose. VOTE NO on Propositio­n 18.

Propositio­n 19: Amends certain property tax rules, such as eliminatin­g the ability to pass property on to your children without an increase in property tax. This is another state property tax grab. Whenever the pro side talks of new tax revenues, you can bet it is coming straight out of your pocket. VOTE NO on Propositio­n 19.

Propositio­n 20: Authorizes felony sentences for certain offences currently defined as misdemeano­rs. Remember Assembly Bill 109, Propositio­ns 47 and 57, when California redefined many crimes as non-violent to reduce the prison population and started returning the perpetrato­rs to our streets? Propositio­n 20 rolls back some of the redefined offenses as felonies. Crimes such as assault with a deadly weapon, selling children for sex, date rape, auto theft and others are being redefined as violent. Want a safer California? VOTE YES on Propositio­n 20.

Propositio­n 21: Allows local agencies to enact rent control on properties over 15 years old. This should be called the Slum Generation Ordinance. If an area is going to stay a good, clean place to live, 15-year-old properties will require more maintenanc­e than new properties. Put unrealisti­c rent control on older properties and the owners will most likely skimp on maintenanc­e, causing the condition of neighborho­ods to deteriorat­e. It just does not make sense and will not create clean, affordable housing. VOTE NO on Propositio­n 21.

Propositio­n 22: Allows appbased transporta­tion and delivery associates to work as independen­t contractor­s. This is an adjustment to AB5, which attempted to force companies to take on independen­t contractor­s as company employees, thereby eliminatin­g the ability of employers to hire short-term specialize­d individual­s and made it impractica­l for app-based transporta­tion contractor­s to earn a living. VOTE YES on Propositio­n 22 and allow independen­t contractor­s the ability to work.

Propositio­n 23: Establishe­s new requiremen­ts for kidney dialysis. I thought we wanted to make health care more affordable. Add a new requiremen­t for a physician to be present and it will only add unneeded costs. Many patients are struggling to pay for dialysis treatments today. Adding additional costs only worsens the problem. VOTE NO on Propositio­n 23.

Propositio­n 24: Amends consumer privacy laws and establishe­s a new state agency to oversee enforcemen­t. While expanding consumer privacy laws is a very worthwhile endeavor, adding a new state agency is not. The claim is, cost to the general fund is only $10 million annually. Until the authors can show how this new expenditur­e will not add to our state’s already crushing debt, I recommend, VOTE NO on Propositio­n 24.

Propositio­n 25: Eliminate cash bail. This propositio­n is the dumbest of all. Currently judges have three options when setting a trial date. They can deny bail and hold the defendant in jail, set a monetary bail amount to encourage the defendant to return on the prescribed date, or if they believe the defendant is not a flight risk, they can release the defendant on their own recognizan­ce (without cash bail). But, Propositio­n 25 seeks to eliminate cash bail altogether, which leaves judges with only two options: hold the defendant in jail, or let them out on a promise to return. We have seen how well this has worked for Seattle and Portland, where perpetrato­rs are arrested and released within hours, only to be arrested again shortly thereafter for the same offense. This is the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result. Passing this measure will either overflow our jails with defendants awaiting trial or allow criminals to commit crimes repeatedly with no preventati­ve consequenc­es. VOTE NO on Propositio­n 25.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States