California and San Diego Initiatives
Statewide Initiatives
Prop 1: Housing Programs and Veterans’ Loans Bond
$4 billion in general obligation bonds for housing-related programs, loans, grants and projects and housing loans for veterans
NO
Argument: Although they say this will provide affordable housing with no tax increase, it will cost the state $170 million per year over 35 years in annual interest payments which will need to come from somewhere. We are still paying for the 2006 ballot initiative, Proposition 1C, which said it would build affordable housing, yet housing is no more affordable today than it was 12 years ago. This initiative will be just another bond measure that will add to the state’s increasing and unsustainable, unfunded liabilities.
Prop 2: Use Millionaire’s Tax Revenue for Homelessness Prevention Housing Bonds Measure
Authorizes the state to use revenue from Proposition 63 (2004)—a 1 percent tax on income above $1 million for mental health services—on $2 billion in revenue bonds for homelessness prevention housing for persons in need of mental health services.
NO
Argument: Although it’s stated that there would be no fiscal impact as $120 million per year would be directed from the 1% millionaire’s tax, the end result would be that the Proposition 63 revenues that had been dedicated to county mental health services would be redirected to debt servicing of this bond. Further, although revenue from the Proposition 63 tax increase can currently pay for this liability, if the economy shifts then it will mean cutting these services and the $120 million a year will need to come out of the general fund.
Prop 3: California Water Infrastructure and Watershed Conservation Bond Initiative
Authorize $8.877 billion in general obligation bonds for water infrastructure, groundwater supplies and storage, surface water storage and dam repairs, watershed and fisheries improvements, and habitat protection and restoration.
NO
Argument: Since 2006 there has been $20.478 billion in bonds approved for water infrastructure and according to the State Treasurer in August 2018 there are still $7.1 billion in bonds that haven’t been issued. There have been no notable improvements in that time period with money still available, and there is no reason that the State of California should be saddled with another $8.877 billion in unfunded liabilities. Further, although part of the funds from this bond will go toward groundwater storage and water recycling, about half the money is earmarked for low priority uses like watershed land improvements, fish and wildlife habitat and flood protection.
Prop 4: Children’s Hospital Bonds Initiative
Authorizes $1.5 billion in bonds for the construction, expansion, renovation, and equipping of children’s hospitals in California.
NO
Argument: Although the operators of 13 pediatric hospitals in California contend they need infrastructure investment to keep up with the demand for specialized procedures they offer to children with life-threatening conditions, this measure will add another $1.5 billion to the state’s unsustainable debt and would add an addition $80 million in interest to be paid over the next 35 years. In addition, although the children’s hospitals and medical facilities that would benefit from this money are non-profit organizations, the combined net income of the 13 hospitals is $276 million with over $4.6 billion in net assets which could easily be used for the necessary improvements
Prop 5: Property Tax Transfer Initiative
Amends Proposition 13 (1978) to allow homebuyers who are age 55 or older or severely disabled to transfer their tax assessments, with a possible adjustment, from their prior home to their new home, no matter (a) the new home’s market value; (b) the new home’s location in the state; or (c) the buyer’s number of moves.
YES
Argument: Proposition 13 was originally passed so that homeowners that bought property at a lower price weren’t suddenly saddled with increased taxes as the property appreciated in value. Since then Proposition 60 was passed in 1986 which allows homeowners 55 and older to move to another property, as their needs change, at that same lower tax rates that Proposition 13 created, so long as the move is to a property of lesser or equal value, was in the same county and was limited to a one time more. Proposition 5 will expand the ability to people 55 or older or severely disabled to be able to take advantage of this benefit regardless of where they move within the state. This means many homeowners will finally be able to access the equity in their homes to purchase a replacement property, and maintain the low tax assessment they have enjoyed previously.
Prop 6: Voter Approval for Future Gas and Vehicle Taxes and 2017 Tax Repeal Initiative
Repeals fuel tax increases and vehicle fees that were enacted in 2017, including the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (RRAA) and requires voter approval (via ballot propositions) for the California State Legislature to impose, increase, or extend fuel taxes or vehicle fees in the future.
YES
Argument: Proposition 6 would repeal all gas and fuel taxes enacted by the California legislature since January 1, 2017, and would require voter approval for any fuel tax or vehicle fee increases in the future. California needs to learn to spend its money more wisely and if any future tax increases need to be approved by the voters, the state legislators may find it easier to just tighten their fiscal belt.
Prop 7: Permanent Daylight Saving Time Measure
Allows the California State Legislature to establish permanent, year-round daylight saving time (DST) in California by a two-thirds vote if federal law is changed to allow for permanent DST.
No Position
Argument: The arguments in favor of approving this initiative are that although permanent Daylight Saving Time would desynchronize California from certain states, it would place it in sync with Arizona. In addition it’s argued that changing the time wastes energy and jeopardizes public health as research has shown an increase in strokes, heart attacks and accidents following the time changes.
The arguments in opposition of this initiative are that it would desynchronize California from certain states and mean that the time differences between different states would vary during the year. They also argue that Californians would wake up in the dark during the winter.
Prop 8: Limits on Dialysis Clinics’ Revenue and Required Refunds Initiative
Requires dialysis clinics to issue refunds to patients or patients’ payers for revenue above 115 percent of the the costs of direct patient care and healthcare improvements.
NO
Argument: While seemingly well-intentioned, price controls in Proposition 8 will cause many dialysis facilities to operate at a loss which will likely mean that clinics will close reducing access to dialysis care. In addition, if dialysis firms earn revenues exceeding 115 percent of qualifying costs in any year, they will be required to rebate the excess to private providers, not government programs. The high cost of health care is already due to government interventions and this proposition will ultimately lead to even higher costs.
Prop 10: Local Rent Control Initiative
Allows local governments to adopt rent control, repealing the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act.
NO
Argument: Rent Control deters the development of new rental units and instead incentivizes developers to build condos which are out of reach for most moderate to low income Californians. And although rent control offers savings to current renters, it also reduces landlords’ incentives to maintain their properties. In many areas with strict rent regulations, these restrictions can contribute to neighborhood decline. The majority of economists agree that rent controls hurt the very people they are aimed at helping.
Prop 11: Ambulance Employees Paid On-Call Breaks, Training, and Mental Health Services Initiative
Allows ambulance providers to require workers to remain on-call during breaks paid at their regular rate; Requires employers to provide additional training for EMTs and paramedics; and Requires employers to provide EMTs and paramedics with some paid mental health services.
NO
Argument: EMTs have traditionally been on-call during their breaks because it’s cost prohibitive to have another full ambulance crew come on duty to cover them during a break if an emergency call comes in. But in 2016 the California Supreme Court ruled that the state law intended to protect general workers break periods also applied to EMTs. The private ambulance industry can’t make this work without substantial cost increases which present problems for the emergency response systems. If this initiative had simply corrected the problem caused by the 2016 court ruling by exempting EMT companies and leaving it up to the free market, we could have supported it. However rather than just fixing a problem it also includes requiring private companies to offer more unneeded benefits and training.
Prop 12: Farm Animal Confinement Initiative
Bans the sale of meat and eggs from calves raised for veal, breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens confined in areas below a specific number of square feet.
NO
Argument: Looking closely at this one you will find that voters already passed prop 2 and were told by both sides of the debate that its passage would ban egg-industry cages statewide by 2015. Instead, the state’s egg industry merely invested in new cages and modified old ones. Prop 2 does at least say that hens be given enough room to: “…fully spread both wings without touching the side of an enclosure or other egg-laying hens”. Proposition 12 would repeal this voter-enacted law and allow egg factories to give each hen only ONE SQUARE FOOT of cage or floor space. Think about how much space that is per bird. This cruel and unethical space allotment (one square foot per hen) is an outright betrayal of farm animals and California voters. And it’s precisely why Central Valley Eggs, the largest factory-farm complex ever to be built in California, actively supports this rotten initiative. Peta has also voted NO on prop 12 (https://prime.peta.org/2018/11/why-peta-cant-support-proposition-12)
San Diego County Initiatives
Measure A: San Diego County Charter Amendments
Amends the county charter to (1) bring election timelines into state and federal compliance for mailing military and overseas ballots and (2) recognize the fire authority as an organizational unit under the chief administrative officer.
No Position
Measure B: San Diego County Board of Supervisors Representation of Unincorporated Areas
Amends the county charter to direct a redistricting committee to continue including unincorporated land in three of the five representative districts, with two districts including land permanently outside incorporated areas.
No Position
Measure C: San Diego County Pension Stabilization Funds Charter Amendment
Amends the county charter to require that pension stabilization funds be used for pension-related liabilities only and prohibiting using long-term obligations to finance existing operations or needs.
YES
Argument: Yes, if you’re going to put money in a pension, the money should stay in the pension.
Measure D: San Diego County General Election Consolidation Initiative
Requires elections for county elective offices to be held at a general election and adopting local regulations for write-in candidates.
NO
Argument: Stop messing with election systems just because you can. You don’t get to rerun elections until you get the answer you want.
Measure E: San Diego Mission Vally Stadium Lease an Redevelopment Initiative
Authorizes the city to privately lease the Mission Valley Stadium property and former San Diego Chargers practice facility for at least 99 years, allowing the current stadium to be demolished, and authorizing the construction of a new stadium.
NO
Argument: No. They should sell the property off at market rate.
Measure G: San Diego Mission Valley Stadium Sale to San Diego State University
Authorizes the sale of 132 acres of Mission Valley Stadium to San Diego State University.
NO
Argument: No. They should sell the property off at market rate.
Measure H: San Diego Term Limits for School Board Members
Enacts term limits of three four-year terms for school board members, beginning at the 2020 general election without counting prior terms.
No Position
Argument: Term limits do have some downsides, but for those comfortable with limiting the term of your representative, then vote your conscious.
Measure J: San Diego Business Interests Disclosure Charter Amendment
Requires individuals to disclose their names and identities when they have financial interests in business contracts with the city that exceed 10 percent of the contract or when they have more than a 10 percent owner interest. The measure was designed to exempt public agencies and publicly traded companies.
YES
Argument: Yes, transparency is a good thing.
Measure K: San Diego Term Limits fo City Council Members
Enacts term limits of two four-year terms for city council members.
No Position
Argument: Term limits do have some downsides, but for those comfortable with limiting the term of your representative, then vote your conscious.
Measure L: San Diego Restrictions on City Salaries, Campaigns, and Benefits
This measure would actually raise the salaries of officials, by increasing them to the salary of the highest paid officials in the state.
NO
Argument: No, they don’t need a pay raise.
Measure M: San Diego Audit Committee Appointment Charter Amendment
Allows the city council to waive a requirement to consider at least two applicants for appointment as a public member of the audit committee when the council wishes to reappoint a sitting public member who is eligible for another term.
NO
Argument: This is an opportunity rife for corruption and nepotism. A no vote.
Measure N: San Diego Reinstatement of Industrial Disability Benefit Police
Reinstates an industrial disability retirement benefit for members of the San Diego Police Officers Association who experience a violent attack at work resulting in bodily harm and a mental or nervous disorder that disables them from their duties.
NO
Argument: These pension benefits are a never-ending money pit boondogle. No
Measure O: Otay Mesa Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District Tax Increment Bonds
NO
Argument: We stand in opposition to burdening current and future tax-payers with vague obligations which guarantee future tax increases.
Measure P: Del Mar Land Use and Zoning Charter Amendment
Amends the city charter to establish maximum local control over land use and zoning.
YES
Argument: This puts limits on local governments. We support limited government.
Measure Q: Chula Vista Marijuana Business Tax
Authorizes the city to tax marijuana businesses at the following rates: 5 to 15 percent of gross receipts or $5 to $25 per square foot for cultivation.
YES
Argument: No new taxes.
Measure R: Del Mar Beachfront Property Development Regulations Amendment
Reduces development potential for beachfront properties located in the Beach Overlay Zone if parcels extend beyond the Shoreline Protection Area established by the Beach Protection Initiative.
NO
Argument: No, this restricts the freedoms of property owners.
Measure S: Santee School District Bond Issue
NO
Argument: We stand in opposition to burdening current and future tax-payers with vague obligations which guarantee future tax increases.
Measure T: Del Mar 941 Camino Del Mar Specific Plan Adoption
Replaces the Garden Del Mar Specific Plan with the 941 Camino Del Mar Specific Plan for redevelopment of the former gas station site.
YES
Argument: These plans should only even need to be put up for vote if they impose externalities to local communities. The owners of land should be allowed to build what they see fit.
Measure U: Encinitas Housing Plan Update
Replaces the 1992 housing element in the general plan and adopting the Housing Plan Update 2018.
YES
Argument: These plans should only even need to be put up for vote if they impose externalities to local communities. The owners of land should be allowed to build what they see fit.
Measure V: La Mesa Marijuana Business Tax
Authorizes the city to tax marijuana businesses at rates of up to 6 percent of gross receipts and up to $10 per square foot of cultivation.
NO
Argument: No new taxes.
Measure W: National City Rent Control
Enacts rent control in National City, including the establishment of just cause eviction regulations, rent stabilization, and a rent board.
NO
Argument: Rent control is price control. Price controls don’t work are a violation of freedom. Just say no to rent control.
Measure X: Oceanside General Sales Tax
Authorizes the city to enact a 0.5 percent sales tax for seven years to fund general city purposes.
NO
Argument: No new taxes.
Measure Y: Oceanside Voter Approval for Changes to Open Space and Agricultural Land
Requires majority voter approval for any application to change the general plan land use designation or zoning of land designated or zoned for agricultural use or open space. The measure was designed to be in effect through 2028.
NO
Arguments: California has an awful poverty crisis fueled by a vast housing shortage that drives housing costs sky-high. The last thing this state needs is further displays of “not in my back yard” NIMBYism.
Measure Z: Vista Retail Medical Marijuana Sales and Tax Initiative
Authorizes retail sales of medical marijuana for up to 11 retailers and enacting a tax of 7 percent of gross receipts.
NO
Argument: No new taxes.
Measure AA: Vista City Council Marijuana Business Tax Measure
Authorizes the city to tax marijuana businesses at the following rates: $14 per square foot; up to 8 percent on manufacturing and distribution; up to 10 percent on medicinal retail; up to 12 percent on adult-use retail; and up to 3.5 percent on testing.
NO
Arguments: No new taxes
Measure BB: Vista Medical Marijuana Delivery Retail Authorization
Allows up to three delivery-only medical marijuana retailers and two testing facilities in the city.
NO
Argument: Putting limits on numbers of businesses enables corruption and monopolies/cartels.
Measure CC: Southwest Community College District Term Limits for Governing Board Members
Limits the members of the governing board to three terms in office.
No Position
Argument: Term limits do have some downsides, but for those comfortable with limiting the term of your representative, then vote your conscious.
Remaining
NO
The remaining measures are bond and tax issues should be opposed.
Facebook Comments
