 |
| Ballot Box of Yore |
Rather to my surprise, I have been asked a number of times when my ballot and voting recommendations would be coming out. Fortunately or otherwise I have been rather busy but it is clearly time for me to do my civic duty so here goes.
Introduction
I have to look back at the last two election cycles with some bemusement. At the urging of two very persuasive (and well informed) members of my synagogue, the Mission Minyan, I let go of my life-long suspicion of bonded indebtedness. The reason I did so was the case my synagogue colleagues made that the state was more than sufficiently wealthy to bear the debt burden. Now, of course, with the fiscal ravages of the pandemic only beginning to be felt, perhaps my disaster mentality (almost certainly the result of Depression Era parents) was a pretty good approach after all. At the same time, one lesson we have learned from the pandemic is that injecting massive amounts of money into the economy is a good idea. I am also very pleasantly surprised that the stimulus money did not result in a round of inflation (at least not yet). There is also, of course, the humanitarian aspect of the situation. There are desperate people out there and public money, even if we are no longer confident where it will be coming from, could make all the difference in the world. I try to keep all of the above considerations in mind in making the recommendations below.
My Approach
In terms of my approach, I also follow a number of
guiding principles. The first is cui
bono -- who benefits from the proposition?
A more modern version is “follow the money.” The next is the “H.L. Richardson Rule.” Senator Richardson was a very conservative
Republican legislator who was a prolific writer of ballot arguments. I found that if Senator Richardson was on one
side of the argument, I was likely to be on the other. Extending that principle slightly, I also
look at who is in favor and who is opposed to a given proposition as it often
provides some guidance in terms of how to vote.
While I do not always agree with him, Judge Quentin Kopp (ret.) has
useful (if occasionally provocative) things to say about ballot propositions and I always read what he
has to say with interest. The third
principle is empowerment. From time to
time people tell me, apologetically, that they did not vote as I
recommended. That is no problem
whatsoever. One of the reasons that
these blog posts are long (and I know they are long) is that I am trying to arm
my readers with sufficient facts and arguments so that they can make their own
decisions. So no problem at all if
you do not agree with me. (I can see my
synagogue colleagues already texting each other that the I just found an excuse to
go back to slamming bonded indebtedness.
That’s fine.)
STATE BALLOT PROPOSITIONS
Proposition 14. Bond issue of $5.5 billion for stem cell and other
medical research. In 2004, California
voters authorized a bond issue of some $3 billion to finance stem cell
research, largely a reaction to the withdrawal of federal support for such
research activities due to the pressure of religious fundamentalists (and
Republican enablers) at the national level.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO.
This is the first casualty, in my view, of the pandemic in terms of ballot propositions. In happier times I would have strongly considered a yes vote. Money to pay the interest on the bonds (which add an additional $2.3 billion in interest) will come out of the General Fund, the State’s principal operating account, which is subject to discretionary control by the Governor and the Legislature. In other words, bonded indebtedness reduces the ability of state government to fund other programs. While the Legislative Analyst reports that the $260 million in debt service (over 30 years) represents less than one percent of the annual budget, I think we have to start tightening belts in light of current fiscal reality (and the annual budget is on target to shrink, big time). I say all this with some regret. I also have my hopes that we may yet see this kind of research back at the federal level, God and the electorate willing.
Proposition 15. Removes the cap on the assessed value of commercial
and industrial real estate to increase funding for public schools, community
colleges and local governments. No
effect on property tax of residential properties.
In 1976, California
voters enacted Proposition 13, which amended the state Constitution to limit
property tax increases of all real estate.
Essentially, a property is taxed based on its value at the time of
purchase, subject to an annual inflation adjustment of up to 2%. A property is then reassessed upon sale. Since property taxes are computed on the
basis of x dollars per thousand, the more a property is worth for tax purposes,
the higher the revenue produced. Under
Proposition 13, the effective tax rate for real estate in California is around 1.1%. Proposition
15 would assess commercial and industrial properties at their present market
value, not their historical acquisition price, splitting the tax roll so that
such properties are treated differently than residential properties, which
remain protected under Proposition 13 (which also requires a two-thirds super
majority for tax increases). Proposition
13 was a disaster for California. It
crippled the ability of state and local government to do anything proactive to
improve the life of Californians and has hollowed out many public and
quasi-public institutions by starving them of funds. Even if one accepts the rationale of
Proposition 13 regarding keeping people in their homes and protecting them
against runaway tax increases, there is really no good reason to give
commercial and industrial properties this kind of protection and the money is
desperately needed. Commercial and
industrial properties with a combined value of $3 million or less are exempt so
there is protection for small businesses.
Proposition 16. Reintroduces Affirmative Action In Public Employment, Education & Contracting Decisions.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO.Prop 16 would repeal Prop 209, which outlawed affirmative action back in
1996. This is a tough one for me as I
think I fully understand the rationale behind affirmative action and see the
strength of the argument in its favor. I
nevertheless am extremely uncomfortable at the notion that race, sex, color, ethnicity,
or national origin should ever be an express reason for giving preference to
one person over another. Yes, I know I am
an entitled white male and I benefitted from my status as such. But I am also Jewish, the son of immigrants
and first-generation Americans who have a well-founded gut-level fear of racial
quotas based on generations of discrimination.
I recall that one reaction to Prop 209’s enactment was an effort by the
University of California system to establish race-neutral criteria that focused
on matters like economic disadvantage as a basis for providing
preferences. But the drop in enrollment of
most people of color in the UCs strongly suggests that such efforts were ultimately
unsuccessful. Again, I am a bit torn
about this proposition. But to my
surprise, I find myself far less resistant to reparations in the sense of
putting resources into communities that were victimized by discrimination -- I
am willing to be taxed for that purpose.
For whatever reason I find that more benign. I do believe that reasonable minds can differ
on this issue.
Proposition 17. Restores the right to vote to parolees.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES
Prop 17 has interesting historical antecedents. Historically, when someone was convicted of a felony they were considered “civilly dead,” essentially an unperson for public purposes (historically an ex-felon could not even sign a contract -- that is how dead such a person was to the law). Hence someone convicted of a felony had no right to vote. California has already modified the common law rule so that under current law an ex-felon, once released and after completing parole, can vote (and run for elective office). Prop 17 would allow parolees to vote (and run for elective office). The argument in favor is that it is in the public interest to give parolees a stake in the political system and remove some of the stigma of their convictions. The argument against is that parole is a component of felony convictions and that includes violent and even heinous crimes. On balance I think the pro argument is more persuasive.
Proposition 18. Amends the state Constitution to permit 17-year-olds to vote in primary and special elections if they will turn 18 by the next general election and are otherwise qualified to vote.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
Frankly, my initial reaction to this proposition was annoyance -- it seemed trivial. But the Legislative Analyst indicates that over 100,000 potential voters are impacted by current law. I am also persuaded by the logic here -- if someone is qualified to vote in the general election because they have turned 18, it makes some sense to let them participate in the primary that precedes the general as that is a preliminary step in the process leading up to the general election. There is similar, if less compelling logic, supporting almost 18-year-olds participating in special elections within this time frame. Using the “H.L. Richardson test,” I note that the opponents include the President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association -- Howard Jarvis was the architect of the (infamous) Prop 13 that is discussed above. I am also a bit suspicious of an organization that I have never heard of called the “Election Integrity Project California” (and an Internet search bears that suspicion out). There is also a hidden agenda here. These newly enfranchised voters are more likely to vote liberal and Democratic and that may well explain the endorsement divide here.
Proposition 19 -- Makes Residential Real Estate More Transferrable For People 55 And Other Selected Groups.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
Under current law, when someone sells their residence and purchases another, the tax basis of the real estate is not transferred automatically. In other words, selling one home and acquiring another could result in significantly higher property tax as the value of the acquired property is assessed based on the value at the time of purchase. Current law permits individual counties to opt out and permit transfer of property tax basis for people 55 years of age or over, people with disabilities and those who are the victims of natural disasters (such as fire). This proposition would permit such transfers statewide. My initial reaction to Prop 19 was that it comprised special interest legislation pushed by the real estate industry to make it easier to buy and sell properties to garner commissions. But then I looked at the Legislative Analyst’s estimate of fiscal impact. The analysis indicates that this change in the tax law could give local governments and schools huge amounts of new revenue and that another large chunk of new tax revenue would be directed to fire protection. There is some other tinkering and fine points (including some provisions excluding high value inherited property). But the revenue aspect persuaded me to recommend a yes vote. But not everyone agrees with me -- the League of Women voters, for example, disagrees and here is a link to their ballot recommendations. Ironically, people affiliated with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association are on both sides of the ballot arguments.
Proposition 20. Rolls back some aspects of voter approved Props 47 and 57, which had enabled various classes of non-violent offenders to be more readily released back into the community, increases criminal penalties for some theft-related crimes and requires collection of DNA from adults convicted of certain crimes.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO.
There seems to be a continuing tug of war between people who question the utility, and the cost, of mass incarceration versus those who believe that tighter criminal penalties and less generous parole are the way to attack at least some aspects of crime. I am in the first camp -- as it is America locks up more of its adult population than any country in the world (we have over 2 million people behind bars) and that approach does not seem to be particularly successful. There is also a hidden issue here -- while the ballot arguments don’t talk about it, I suspect racial disparities are definitely an underlying motivation of at least some of the proponents, and, on the flip side, of the opponents (consider what groups get disproportionally convicted for crimes and who end up in jail). In addition, while some in the law and order camp argue that property theft increased due to Prop 47, I do not believe they have been able to find reliable statistics backing this claim up. So on balance, I think a no vote is in order.
Proposition 21. Expands Local Government Authority To Enact Rent Control On Residential Property.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
Those who know me know that I think rent control is regressive and unfairly imposes burdens on one discrete group, landlords, when the cost of housing is really a societal problem. Nevertheless, I recommend a yes vote. The reason is simple -- these are desperate times and the corrections needed to increase housing stock, create better paying jobs for more people and curb landlord excesses (particularly institutional landlords) are going to take years, if in fact they ever happen.
Proposition 22. “Exempts App-Based Transportation And Delivery Companies From Providing Employee Benefits To Certain Drivers.”
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO.
I put the description of this proposition in quotation marks as it is exactly what you will find in the Official Voters Guide. It must be fun to be Attorney General as that is the office that has broad power over describing what a ballot proposition is about. I am sure Uber or Lyft would have preferred something like “Preserves Jobs For Tens Of Thousands Of Gig Workers Who Don’t Want To Be Employees.”
And that’s the rub, to paraphrase (badly) Shakespeare. Here is my take on the arguments pro and con.
Pro: Uber and Lyft, whatever you think of their “disruptive” behavior, have created an opportunity for many thousands of people to earn money using a resource (their vehicles) that would otherwise be sitting in garages or parked on the street. They brought down (perhaps temporarily) transportation costs and made transit more efficient. Gig workers are not really employees because they have extensive freedom of action -- they don’t have to work or accept rides if they don’t want to (at least under Uber’s response to AB5) and the reclassification of Uber/Lyft drivers as employees will kill off the rideshare business (and similar ones like Instacart, DoorDash, etc.) They are something new that does not really fit into historical norms of what are independent contractors as distinguished from employees.
Con: Uber and Lyft have skirted the law by creating businesses that exploit their drivers and have undercut other legitimate businesses, like cab companies, by not having to pay taxes on employees that other businesses pay. The freedom of action is fictitious - Uber and Lyft closely control their drivers’ activities and there is really nothing that distinguishes Uber/Lyft drivers from employees of other businesses. Right now, if Uber and Lyft had obeyed the law, many of these drivers would be drawing unemployment benefits from the state system and money for that purpose would be in the system had Uber and Lyft paid their taxes. The social utility of Uber/Lyft is open to debate -- in better times clogged city streets, reduced use of public transportation, and increased auto accidents due to driver inexperience are hardly a reason to give these companies special treatment. The only thing that makes Uber/Lyft distinguishable from other businesses is their contempt for the law and their overt exploitation of their drivers.
On balance, I am with the no arguments. I’m also dubious about Uber’s and Lyft’s claims that they will leave the State if Prop 22 fails -- I’m not convinced that there is not a way to thread the needle here and create jobs for Uber/Lyft drivers that include employee treatment and payment of taxes. (Ironically, I am currently in a professional setting where that is exactly what is going on with me, but anyone curious about that can contact me offline.)
Proposition 23. Regulating Kidney Dialysis Clinics Should Not Be On The Ballot In The First Place.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO.
Another perinneal tug of war seems to be between unions representing dialysis clinic employees vs. mega-company owners of such units (75% of them are owned by two companies). This time around the unions are pushing for a requirement that there be a physician present during treatment (or, if there is a shortage of physicians, a nurse practitioner). To make the regulation more attractive to the voters, there is also a requirement that clinics report infection data to state and federal governments, in addition to prohibitions on closing/reducing services without state approval. There is also a requirement that clinics not refuse services based on the source of payment for care.
The proponents do not come close to persuading me that this legislation is desirable. It imposes what is likely an unnecessary requirement of physician/nurse supervision, runs up costs, and probably makes the operation of some clinics uneconomic. On the endorsement front, I find it significant that the California Medical Association opposes Prop 23, as does the American Nurses Association\California (from a cui bono/follow the money principle one would have thought they would have supported it). What I would vote for is a proposition prohibiting this subject from coming back to the ballot for at least the next five years (😊).
Proposition 24. Expands Consumer Privacy Laws.
This initiative measure would ostensibly expand privacy protections for consumers using the Internet by prohibiting businesses sharing personal information, requiring correction of inaccurate personal information and limiting use of “sensitive personal information” such as geolocation, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc. It would create an enforcement agency in addition to various other refinements in how the legislation is implemented.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO.
This proposition is actually something of a mixed bag. Among other things, it would actually reduce the number of businesses required to meet current state privacy requirements by increasing the numerical thresholds before privacy law requirements kick in. On the other hand, it adds the requirements noted above. Interestingly, the ACLU opposes Prop 24 because it actually expands the ability to harvest personal information through the use of health and financial apps and global tracking. If you believe the ballot argument (and I tend to trust the ACLU although I’m aware they can sometimes be over the top), Prop 24 also imposes a “pay for privacy” charge by letting companies charge more to safeguard personal privacy. Another opponent is Progressive icon Dolores Huerta, co-founder with the late Cesar Chavez, of the United Farmworkers Union. That matters to me. On the other hand, the California NAACP is in favor of the legislation. As I said, this is a bit of a mixed bag. Even the Electronic Frontier Foundation is ambivalent. Here’s a link to their explanation of their (non-)position.
Proposition 25. Referendum On Repeal Of Cash Bail - Vote yes if you support the abolition of cash bail; vote no if you do not (and wish the cash bail system to remain in place).
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
California permits voters, by petition, to put on the ballot for an up or down vote legislation already approved by the Legislature. That is what a “referendum” is. The referendum and the initiative (the right of voters to put their own legislation on to the ballot by petition) were considered important reforms in 1911 as a counterbalance to the tendency of state legislatures to function as lackeys of big business. No one then could have foreseen how the use of paid signature solicitors and mass media could be exploited by the same big businesses and that is what this is all about.
Cash bail is a big business. The premiums charged on bail bonds are substantial and there is a ton of money to be made in this area. Just by qualifying for the ballot, the bail bond “industry” has delayed implementation of the abolition legislation for two years -- that is a lot of profit right there.
On substance, the policy argument in favor is pretty straightforward. Cash bail discriminates against Blacks and other people of color who are less able to make bail. The proposed legislation would replace bail with a combination of automatic release (for most misdemeanors), an assessment system with various determinative factors for “medium-risk” felonies; “high risk” persons would remain in jail until arraignment before a judge. Courts would have broad discretion as to which assessment tools should be employed in making detention decisions, including the use of computer-generated assessments. At arraignment, a hearing before a judge would be required if the prosecution wanted to keep a defendant in jail pending trial.
The Legislative Analyst indicates that abolishing cash bail may or may not have significant fiscal effects (thanks), but in fairness this is because it is uncertain how the legislation will be implemented. But the Legislative Analyst also indicates that the anticipated cost will not exceed one percent of the current annual state budget.
The opposition homes in, I think unfairly, on what they characterize is “computer profiling” and I am fascinated that one of the signers to the opposition argument is the President of the California State Conference of the NAACP. I should also mention that Judge Kopp signed one of the opposition arguments. But I am not persuaded -- the cash bail system is monstrously unfair to communities of color. The one opposition argument that does interest me is the increased burden on the court system and on prosecutors and public defenders. Unless the Legislature appropriates serious money to all these agencies, an already barely functioning court system is going to grind to a halt. (As a regular practitioner/user of the court system, I can testify how bad things are already.) But the injustice that is being remedied is just too huge to ignore.
AND NOW ON TO SAN FRANCISCO. Whew - can’t believe I’m at page seven (of the Word version) already.
SAN FRANCISCO BALLOT PROPOSITIONS
Proposition A. $500 million (approx.) bond issue to finance supportive housing, shelters, and other service providers to persons with mental health challenges, substance abuse problems and the homeless, in addition, to parks, open spaces and recreation facilities. The money is also usable for street improvement and the like.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
I am not happy that bond money is being used for street improvements -- I have long believed that the money should come from current revenues. But in the scheme of things that objection is trivial -- San Francisco needs to address the bigger problems that are the subject of this proposition and the sooner the better. Notably the Mayor and the entire Board of Supervisors supports this proposition -- that hardly ever happens. The opposition argument comes from someone whose claims to fame are that he is a CPA and apparently wrote something about a civil grand jury report and the unfunded pension obligations of the City. The argument is that San Francisco is in too much of a financial hole already to finance something like this. Judge Kopp (in a paid argument) says much the same thing. I am not persuaded. This is not perfect legislation but something has to be done.
Proposition B. Split off the municipal sanitation function from the Department of Public Works to create a new agency, the Department of Sanitation & Streets, with oversight by a new commission. Also creates a separate city commission to oversee the activities of the (truncated) Department of Public Works.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
San Francisco has a corruption problem involving the way building permits, in particular, are processed by the existing Department of Public Works and a "pay to play" culture that resulted in federal indictments. There is the further problem that the existing department, in the best of times, seems incapable of processing pretty much anything at other than a glacial pace. The objects of this legislation are the following: (1) Split off the sanitation function so that it is the subject of the sustained and systematic attention that it requires (the public sanitation situation is dire); (2) Create oversight over the public works function to address the inefficiency and the corruption that is currently the subject of multiple indictments and early guilty pleas/plea deals.
The opposition argument boils down to contending that existing city agencies can do the job here (if so why haven’t they?) and that adding this additional layer of bureaucracy will just cost money and give politicians more boards to populate with their supporters. I am not persuaded. When I worked downtown before the pandemic, I could see for myself how awful the public sanitation situation is. As to corruption, adding an oversight board here makes tremendous sense. The current Public Works department has been a law unto itself for decades. It cannot be trusted to police itself and the existing agencies with oversight responsibility do not seem to have the time, attention, or inclination to do so.
Proposition C. Removes citizenship requirement for members of city bodies.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
This is going to pass no matter what I say -- there’s not even an official argument in opposition and the only paid argument comes from the local Republican Party (whose partisans probably could not fill a local bar if we could still congregate in such places). Legislation like this should not be necessary, or, in better times, even desirable. But the country’s messed up immigration policies have resulted in a huge unrepresented class of law abiding, hardworking, decent but undocumented people. So until those policies are addressed (and God-willing, our impending election might just result in something that does), we need legislation like this.
Proposition D. Create Oversight of the Sheriff’s Office.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
For those of you who are curious about what the Sheriff’s Department actually does, here’s a link to a blog piece I did some years ago addressing that subject.
This is another proposition that is going to pass no matter what I or others say. The official opposition is by municipal gadfly David Pilpel (who was a nice young man when I knew him and his family years ago but has become a bit of an annoyance trying to block initiatives like expanding the Slow Streets program for bikes and pedestrians). David’s argument is that there is sufficient capacity within the existing Sheriff’s Department and existing public agencies so as to make this level of oversight unnecessary (and, of course it costs money to create these new positions). Maybe he is right but the proponents’ argument in favor points out that the Sheriff’s Department gets sued on a pretty regular basis for misconduct and pays out millions of dollars in settlements. On that basis alone, it seems to me that additional oversight is warranted. Of course the proponents push the civil justice side of the national argument in support of defunding (or at least reimagining) the function of police and that also strikes me as a persuasive argument. But the pragmatics are enough for me to support this proposition.
Proposition E. Remove minimum police staffing requirements from the City Charter.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
It is sometimes disconcerting to realize how much detail is embedded in the City Charter, which is where you will find a requirement that San Francisco maintain a minimum of 1,971 full-duty sworn officers and a minimum number of full-duty sworn officers for neighborhood policing. Proposition E would replace the fixed minimums with a requirement of regular evaluations of police staffing levels. This is yet another perennial tug of war between those who want officers on the streets to do neighborhood policing as opposed to departmental staff, which wants flexibility to deploy officers as needed. Judge Kopp complains that the original 1994 amendment of the City Charter to create the minimums was wrong and that tinkering with the City Charter so as to embed its abolition is also a mistake. This strikes me as hyper technical and I am not persuaded. Hopefully we’re done with this issue.
Proposition F. Tinkering With The Business Tax (Again)
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES
Figuring out how to tax businesses has proven challenging and a number of tax measures are currently the subject of litigation. This proposition tinkers with the way business taxes are imposed by eliminating the payroll tax in favor of an increase in other tax rates (gross receipts and the administrative office tax), reducing the business tax for some small businesses and making some increases dependent on the outcome of the pending lawsuits challenging the use of (currently impounded) tax receipts. While the enhancement of tax revenue is relatively modest ($97 million), the big issue here is the $1.5 billion in impounded funds (due to the pending litigation) which would become available for disbursement if this proposition passes.
For me, the bottom line is, once again, that the money is desperately needed. I note that the official proponent’s argument is signed, again, by the Mayor and the entire Board of Supervisors. David Pilpel is, again, the author of the official opposition argument. He argues that there is too much uncertainty to merit restructuring business taxes. He does not address, directly, the pressing need for the money right now. I am not persuaded.
Proposition G. Permit youth voting in local elections.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO.
This proposition would permit 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds to vote in local elections and local ballot measures. It would not permit them to vote in state or federal elections (which is beyond the power of the City anyway). I do not believe that 16-year-olds as a group have the maturity to cast informed votes in local elections. I am sure there are exceptions but in general that strikes me as accurate (for 17-year-olds, see my discussion under state Proposition 18). Now the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors seem to think otherwise (another unanimous proponent’s argument) so I am likely spitting into the wind here. So be it. At least Judge Kopp agrees with me (see his paid argument in opposition). I also do not appreciate this endless tinkering in the form of ballot propositions. (I’m on page 10 - sigh).
Proposition H. Increase permissible uses for neighborhood commercial districts and expedite the permit process.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
This proposition is intended to reduce red tape and
expedite the issuance of permits for small businesses. One aspect of it is to eliminate the public
notification process for people who want to start a permitted use. Another is an expedited approval and
inspection process. Considering the incredibly slow and inefficient (and costly) way the current system operates, this is a no-brainer for me. The official opposition comes from, again, David Pilpel, whose gripes seem to be that the process should be more thought out and that it's curious (to him) that the proponents do not include members of the Board of Supervisors or neighborhood groups. I am not persuaded.
Proposition I. Increase real estate transfer taxes on transactions of $10 million or more.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
When real estate is sold in San Francisco, it is subject to a transfer tax. The tax is payable to the City. This proposition would greatly increase real estate taxes on a graduated scale, doubling the rate for transactions over $10 million (5% instead of 2.5% under current law), increasing the tax to 6% for transactions involving $25 million and more. I do not see any restrictions on how the money can be used; the proponent’s argument suggests that it could go to rent relief and affordable housing and apparently the Board of Supervisors has passed a resolution proposing to use this money to fund emergency rent relief -- but that is not baked into the proposition.
This is the first of several “soak the rich” propositions on the San Francisco ballot. It is also a response to the unprecedented run up of real estate values in the City, one which, on the high end, appears not to have suffered at all notwithstanding the pandemic. The ex-Socialist in me gravitates towards such measures.
The official opposition argues that the measure will unfairly impact small businesses (which I just don’t see) but also argues that it will affect construction of affordable housing -- maybe -- I was disappointed that the proponent arguments and rebuttal did not address this. The proponents do point out that the opposition is masquerading as small businesspeople -- one signer is the Executive Director of the local Chamber of Commerce and another is a real estate lobbyist.
My educated guess is that the tax increase may very well impact affordable housing if the parcels being developed cost $10 million or more, but that simply adds another layer of complexity to a situation where it is often the case that developers are working out deals with the City to develop both market-rate and affordable housing. I do not see that as a deal breaker in terms of supporting this legislation. If you are in the mood for low class entertainment, check out the over-the-top paid arguments on both sides.
Proposition J. Parcel Tax for the School District - Take Two
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO.
Apparently the parcel tax approved by a majority of the voters in 2018 is under court challenge because it did not obtain a two-thirds super majority. This proposition seeks to remedy that and reduces the tax rate slightly (from $320 to $288, adjusted annually for inflation). Seniors are exempt from this tax (making the writer of this blog quite happy). The money is to be used for salary/benefit support of teachers, increasing staffing, providing professional development, investing in technology, and funding public charter schools. If only I had confidence in the school district’s ability to actually manage this money competently, my joy would be complete. But notwithstanding my concerns in that regard, it is clear that public schools need support.
But then Judge Kopp argues that the tax is unfair because it only taxes owners of real estate and it does not differentiate between mega parcels like the Salesforce Tower and a neighborhood home. Unfortunately, he’s right. Why is this a property tax and not a general levy that all San Franciscans should pay? It may well be the case that the current tax structure does not permit that outcome but until it does, I am reluctant to add to the burdens of residential real estate owners. I am likely spitting into the wind here, but so what.
Proposition K. Give the City authority to develop 10,000 units of affordable housing, including assisting non-profits doing the same thing with public assistance.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
Existing state law (Article 34 of the California Constitution, enacted 1950) requires a majority vote of local residents to authorize the development of low-cost housing by any state public body, which the proponents characterize as racist. This proposition would fulfill the requirement of Article 34 and also seems to be interested in fostering a type of community housing project that is employed in Europe known as “municipal social housing.”
Like many of the housing initiatives on the ballot, the charge here is led by Supervisor Dean Preston, who I will be endorsing at a later point in this blog. I do not agree with Dean about everything and the esoteric discussion in the official ballot arguments about “municipal social housing” smacks of an extreme case of inside baseball. But the idea remains a good one and the proposition, in and of itself, costs nothing -- it just authorizes going forward.
Proposition L. Tax “Excessive” Pay For Top Executives. Soak The Rich Proposition No. 2.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
This proposition will impose an additional tax on big businesses in San Francisco whose highest managerial pay is 100 times more than the median compensation paid to their employees. It looks like the tax is applicable only to San Francisco-based businesses paying either the gross receipts tax or the administrative tax, basically only the super large tech companies (Twitter, Facebook, etc.). So you and I have nothing to worry about here. Mark Zuckerberg, on the other hand . . .
There is something both punitive and oddly satisfying about targeting tech moguls for an additional tax, perhaps because they are so powerful and unconstrained (and so obviously rich) and we are so jealous of them (admit it). Of course there may come a day when businesses decide that San Francisco is just too business-hostile an environment to stay here. But I do not think this is going to be the tipping point.
Proposition RR. Caltrain Sales Tax.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
This is desperately needed to keep Caltrain afloat, particularly due to the catastrophic drop in ridership due to the pandemic. It would increase the sales tax by 1/8 of a cent in San Francisco, Santa Clara, and San Mateo Counties.
CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENTS
After slogging through ballot propositions, in candor I have neither the time nor the inclination to research candidates for the Board of Education or the Community College District. But there is one candidate for office that I do want to endorse. That is Dean Preston, who is running for reelection as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in District 5.
Dean is a self-described “democratic socialist,” and perhaps the first person in San Francisco politics who actually has a well thought out agenda to go with the label as opposed to the vague label of “progressive” that has hitherto been the norm. Dean is passionate, committed and an extraordinarily decent human being. Many, if not all the progressive (in a good way) propositions on the local ballot, and probably all the ones involving housing, found their origin in Dean’s thinking.
He’s not perfect - no one is. Among other matters, I have yet to persuade him that small landlords also need support right now - no doubt he will disagree that he has not done enough for them, but his agenda is clearly pro tenant. But that is fine; I don’t have to agree with him about everything. He is exceptionally hard working, accessible and puts his money where his mouth is (he has put up his own money to fund certain programs in his district).
His opponent strikes me as a decent person, too, but without Dean’s passion or his program. I also do not care for some of her supporters, who clearly represent big money that is out to prevent Dean’s reelection.
So, there it is -- we’re at page 13 (of the Word version) and if you’re still with me, I hope you have found this blog post helpful.
For your convenience, there follows a cheat sheet you can consider using that reflects the recommendations above.
Regards and stay safe.
Bob White
Bob White’s Cheat Sheet For Voting In The 2020 General Election.STATE BALLOT PROPOSITIONS
Proposition 14. Bond issue of $5.5 billion for stem cell and other medical research. In 2004,
California voters authorized a bond issue of some $3 billion to finance stem cell research, largely
a reaction to the withdrawal of federal support for such research activities due to the pressure of
religious fundamentalists (and Republican enablers) at the national level.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO.
Proposition 15. Removes the cap on the assessed value of commercial and industrial real estate
to increase funding for public schools, community colleges and local governments. No effect on
property tax of residential properties.
RECOMMENDATION. VOTE YES.
Proposition 16. Reintroduces Affirmative Action In Public Employment, Education &
Contracting Decisions.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO.
Proposition 17. Restores the right to vote to parolees.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES
Proposition 18. Amends the state Constitution to permit 17-year-olds to vote in primary and
special elections if they will turn 18 by the next general election and are otherwise qualified to
vote.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
Proposition 19 -- Makes Residential Real Estate More Transferrable For People 55 And Other
Selected Groups.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
Proposition 20. Rolls back some aspects of voter approved Props 47 and 57, which had enabled
various classes of non-violent offenders to be more readily released back into the community,
increases criminal penalties for some theft-related crimes and requires collection of DNA from
adults convicted of certain crimes.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO.
Proposition 21. Expands Local Government Authority To Enact Rent Control On Residential
Property.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
Proposition 22. “Exempts App-Based Transportation And Delivery Companies From Providing
Employee Benefits To Certain Drivers.”
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO.
Proposition 23. Regulating Kidney Dialysis Clinics Should Not Be On The Ballot In The First
Place.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO.
Proposition 24. Expands Consumer Privacy Laws.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO.
Proposition 25. Referendum On Repeal Of Cash Bail - Vote yes if you support the abolition of
cash bail; vote no if you do not (and wish the cash bail system to remain in place).
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
SAN FRANCISCO BALLOT PROPOSITIONS
Proposition A. $500 million (approx.) bond issue to finance supportive housing, shelters, and
other service providers to persons with mental health challenges, substance abuse problems and
the homeless, in addition, to parks, open spaces and recreation facilities. The money is also
useable for street improvement and the like.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
Proposition B. Split off the municipal sanitation function from the Department of Public Works
to create a new agency, the Department of Sanitation & Streets, with oversight by a new
commission. Also creates a separate city commission to oversee the activities of the (truncated)
Department of Public Works.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
Proposition C. Removes citizenship requirement for members of city bodies.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
Proposition D. Create Oversight of the Sheriff’s Office.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
Proposition E. Remove minimum police staffing requirements from the City Charter.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
Proposition F. Tinkering With The Business Tax (Again)
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES
Proposition G. Permit youth voting in local elections.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO.
Proposition H. Increase permissible uses for neighborhood commercial districts and expedites the permit approval process.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
Proposition I. Increase real estate transfer taxes on transactions of $10 million or more.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
Proposition J. Parcel Tax for the School District - Take Two
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO.
Proposition K. Give the City authority to develop 10,000 units of affordable housing, including
assisting non-profits doing the same thing with public assistance.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
Proposition L. Tax “Excessive” Pay For Top Executives. Soak The Rich Proposition No. 2.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
Proposition RR. Caltrain Sales Tax.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT
RECOMMENDATION: Dean Preston, Supervisor for District 5
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comments are always welcome. You can comment via this page or you can send comments by e-mail to comments@rwhitesf.com