Editorial: California propositions

Proposition 4: Authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for water, wildfire prevention and protection of communities and land. It will cost about $400 million annually for 40 years. This bond will help the state be more proactive in preventing wildfires, saving money in the long run. Vote YES.

Proposition 5: Allows local infrastructure and housing bonds for low- and middle-income Californians with a 55% vote instead of the current two-thirds requirement. State bonds can be paid off with the state budget, but this proposition would mean individual property taxes would rise. Housing is the issue of our times, but this will make it more expensive by raising local property taxes, which will then be passed on to tenants. In addition, anything raised by bonds passed under this new threshold would not be able to be used in areas with one-, two-, three- or four-units of housing on a parcel, meaning nearly all of the state would be off limits. A better option would be to have the governor sign legislation for infrastructure finance districts, which use tax increment financing to pool revenue and create large-scale housing opportunities. Vote NO.

Proposition 6: Amends the California Constitution to remove a provision that allows jails and prisons to impose involuntary servitude to punish crime. There are issues with prison labor but there are also benefits in that it creates opportunities for work experience and rehabilitation. It can break the monotony of incarceration and provide job training which eases the transition back into society when the sentence is completed. However, making the labor voluntary will reduce exploitation and other issues. Vote YES.

Proposition 32: Raises the state’s minimum wage from $16 to $18 an hour by 2026, with annual adjustments for inflation. We already have a schedule for annual increases, and starting wages are already higher in most cases for entry level positions. Vote NO.

Proposition 33: Repeals Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, which generally prevents local governments from limiting rents for new tenants in all types of housing and from limiting rent hikes for residential properties built after 1995, single-family homes and condominiums. It would prevent the state from limiting local governments from create any rent control ordinance. Repealing Costa-Hawkins could provide a disincentive for the construction of much-needed new housing. State law already prevents landlords from increasing rent by more than 5% plus inflation. Vote NO.

Proposition 34: Requires certain providers to spend 98% of revenue from federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care. The sole purpose of the proposition is to target the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which sponsors rent control initiatives. This is not an appropriate way to use the ballot system. Vote NO.

Proposition 35: Makes permanent the existing tax on managed health care insurance plans, which, if approved by the federal government, provides revenue to pay for Medi-Cal health care services. While health care funding should go to health care, this also eliminates state flexibility and the ability to modify according to future needs. Vote NO.

Proposition 36: Allows felony charges for possessing certain drugs and for thefts under $950, if the defendant has two prior drug or theft possessions. This is the most controversial proposition on the ballot as some suggest it will increase incarceration and the societal and financial costs related to that. While it is clear there is political will to do something about retail theft and drug use, this proposition offers a slight revision, rather than a complete cure. However, too often, criminals, sometimes exploited by organized crime operations, don’t have the incentive to complete drug programs if arrested. This proposition would provide that incentive by providing the option for more stringent sentences. Proposition 47 had good intentions but it’s clear it didn’t work. This proposition would amend that proposition, not repeal it, in an effort to provide better outcomes for all. Vote YES.