Statewide Props

1 — Authorizes bonds to fund specified housing assistance programs

YES. This will allow the state to sell $4B worth of bonds to investors and use the proceeds to fund, in order of amount: 1) construction or renovation of multifamily subsidized Affordable housing construction ($1.8B, or 45%), 2) home loan assistance for veterans ($1B, or 25%), 3) infrastructure like parks, sewage, transportation (11%), 4) first-time homebuyer downpayment assistance programs (11%), and 5) grants to build housing for temporary farmworkers (7.5%).

Bonds aren’t my favorite way to fund programs like this, but they’re not terrible. In particular, I don’t think we should be using bonds to subsidize mortgages. But bonds to fund construction of apartments for low income people makes plenty of sense. Overall, the benefits outweigh the negatives.

This satisfies principles 1 (even though this isn’t a tax, the bonds are repaid over time from the general fund, which is funded by taxes), and 2.

2 — Authorizes bonds to fund existing housing program for individuals with mental illness

YES. This allows previously-set aside funds to be used to repay a $2B bond which will be used to finance the No Place Like Home program, which will build and rehab housing for people suffering from mental illnesses and are currently homeless or are at risk of becoming homeless.

I’m against budget set-asides because they don’t respond to changing conditions. The Mental Health Services Act, passed in 2004, levied a new tax on top earners to fund mental healthcare. But 2004 was a very different time. The main issue in 2004 was just getting money to help people without private insurance access mental healthcare. That’s still important, and Prop 2 ensures that only $140M out of the $2B per year can be spent on housing assistance.

California has seen an epidemic of people ending up homeless and suffering from mental illness so debilitating that they are unable to care for themselves. Prop 2 will give California more resources to help those most seriously impacted by both the housing shortage and mental illness.

This satisfies principles 2 and 9.

3 — Authorizes bonds to fund projects for water supply and quality, watershed, fish, wildlife, water conveyance, and groundwater sustainability and storage

YES. This is a big bond ($8.877B), but California has big problems. This money will be spent to improve the sources, conveyance, storage, and quality of our water. California must have grand plans for water — we regularly suffer long droughts which will only get worse, while having a ton of great farmland that demands a bunch of water. Bonds are an excellent way to fund large infrastructure programs because it allows us to pay off huge capital investments with inflated dollars (35-year payback period).

This satisfies principle 10.

4 — Authorizes bonds funding construction at hospitals providing children’s health care

YES. Another bond ($1.5B) to fund construction and improvements at the 8 private/non-profit and 5 UC children’s hospitals. Since this is for capital improvements, a bond is a good funding mechanism.

This satisfies principle 2.

5 — Changes requirements for certain property owners to transfer their property tax base to replacement property

NO. This is an extension of Prop 13 which will allow property owners to take their artificially low property tax rate with them to a new property of any size anywhere in the state, as long as it costs less than or equal to the value or their current home. Under current law, this is only possible if they move to a new, smaller, home in their current county — designed to incentivize downsizing without leaving a community.

Schools and local governments throughout the state would lose $100M per year in the first few years, growing to $1B per year (in 2018 dollars) over the next several decades.

Prop 13 established a landed gentry in California (and gave us the terrible rules about how new taxes must go to a ballot prop), and Prop 5 will further entrench this class and increase the subsidies given to the wealthiest Californians by taxpayers.

This satisfies principle 7 and undermines principle 1.

6 — Eliminates certain road repair and transportation funding, requires certain fuel taxes and vehicle fees be approved by the electorate (AKA Gas Tax repeal)

NO. This repeals the “gas tax” which was only enacted in 2017. The 12-cent tax raises $52B over the next decade to fund infrastructure improvements on bridges and roads, as well as public transit. Repealing this tax is willfully blind to the cost of maintaining infrastructure for cars.

This undermines principles 1, 4, and 10, and satisfies principle 7.

7 — Conforms california daylight saving time to federal law. Allows legislators to change daylight saving time period

YES. This one’s kind of weird. It’s on the ballot because of California’s broken electoral system. In 1949 there was a ballot prop which established daylight saving time in California. Because California forbids the legislature from modifying a previously-passed ballot prop, this change also has to go to a state-wide ballot prop. Voting yes on 7 will repeal the 1949 ballot prop, establish Pacific standard time as the standard time, define that daylight saving time starts and ends on the same days it currently does, and finally give authority back to the state legislature to modify daylight saving time as it sees fit with a two-thirds vote.

Passing Prop 7 will not actually end daylight saving time, it just gives the state the authority to do so.

This satisfies principle 7.

8 — Regulates amounts outpatient kidney dialysis clinics charge for dialysis treatment

NO. This is government overreach that is well-intentioned (save money for dialysis patients) but will result in bad outcomes (dialysis clinics will close because they are unable to cover their costs).

It sets a limit on revenue of cost+15% and forces clinics to repay insurance companies when they make more than that. This will effectively wipe out the operating profit and result in some clinics being unable to pay their staff or their bills. You could uncharitably call this a hand-out to insurance companies, who definitely do *not* need any help making more money.

It’s not progressive to pass a law that results in a vital industry being destroyed. Instead, the state should give subsidies to dialysis patients who cannot afford treatment.

This satisfies principle 5 and 6. 5 is obvious, but I should explain 6: I think the right to make a profit is fundamental to our economic system, and by eliminating profit the state will be violating the rights of the people.

9 — (removed from the ballot by the state supreme court for being unconstitutional. It split CA into three states)

Would have gotten us more senators while breaking the economy.

10 — Expands local governments’ authority to enact rent control on residential property

NO. Prop 10 will repeal Costa-Hawkins and remove state oversight on rent control programs.

Costa-Hawkins, passed in 1995, prohibited cities from enacting new rent control laws on single family homes, condos, and new apartments. It also prohibited vacancy control. Effectively, this means that all apartments built after 1995 couldn’t be subjected to rent control, and a landlord could raise the rent of a unit when a tenant moved out.

Prop 10 will repeal these limitations on rent control, allowing every one of the 482 municipalities in California to pass their own local rent control laws. It will also allows cities to enact vacancy control, which will prevent units from resetting to the market price upon a tenant moving out. Vacancy control has never led to good outcomes in any city on Earth. Preventing a unit’s rent from rising to market price removes the incentive to ever renovate or improve the unit. And without a framework for rent control from the state, every city will do it differently, increasing the burdens on housing developers, not to mention creating 482 new battles for YIMBYs to fight to ensure the rent control laws don’t get abused to prevent new housing.

The worst thing about Prop 10 isn’t that it legalizes new rent control, it’s that it removes state oversight on local rent control laws. They didn’t have to write the prop this way, but they chose to add this text:

SEC. 7. Amendment and Repeal. Pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 10 of Article II of the California Constitution, the Legislature may amend this act to further its purposes by a statute passed in each house by rollcall vote entered in the Journal, two-thirds of the membership concurring, signed by the Governor. No statute restricting or eliminating the powers that have been restored by this act to a city, county, or city and county to establish residential rental rates shall become effective unless approved by a majority of the electorate. https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2018/general/pdf/topl.pdf#prop10

In plain English: the state legislature may only make amendments which further the purpose of the proposition, not limit it. Any limitations on the powers granted to each of the 482 municipalities must go to a state-wide ballot prop.

Here’s a concrete example of why this is bad: Say Marin decided to pass a law that said all new construction was immediately rent controlled and could only rise at 50% CPI. This would completely stop all construction because the developers would lose money on any new building. The state would be forbidden from punishing Marin. In order to limit this abuse, a state-wide ballot prop would have to be run, which requires hundreds of thousands of signatures and costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, just to limit the abuse of one small town. Now imagine this fight happening 481 more times. What a complete waste of time and money due to a bad law we can avoid by voting No.

I’m not necessarily against rent control. In fact, I think it has its place in a vibrant city. But Prop 10 goes further than simply allowing rent control, it undermines good governance and sets the state up for failure.

This satisfies principles 5, 6, and 7.

See my friend Max’s detailed analysis of Prop 10 for a deeper understanding of the negative consequences of this badly designed prop: https://medium.com/@MaxGhenis/no-on-california-proposition-10-60bb5131925e

11 — Requires private-sector emergency ambulance employees to remain on-call during work breaks, eliminates certain employer liability

YES. I was leaning NO on this until I started reading more. The title of the ballot prop makes it sound vindictive and like the state is sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong. But it turns out that a recent court decision made the current operating procedure of emergency ambulance operators infeasible.

EMTs in ambulances are guaranteed the same breaks under California labor laws as everyone else. Prior to the court ruling, this included remaining on call during state-mandated meal breaks and shorter breaks. Occasionally, a break would be interrupted by an emergency and the break would be cut short. But because most of the day EMTs are just waiting for a call, the break would make up at some other point in the day. After the court ruling, an EMT could be forced by state law to take a 30 minute meal break where they would be unable to respond to an emergency, but all of the downtime they currently experience is still there. This new ruling makes EMTs less responsive to emergencies while raising the cost of providing emergency services (because more EMTs must be available in a given time period).

This doesn’t satisfy any of my voting principles, and I can’t think of a general purpose principle to add to the framework. So this is more my personal opinion than a principled stance. I think a YES vote is logical and reasonable, though.

12 — Establishes new standards for confinement of specified farm animals, bans sales of noncomplying products

YES. This is a weak yes, because I don’t think I understand enough about the industry or existing regulations to have an informed opinion.

Generally, I want to improve animal welfare and reduce meat consumption. I am a meat eater, but I recognize that meat production results in immense suffering and carbon emissions. One way to balance that is to promote policies which improve the living conditions of animals on farms and which raise the price of meat. Prop 12 will do both.

Like Prop 11, this does not satisfy any of my voting principles. I think this prop is niche enough to not warrant developing a standard principle to include in my framework.

Statewide People

U.S. Senator

Kevin De Leon

I am so tired of Dianne Feinstein. I still hold a grudge against her for being key to downzoning San Francisco and installing both height and density limits. Her bad decisions decades ago set San Francisco on a path to where it is now. She doesn’t understand the average Californian, she’s completely out of touch, and she isn’t bringing meaningful change to the state.

Kevin De Leon probably won’t win, but the party needs new blood.

Governor

Gavin Newsom

I’m no big fan of Gavin Newsom, but his opponent, John Cox, is a climate change denier. I think Gavin is uninspiring, but I support most of his policy positions.

Lt. Governor

Ed Hernandez

The lieutenant governor doesn’t actually have any power, so it’s kind of symbolic, but they still influence policy behind the curtain. Ed Hernandez is strongly pro-housing and, from what I hear from people who’ve worked with him, a pleasure to work with. He can build strong coalitions to accomplish big important goals.

Secretary of State

Alex Padilla

Alex has been doing a good job. The primary responsibilities for secretary of state include running elections and registering voters. Under Padilla, California has added millions of voters to the rolls.

His opponent, Mark Meuser, believes Trump’s lies about voter fraud. He would start purging the voter rolls and disenfranchise millions of people. He’s an existential threat to California.

Controller

Betty Yee

Betty Yee did a fine job in her first term, there’s no reason to not give her a second.

Her opponent, Konstantinos Roditis, wants to gut the tax base which will lead to the state ending up where it was before Jerry Brown took office: broke.

Treasurer

Fiona Ma

Fiona will prioritize investments in affordable housing and infrastructure — among California’s two biggest problems. She has the experience and political chops to do this job well.

Of note, her opponent, Greg Conlon, correctly identifies unfunded pensions as a nightmare obligation for the state. This is going to be a huge problem for California in about twenty years, and now would be the right time to start fixing it.

Attorney General

Xavier Becerra

Xavier is doing a good job. But honestly, it wouldn’t matter to me if he wasn’t because his opponent is pro-death-penalty.

Insurance Commissioner

Ricardo Lara

My friend Max sums up Ricardo Lara well:

Ricardo Lara is not the perfect candidate, but he suits California’s political moment and comes to the job with experience to make an effective Insurance Commissioner. https://medium.com/@MaxGhenis/ricardo-lara-for-insurance-commissioner-8ff0ced82b03

Superintendent of Public Instruction

Marshall Tuck or Tony Thurmond

Honestly, both Tony Thurmond and Marshall Tuck would do a good job. If you want more vocational training and like the teachers union, vote Thurmond; if you like charter schools and the endorsement of most Democratic officials, vote Tuck.