We've been propositioned

There are 13 propositions on the November 3, California ballot.  108 years have passed since the first CA ballot proposition.  The number of citizen initiatives per decade has declined slightly since the 2000s when there were 70.  In the 2010s, there were 51.

Here is my review of the props on the November ballot.

Proposition 14 - Stem Cell Research Institute Bond Initiative

This doesn't require a separate blog entry.  I am voting no.  California has over $80 billion in general obligation bonds on which we are paying interest.  There is nearly $40 billion more in approved bonds that have not been sold.  The California Legislative Analyst's Office  (LAO) says that the percentage of the General Fund revenues and transfers that is spent servicing bonds is running around 4% right now.  Without adding any new bonds, the LAO projects that it will cost $6.4 billion to pay the interest on currently outstanding bonds in FY 2023/24.  

Proposition 15 - Tax on Commercial and Industrial Properties for Education and Local Government Funding Initiative (2020)  Read why I am voting yes here.

Proposition 16 - California Proposition 16, the Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment

This does not require a separate blog entry.  I voted against Prop 209.  I will vote for Prop 16.  The Mercury News &  East Bay Times editorial says it better than I can:

"The events of this year have highlighted the level of racial injustice that exists across the nation, including California. The disparity between Black and Latino residents and their White counterparts is readily apparent when it comes to income, health, education and the criminal justice system. Reducing those disparities will require a major effort on multiple fronts. Proposition 16 would give the state’s universities and government a valuable tool they need to fight existing structural inequalities."

Proposition 17 - California Proposition 17, the Voting Rights Restoration for Persons on Parole Amendment

This does not require a separate blog entry.  Ideally, the purpose of imprisonment and subsequent release is rehabilitation and re-entry into society.   While I'm fine with violent felons losing their right to own guns, I don't get the rationale for denying them the right to vote.  I will vote yes

Proposition 18 - California Proposition 18, the Primary Voting for 17-Year-Olds Amendment

This does not require a separate blog entry.  The pretzel logic of the opposition that someone who is 17 is not mature enough to vote in the primary that will set their choices for the general election, at which point they will be 18 is obvious.  Why shouldn't someone who can vote in that general election not have a voice in determining who will be on that general election ballot?

Proposition 19 - California Proposition 19, the Property Tax Transfers, Exemptions, and Revenue for Wildfire Agencies and Counties Amendment

This also does not require a separate blog entry.  I have friends who are real estate agents.  I have clients who are real estate agents.  But the real estate industry is behind this measure in an effort to increase the number of houses being sold in CA.  Perhaps this proposition should have been titled the Realtor Revenue Initiative.  If you'd like more details on why this is a bad idea I recommend the L.A. Times editorial on it.

Proposition 20 - California Proposition 20, the Criminal Sentencing, Parole, and DNA Collection Initiative

We are living in an era where our society wants and needs to reduce the prison population.  To engage in reform and rehabilitation.  This is a proposition created by police unions who did not like the passage of Propositions 47, 57 and 109.  It would add more crimes to the list of felonies that would prevent early release on parole.  

The fact that Prop 20 is supported by Devin Nunes is reason enough to reject it.  But when the editorials from two CA newspapers as far apart politically as the San Francisco Chronicle and the Orange County Register agree that a ballot proposition is a bad idea, it probably is.

I'm voting no.

Proposition 21 - California Proposition 21, the Local Rent Control Initiative

Read why I am voting yes here.

Proposition 22 - California Proposition 22, the App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative

Read why I am voting no here.

Proposition 23 - California Proposition 23, the Dialysis Clinic Requirements Initiative

This proposition does not require a separate blog entry.  Like 2018's Proposition 8, this is nothing more than another attempt by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare West to unionize the workers who provide dialysis services at the clinics across California.  The fact that there isn't a single large newspaper editorial board in the state that has come out in favor of this proposition speaks volumes.  There is no evidence that this proposition would improve the quality of care for these patients.  I am voting no.

Proposition 24 - California Proposition 24, the Consumer Personal Information Law and Agency Initiative

This proposition does not require a separate blog entry.  Online privacy is the issue.  The editorial in the San Diego Union-Tribune says quite well why I am voting no.  "We are open to strengthening online privacy, but the lack of support from groups that should back this — from the Electronic Frontier Foundation to the ACLU to the Consumer Federation of California — gives us great pause. We recommend a no vote on Proposition 24."

Proposition 25 - the Replace Cash Bail with Risk Assessments Referendum

This proposition does not require a separate blog entry.  This is a simple proposition (pun intended). Businesses who profited from posting bail for people who have been arrested want Senate Bill 10 to be repealed.  That would put cash bail back into effect.  The fact that this referendum was filed the day after Governor Brown signed SB 10 into law says a lot.  So does the fact that the top ten contributors to the PAC that supports Prop 25 are bail bond businesses.  I am voting yes.

Proposition 15

California Proposition 15, the Tax on Commercial and Industrial Properties for Education and Local Government Funding Initiative would not change the amount of property tax paid for personal homes. So what does it do?

It creates a split roll for property taxes in the state.  Commercial and industrial properties (except commercial agricultural properties) would no longer be taxed based on purchase price.  Instead they will be taxed based on their market value.

Back in 1978 when Proposition 13 was passed by the voters, all properties were then taxed based on their original purchase price.  Adjustments for inflation were limited to 2% annually.  This created massive disparities in how properties are taxed.  

To illustrate, consider two homes in Santa Monica within 1 block of one another.  One is estimated to be worth $5.7 million, the other is listed for sale at $4.8 million.  The annual property tax bill for the former is under $3,000.  The annual property tax bill for the latter is around $36,000.  Why the difference?  Because one was purchased before 1976.

The same rules apply to the property tax bills for commercial and industrial properties.  I am old enough to remember the campaign for and against Prop 13.  A combination of sky-high inflation and a strong increase in demand for housing in California had caused a meteoric rise in the value of said housing.  As a result, retired homeowners were in danger of losing their homes to the soaring property tax increases.  Some also place the "blame" for the so-called tax revolt on the fact the Legislature spent our tax money like drunken sailors.  Ironically, three of the largest businesses in the state, Bank of America, Southern California Edison and Carter Hawley Hale (parent of what was known as the Broadway Department Store chain) all came out against Prop 13.  A footnote here, while many like to claim that Prop 13's margin of victory was 2 to 1 (or even more than 2 to 1), the actual tally was 62.6% to 34% in favor.

The CA Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) points out in its analysis of the fiscal impact of Prop 15 that it only applies to commercial and industrial properties valued at more than $3 million.  This also applies to properties worth less that are part of a real estate portfolio worth more than that amount.  They also estimate that Prop 15 will generate between $6.5 billion and $11.5 billion in new funding for local governments and schools.

Almost every prominent Democrat politician in CA supports Prop 15.  That includes Governor Newsom, Senator Harris and L.A. Mayor Garcetti.

Funding for the campaign in favor of Prop 15 comes from the California Teachers Association, the Service Employees International Union, and Chan Zuckerberg Initiative Advocacy.

There are very few CA politicians taking a position against Prop 15.  The campaign against Prop 15 is getting its major funding from the California Business Roundtable, the California Business Properties Association and the California Taxpayers Association.

I will vote yes on Prop 15.

Proposition 21

The campaign against Proposition 21 wants us to believe that this is the same proposition we voted on back in 2018.  It is not Proposition 10.  There are significant differences between the two.  We'll get to that in a moment.

There is a popular myth that the history of rent control in California began in the 1970s.  It is true that this is when many of the California cities that have rent control in force put those controls into effect.  But rent control in the state began back in the 1940s.  Price controls, including rents were put into effect during World War II.

In 1995, a new law was passed that changed rent control in California.  The Costa-Hawkins act is named for State Senator Jim Costa (D)-Fresno and Assembly Member Phil Hawkins (R)-Bellflower, its co-sponsors.  It prevented rent control laws from being applied to:

Single-family dwellings

Condominiums

Newly constructed units

It also ended the ability of rent control ordinances to maintain control of the rent on a unit once it was vacated by its current tenant.  By prohibiting "vacancy control" it allowed the owner of a vacated rental unit to raise the rent to whatever rate the current housing market would allow.

* * *

Who is behind Prop 21?  The same folks that gave us Proposition 10.  The AIDS Healthcare Foundation.  That doesn't make it bad.  It doesn't allow cities to impose rent control on every single unit of housing.  Prop 21 is supported by the ACLU as well.

Who is against Prop 21?  Governor Newsom for starters.  "...Proposition 21, like Proposition 10 before it, runs the all too-real risk of discouraging availability of affordable housing in our state.  Then there are four business entities that are real estate investment companies.  Essex Property Trust, Equity Residential, Avalonbay Communities and Jackson Square Properties LLC are those businesses.  They have combined to contribute $18.1 million to the campaign against Prop 21.

* * *

I will vote yes on Prop 21.

Yes, it allows cities to impose rent control on single family houses, but only if the person renting out that house owns two or more such units.  It does not allow rent control to be imposed on units that were built 15 or less years ago.

As the Los Angeles Times points out in its editorial supporting Prop 21, rent control is a balancing act. Owners of rental units deserve a fair return on their investment.  

Reports eh?

This is one of Donald Trump's latest tweets, publicizing a story from the One America News Network

The "reports" cited in the article come from a self-described "non-partisan" non-profit known as the Election Integrity Project California.  Here is a list of their board members:

Linda Paine - President

Ruth Weiss, Vice President Director, Legislative Oversight Coordinator, Southern Region

Bonnie Lanyon, Treasurer Chair of Fundraising Committee

Gloria Massey-Chinea

Ronaldo Chinea

Katherine Gerdis

* * *

Are they truly non-partisan?  Search Linda Paine Republican in Google and we find a number of times she spoke to groups of Republicans.  Did she speak to groups of Democrats?  Maybe but I can find no record of such events.  We also find that she co-founded the Santa Clarita Tea Party Group.  That she sponsored a panel on "Election Integrity" at the Western Conservative Conference.

Ms Paine co-founded the group with Ruth Weiss.  A Google search reveals that Ms Weiss spoke to The North County Tea Party Group, the Republican Club of Ocean Hills, the Republican Women of California San Marcos Luncheon and the Intermountain Republican Women Federated.  Then I found an op-ed from 2012 that contained this excerpt about this group:

"The Election Integrity Project, although it defines itself as non-partisan, operates as a platform for the conservative Heritage Foundation, the right wing Breitbart.com, and the Tea Party groups True the Vote and the non-profit iCaucus.  Their website raises the ubiquitous fearful specter of  voter fraud; their intent is to police the act of voting itself, to assure that “every lawfully cast vote [is] accurately counted.”

Bonnie Lanyon's Twitter bio identifies her as 2nd VP of San Bernardino County Republican Women. The website of the Hi-Desert Republican Women, Federated identifies her as their Campaign Chair.  

Gloria Massey-Chinea spoke to the Conejo Valley Republican Women, and at the first meeting of the Make California Great Again, Ventura County chapter.  

* * *

Speaking to Republican groups is not in and of itself proof of partisanship.  But when the majority of a group's board of trustees membership is active in the politics of only one political party; when they do not address their issues to Democratic groups, the appearance of partisanship cannot be avoided.

In this reporter's opinion, these so-called voter integrity efforts are part of a broad strategy of voter suppression.  This is the first election since a consent decree entered into by the Republican Party limited their "ballot security" operations expired in 2018.  We've seen bold efforts by Republican elected officials to limit voter access.

Proposition 22

It would be easy to leap right into a detailed discussion of the merits of redefining the rules on classifying people as employees rather than independent contractors, and I will get to that.  But there is something buried in this Proposition that makes it a non-starter in my eyes.

"After the effective date of this chapter, the Legislature may amend this chapter by a statute passed in each house of the Legislature by rollcall vote entered into the journal, seven-eights of the membership concurring, provided the statute is consistent with, and furthers the purpose of, this chapter."

There is no way I would ever vote for a proposition that can never be amended by the Legislature.  I'm shocked that this provision isn't getting more coverage in the ongoing battle between the Yes supporters and the No supporters.

* * *

The issue of people being misclassified as independent contractors versus employees is long-standing.  The 1099 form was initially created in 1917.  In the early 2000s, I taught a continuing education class on the subject during the off-season.  Like everything else involving government, there is a form.  SS-8 is the form used by someone classified as an independent contractor to request the IRS investigate and determine if they should have been classified as an employee.

This is where I have problems with taking a position against Prop 22.  I have a lot of clients who drive for Uber and/or Lyft.  They set their own schedules.  Employers set the schedules of their employees.

That doesn't mean that people who are employees should be intentionally misclassified as independent contractors just to make life easier for the people who employ them.  It's been a long time but I remember one specific client case that makes this point well.  The client was a legal secretary.  The employer was a lawyer who was a solo practitioner.  The lawyer set the secretary's work schedule.  All work was done in the lawyer's office.  The lawyer supplied all of the supplies and equipment.

After 3 years of this, the lawyer let the legal secretary go.  Without notice.  No unemployment benefits for independent contractors.  So the client submitted that previously mentioned Form SS-8.  And the IRS ruled that my client had been misclassified as an independent contractor.  The lawyer had to pay all of their unpaid employer tax obligations, along with a big fine.  No one wins in such a situation.

Uber and Lyft should be providing better benefits to their drivers.  AB5 wasn't the answer.  Neither is Prop 22.