November 2020 Endorsements

Prop 14 - Stem cell research funding - No

2004's Proposition 71 established a fund to support stem cell research in California using $3 billion in bonds. This year's Prop 14 seeks to extend the program with $5.5 billion in additional bonds.

The original initiative was passed a few years before we started this group, but I have a feeling we would have voted for it. It was starting new research programs which involved new construction and the creation of new infrastructure. And Prop 71 was in response to the Bush administration's refusal to support stem cell research on religious grounds, even though many felt it held great potential. It was an unusual move, as scientific research funding is usually the domain of the federal government, not individual states.

We still like stem cell research and are fine with the program continuing, but see no reason it should be done with bonds. In fact, the money from Prop 71 has still not been fully spent and the organization that controls the fund, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, still has 35 full-time employees. Even more unusual, Prop 14 spreads the bond purchases over 11 years, acquiring $540 million in debt per year. So why is this using bonds again? Just put $540 million directly into the program and skip the bond process.

Aside from the bonds issue, these initiatives tie the hands of legislators, forcing them to spend money a certain way and we are generally against that, especially when a certain virus is wrecking havoc with our economy and tax revenues are way down. A few of us like stem cells enough that we want to force the hands of legislators and secure the funding, but most of us were unwilling.

Prop 15 - Repeal Prop 13 for commercial real estate - Yes

To be frank, our group despises 1978's Proposition 13, the notorious initiative that fixed property taxes to the most recent accessed value, which in many cases was determined decades ago when the property was last sold. It probably sounded good at the time, the idea of not "taxing people out of their homes," but the unintended consequences have been huge. More on that later.

Prop 15 undoes the initiative-that-shall-not-be-named for commercial property, which would hereafter be taxed at its current market value. It makes an exception when someone owns less than $3 million in commercial property, which would probably be a typical storefront.

Sounds good to us. Someday we hope to repeal the rest.

Prop 16 - Allow affirmative action again - Yes

1996's Prop 209 effectively banned affirmative action from state-run entities. It reads, "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting."

Prop 209 was controversial in its time, but it has resisted attempts to repeal it until the recent Black Lives Matter protests brought the issue to the forefront again. Prop 16 will simply remove the text Prop 209 added to the California constitution.

The various pros and cons of affirmative action have been discussed widely in America for years, so there's little need to repeat them here. With one exception, our group was all in favor of bringing it back.

Prop 17 - Allow parolees to vote - Yes

California currently restores the right to vote to those sentenced to time state prison after they have completed their full prison terms. Many prisoners are released early on parole, but they are still not eligible to vote until their parole is over.

Prop 17 would allow parolees to vote. We already think prison sentences are a bit too long, so we're in favor of this gesture to speed their path back to full citizenship.

Prop 18 - Primary voting for 17-year-olds - Yes

Prop 18 allows 17-year-olds to vote in the primary election if they will be 18 by the date of the general election.

A few of us were against Prop 18 for a variety of reasons. Primaries are really about the party, so why should an innocent babe have a say in it? Or since there's always going to be those who fall short of any cutoff we set, what's the point of setting the cutoff a few months earlier? Or why are we being asked to vote on something like this?

But the majority were in favor.

Prop 19 - Slight Prop 13 loosening for residential real estate - Yes

And we're back to Prop 13, which significantly deprives school districts of tax revenue, but at least that was an intended consequence. The unintended consequence of Prop 13 is that it has severely distorted the housing market by flipping the incentive structure. As an area (perhaps the Bay Area) draws more people, current residents are incentivized to stay in their current homes and prevent new houses from being built, pushing housing prices for new arrivals into the stratosphere. We wish this were about repealing Prop 13, but it's not.

Under Prop 13, homeowners can move to another property in the same county at the same price and keep their sweet tax deal. Prop 19 loosens the rules a bit, letting people buy more expensive houses in other counties, and they will pay taxes on the price difference. This may encourage some people to move out of the more high-demand areas, making room for new people who will pay a normal amount of taxes. Good.

Under the current law, the children of someone with the sweet tax deal get to inherit the deal along with the house, so the property taxes don't go up even after death of the owner, even if the next generation is renting it out as an investment property (so not being "taxed out of their home"). Under Prop 19, the inheritor has to live in the house to keep the deal, so that's something.

So we're all for Prop 19, but hope to someday do much more to dismantle Prop 13.

Prop 20 - Tough on crime - No

Prop 20 will reduce the number of crimes eligible for parole, re-classify many crimes from misdemeanors to felonies, and require the collection of DNA samples for certain misdemeanors.

Prop 20 feels like something straight out of the 1990s "Tough on Crime" era. It rolls back earlier initiatives we supported that lowered sentences (2014's Prop 47) and allowed parole for non-violent offenders (2016's Prop 57). Did a Texas ballot initiative get printed on the California ballot by mistake?

So no.

Prop 21 - Rent control expansion - Yes

The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995 is a statewide law prohibiting rent control on any property completed after February 1, 1995. Prop 10 from 2018 would have allowed cities to put rent control back if they chose to, but it failed. But then the legislature passed AB 1482, which caps rent raises to 5% plus inflation for apartment buildings over 15 years old, so now some form of rent control is widespread throughout California.

Prop 21 would expand on that a bit, allowing a city to limit rent increases even more. Cities could also prevent a landlord from raising the price of a unit when it changes hands, limiting them to 15% per year for three years after the new tenant moves in.

While one member of our group pointed out that economists universally loathe rent control, saying it actually hurts the people it claims to help, the rest of us think there are legitimate reasons for a city to have rent control. Unlike AB 1482, Prop 21 only gives a city permission to implement rent control, it does not force it upon them.

Prop 22 - Keep Uber and Lyft drivers independent contractors - No

The 2018 Dynamex decision by the California Supreme Court set up the "ABC Test" to determine if a worker could be classified as an independent contractor instead of an employee. It was codified into law with AB 5, and then amended to exempt a number of different professions in AB 2257. One of the professions specifically not exempted were drivers for app-based services like Uber and Lyft, who then crafted Prop 22.

An Uber driver reclassified as an employee would enjoy the benefits of guaranteed minimum wage, worker's comp, health care, and standard work schedule, etc. Payroll taxes would also be collected for each employee. On one hand, some drivers say they enjoy the flexibility being an occasional independent contractor provides. On the other hand, 70% of them work 30 hours or more per week.

Some members of our group thought such a change would drastically affect the Uber and Lyft service and/or price. (The companies were threatening to abandon the California market until a temporary reprieve from AB 5 was granted.) Other group members thought the changes would be minor, but the worker benefits would be huge. Still others thought rather than speculate about what the consequences would be, AB 5 should be tried and later altered by the legislature if need be—voting this in as an initiative means only another initiative can undo it.

Prop 23 - Dialysis clinic regulations - Split

Approximately 80,000 patients in California with kidney disease get treated three times per week at a chronic dialysis clinic, as opposed to a hospital. The clinics are generally for-profit companies who charge more than the hospital, but the majority of patients make a plan with their doctor to use a clinic, perhaps because they are more convenient.

Dialysis clinics are already regulated by the California Department of Public Health, but Prop 23 would add some additional regulations, such as requiring them to have a doctor present at all times. The regulations would make running the clinics more expensive.

Prop 23 is in some ways similar to 2018's Prop 8, and is backed by the same organization, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). In both cases, their motivation appears to be to punishing or eliminating dialysis clinics, whose workers are not unionized. They want patients go to union-run hospitals.

In 2018 our members rejected Prop 8, not wanting to get involved with a union dispute, even if there may be good reasons to dislike the clinics. This time we were evenly split, so we have no endorsement.

Prop 24 - Consumer privacy laws - No

California already has various rules around the treatment of your personal information, but Prop 24 would alter them. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the new regulations are neither stronger nor weaker than what currently exists, just…different.

So maybe it would be a toss-up to support Prop 24, except by setting the law in place with an initiative, only another initiative could repeal it. Digital privacy is a relatively new legal area, constantly changing. We don't think it would be wise to set anything in stone instead of having the legislature continue to mold the laws as needed.

Prop 25 - Ending cash bail - Yes

The California State Senate passed a bill to end cash bail, SB 10, in August 2018. But the California constitution allows the public to subject any law to a public referendum, so here we are. Apparently the bail bonds industry led the charge, seeing as their industry was on the verge of becoming obsolete.

We don't like the idea of one's bank balance determining whether or not they will remain free until trial, so we are fans of SB 10. Also not really fans of the bail bonds industry.

Some say the algorithm used to determine if someone can go free is racially biased, but we think that particular injustice can be fixed as we end the bigger injustice of cash bail.

Results

Prop 14 - Yes
Prop 15 - No
Prop 16 - No
Prop 17 - Yes
Prop 18 - No
Prop 19 - Yes
Prop 20 - No
Prop 21 - No
Prop 22 - Yes
Prop 23 - No
Prop 24 - Yes
Prop 25 - No

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?