Here are the propositions that I recommend voting for or against on this November’s CA statewide ballot (2018). I start with the propositions and a one sentence argument, then go into further depth below.
My recommendations on the propositions on the Nov 6th, 2018 ballot.
Proposition 1: Yes. We need more housing in the state, and prop 1 funnels bond money to multiple different approaches to create that housing, from subsidizing loans to supporting construction of housing at the local level directly.
Proposition 2: Yes. There’s only so much mental health treatment can do if you don’t have a home.
Proposition 3: Yes. We need to use our existing water better. The bonds from Prop 3 would be dedicated towards doing that.
Proposition 4: No. We shouldn’t take on bond debt for private hospitals’ benefit.
Proposition 5: No. We shouldn’t increase the distortions Prop 13 already causes in local property taxes by cutting local tax revenues.
Proposition 6: No. If you like having repaved roads, either locally or on the freeways, Prop 6 would make the rate of maintenance and repair on your roads markedly less.
Proposition 7: Yes. We should be able to have a uniform year-round time, and if uniform DST means kids would be going to school in the dark, perhaps their school should start later.
Proposition 8: Yes. Multinational for-profit corporations should be held accountable for their providing of dialysis services and the prices they charge for that service.
Proposition 10: Yes. Cities should have the power to regulate rents in the matter that best fits their local circumstances.
Proposition 11: Yes. While I dislike its retroactive immunizing of ambulance companies, the required improved labor practices offset that enough for me to recommend it.
Proposition 12: Yes. Current law doesn’t require as much space as Prop 12 does for any space containing more than 4 hens at a time- so most factory farms.
References to the text of proposed laws refer to the text of proposed laws pdf created by the state, which covers all of the propositions.
Prop 1. We need more housing. While bonds do markedly increase our long-term costs, the causes to which the bond revenues would be dedicated are worthwhile. With the loss of redevelopment funds, local communities have found it difficult to build multi-family housing. 45% (see Legislative Analysis, Figure 1) of the bond funds go to this purpose. 44% go towards subsidizing loans for individuals to buy or build housing directly- either Veterans (25%), low and moderate income first-time homebuyers (11%), or farmworker housing (8%). The remainder goes towards infrastructure improvements to support that higher density development (11%). I support Prop 1.
Prop 2. While I’m concerned about revenue being diverted from mental health programs to fund this bond, according to the author of the original proposition 63, housing funds were meant to be a part of that use (see the SF Chronicle editorial here, or the East Bay Times one here). I dislike the funding for this process being done by bond measures, but apparently that is standard for housing, as we can see with Prop 1. Given those factors, and the undeniable importance of housing in dealing with mental health issues, I support Prop 2.
Prop 3: We need to do better at maintaining and reusing the water we have. Prop 3 dedicates bond funds towards this- from improving watershed lands to improve water quality, to improving water recycling and rainwater collection, improving fish and wildlife habitat (creating longer-term benefits to the water supply), to repairing existing facilities, to (perhaps most importantly of all) finally recharging the groundwater reservoirs that were depleted during the drought, and some flood protection. I support Prop 3.
Prop 4. I don’t think the state should take on general obligation bond debt (which will ultimately cost us all 2.9 billion dollars to repay, as the analysis for Prop 4 notes) to pay for private hospitals’ construction costs. While Children’s hospitals are a worthwhile cause, they are entirely capable of raising sufficient funds for expansion on their own, without the cost being imposed on everyone in the state for 8 private and 5 public hospitals. Furthermore, 72% of bond funds would go to the 8 private hospitals. I oppose Prop 4.
Prop 5. I don’t want to to see statewide school revenues drop by up to a billion dollars per year in the future, and I likewise don’t want to see statewide local government revenues drop by a similar amount (Prop 5 analysis, Fiscal Effects). Prop 13 already distorts our housing market enough- we don’t need to expand its carveouts to allow people to buy more expensive houses and get tax breaks. I oppose Prop 5.
Prop 6. While nobody likes paying higher gas taxes, SB 1 (which Prop 6 would repeal) has lead already to direct improvements to major roadways throughout the state, both at the freeway level and in local communities (as you can see through CalTrans’ signage and your direct personal experience if you’ve driven on any of those roads before and after repaving). If Prop 6 passes, further improvements and maintenance would occur at a lower rate, if they continued at all. I oppose Prop 6.
Prop 7. Prop 7 allows the California Legislature to adopt statewide year-long DST, if the federal government changes its rules to allow for that. I would support this policy- the transition from standard to DST each year has marked increase in AMI (Acute myocardial infraction, or heart attacks) reports (see this study, in the BMJ). Even if, as the study notes, DST doesn’t necessarily change the total number of AMI’s, reducing the pressure on community ER’s by removing an entirely avoidable spike in events seems like a worthwhile public policy objective. If removing DST would have students going to school in the dark, perhaps we should consider having schools open later in the day. I support Prop 7.
Prop 8. Prop 8 effectively imposes profit caps on dialysis centers. Seeing as the legislative analysis notes that the dialysis centers are primarily run on a for-profit basis (see Legislative analysis for Prop 8, Figure 1), and private insurers are required to pay multiple times what medi-Cal and Medicare pay (ibid), I think this is reasonable. The cap is variable by design, so that if permitted expenses increase (staff wages, supplies, facilities maintenance and so on) the cap also increases. As the analysis notes, this could potentially lead to increases in the permitted expenses and no net change in prices at the consumer level. This outcome would still be beneficial, as the permitted expense categories are a benefit to the communities in which the centers are embedded (higher salaries mean stronger local economies, better facilities maintenance means more work for local janitors, and so on). Finally, Prop 8 includes significant accountability measures that should increase transparency in the dialysis industry (see section 3 b in the text of the law), and includes protections against discrimination towards individuals on Medi-Cal or Medicare (See section 4 in the text of the law). I support Prop 8.
Prop 10. Local jurisdictions should have the power to implement rent control or not according to the needs of their communities. Costa-Hawkins reserves that power to the state. Prop 10 repeals Costa-Hawkins. I support Prop 10.
Prop 11. I dislike retroactive laws designed to bail out private companies for their poor labor practices. (See the legislative analysis of Prop 11 and Definitions 888-889 in the text of proposed laws). That said, the legislative analysis of the significant additional costs that would be placed on local governments in the event of this proposition not passing tilts me towards supporting it. It does require mental health support services and proper training (Proposition 11, Article 4, sections 883-4) to compensate for requiring emergency ambulance crew to be on call during their breaks (Prop 11, section 887), and does compensate for interrupted breaks (Prop 11, sections 886-7). I support Prop 11.
Prop 12. Looking at the state of California’s current cage free definitions (from this pdf), it looks like hens with pasteurized shell eggs are completely exempt from the space rules, and more broadly that with over 4 hens per unit that it would require less than 1 square foot of space per hen. Prop 12 seems to import the egg producer’s guidelines starting in 2021 (which can be found in this pdf), which require at least one square foot per hen (and it requires one square foot per hen starting in 2020)(Prop 12, Section 4, e. 4-5). Finally, the state’s analysis of Prop 12 supports the proponent’s arguments that it would require significant changes to the state’s agriculture. I support Prop 12.
Rafael's thoughts 