Prop 2 would authorize $10 Billion for repair, upgrade, and construction of K-12 public schools (including charter schools) and community colleges. The debt would be paid from the General Fund.
The way things go in CA, the state is supposed to pay half the cost of new school construction, and 60% of the cost of renovations. The local district pays the remainder. Both local and state governments often borrow money for these purposes using voter-approved bonds. But there are huge inequities in the amount of funding that poor districts can raise in property taxes, so state funds have been inequitably distributed. Prop 2 takes some steps to address this, but they're only minor improvements.
It is important to remember that these funds may only be used for renovation and construction of facilities. The money may not be used to hire or retain staff, provide equipment such as computers, or deal with school budget deficits.
This is the problem with the proposition. While it is beyond dispute that poor facilities can have a negative effect on student outcomes, the reasons for plunging student test scores is probably not the leaky roof. It's the lack of staff to assist kids with greater needs, and the lack of resources for the teachers.
San Francisco Unified School District is on the verge of a state takeover due to budget deficits. Why? One reason might be that school enrollment has dropped dramatically since 2019, but the current school board has refused (until now) to close any schools.
So, at a time when school enrollment across the state is dropping, does it make sense to build new schools?
Not surprisingly, the prop is heavily backed by construction and companies. It's opposed by the dependable cranks at the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Singers.
This prop is expensive and may not do anything to improve student outcomes. However, it has been a long time since we approved a school facilities bond (we rejected a $15B school construction bond in 2020), so it's not a crazy ask either.
Your Political Friend is voting NO, or maybe YES. Both positions have merit, flip a coin.
PROP 3
While same-sex marriage has been legal in the United States for some time, many states, including California, have not recognized that fact in their state constitutions.
Prop 3 amends the state constitution to remove the words, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California", and replace them with "the right to marry is a fundamental right". That's it.
The Evangelical Christian group opposed to the change warns that the wording of the bill would "remove protections against child marriages, incest, and polygamy".
They are wrong, of course, but I thought I'd include their position to answer the obvious question you might have, "why would anyone be against this?"
Your Political Friend is voting YES.
Prop 4 would authorize $10 Billion to fund various projects to reduce the risks and impacts of climate change. Nearly half of the money would go towards water cleaning and storage projects, as well as reducing the risk of floods. The remainder would go towards wildfire prevention, land conservation, coastal protection, and energy infrastructure. At least 40 percent of the funds would be allocated to projects that provide a direct benefit to vulnerable populations or disadvantaged communities. Something for everyone.
The Prop is supported by a host of environmental orgs, and opposed by, say it with me now, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Assoc. Their argument against is actually correct - bonds are the most expensive way to pay for things because they add interest to our debt, which is already too high. They say we should only borrow money for long-term infrastructure projects, and they are, again, correct. There are a lot of projects, such as parks and farmers markets, that probably won't have much benefit to our climate resiliency (you can read the long list of recipients in the text here).
But building groundwater storage and fixing dams is long-term infrastructure. Creating climate smart agriculture and preventing wildfires is long-term infrastructure. The unfortunate fact is that our current budget deficit caused a lot of our planned climate projects to be cancelled or delayed. That is the reason that Prop 4 is on the ballot.
As I write this, hurricanes are destroying Florida. We can see that Mother Nature doesn't care about our budget, so many of these projects can't wait. If we can't pay for them now, we'll need to pay a bit more for them over time. Who know's what we'll pay if we don't prepare for a future we know is coming.
Your Political Friend is voting YES.
Prop 6 would remove wording in the state constitution that allows jails and prisons to force incarcerated people to work. Better known as "Involuntary Servitude", the requirement to work is illegal in the state except to punish crime.
The opposition rests on the argument that prison shouldn't be a vacation and "idle hands are the Devil's playground" type arguments. This may have been a valid argument years ago, but our current laws establish that a prisoner does not lose his or her right to body autonomy once incarcerated. This includes a right to refuse medical treatment, and it includes a right to refuse work.
Your Political Friend is voting YES
PROP 32 would raise the state's minimum wage from $16 to $18. Businesses with fewer than 26 employees would be raised to $17, and have an additional year before paying $18.
Your Political Friend is voting YES
Well, PROP 34 is an attempt by the CA Apartment Association to punish the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. You see, this is not the first time that the AHF has tried to attack the realtors' and landlords' profits, so Prop 34 is specifically designed to silence the AHF, and only the AHF.
Prop 34 would require health care providers that meet certain criteria (i.e. criteria that only applies to the AHF) to spend 98% of revenues from federal discount prescription drug programs on direct patient care. This would, I assume, make it impossible for the AHF to do its political advocacy work.
The expression, "a pox on both their houses" comes to mind. The AHF needs to stop pushing dangerous rent control propositions, and the CA Apartment Association needs to stop jerking voters around with disingenuous revenge initiatives.
Your Political Friend is voting NO.
PROP 35
California imposes a tax on health insurance companies to help pay for Medicaid and Medi-Cal health care costs, called a Managed Care Organization tax. In 2023, the state had dedicated increased funding to Medi-Cal, but changed that plan when the budget deficit exploded in 2024.
Prop 35 is the health care industry's response. It would claw back that promised funding, and require the money be used on specific services, mostly those provided by the sponsors of the initiative. These providers had been looking forward to an increase in revenue because of the MCO tax, but now that tax is being used to replace existing Medi-Cal funding, so they're pissed. The only way they can force the legislature's hands is with a ballot proposition, so here we are.
I sympathize with the health care providers and the plans they made based on the money they were promised, but things change. Prop 35 will cost the state $1-2 Billion annually, and the last thing we should be doing is further restricting the state's discretionary budget. It's already too small, and limits our ability to pivot based on changes in the economy.
Your Political Friend is voting NO.
PROP 36
In 2014, voters passed Prop 47, aimed at reducing CA's overcrowded prisons in part by changing some felony crimes to misdemeanors. One of those changes was raising the threshold for felony shoplifting to $950. Since then, the state has saved a ton of money by not incarcerating as many people, but the crime rate, particularly retail theft, has increased in many counties.
Prop 36 would rollback parts of Prop 47 by allowing felony charges for possessing certain drugs and thefts under $950, if the person has two or more past convictions for certain crimes (such as shoplifting, burglary, or carjacking). The prop would also allow the value of property stolen in multiple thefts to be added together, if each is under $950.
As a resident of San Francisco, I have seen A LOT of retail theft. It is outrageous and brazen, and rarely prosecuted. But why? Could it be because store employees are instructed not to engage, out of liability concerns? Is it politics between the police unions and the DA? Is it because of police staffing shortages? Is it the pandemic?
Much has been made of Prop 47 as being the cause of increased shoplifting. But, how much of a calculation are criminals making when stealing items from a store? Are they avoiding expensive items to dodge a felony charge, or are they simply taking what they can? In addition, how is the $950 limit to blame, when 40 other states have higher thresholds to felony charges?
We need to be tougher on prosecuting criminals, but is going back to a pre-Prop 47 approach the smart way to do it? Prop 36 has echoes of the Three Strikes and You're Out law passed in 1994, which caused the state's prisons to become so overcrowded that the Supreme Court stepped in, equating the prison conditions with "cruel and unusual punishment".
Last August, Governor Newsom signed ten new crime bills, many of which obviate the need for Prop36. We should give these bills a chance to work.
Your Political Friend is voting NO
No comments:
Post a Comment