On Nov. 6, voters will weigh 11 state ballot propositions that, on their face, sound no more or less crazy than usual for a California ballot.
There is a high-profile fight over the gas tax and four (!) propositions about housing. Other major proposals would put money toward water conservation and hospital construction.
But, as ever, 2018 also will include propositions that seem aimed at narrower audiences.
Should ambulance drivers be on call during meal breaks? It’s on the ballot. Should farm animals live in bigger pens and cages before they’re slaughtered? On it. Should California be allowed to consider Daylight Savings Time year round? It’s there, too.
Political buffets like this are nothing new in California. Since 1912, when the state first began to allow initiatives, voters have weighed 1,253 propositions, including 420 launched by fellow Californians.
Here’s a non-partisan look at the propositions up for consideration Nov. 6. (Note: There was a Prop 9, which addressed the question of splitting California into three states, but the California Supreme Court ruled in July that it be removed from the ballot. It could appear on a future ballot.) We will publish part two of this article tomorrow to round out the rest of the propositions on the mid-term election.
Proposition 1
Want to spend $4 billion to help veterans and low-income Californians get access to home loans and lower-cost housing? That’s the question posed by the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act.
Supporters argue the chronic shortage of affordable housing in California is a long-term drag on future economic growth and any step toward fixing it – even one that would be only a partial salve, such as Prop. 1 – is a good idea.
Opponents say Prop. 1 is yet another instance of California diving into long-term debt to solve a current problem, noting that taxpayers would be on the hook for $170 million a year for 35 years.
Proposition 2
A yes vote on Prop. 2 – also known as the There’s No Place Like Home act – would aim $2 billion to help stave off homelessness among people in need of mental health care.
The money, a revenue bond, would come out of the so-called “millionaire tax” approved by voters in 2004, which takes 1 percent from incomes of $1 million and up and uses it for services and programs for the mentally ill. Because Prop. 2 would divert some of that money to house the mentally ill, rather than provide them with services or programs, it requires voter approval.
Advocates for the mentally ill can be found among both supporters and opponents of Prop. 2.
Supporters argue that it would produce as many as 20,000 permanent homes, not enough to house everybody who is homeless and mentally ill but a strong start. They also point out that, by reducing the number of mentally ill people on the streets, taxpayers will spend less on everything from police to ambulance services.
Opponents want the money to be spent on treatment and other services, not housing. They believe lawmakers will use some Prop. 2 money for purposes other than helping the homeless, and that developers will take advantage of the funding. They also point out that Prop. 2 does nothing to prevent cities from refusing to accept housing for the mentally ill, a key roadblock to the broader goal.
Proposition 3
Prop. 3 would authorize the state to sell $8.9 billion in bonds to pay for water recycling, conservation, storm water capture, groundwater storage and projects to improve fisheries and protect and restore key habitat. It would fund restoration of the Los Angeles River, Lake Tahoe and wetlands in San Francisco Bay, along with some of the costs of repairing Oroville Dam. But it would not pay to construct new dams or build Gov. Jerry Brown’s controversial Delta tunnels project.
Supporters say California needs to be better prepared for droughts. Voters in June approved $4.1 billion for water and parks projects, but this is aimed at different situations and projects.
Opponents argue that Prop. 3 has been created by the very groups that figure to benefit from the spending, particularly Central Valley farmers. They add that while the water and environmental issues addressed in Prop. 3 do warrant attention, the “pay-to-play” way that its backers put it on the ballot (some donors to the campaign suggested which projects should be included) is flawed.
The average annual cost to the state budget over the 40-year life of the Prop. 3 bond would be $433 million.
Proposition 4
The Children’s Hospital Bonds Initiative would authorize $1.5 billion for renovations and expansions at several pediatric hospitals, including five connected to the University of California system – Davis, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Irvine and San Diego.
Supporters say a handful of hospitals handle the bulk of pediatric hospitalizations in California, about 2 million a year, and many of those young patients aren’t fully insured. That makes it tough for those hospitals to finance improvements, including advances in medical technologies.
Opponents point out that the proposal would add to the state’s bond debt. Prop. 4 specifically would be repaid at an average annual rate of $84 million a year for 35 years.
Proposition 5
The Property Tax Transfer Initiative would adjust the best-known property tax measure in state history – Prop. 13, which passed in 1978 – to allow a bigger pool of older people who sell their houses to keep their Prop. 13-level tax rates, meaning they could move without facing a huge jump in taxes.
But the shift could come at a cost to taxpayers of up to $1 billion a year in lost revenues, resulting in potential cuts to everything from schools and police services to parks and roads.
Technically, Prop. 5 would allow home buyers age 55 and older (as well as those who are severely disabled) to keep their Prop. 13 tax rates no matter how much they’re paying for their new house, where that house is in the state, or how many times they move. As of now, Prop. 13 puts limits on all of those conditions, creating what is widely called the “moving penalty” for older buyers and sellers.
Supporters of Prop. 5 suggest the adjustment does what Prop. 13 initially intended – eliminates huge tax obligations for people on fixed incomes. They say older people selling homes will spur the overall market, something that would help, among others, entry-level buyers.
Opponents suggest Prop. 5 is a windfall for the real estate industry and home sellers that will be financed by taxpayers, school kids and others. They also say that most of the buyers and sellers touched by the “moving penalty” are cashing in on gains in property values, making Prop. 5 a needless gift for the already well-to-do.
Proposition 6
The SB1 gas tax was passed a year ago, by state legislators, as a way to finance road and freeway expansions and repairs. It’s a big tax – adding more than 12 cents to the price of a gallon of gas and raising registration fees by an average of $50 per vehicle – that’s projected to generate a big amount of money, more than $54 billion, over the next decade.
Given all that, the outcome of Prop. 6 – known as the Voter Approval for Future Gas and Vehicle Taxes and 2017 Tax Repeal Initiative – has big implications.
If approved, Prop. 6 would end the SB1 portion of the taxes you pay at the pump and put more than $5 billion a year back into drivers’ wallets. It also could end many of the hundreds of road projects already financed by SB1 and defund many more future projects. All of those projects are expected to generate tens of thousands of jobs and related economic growth.
If Prop. 6 is defeated, SB1 would stay in place. The money it generates would help finance a statewide transportation building boom that figures to last through any economic cycles of the next decade.
Supporters say passage of Prop. 6 would lower gas prices immediately. They also point out that the tax is regressive, with poor people paying a greater share of their income than the wealthy pay. Supporters also argue that the state can finance road construction without SB1, by pulling money from other projects and programs.
Prop. 6 opponents say California has some of the worst roads and bridges in the country and that upgrading them is a necessity, not an option. They say the 6,500 projects connected to SB1 are essential for future economic development, and they disagree that existing money could finance those projects.
Proposition 7
Do you like Daylight Savings Time, the time system we use in much of spring, all of summer and part of fall? Prop. 7, if passed, would allow California to consider using Daylight Savings Time year round if such a switch is ever allowed by federal law.
Just to be clear, Prop. 7 would not lead to longer days in winter. California voters, powerful as they are, cannot change the shape or size of the earth or its distance from the sun.
Supporters point out many benefits to switching to Daylight Savings Time, full-time, from fewer heart attacks to energy reductions that could save $434 million a year statewide.
Opponents say the current time system allows standard work and school days to start in sunlight, not pre-dawn, noting that sunrise in Southern California would be close to 8 a.m. during the shortest days of the year if Daylight Savings Time were in effect year round. They say the current system is safer for school-age children and reduces the number of accidents connected to morning commutes.
