June 2018 Ballot Measures

How I'm voting on June 2018 Ballot Measures

Here are my choices for state and local ballot measures: details are below the jump. I’ll write up candidates in a separate post. 

State

68: YES for Parks, Water, & Environment
69: YES to Ensure Transportation Revenues are used for Transportation Purposes
70: NO. Don’t require Supermajority to use Cap and Trade Funds
71: YES for Good Government Reform
72: YES to Promote Rainwater Capture Systems

Bay Area

Regional Measure 3: YES to improve transportation with funds from higher bridge tolls.

Alameda County

A: YES for childcare and early education

State Measures

68: YES for Parks, Water, & Environment

This is an easy yes. I'll just quote my friend Nathan Landau:

This would authorize a $4 billion bond for parks (particularly in park poor areas), water infrastructure, and related projects. Open space in California is always at risk, and this measure has no controversial water projects. There would be no change in tax levels. State Senate President and US Senate candidate Kevin De Leon was the lead author, environmental groups such as The Nature Conservancy are backing it. There’s no organized opposition.

69: YES to Ensure Transportation Revenues are used for Transportation Purposes

My friend Nathan says:

Last year the state legislature, prodded heavily by the Governor, passed the first increases in gasoline taxes in decades, known as SB1. This measure would assure that funds from that tax would only be used for transportation. This is a good idea. 

Those revenues are under threat from Republicans, who are trying to put a repeal of SB1 onto the November ballot. Passing this measure would take away one of the Republicans’ arguments. 

70: NO. Don’t require Supermajority to use Cap and Trade Funds

This is an odd one. This would require a one time 2/3 vote to spend California’s “cap and trade” (emissions credits) funds after 2024. I’m opposed for two main reasons: (1) it requires a 2/3 vote, and I generally think that’s bad in the legislature. The 2/3 requirement makes it harder to get to a decision. And in California, a 2/3 vote means the swing voters are conservative Democrats and Republicans, while a regular majority vote means progressives and liberals have more influence. (2) Whatever you think of Cap and Trade, the money it is providing has been doing great things, and we shouldn’t make it harder to spend the money. 

The opposition is entirely people and groups I trust: TransForm, League of Women Voters, Asian Pacific Environmental Network, Save the Bay, and lots of environmental and environmental justice organizations. The measure is supported by Republicans and the California Chamber of Commerce, and appears to have been put on the ballot by Governor Jerry Brown as an attempt to get Republicans not to oppose the cap and trade bill last year. 

71: YES for Good Government Reform

This would move the effective date for initiatives to be 5 days after the election is certified, instead of the day after the vote. That’s good, because it would reduce confusion. It’s a minor technical fix. It got unanimous support in the legislature. 

72: YES to Promote Rainwater Capture Systems

My friend Nathan says:

Yet another tiny tweak that’s needed on the epicycles of the Prop. 13 taxation system.  It provides that installing a rainwater recapture system (a green thing) doesn’t trigger a property reassessment, a serious disincentive to installing one. No argument against Proposition 72 was submitted.

Bay Area

Regional Measure 3: YES to improve transportation with funds from higher bridge tolls. 

This is an easy one for me. My friend Nathan has a great summary:

RM 3 would provide $4.5 billion for transit (70% of the measure’s funds) and other transportation projects around the Bay Area. The funds would fund come from a stepped series of toll increases on the state-owned bridges across the Bay (all the bridges over the bay except the Golden Gate Bridge). There would be a $1 increase in 2019, an additional dollar in 2022, and a third dollar in 2025.

Yes, that means it would cost $8 to cross most bridges in 2025. That’s a lot. But it is still less than people pay for round-trip transit fare on BART or AC Transit. And bridge tolls are a more progressive way of raising revenue than most of the other ways we typically use -- sales taxes, gas taxes, etc.. People who drive across Bay Area bridges tend to be higher-income than people on transit, especially on the bus services such as AC Transit that will get significant new funds from the measure. 

TransForm, Greenbelt Alliance, organized labor, and most elected officials in the region support RM3 -- just to get on the ballot, it had to get a Yes vote from all 9 counties’ Boards of Supervisors (see full list of endorsers). Main opponents include the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association and others who basically argue that we shouldn’t trust government to spend money. 

Alameda County

A: YES for childcare and early education

This is an easy one: add ½% to sales tax to provide $140 million/year for childcare and early education programs. The programs funded are throughout the county and mostly used by children who grow up in low- and middle-income homes. Some of the money would support raising wages for childcare providers. Lots of support, no opposition. Vote Yes on A.