Nov 2018 State Propositions

How I'm voting on Nov 2018 State Propositions

Here are my choices for state propositions. Summary here, details below the jump.

1: YES YES YES for Affordable Homes Statewide
2: YES YES YES for Homes for People with Mental Illnesses
3: NO “Pay to Play” Bond
4: YES for Children’s Hospitals
5: NO NO NO to Stop Regressive Cuts to Schools + Services
6: NO NO NO to Stop Republicans’ Attack on Roads, Bridges, and Transit
7: YES to Let Legislature decide what to do about Daylight Savings Time
8: NO ‘cuz it’s too complex, too many unintended consequences, and shouldn’t be on ballot (Dialysis cost formula)
10: Leaning YES; Heart vs. Head on Rent Control
11: NO ‘cuz this shouldn’t be on ballot (Ambulance work rules)
12: Leaning YES on Revised requirements for Farm animal confinement

For basic info on each proposition, see the Secretary of State's webiste: link. For my rationale on each one, read on ...

1: YES YES YES for Affordable Homes Statewide

This is a slam dunk. California is preposterously unaffordable. We desperately need more homes that are affordable to a wide range of people. Prop 1 would pump more support into “existing affordable housing programs for low-income residents, veterans, farmworkers, manufactured and mobile homes, infill, and transit-oriented housing.” I’ve worked in this arena and I’ve seen that the money is used well. And did I mention … desperately needed.

The only opposition comes from someone who is concerned about the state’s use of bonds (tough, we use bonds for lots of things) and the unfair impacts of Prop 13 (right, so we should punish poor & middle class people because of another law that punishes poor & middle class people.) 

For more info, see YES editorials from LA Times, Sacramento Bee, & SF Chronicle, and the Yes on 1 website. Please tell your friends to vote YES on 1 for affordable homes statewide. 

2: YES YES YES for Homes for People with Mental Illnesses

“If you aren’t crazy before you hit the streets, being homeless will drive you crazy pretty damn fast.” That was a candid assessment from a case worker I knew when I was in my early 20s living in Davis, volunteering with a local nonprofit to help rehab a building for use as a homeless shelter. 

That’s one reason it makes sense to take money originally raised for mental health services and spend it on helping people with mental illness have stable supportive housing. The only opposition comes from one small group of mental health advisors in one county. The support comes from all over the state, from people of many political persuasions and walks of life. 

For more info, see YES editorials from LA Times, Sacramento Bee, & SF Chronicle, and the Yes on 2 website. 

3: NO “Pay to Play” Bond

This $9 billion proposition stinks for several reasons. First, it is a “pay to play” bond that shows a lot of what is wrong with California’s initiative process. As the LA Times editorial says:

“Under pay to play, an initiative creator shops his draft proposal to interest groups, trolling for financial backing. Interests that donate to the cost of collecting voter signatures and the election campaign usually buy themselves a share of the initiative’s benefits. It’s a good investment. Roughly 80% of bond measures pass.”

Second, it includes a lot of bad spending and policy. For example, it would spend $750 million on fixing the Friant-Kern and Madera canals. The thing is, those canals need fixing because big farmers pumped too much groundwater, causing the canals to sink. LA Times says: 

“Growers caused their own problem. Now they want the whole state to pony up to solve it.” Another example: Prop 3 would steal greenhouse gas reduction funds and give them to irrigation districts to reimburse them for higher electricity rates caused by greenhouse gas reduction policies. That’s bad policy; why bother to save electricity if you can get taxpayers to pay for your electric bill? 

Third, this would be the third water bond in four years: we approved a $4 billion water and parks bond in June and another $7.5 billion bond back in 2014. With a $9 billion spending plan, of course, there’s some good stuff in it too. But my water policy friends say the bad outweighs the good. 

That’s why the League of Women Voters, Sierra Club, Friends of the River, and lots of major newspapers all say No on 3. 

4: YES for Children’s Hospitals

Prop 4 would allow the state to issue $1.5 billion in bonds to pay for construction, expansion, renovation, and equipping of qualifying children's hospitals. Children’s hospitals do good stuff -- I’ve known lots of kids from many walks of life who’ve been treated at Children’s Hospital in Oakland. 

Full disclosure: the last time there was a statewide bond for children’s hospitals (2008), I voted against it, largely because of concerns about using bonds. Since then I’ve met many more people who’ve had to use children’s hospital services, and I’ve come to see that we use bonds all the time for capital projects. I’m still not a fan of bonds, but I’m voting YES on 4 for children’s hospitals.

5: NO NO NO to Stop Regressive Cuts to Schools + Services

Prop 5 would take $1 billion away from schools and services and give it to some homeowners in the form of property tax breaks. The vast majority of the benefit would go to older affluent homeowners who least need the help. And it is put on the ballot by the California Realtors Association, whose self-interest is manifest. It might have a little of the realtors’ stated intended effect -- to increase the number of housing units on the market -- but it would have tremendous negative effects at the same time. 

Prop 5 would allow some homeowners (age 55+ or disabled) to keep their Prop 13-level property taxes when they buy a new house anywhere in California. Currently, older homeowners can transfer their tax levels only once, and only to a handful of counties. That would help those people a lot, but the state legislative analyst says it would cost state and local governments over $100 million now, growing to $1 billion later. The result will either be higher taxes on younger people and tenants or worse services (which are mostly used by younger + lower-income people). For more info, see the SF Chronicle endorsement and No on 5 website. 

6: NO NO NO to Stop Republicans’ Attack on Roads, Bridges, and Transit

This is a horrible idea. California roads and bridges are in bad shape and we need more and better transit services. Prop 6 would make things worse; it would take at least $5 billion a year away from our transportation system by undoing the SB1 package the Legislature passed last year. SB1 raised gas taxes for the first time in 28 years. Not only that, Prop 6 would require us to vote on any other fuel and vehicle taxes, likely further reducing our ability to maintain our transportation system. 

Prop 6 was put on the ballot by CA Republicans in what they admitted was mainly an attempt to increase Republican turnout to support Republicans for statewide and Congressional races. Please vote NO. For more info, see TransForm’s No on 6 post, SF Chronicle No on 6 editorial, and the No on 6 website.  

7: YES to Let Legislature decide what to do about Daylight Savings Time

When we first looked at the ballot, we thought this was silly. But after I thought about it more, I decided this is a good idea. 

Back in 1949, California passed a proposition that directed the state to follow federal decisions on daylight savings, like almost all the rest of the country. If passed, Prop 7 would allow the legislature to move us to standard time year-round (like HI+AZ) or ask the federal government for permission to use daylight savings year-round (like no other state). 

I'm not sure whether that's a good idea. I understand the negative impacts of switching between standard and daylight savings time (people's rhythms get off and have more car crashes, for example). But I also understand the benefits (sunrise + sunset happen at more useful times, which probably also prevents some car crashes). I also don't think this is an area where California should try to do our own thing or lead the nation in a different direction.

But this is a policy decision, and I'm sure that I don't know the best resolution. I generally believe the Legislature should make policy decisions based on good study and input. Because of the 1949 initiative, this is an issue that has to go to a statewide ballot before the Legislature can do anything. 

So, let's let the Legislature figure out what to do about Daylight Savings Time. 

8: NO ‘cuz it’s too complex, too many unintended consequences, and shouldn’t be on ballot (Dialysis cost formula)

Prop 8 should not be on the ballot. It would put in place a complicated set of formulas to determine the prices dialysis clinics could charge to their patients and set a bunch of other requirements for how dialysis clinics operate. The Legislative Analyst says Prop 8 is complicated enough that the outcome is very uncertain. It could have a net positive or a net negative effect, depending on how the dialysis clinics, Medi-Cal, the California Department of Public Health (which regulates the clinics), and the courts respond to and interpret the measure. It is likely enough to end up in court that the proponents wrote in automatic provisions that kick in if certain pieces of it are declared invalid by the courts. 

This is the sort of thing that should be regulated by the health department, or negotiations between clinics and agencies that pay for dialysis (Medicare, Medi-Cal, health insurers), or by the legislature after detailed conversations among the key players. 

Instead, this is on the ballot because the relevant health care union (SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West) is trying to use it as leverage in their battle to organize clinic workers and force more hiring. I hope SEIU-UHW is successful in their organizing efforts, but I don’t want us to enshrine bad policy in law as the way to get there. For more info, see the SF Chronicle or Sacramento Bee editorials. 

10: Leaning YES; Heart vs. Head on Rent Control 

This is the hardest decision on the ballot for me, because my head and my heart disagree.

Prop 10 would repeal the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Law that severely restricted the extent to which California's cities and towns could implement rent control. So Prop 10 would make it easier for cities to pass stricter rent control. Prop 10 itself would not change those rent control laws (that's why the 'No on 10' ads can say it wouldn't protect renters), it would just make it easier for cities to change their rent control laws. 

So for the most part, your view on Prop 10 is likely to mirror your view on rent control. That's where my head and my heart disagree. 

My head wants to calculate what will do the greatest good for the most people. We do that by having more homes that people can afford, which in turn requires significant work on three strategies: (1) build more affordable housing, (2) protect the affordable housing we have, and (3) protect tenants in market-rate housing. Rent control focuses on the 3rd strategy (protect tenants). But it has the potential to reduce the 1st strategy (build affordable housing), for two reasons. One is that, in cities that do pass stricter rent control laws, building new homes will be less attractive, so fewer new homes will be built. The second is that some cities will use their newfound authority to impose rent control policies to make building more homes even less likely (Alameda has a bad measure like that on the ballot). Allowing local control may allow cities to make themselves more economically exclusive. 

Further, this is a law that the Legislature could pass themselves. In fact, they debated something similar in 2017-2018, but landlord opposition prevented it from getting out of committee. 

And yet ... the rent is too damn high. The median rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Berkeley is $2705/month, while a 2-BR is $3727/month (link). In SF those numbers are $3261/mo and $4377/mo (link). A household would need to earn at least $134,000/year to afford that median Berkeley 2-BR without being "rent-burdened" (spending more than 1/3 of income on housing). That is too damn high. High rents are driving out low- and middle-income people. That's not good. 

I believe housing and the real estate market should be less subject to speculation and more subject to public control over prices. All of those are reasons to support rent control and Prop 10. And as a well-written San Jose Mercury-News real estate column points out, the housing market is far from free now.

And yet ... I do understand that most rent control only confers benefits to the lucky tenants who get its protections. Those are people who have lived in their places for a long time, who tend to be older (some of whom are elderly on fixed income and perhaps need it the most; some of whom are still in their wage-earning years and may be less needy).

So I'm torn. Heart says Yes, Head says No. Overall, I suspect passage of Prop 10 wouldn't make a huge difference, but would help a little. So I'm leaning towards my Heart.

11: NO ‘cuz this shouldn’t be on ballot (Ambulance work rules) 

Like Prop 8, this is a matter that should be decided by the legislature or regulators, not by the voters based on a measure put on the ballot by one side. The story here is that for a long time, ambulance companies have been able to require their workers to interrupt their breaks to take emergency calls or to reposition to be in the best position to respond to calls. A recent court decision about security guards now calls that practice into question. As a result, there are several lawsuits against American Medical Response (AMR), the largest ambulance provider in California. So AMR funded this ballot ballot measure to try to change the rules and avoid the lawsuits. 

I don’t like that. I’d rather see the various interests work it out in the legislature. Even the LA Times “Yes” editorial says it should’ve been worked out by the legislature (link). Interestingly, the ambulance workers union is not fighting the measure -- in fact, there’s no ballot argument against it. So it’ll probably pass. But I don’t think it’s good policy. For dueling endorsements, see the SF Chronicle “NO” editorial or the LA Times “YES”.  

12: Leaning YES on Revised requirements for Farm animal confinement 

Sigh. This is another issue that could and should be resolved by the Legislature without going on the ballot, but I think past ballot measures mean that it needs to be resolved at the ballot. 

I totally support more ethical treatment of the animals who provide humans with food. I voted for Prop 2 back in 2008, which intended to set rules to ensure cage-free conditions for chickens by 2015. Apparently that measure had loopholes, so many chickens are still in cages, just slightly larger ones. 

Prop 12 would rewrite those rules for chickens, set them to phase in during 2020 and 2022, and also set some new rules for pigs and young cows. Proponents appear to have fixed many of the problems with the original Prop 2: they closed the loopholes, specified who must enforce the measure, and made some other changes. It looks like they’ve done a better job writing the rules than they did 10 years ago. They also worked with industry to win some support, so they undoubtedly compromised a little. 

The result is a measure with the Humane Society and ASPCA in support, but PETA and some producers against it. I’ve waffled on this one for a little -- should I say “Yes” to put slightly better (but probably still imperfect) rules in place? Or should I say “No” because the legislature should figure it out? I looked through the text to see if it gives the legislature the ability to clean it up -- it leaves that portion of the law unchanged: the legislature can only change the statue with a 4/5 vote, an extremely high threshhold. 

I’m undecided but leaning “Yes” -- figuring slightly better rules are better than the status quo. For more info, see the SF Chronicle “No” or the LA Times “Yes.”  If you have additional information, please let me know in the comments.