Tuesday, June 5, 2018

June 2018 Endorsements

Prop. 68 - $4 billion bond for parks and the environment - No

Look, we love parks too, but this is a great example of a bond being used to take out a loan to pay for things that should come out of the budget every year. This isn't a single massive thing like a bridge, it's hundreds or even thousands of state and local parks. Some of the money is used for maintenance, which definitely should be a regular budget thing, not a bond thing. In order to get this $4 billion now we would eventually pay $8 billion over 40 years. See our previous statements on bonds.

On the other hand, we really like parks. And fighting climate change. Perhaps more than fiscal responsibility. We really like that Prop 68 directs the money toward disadvantaged "parks poor" areas, making this a legitimate use of state-wide money.

But back to fiscal responsibility, there just seems to be no reason to do this with a bond. These projects will be done over a long period of time and California recently had a $6 billion surplus in one year. Also, Prop 68 has a laundry list of items, a list better poured over by full-time legislatures than the electorate. I mean, really, did you read the list of programs?


Prop. 69 - Transportation revenues must be used for transportation - Yes

Apparently there was a California law passed by the legislature that raised taxes and fees on gas and car registration, promising to only use that money on transportation. Except the legislature can't reserve the money for all taxes and all fees, so this prop would would cover the ones that aren't currently reserved. Sounds good to us.

One of the reasons this had to go to the ballot is because propositions are stupid. Thirty years ago, California passed a really stupid proposition that created what is known as a Gann limit—this prohibits state and local governments from spending revenue on a per person basis in excess of what was spent in 1978-79 and adjusted for inflation. All the legislature's new transportation fees would exceed this stupid Gann limit. So now here we are, thirty years later, voting on a stupid proposition because another stupid ill-thought out non-amendable proposition was stupidly passed and we have to make a carve out from the stupid Gann limit so that we can raise revenue that voters in 1988 could never comprehend (zero emission cars?). Stupid. Can we just vote on a proposition to eliminate propositions? Let the legislature legislate.


Prop. 70 - Two-thirds majority required to use cap-and-trade funds - No

This is an attempt by the minority to make it even harder for the majority to do things. Regardless of the substance (making it harder to spend environmental money, which we disagree with), no one should vote for this because it will have untold impacts forty years in the future.

Why is Jerry Brown listed as a supporter? Well, apparently he made a deal to support this initiative in order to keep the state's cap-and-trade system in place last year. OK, wink wink, hope you don't mind us voting no on this, Gov.


Prop. 71 - Effective date for ballot measures - Yes

Currently ballot measures (if successful) take effect the day after the election. Except you could have a case where an initiative was close and initially put into effect, only to be shut down when all the votes were counted and it turned out it lost. Prop 71 would instead say that the initiative takes effect 5 days after the Secretary of State certifies it. Fine, whatever.

This is the reality of the state moving towards more no excuse absentee voting. About 51% of votes are now cast by mail. This allows the County Boards of Election to count those votes.


Prop. 72 - Build rain capture systems without reassessment - Yes

This would allow people to build rain capture systems without having their property value reassessed as it usually is after any property improvement. Fine by us. We like rain. And systems. The voter guide has no arguments against.

One nice thing about Prop 72 is it uses the word "may" and leaves it up to the legislature on whether to actually implement this exclusion. If in future we need to revoke this proposition, we can without a statewide vote.

On the other hand there are quite a few properties out there in need of reassessment, but there is a greater need for water management.



Bay Area Measure 3 - Raise bridge tolls, use money for various transportation projects - Yes

Except for the zero-oversight Golden Gate Bridge, this would raise bridge tolls on the other Bay Area bridges and use the money to pay for a whole host of transportation improvements. We like that the money seems to be weighted in favor of public transit and the like, although it includes road improvements too. See, this is how you raise $4.5 billion without the use of bonds!

We do have some concern that bridge toll increases are essentially a regressive tax with greater proportional burden on the less fortunate. One member of our group, however, argues that the more deprived people in the Bay Area are typically farther from bridges, and yet they will still get their fair share of projects. We would probably prefer some sort of tax increase, but are willing to let it slide to get these projects going.


Debate update: Both Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein are up for re-election this year, but neither has agreed to participate in any primary debates. Feinstein says she will participate in a debate if there is a runoff.


Results

Prop. 68 - Yes
Prop. 69 - Yes
Prop. 70 - No
Prop. 71 - Yes
Prop. 72 - Yes
Measure 3 - Yes

Monday, June 4, 2018

June 2018 San Francisco Endorsements

Measure A - SF PUC bonds for clean power - Yes

The Public Utilities Commission can issue bonds for water and sewer projects with a 2/3 Board of Supervisors vote. Measure A would let them issue bonds for power generation too, a step toward offering an alternative to PG&E in SF. Measure A also says all power generation would have to be from green energy. Sounds good to us.


Measure B: Appointed board members forfeit positions when running for office - No

Measure B would supposedly prevent someone with power in government from taking advantage of their position when campaigning for office. Oh, but only if that person was appointed; elected incumbents are free to do this as much as they want. So if you're a city commissioner and want to run against the people who appointed you, you first have to quit your job, so maybe you just won't run. This doesn't appear to be in the interest of the electorate so much as the Board of Supervisors.


Measure C: Tax leasing of commercial space, give money to kids - No
Measure D: Tax leasing of commercial space, give money to homeless instead - No

Do you want to give money to child education programs or homeless programs? If both of these pass, only the one with the most votes goes into effect. We mostly like the sentiment behind these measures, but do not like the political gamesmanship behind them, so we'll be voting against them both.


Measure E - Prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco products - Split

Half of us don't like prohibition of various substances, even ones that could be characterized as being aimed at kids (even though you have to be 21 to buy them). The other half does like prohibition of smoking, so there you have it.


Measure F - Eviction legal defense program - Yes

If you got evicted, would you have the resources to fight it legally? Many people would not. This would spend about $5 million per year to provide that service to tenants. Given the spate of evictions in SF lately, we like this.


Measure G - $298 per year parcel tax, give money to education - Yes

OK, a modest tax with the money going to schools. Fine. But we don't think this will really do much. But fine. We like schools.


Measure H - Taser policy - No

Should the electorate be setting police policy regarding tasers at the ballot box? Probably not. But really, this is the SFPD going around their bosses (the Mayor and Board of Supervisors) to get the taser policy they want written in stone. Bad idea.


Measure I - Don't encourage sports teams to move to SF - Split

Some of us think taking the Warriors from Oakland just when they were getting good was an un-neighborly move. But then probably we should let voters decide on each specific sports team proposal, should one ever arise. Pretty sure this is non-binding anyway.


Results

Measure A - Yes
Measure B - Yes
Measure C - Yes
Measure D - No
Measure E - Yes
Measure F - Yes
Measure G - Yes
Measure H - No
Measure I - No