Daily Journal proposition recommendations for San Mateo County June elections

While there is a tremendous need for water management in California as evidenced by the last drought, there have been more than $15 billion in such bonds in the past decade and a half. That money should be properly managed and steered to arising needs. Additionally, there is a $8.9 billion water bond aiming for the November ballot that would specifically address water infrastructure.

While urban parks are nice, it seems this should be addressed at the local level and with Sacramento’s support on an as-needed basis rather than added to a statewide ballot proposal.

Vote NO.

Proposition 69: Transportation

taxes and fees lockbox-YES

This proposition would require the state government to spend the approximate $5 billion in annual revenue created through Senate Bill 1, otherwise known as the gas tax, on transportation related expenses. It would also exempt the funds from the Gann Limit, which essentially requires that excessive revenue after factoring in inflation and population growth be rebated to taxpayers. The Gann Limit was enacted in the wake of 1978’s Proposition 13, which limits local property taxes, and sought to keep spending in check. There have been other examples of sidestepping the Gann Limit, most notably Proposition 98, which guarantees a higher base level of education funding. In a perfect world, it would be nice to consider refunding tax money to regular folks but the need for transportation funding is too great and this money will be needed, especially if it is specifically earmarked for transportation improvements.

Though it might seem odd to require the state to spend money where it is promised, this adds an additional safeguard to that.

Vote YES.

Proposition 70: Legislative vote

requirement to use cap-and-trade revenue-YES

This proposition was part of a legislative deal that extended the state’s landmark cap-and-trade legislation to 2030 and proposes a one-time, two-thirds vote in both the state Senate and Assembly in 2024 or after to pass a spending plan for revenue produced by the program to control greenhouse gases. In requiring a two-thirds vote in the state Legislature, it allows bipartisan participation in allocating the proceeds of auctions producing revenue that has been used for a variety of programs until now.

Vote YES.

Proposition 71: Effective

date for ballot measures-YES

This proposition seeks to close a loophole in which a voter-approved law could feasibly take effect immediately after Election Day though tallies after could change the result. Because of the rising use of all-mail ballots, some results may not come in for days after Election Day. While current law allows for ballot propositions to go into effect retroactively to Election Day once certified, this would clarify that there must be a wait of at least five days until the secretary of state certifies the results. Though the current practice seems to work just fine, this way, there can be no question as to when a voter-approved law goes into effect.

Vote YES.

Proposition 72: Excluding rainwater capture systems from property tax reassessments-YES

Under current law, new construction causes a property tax reassessment based on the value of the addition, and that includes rainwater capture systems. To alleviate any financial burden for an improvement to a property that would also benefit the larger community through the smart use of water, this proposition would exclude rainwater capture systems from reassessments similar to how solar panels, fire sprinklers and ADA changes are treated now.

Vote YES.