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?
Legislature vs. Initiative
While our group spends an abnormally large amount of time considering these initiatives, we are actually pretty disdainful of the process. Initiatives are intended to give voters a direct say in creating laws, but in practice they give big-monied interests a direct say. An initiative takes money to collect signatures to get it on the ballot, and then more money to confuse people with ads convincing them to vote for/against it. The ads are effective because most initiatives are too complex or obscure to expect the electorate the make an informed decision—that’s what we have elected representatives for! If there was an initiative to ban initiatives in California, we would be completely for it. Let the legislators legislate! We will find another excuse to get together and drink beer.
So on this basis our group should be for Prop 7, which undoes a 1949 initiative and puts the legislature back in charge. It does not change our Daylight Saving Time situation in and of itself. But…maybe this is the one time where a statewide initiative makes sense. Daylight Saving Time is not that complex of a topic, and it is one that affects each individual voter. There is not really a morally correct side of the Daylight Saving debate, it’s more a matter of personal preference. So the logical way to proceed is to simply poll the citizens and do whatever the majority wants.
Australia has an unusual standardized time situation. They have three zones of unequal size, one of which is offset 30 minutes from the others. The half of Australia closer to the equator does not participate in Daylight Saving Time, while the Southern half does. Australians are continually debating the process and have held a number of referendums on the subject. A referendum is a government-run poll that is not legally binding, but which the legislators generally act upon to serve the will of the people. California initiatives are like referendums, but they actually do have the force of law behind them. Either way, when it comes to DST, it seems a statewide vote is totally appropriate, an argument against Prop 7.
Pros and Cons of DST
Maybe we can all agree that Daylight Saving Time is a little strange. At some arbitrary time in the year we move the clocks forward, and then later move them back. The arbitrary time has been changed over the years, most recently extended in 2007. If time can be altered so readily, it hardly seems to be a standard measurement at all.
We now use DST 238 days out of the year, Standard Time for the remaining 35%, making Daylight Saving Time more standard than Standard Time. It’s done in the name of reclaiming sunlight. Days in winter are shorter, more so the farther you get from the equator. You are probably aware that the North Pole has 24 hours of daylight in Summer, non-stop darkness in Winter. At the equator, every day of the year is 12 hours long (which is why people near the equator don’t see the need for Daylight Saving Time). In the continental United States we are halfway between these two extremes.
During winter, our standard working hours are arranged so that the sun is shining during work. You can understand how important this was in the days before electric lights. As we get toward Summer, the day gets longer in both directions, both before we go to work and after we get home. But since people tend to wake up in order to go to work, those earlier hours of sunlight were being “wasted.” The obvious way to reclaim those hours would be to simply get up earlier, which would probably mean going to bed earlier. But then businesses would want to open earlier to serve the people out and about, which means many people would actually have to work earlier, their hours changing depending on the time of year. Many people’s schedules would not change, and then that unused sunlight in the morning would be made up for by turning the lights on at night. At some point an outside-the-box thinker came up with an idea for people to keep the same hours all year yet not waste the daylight: the clocks would be changed, and so we have DST.
Personally, I enjoy DST. I like to be outside, so an hour of extra sunlight is handy. But of course DST didn’t actually create that extra hour of daylight, all it did was compel me to do everything an hour earlier than I normally would. In the absence of DST I could simply alter my schedule, but I suppose I am a creature of habit like everyone else, and getting up at 9am on Saturday feels so earrrrly, 10am more reasonable. Most people have no control over when they have to be at work or school, which don’t seem inclined to change their hours over the course of the year, so DST gives them that extra hour.
So we like DST…why not have it all year long? We already use it 65% of the time, why not go to 100%? This to me is actually a little ridiculous. The entire point of DST is the switching, taking our normal routine and moving it in time. If we no longer switch, then what’s the point of being an hour off? We’re used to 9am as the start of work, but if want to permanently set the clock an hour ahead it would be just as easy to stay at Standard Time and get to work at 8am every day. Some see the 9am start as some sort of immutable law of work, but many people start work at different times, even those without flexible work schedules. Schools start at different times, even the New York Stock Exchange has changed the time of its opening bell over the years. If we can permanently alter our concept of time, we can permanently alter our schedules instead. People might say, “But I don’t want to start work at 8am!” I say, “But that’s what you’re actually doing!” Or if we’re arbitrarily moving our clocks to some future time, why stop at an hour? Think how late it would stay light if we fixed our clocks to the East Coast? Or London?
If we’re going to stop changing our clocks, we should stick with Standard Time. For me, it mostly comes down to the the guiding principle behind our timekeeping system. The sun may rise and set at different times depending on your position on the globe and the time of year, but there is one astronomical constant: the sun reaches its highest point at noon. Sailors once used this as the cornerstone of their navigation system. Many years ago every town’s time was slightly off as you traveled East to West; they stayed aligned with noon. This became a little strange with the advent of trains and train schedules, where you could travel for an hour but arrive only 45 minutes ahead on the clock. Or when the telephone was invented and you could talk to someone a few towns over, but not agree on what time it was. Time zones were soon created, with the result that the sun might not be at its highest point exactly at noon everywhere in the zone, but at least it’s close.
It just seems odd to me to permanently set our clocks an hour off, so the original definition of noon never applies. Perhaps it’s my fondness for astronomy and the workings of nature. Straying from noon seems like another part of the unreality of our times, where unscientific ideas like a flat Earth are getting more common, not less, despite the general advancement of science and access to knowledge. We are choosing to delude ourselves, holding feelings above facts. And just to be practical: do people really want the sun to rise at 8:25 in Winter? It was actually tried back in 1974, and the country decided to end the experiment early.
Some people complain that changing clocks is too hard, but have these people ever flown across time zones on an airplane, or had an early meeting? Some attribute small increases in car crashes and heart attacks to springing forward, but then wouldn’t there also be the reverse effect when we fall back? Should we be just as concerned about the dangers of flying to Colorado? Must one be suicidal to contemplate a three-time-zone cross county trip? Do meeting planners have blood on their hands? These effects are too small to be considered legitimate arguments. One more thing: Daylight Saving was never done to help farmers, who usually oppose it because the sun is their guide and DST just makes everything close earlier.
If people prefer not to change clocks anymore, I can understand that. But wanting to separate the clock from the workings of nature and human tradition is illogical to me. If Prop 7 passes, it’s likely the legislature will attempt to give us permanent DST (at least until people demand it be rolled back (if the federal government approves to begin with)). So I will be voting against Prop 7. But hey, if it passes, that won’t be the end of the world. It’s just a personal preference and I can adjust my schedule to get back into the Standard Time lifestyle.
No comments:
Post a Comment