March 2020 Ballot Measures

Here are my choices for state and local ballot measures. Details are below the jump. See a separate post for my thoughts on candidates:

State13: YES for School bonds

Alameda County

C: YES for Child Care, Preschool, Early Education, + Pediatric Health Care

Contra Costa County

J: YES for More Equitable + Sustainable Transportation 

Berkeley

E: YES for Berkeley School Teachers

G: YES for Berkeley School Facilities Bond

H: YES to Continue Existing Schools Parcel Tax

And now for the detailed writeups on each measure ...

State Proposition

13: YES for School bonds

First off, this has nothing to do with the infamous Prop 13 of my childhood. This new Prop 13 is an EASY YES for me. This is a bond to fund school construction, repair, and maintenance -- that’s good. Most of the money goes to K-12 schools, plus some to the community college, CSU, and UC systems. There’s a tiny amount for charter schools (3% of the bond amount). We pay for this from existing state budget revenues -- it’ll cost 0.5% of the state’s general fund. Lots of people support it, and the only opposition is from knee-jerk anti-tax people. 

If you want to see more, read the title, summary, and analysis from state officials, and pro/con arguments. Or you can find all that and more on Ballotpedia. 

Alameda County Measure

C: YES for Child Care, Preschool, Early Education, + Pediatric Health Care 

This is another EASY YES. It requires a ⅔ vote, so don’t be complacent. This would provide about $150 million per year towards child care, preschool, early education, and pediatric health care. Some of the funds are targeted at raising wages for child care providers -- an EXCELLENT idea, in my book. Measure C would pay for all this through an additional 0.5% sales tax (that is, 1 penny on every 2 dollars) in Alameda County. While it is true that low-income people pay a higher share of their income for sales taxes than do higher-income people, it is also clear that this measure would also provide more of its benefits to lower-income people. It looks totally worth it to me. 

This is enough of a slam dunk YES that no one filed an argument against it. Vote Yes on C. More info: see campaign website and Chronicle endorsement. 

Contra Costa County Measures

J: YES for More Equitable + Sustainable Transportation

I don't live in CCC, so I don't actually get to vote on this. But if you do, you should vote YES. This is the most equitable and sustainable transportation funding measure has ever seen. It's got lots of money for good projects -- that's good. But even better, it sets out the goals and outcomes by which projects will be judged and sets good policies for how to distribute the funds. See endorsements from TransForm, Bike East Bay, Greenbelt Alliance, SF Chronicle, and many others. Opposition is from the taxpayers group, the East Bay Times, and ... don't get me started on the unrealistic and counterproductive "Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund."

Vote YES on J in Contra Costa County, and tell your friends! It needs 2/3, which will be hard in CCC. Your vote will also tell CCC electeds that you like this measure better than the failed Measure X in 2016, which focused much more on road-building.  

Berkeley School + City Measures

E: YES for Berkeley School Teachers G: YES for Berkeley School Facilities BondH: YES to Continue Existing Schools Parcel Tax

Berkeley has 3 linked measures for schools on the ballot. Here's why I'm voting YES on all of them: 

Measure E would generate about $9.5 million/year to pay teachers better. That would definitely help with recruitment and retention, which is definitely a strong need in Berkeley’s schools. Measure E would get its funds from a parcel tax that would cost $124/yr for a 1000-sf home, be indexed to inflation, and last for 12 years. 

Measure G would allow BUSD to issue $380 million in bonds to improve school facilities. Proponents state that this will not cause tax rates to go up. That’s because the district adopted a policy (in 2004) that it would not issue bonds that raise the tax rate over the maximum set then. So this new measure allows bonds to go longer -- through 2058. But tax rates won’t go up (unless the district changed their policy). 

Measure H would renew for 10 more years the district’s existing funding measure that pays for maintenance and operations of school grounds. This is a renewal of similar measures passed in 1992, 2000, and 2010. This should be a slam dunk -- it is a crucial contributor to Berkeley’s schools’ excellence. It is paid for by a continuation of the existing parcel tax, would cost $91/yr for a 1000-sf home, be indexed to inflation, and last for another 10 years. 

There’s one consolidated campaign for all three measures. As you can see on their website, all three measures are endorsed by every elected official in Berkeley -- Mayor, all Councilmembers, all School Board members, even the City Auditor! Plus lots of community groups: LWV, PTA, BFT, every flavor of Democratic club (John George, Wellstone, Young Dems, CalDems, BDC), and more. 

The opposition ballot statements (for E+G) were signed by one person -- schools gadfly Laura Menard. That’s too bad, because there’s a legitimate question here. Together, these measures will cause taxes to go up by a few hundred dollars for typical homeowners (more for people with large or very valuable homes), and will extend those taxes into the future. Is that worth it? 

I say YES. I believe it is worth it to ask Berkeley property owners (who by-the-way have reaped tremendous windfalls from the Bay Area’s tremendous increases in property values), to spend another few hundred dollars per year to pay for making our public schools better. 

Vote YES on E, G, + H.