Proposition 2- Yes. We need to fund educational infrastructure, and the benefit is future-oriented enough to justify the increased future-costs of a bond. (text link here)

Proposition 3- Yes. Proposition 8 was bigotry, and it’s long past time for it to be removed. (text link here)

Proposition 4- Yes. Water, wildfire protection and climate adaptation hardening are necessary, and the benefits are future-oriented enough to justify the increased future-costs of a bond. (text link here)

Proposition 5- Yes. We have had a 55% threshold for many bonds and it hasn’t lead to catastrophe, and requiring super-majority approval of 66.7% is itself undemocratic. (text link here)

Proposition 6- Yes. Slavery is bad. (text link here)

Proposition 32- Yes. The minimum wage would arguably still be too low (see the fact that the fast food minimum is $20), but it’s a start. (text link here)

Proposition 33- Yes. Cities should have the municipal power to decide whether to have rent control or not. (text link here)

Proposition 34- NO. It’s a bill of attainder (a legislative act imposing a punishment on one person without due process of law), and those are unconstitutional.(text link here)

Proposition 35- Yes. Making sure that a tax for funding Medi-Cal remains and is used for that purpose is worthwhile. (text link here)

Proposition 36- No. There are portions of this I could support, but the combined impact of all the elements of this proposition would undermine the very treatments it seeks to mandate, as the legislative analysis (here) and the arguments against (here) note. What good is treatment mandated prosecution if you’ve cut all funds for treatment? (text link here)

For Pinole- Measure I- Yes. The city needs the funds, and without them will need to make immediate cuts to police and public works, or slash the city’s reserves. It’s not going to be the last tax measure needed, but it is a necessary one.