November 2018 Endorsements

Prop 1 - Bonds for low-income housing - No

We were really torn about this one. On one hand it wants to do a lot of very good things, many of which involve building, which makes it seem like a good use of bonds. But then again this is the kind of building that should be ongoing, in the budget every year. In fact, it used to be in the budget every years as a duty of the California Redevelopment Agency.

Oh, but there are things to like about Prop 1. It helps veterans get loans to buy houses, which they will pay back with some interest. It lets local governments set their definition of what constitutes low-income housing. It encourages building near public transit. And it tries to make the whole housing market more affordable the only way that could actually work: by increasing the supply.

Crap, so much to like, but there’s this whole bond thing. Our group voted narrowly against, but can understand if you want to vote for this. Heck, Californians seem to vote in favor of all other bonds, Prop 1 will probably be no different.


Prop 2 - Build housing for mental health services - Yes

This would authorize the use of money from the Mental Health Services Act of 2004 to be used to build housing for its patients. The Legislature created the No Place Like Home program in 2016 to do this, but the courts are trying to decide if housing is a legal use of the Mental Health Services Act money. Passing Prop 2 would send it straight through.

The housing would be built with $2 billion in bonds, payments coming from Mental Health Services Act revenues, which we hear are underutilized anyway. We think this is a reasonable (if not perfect) use of bonds. We think that housing a mentally ill person or someone teetering toward the abyss can be a great tool toward stabilizing them, so we are in favor.


Prop 3 - Water bond - No

Hey look at that, another water bond, strikingly similar the the one voters passed (of course) just five months ago, or the other one they passed four years ago. We were against the recent one for our standard bond reasons, so naturally we’re against this one as well. I mean, come on, how many water bonds do you really need before it becomes obvious this should be in the regular budget?

Supposedly this is a “pay-to-play” bond, where the backers are the various contractors who would get paid to build this projects. Some of the money would go to projects on private land. No, no, no.


Prop 4 - Children’s hospitals bond - No

OK, here’s where our bond stance is really going to make us look heartless. In a way, an argument against this $1.5 billion bond is that it’s too low. The bond payments would be $80 million per year, while this year California had a budget of $201 billion. And a lot of the money in this thing would go toward maintenance…of private hospitals…whose CEOs make over $1 million per year. These private non-profit hospitals are typically supported by charity, and we think that’s a good model. One of us didn’t have the heart to turn the children down, but the rest of us kept a stiff upper lip.


Prop 5 - Property tax transfer requirements - No

Prop 13 in 1978 limited the amount by which property taxes could increase if the owner didn’t move or perform any major construction. The result is that in a neighborhood where market values have greatly increased over time, newer home owners will pay much more property tax than the old-timers. This prevents longtime residents from getting taxed out of their homes (so they often will never move), but it also means substantially less taxes are collected. Property taxes are the bedrock of public school funding. We have mostly negative feelings about Prop 13.

Prop 13 does allow for someone to move once and keep their low tax if they move within the same county to a home of equal or lesser value. Prop 5 would get rid of those limitations, letting anyone over 55 move anywhere in the state to a home of any value, and still pay the same property tax.

This sounds like a bad idea to us. If someone can afford to buy a more expensive home, they can afford to pay taxes. If Prop 5 only got rid of the requirement that the homeowner stay in the same county, we would be in favor of it in order to free up space in high-demand areas. But if you’re upgrading to a bigger home, you should be ready to pay some bigger taxes.

On the other hand, we’re caught in a game of chicken, a big unintended consequence of Prop 13. Homeowners in a high-demand area may want to move, but don’t want to lose their great tax deal. We want them to move but aren’t willing to let them transfer it. By sticking to our guns, maybe we’re just hurting ourselves and not freeing up any of that housing. Either way we’re not getting that tax money, unless you think you can get the voters to overturn Prop 13 someday. It’s not fair, but maybe Prop 5 will at least loosen the housing market a little.

Apparently Prop 5 is the work of a group who stands to benefit greatly from the change: realtors. They feel like Prop 13 keeps people from buying new, expensive homes, so it prevents them from getting commissions on those sales. To us that sounds like another reason to repeal Prop 13, not expand its reach.


Prop 6 - Repeal gas tax - No

This would repeal a 2017 gasoline tax approved by the legislature (with a two-thirds vote). The tax pays for roads and public transportation.

We love this tax! It pays for the right things. Oh, but it makes gas more expensive. We love expensive gas! Sell your SUV.

So, no.


Prop 7 - Daylight Saving Time - No

California conforms to the federal government’s definition of Daylight Saving Time due to an initiative passed in 1949. Prop 7 would undo that initiative, putting the decision back into the hands of the legislature, including the ability to opt for year-round daylight saving time (if the federal government approves). Apparently a large number of people favor year-round DST, so it is assumed the legislature would pursue that.

Is this initiative about putting control in the hands of the legislature, or is it more of a referendum on weather the public wants to change their clocks or not? We decided to treat it as a referendum. As we are mostly in favor in keeping DST the way it is, the majority of us voted no.

One thing that is certain is your faithful author likes to talk about this subject about 100 times more than anyone else, and so he will use his authorial privilege to do a deeper dive on the subject down below.


Prop 8 - Kidney dialysis clinic price regulation - No

Californians needing kidney dialysis treatment three times per week can visit a hospital or be treated in their homes, but most of them, roughly 80,000 patients, visit one of 588 dialysis clinics, usually for-profit companies with a combined annual revenue of $3 billion. These clinics cost more to visit than a hospital, but for some reason the majority of patients use clinics and private health plans are willing to pay for them. Perhaps they offer better service, or are more convenient? We’re not sure.

One thing we do know is that these dialysis clinics are generally not unionized, and that appears to be the real motivation behind this initiative, which was put on the ballot by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Prop 8 would put a cap on the overhead (including profits) dialysis companies are allowed to have, limiting them to 15% where they typically earn closer to 21%. Ostensibly this hopes to reduce costs and/or encourage the clinics to invest in equipment and staff, but really the goal is to hurt these non-union companies financially.

While there may be reasons not to like these clinics and we generally support unionized labor, we don’t think an initiative like this is the place to wage a union vs. non-union labor dispute. If passed, dialysis patients would be caught in the crossfire, potentially suffering reduced access to services and reduced quality of service, a service they desperately need. We would prefer the legislature regulate clinics in a more precise way. Leave us out of it.


Prop 10 - Rent control expansion - Yes

The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995 is a statewide law limiting what kinds of properties can be subject to rent control. Rent control prevents landlords from raising the rent from year to year beyond a small inflation adjustment. Among the Costa-Hawkins restrictions is that no housing built after the passage of the law can be rent controlled, even if the surrounding community would like it to be. It serves the interests of landlords operating in a city like San Francisco who might be subject to rent control otherwise.

Prop 10 repeals the Costa-Hawkins limits, allowing cities to enact rent control if they choose to. Our endorsement of Prop 10 isn't about if rent control is good or bad, it's about who should be making that decision. We believe each city should be free to weigh the pros and cons, and make the decision that is best for their community. San Francisco (4th largest city in CA) has very different needs than Fresno (5th largest).

Economists universally dislike rent control because they believe it distorts markets and leads to a weaker economy overall, but the decision to impose rent control is usually cultural—the desire to have some cultural continuity in a city that might be going through economic upheaval. Then again, if you destroy your economy, your culture probably won't be too great either. We think each municipality should be able to make its own cultural decisions, but if you thought rent control was going to bring about a statewide economic collapse, that would be a good reason to vote No on Prop 10.

BTW, we find it pretty ironic that the California Republican Party opposes this. Whatever happened to small government? I guess not when there’s big money at stake.


Prop 11 - Private-sector ambulance driver breaks - Yes

Like police officers and firefighters, ambulance drivers are always on-call, even when taking a break for a meal or something. In a recent case, Augustus v. ABM Security Services, the California Supreme Court decided it was a violation of labor law for an employee to be on-call during breaks, and this likely would apply to the 75% of ambulance drivers who are private-sector employees.

Prop 11 would make an exception in the labor law for ambulance drivers and absolve their employers of past wrongdoings. While we are always on the side of the working man and don’t think companies who were breaking the law should get off scott-free, we think the on-call situation is industry-standard for this type of work and this was basically an honest mistake by the ambulance companies. We note that there is no argument against Prop 11 in the voter guide. A couple of us were not completely sure, but overall we voted Yes.


Prop 12 - Standards for animal confinement - Yes

What a blast from the past, during our very first one of these meetings in 2008 we discussed Prop 2, which created new standards for storing animals at a factory farm. We were split at the time: we like animals, but were cautious about increasing the price of food while decreasing farmers’ taxable income and requiring money for enforcement.

Prop 12 makes Prop 2’s regulations more specific and what a difference 10 years makes: we are now all in favor of it (also, a reality TV star is President). Prop 12 is maybe something of a government overreach and it would be better if this were done in the legislature (as with all Propositions). It will raise the cost (but also quality) of meat somewhat but we think that’s fine, people can eat less meat.



Whoa, Diane Feinstein is actually campaigning a little, and debating for the first time in almost two decades! As usual, Nancy Pelosi will not be debating (or even acknowledging) her opponent.


Results

Prop 1 - Yes
Prop 2 - Yes
Prop 3 - No
Prop 4 - Yes
Prop 5 - No
Prop 6 - No
Prop 7 - Yes
Prop 8 - No
Prop 10 - No
Prop 11 - Yes
Prop 12 - Yes


TL;DR on Prop 7 - Daylight Saving Time

Note: What follows is not the opinion our whole group, just the secretary.

When considering Prop 7, there are really two different issues at play. First, should the legislature be in charge of deciding to stick with DST or should the initiative process be used? Second, do we want to keep the current DST system or switch to something else?

Our Feelings About Bonds

This group has a stance on bonds that seems common sense to us, but does not appear to be shared by many of our fellow Californians. While the majority of bond initiatives are passed by California voters, we usually vote against. It’s not that we’re against bonds in general, we’re simply against irresponsible bonds.

Some people seem to forget that a bond is a loan. It makes sense for you to take out a loan to buy a house, but it would be irresponsible to use one to pay the electric bill. Similarly, we’re fine using a bond to build a bridge, not fine using one to maintain a bridge. The former is a large one-time expense that a bond allows you to spread across many years, while the latter is an ongoing expense that should be part of the budget every year.

A bond is appealing if you think of it as free money, less appealing if you think of it as a way to nearly double the price of something (with the extra money going to bond purchasers, who are typically wealthy). Returning to the bridge example, the alternative to using a bond would be to save money for many years (not that government has shown any ability to save) and then finally build the bridge when you have enough. A bond lets you actually use the bridge during those years, which is arguably worth the cost of the interest you pay. Sometimes an initiative even identifies the source of the money that will be used to pay off a bond, like if you collected bridge tolls. Now, that’s a bond we could really get behind.

But more often than not, bond initiatives are maintenance-type projects that should be in the regular budget, and so we vote against them. Or frequently a proposition pays for something like building low income housing for bullied kids with cancer. Since we’re talking about building something, that sounds like the kind of bond we would support…except that in a state as large as California, low income housing needs to be built every year, so that too should be part of the regular budget. We’re not heartless, we want to help those kids too! We just want to do it responsibly. If there’s no room in the budget, cut something or create a new tax. That we would vote for.

So, to summarize: kids good, bonds (often) bad.