California Propositions 2018

Yes, it’s once again for Californian voters to slog through a slurry of propositions, issues, and statues because we’re a democracy damn-it and we’re going to make the people do the work.

So I’m doing my homework. For each issue, I’ll give the official title and a short summary (courtesy SF Chron). Then I’ll list the how Cal Repubs and Cal Demos would like us to vote, followed by the LA Times and SF Chron endorsements. And I’ll end with mine own vote thinking.

I welcome others to post their own thinking and likely votes. Californians have actual skin in the game, so obviously our inputs are more valued, but anyone is welcome to comment.
Proposition 1: Authorizes bonds to fund specified housing assistance programs.
A $4 billion bond measure that includes $3 billion for construction and preservation of affordable rental housing and $1 billion for loans for veterans to buy homes and farms.
This is YES for me. California needs more housing; it’s a critical piece of infrastructure whose ongoing failure is hurting our economy.

Proposition 2: Authorizes bonds to fund existing housing program for individuals with mental illness.
Gives the state approval to spend $2 billion from a 2004 mental health bond measure on housing for mentally ill people who are in danger of becoming homeless.
Same as for Prop 1, YES. We need more housing. Nice to see it’s getting plenty of endorsements, so why didn’t our legislature do this themselves?

Proposition 3: Authorizes bonds to fund projects for water supply and quality, watershed, fish, wildlife, water conveyance, and groundwater sustainability and storage.
An $8.9 billion bond measure to pay for dam repairs, restoration of watersheds including San Francisco Bay, construction of desalination plants, and other water-related projects.
R:neutral, D:neutral, LAT:neutral, SFC:NO
This is apparently an end-run around our usual water infrastructure process; no, it is.

Proposition 4: Authorizes bonds funding construction at hospitals providing children’s health care.
A $1.5 billion bond measure to fund expansion and renovation projects at seven nonprofit hospitals, five University of California hospitals and other medical centers that treat children’s diseases.
Seems legit to me, voting yes based on endorsments.

Proposition 5: Changes requirements for certain property owners to transfer their property tax base to replacement property.
Lets homeowners 55 and older and all disabled homeowners move anywhere in California and keep their Proposition 13-level property taxes. Currently, older homeowners can transfer their tax levels only once, and only to a handful of counties.
Looks like a way to break local governments’ budgets. I’m a NO.

Proposition 6: Eliminates certain road repair and transportation funding. Requires certain fuel taxes and vehicle fees be approved by the electorate.
Repeals a 12-cent-per-gallon increase in the state gas tax and an increase in the vehicle license fee, proceeds of which are earmarked for road, bridge and public transit improvements.
Absolute NO. The Republicans raised my taxes, I’m not voting to lower theirs. Another attempt to put our state further in debt.

Proposition 7: Conforms California Daylight Savings Time to federal law. Allows legislature to change Daylight Saving Time period.
Asks the Legislature to take action to put California on year-round daylight saving time. Any change would need a two-thirds vote of both legislative houses and the approval of Congress.
YES. I’m not sure why I’m voting on this, it’s a no-brainer.

Proposition 8: Regulates amounts outpatient kidney dialysis clinics charge for dialysis treatment.
Sets maximums for charges at kidney dialysis clinics. It would limit a clinic’s revenue to 115 percent of the cost of dialysis in the state, plus any health care improvement costs.
R:NO, D:YES, LAT:neutral, SFC:NO
Got to go NO on this. We need universal coverage and piecemeal regulation doesn’t bring us closer to that.

Proposition 10: Expands local governments’ authority to enact rent control on residential property.
Repeals a 1990s state law that restricts cities’ ability to impose rent control. In addition to capping rents, cities would be allowed to impose price controls on units when they change hands.
Definite NO. We need more housing, not restrictions on its supply.

Proposition 11: Requires private-sector emergency ambulance employees to remain on-call during work breaks. Eliminates certain employer liability.
Allows private ambulance providers to require that employees be on call during paid breaks.
This is a tough one. Reading through the official analysis, I’m leaning yes.

Proposition 12: Establishes new standards for confinement of specified farm animals; bans sale of noncomplying products.
Requires egg-laying hens to be cage-free by the end of 2021. Calves raised for veal and breeding pigs would have to be given a minimum amount of space.
Another “why I am voting on this”? Yes.
California Statewide Issues
California Republican Party Endorsements
California Democratic Party Endorsements
Los Angeles Times Endorsements
San Francisco Chronicle Endorsements

1-4 I vote NO on pretty much every Bond issue. Fund it or don’t.

6.** NO, NO, NO!! ** Mostly pushed by lies that the tax money is being spent on illegal aliens and “the gays”.

  1. I was on the Rent control board for San Jose for about a decade. Mild rent control laws are good for everyone, even the landlords*. San Jose had absolutely no problem getting companies to build housing. Many Rent control laws only apply to older building anyway. And, of course this doesn’t pass a single rent control law, it just allows cites and counties to pass one if they need to. It will not affect homeowners in the slightest.
  • an example- In San Jose when the big housing boom happened, and the big silicon valley companies where booming, rents doubled in a short period. On my board, two members were landlords. They actually went out, door to door, to explain to landlords that pushing good tenants out for a short term profit was bad for them. San Jose allowed a 8% increase a year.

Prop 11 is entirely funded by one company- American Medical Response, who is being sued by CA for making their employees work thru their breaks.** Vote NO! on 11. **

*However, AMR is choosing to not properly compensate its employees for their on-duty meal and rest periods. In other words, this initiative allows one private ambulance company to abuse the initiative process and taxpayer dollars to let themselves “off the hook” for violating the rights of its employees.

America Medical Response, a for-profit ambulance corporation, that operates throughout California, has illegally withheld millions of dollars in pay to EMS workers, some of whom are my co-workers. It is now being sued by its employees in a case entitled Bartoni v. AMR. If found liable, AMR could owe as much as $100 million in settlements. Instead of paying the money owed, AMR is spending millions to put Proposition 11 on November’s ballot, which would allow the company to avoid paying back its workers. This is immoral, irresponsible and puts the health of our first responders and our communities at risk.*

I think this is there because California technically has its own Daylight Saving Time laws, and they want those replaced with the Federal ones in case California ever wants to implement year-round DST again. (Yes, again. I remember when it was implemented in the 1970s - and my school had to push its entire schedule forward by 30 minutes in the winter so it wouldn’t be dark when the school day started.)

In case anybody is wondering, or even noticed:

Proposition 9 - directs the state to begin the process of dividing into three states.

This was removed by court order.

what’s the point of that? I heard/read last year a lot of science folks said we aka the “federal” we should make dst year around anyways for a variety of sciencey reasons and congress wasn’t exactly closed to the idea

so if that’s what they wanna avoid ……….

Just want to chime in and thank you, Pleonast, for doing this. I always hate the part of voting where we (Californians) have to slog through those initiatives. You make the process more tolerable. Great job!


I don’t see how any of that is relevant to whether or not Prop 11 is a good or bad policy.

I got to set myself down to do it anyway, I figure it’s worthwhile posting.

The worst part is the Superior Court judges, but that’s county level and probably not wide enough interest to post.

Oh, I glossed over the one about cage-free eggs before. That one is a huge “no”, but it’ll probably pass, because most people are ignorant. Cage-free does not mean cruelty-free, and requiring hens to be cage-free will just mean an increase in the cruelty. In a standard factory farm, you have way too many hens in way too small a building, with each hen in its own tiny little cubicle. In a cage-free factory farm, you have the same number of hens in the same building, except that you take away the bars between them. The hens are still just as overcrowded as they were before, except now they’re either pecking each other to death, or getting their beaks chopped off so they can’t.

Unless the law itself (not just the brief summary) actually specifies a minimum required area per hen. But that minimum area is what’s important, not the kind of enclosure used.

Your argument against Prop 12 is much better than the official one against it. The official one (printed in the state voter guide) is a list of non-sequiturs and ad-hominens.

The proposition increases the floor space per chicken by 25%. I don’t know California regulations concerning chicken social issues or beakedness. I’d hope that they already address that kind of cruelty.

Well, it means the workers don’t get lunches and breaks.

Cage free chickens die at a a rate 3 times higher than those in cages. Most of the increase is due to disease but there is also some cannibalism and pecking which can only be contained through cutting the beaks off. Cage free chickens also have a much higher risk of breaking their keel bones.

It means they stay on call, just like firefighters and police. They can still eat and rest when on call.

How much of those higher rates are dependent on the area per chicken?

They can, unless they work for a company like American Medical Response, who overworks them so that they almost never get breaks. These guys dont get paid like firefighters or police, nor do they get great retirement.

Then they should unionize, if their working conditions or compensation is poor. It seems like good policy that private first responders keep the same readiness as public ones.

Ambulance drivers are not first responders.

I don’t have anything to add to the argument, but I would also like to thank Pleonast for putting this together. I try to read the booklet, but my eyes glaze over and the arguments for and against don’t seem to make much sense to me.

You mean, what’s the point of year-round DST? It allows for an extra hour of daylight at the end of the day in the winter when people are more likely to be home.

The only real problem I see with it is, in the northern states, it means the sun may not even be up yet when kids have to start school for the day - and remember that a lot of them walk to school. I can see the benefits outweighing the risks in, say, Florida, but you can’t really implement it one state at a time in the east as it would wreak havoc on the TV schedules, especially with live events.

Yes but there are two State Supreme Court justices up for re-election, one of whom is Carol A. Corrigan. She voted against overturning Proposition 8 and wrote one of the dissents. She was vehemently against same sex marriage and I will be voting NO on her.

How would it “wreak havoc”? Things start when they start. Arizona doesn’t observe DST and there aren’t mass riots or disasters of any kind when the rest of us change.

The west can get away with it. The Eastern time zone cannot - events that run from 8 to 11 would now run from 9 to midnight.

Meanwhile…did anyone else get the same phone call concerning the “error” on the ballot? It turns out that the “real title” of Proposition 6 is the “Gas Tax Repeal Initiative.” I for one would like to thank “Reform California: Yes on 6” for saving the taxpayers money by paying for this important announcement.

Say…you don’t think that was just some campaign ad masquerading as a “ballot correction,” do you?