cahwyguy: (Default)
cahwyguy ([personal profile] cahwyguy) wrote2024-09-24 10:55 pm
  • Add Memory
  • Share This Entry
Entry tags:

Nov 2024 General Election Ballot Analysis (III): Local and State Measures

It’s that time again. We’re closing in on the general election. Sample ballots are starting to go out. As people are already starting to make up their minds, I figured I should try to get this out as early as I could. Every election, I do a detailed ballot analysis of my sample ballot. This is where I examine each candidate and share my conclusions, and invite you to convince me to vote for the other jerk.  Because this is a long ballot, I’m splitting this analysis into a few chunks (note: links may not be available until all segments are posted):

  1. State and National Offices (excluding judges)
  2. County and City (Los Angeles) Local Offices (excluding judges)
  3. Local and State Measures (nee Propositions)
  4. Judicial Offices (County and State)
  5. Summary

Note: This analysis is NOT presented in the same order as the Sample Ballot (the ballot order makes no sense). I’ve attempted instead to present things in more logical order.

This part covers the State and Local Measures

State of California

Legislative Measures

❧

Proposition 2: Public Education Facilities Bond Measure

AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACILITIES. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE..

Authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for repair, upgrade, and construction of facilities at K–12 public schools (including charter schools), community colleges, and career technical education programs, including for improvement of health and safety conditions and classroom upgrades. Requires annual audits. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs of about $500 million annually for 35 years to repay the bond. Supporters: California Teachers Association; California School Nurses Organization; Community College League of California Opponents: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

Reference: Voter Guide

⚫ Yes

My source for the “Yes” side of the issue was primarily the “Yes on 2” website. It points out that a statewide bond issue for school repair hasn’t passed since 2016 (8 years ago), and those funds are almost gone. There was a measure in 2020 that was defeated; the FAQ supposedly explains the difference but really says nothing; the closest it comes is “and [it] does not include a change to local bonds, it only helps to match funding from local school bonds.”  The implication is that Prop. 2 only matches local funds, but that’s not an impression I get from reading other articles on the proposition. Ballotpedia states “Proposition 2 would issue $10 billion in bonds with $8.5 billion dedicated to elementary and secondary educational facilities and $1.5 billion for community college facilities. Proposition 2 would make changes to the formula used to determine the amount each district is required to contribute to be eligible to receive state funding from the bond revenue.”

The claim is made that the measure will not increase taxes, but that’s not quite true. It will force general fund revenue to be used to pay the interest on the bonds. As that revenue goes out of the general fund, it may need to be made up from somewhere else, which could increase taxes. That seems to be the main concern of the “no” side.

There are a lot of supporters for Prop. 2. Naturally, school districts and teacher unions are in favor of it. Unions are in support of it, primarily because it will mean jobs for union workers. Democratic groups are behind it, because of their support for public schools. The SF League of Pissed Off Voters is behind it, which made me smile. Notably, no Republican groups are behind it.

◯ No

I looked for any organized opposition to this measure. The Voter Information Guide says the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is behind it, but they hate anything that could potentially raise taxes or impact taxes. The NO argument was written by Bill Essayli, a Republican from Riverside County who is in the Trump camp. Neither are all that credible in my eyes. The LB Press Telegraph endorsed a NO vote. Their primary argument was fiscal: “But the money for that $500 million a year has to come from somewhere. That means cutting other spending programs or raising taxes. That’s why we long have called bonds “delayed tax increases.”” Later, they write: “Then consider that under the measure, school districts that commit to using high-cost union labor will be given an edge over districts that don’t use union labor. Which raises a question: Is this really for the best interests of the students or is this really for the best interests of the unions? What we are left with, then, is a massive bond that will require $500 million a year in state general fund spending for over three decades. It fails to prioritize the needs of economically disadvantaged districts. And it encourages districts to spend more than they ought to on school construction and modernization.”

Conclusion

In trying to decide this, I looked at what I cited above, as well as Ballotpedia and summaries by the Daily News and LAist. The Daily News noted “The last time districts received a state funding boost for infrastructure improvements was through Prop. 51 in 2016, which authorized $9 billion in bonds. This money has now all run out, and districts are eager to start work on scores of already approved projects — totaling over $3.5 billion in estimated costs — that are awaiting funding.”. The Daily News also noted the issue that the LB Press-Telegram noted (and I think both are part of LA Media Group):  “The bond sets aside 10% of funding for smaller school districts, but some of these smaller districts — including the Lennox School District, Lynwood Unified School District and South Whittier Unified School District — say this isn’t enough”. The LAist summary addresses the “matching grant” part of things: “Remember: Proceeds from state bonds like Prop. 2 are given out as matching grants — they require districts to chip in money to get money.” This naturally biases the spending towards wealthier districts; from LAist “Districts raise funding through property taxes; the amount of money they can bring in through local bond measures is restricted to a certain percentage of a property’s assessed value. Districts with higher value property (more expensive houses and lucrative commercial properties) can collect more money — some districts can fund repairs without the state’s help. Districts in poorer communities can raise fewer dollars — even if they serve more students — and are more reliant on limited state funding.”

Reading through the “Yes” arguments and the various summaries, it is is clear that the funds are needed. There are some disputes about how things are allocated, but there is no argument regarding the need. Reading through the LAist piece, it appears that the “no” argument boils down to two primary points: First, the fact that this is a bond and doesn’t directly raise taxes is a red herring. It diverts general fund spending, which may mean more taxes to make up the loss to the general fund. It also requires local district to spend funds to get funds, which may increase property taxes. Second, school enrollment is dropping, so why spend money to repair schools.

My thoughts: It is clear the funding is needed. Enrollment may be going down, but that would primarily affect construction of new facilities. This is maintenance of existing facilities. It is also matching funds, so school districts need to raise the local funds first. This means that spending could be less. It may increase taxes — and I’m not a big fan of taxes — but taxes are part of how we have a civilized society and public schools. Private schools don’t have these issues, but they also exclude (usually by price) the disadvantaged.

I think it is time for another school bond: ⚫ Yes

❧

Proposition 3: Right to Marry and Repeal Proposition 8 Amendment

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MARRIAGE. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Amends California Constitution to recognize fundamental right to marry, regardless of sex or race. Removes language in California Constitution stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Fiscal Impact: No change in revenues or costs for state and local governments. Supporters: Sierra Pacific Synod of The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Dolores Huerta Foundation; Equality California Opponents: Jonathan Keller, California Family Council; Rev. Tanner DiBella

Reference: Voter Guide

⚫ Yes

This one is easy to understand: It removes the language added by Prop. 8 many years ago, when society was different, that restricts marriage to traditional man/women marriages only. Normally, this wouldn’t be a concern. But the Trump changes to the Supreme Court has raised the spectre that same sex marriage nationally may be overturned. If it is, the old language in the California Constitution comes into play. That’s a problem.

◯ No

The “NO” argument is from the California Family Council. They state: “Proposition 3 seeks to repeal Proposition 8 and erase the language that upholds marriage as a union exclusively between one man and one woman. This foundational principle has been a bedrock of our society, and its removal could have far-reaching and destructive consequences.” However, when you look at the “About” page for the CFC, it states that their mission is “Advancing God’s Design for Life, Family, & Liberty through California’s Church, Capitol, & Culture” and that their vision is “God’s people living as principled citizens of both heaven and earth: Biblically Faithful Civically Responsible Culturally Impactful”

Additionally, their ballot argument is duplicitous: “Proposition 3 removes all rules for marriage, opening the door to child marriages, incest, and polygamy.”. Nope. There are separate laws on the books that establish the minimum ages for marriage, prevent polygamy, and prevent incest. Those things remain prohibited, same sex or not. “By making moms and dads optional, it puts children at risk.” How does this make parents optional? It says nothing about parents.

Conclusion

There are two things guiding my decision on this measure:

  1. Rights that have been granted should not be taken away.
  2. Government, per the First Amendment, should not be pushing or legislating a particular religion’s views

Same-sex marriage is currently a right that people have. Traditional marriage restrictions are a view of a particular subset of Christians; it doesn’t represent all Christians, and is not the view of many other religions. Let’s not perpetuate the mistake we made with Prop. 8 many years ago. Vote ⚫ Yes

❧

Proposition 4: Parks, Environment, Energy, and Water Bond Measure

AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER, WILDFIRE PREVENTION, AND PROTECTING COMMUNITIES AND NATURAL LANDS FROM CLIMATE RISKS. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE.

Authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for water, wildfire prevention, and protection of communities and lands. Requires annual audits. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs of about $400 million annually for 40 years to repay the bond. Supporters: Clean Water Action; CALFIRE Firefighters; National Wildlife Federation; The Nature Conservancy Opponents: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

Reference: Voter Guide

⚫ Yes

The “Yes on 4” page is a bit vague on what this funds, talking more in broad platitudes. LAist provides a more detailed summary, noting: “Democratic lawmakers and environmental advocates pushed for the bond after cuts to state climate programs due to an unprecedented deficit in recent years. (The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office says the state faces as much as a $73 billion deficit.) Two years ago, Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state legislature approved a $54.3 billion spending package for what Newsom called his “California Climate Commitment.” Since then, the package has faced a $9.4 billion, or 17%, reduction, due to the state’s budget deficit.” This bond measure seemingly makes up that hole. LAist notes: “According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, $3.8 billion would go toward safe drinking water and infrastructure to capture stormwater and recycle water; $1.95 billion to wildfire prevention and addressing the impacts of extreme heat; $1.9 billion to conserving natural lands, parks, and wildlife; $1.2 billion to help coastal communities adapt to sea level rise; $850 million for clean energy infrastructure, primarily offshore wind and upgrading electric transmission lines; and $300 million to incentivize more sustainable farming as well as support community gardens and farmers markets. And 40% of the funds would be required to benefit lower-income communities most impacted by climate change and pollution. The measure also requires yearly audits.”

Lots of environmental and progressive groups are supporting this, as well as the League of Women Voters. The Nature Conservancy is strongly in favor of it. Calmatters notes that as of early Sep 2024, $639K raised has been raised in favor of this.

◯ No

When you are dealing with a bond, the “NO” side is predictable: the Howard Jarvis group, and Republicans. They note this would have been a much larger bond, but Newsom indicated he would support no more than 20 bil. in bonds on the November ballot. Prop. 2 is 10 billion, and Prop 4 is 10 billion. There are the usual arguments about how bonded indebtedness ends up increasing taxes because the funds in the general fund has to come from somewhere.

A number of the Conservative newspapers in the state have come out against this, which isn’t a surprise. There isn’t an organized “No on 4” page, and no funds have been raised in opposition to this.

The strongest arguments against this appear to be that at least some of what it is funding is not infrastructure, but ongoing expenses and activities that should come out of normal ongoing general spending. That’s a valid argument. But the question there is whether the pursuit of a perfect measure is the enemy of getting things that need to be done done.

Almost every opposition editorial I see on this seems to be written by the same person: Brian Jones, a conservative State Senator representing inland San Diego County.

Conclusion

I’m cautious on increasing bonded indebtedness, but sometimes it is necessary. The real question is where the money goes, and does it have long term impact. Ongoing expenses are poor for bonds.  The legislative analysis summary gives a good idea of where the funds might be spent. It looks like that while a goodly portion would go to things that might be considered “infrastructure” (such as restoring wetlands), there is also a good portion that is more ongoing activities. But I think this summer has demonstrated that we need increased climate resilience. Given I do highways, examples might be the work on Route 37 or Route 1. I think those could be addressed here.

Should those things be tackled by ongoing budgeted spending? In an ideal world, yes. But as any homeowner will tell you, loans exists to allow the spending to be smoothed out when there is an unpredictable cash flow. Often, improvements need to be made before the cash flow can handle them. One takes on the risk of a loan in those cases, and the cash flow will make it up down the road. I think that’s the case here.

I say that we move forward: ⚫ Yes

❧

Proposition 5: Lower Supermajority Requirement to 55% for Local Bond Measures to Fund Housing and Public Infrastructure Amendment

ALLOWS LOCAL BONDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE WITH 55% VOTER APPROVAL. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Allows approval of local infrastructure and housing bonds for low- and middle-income Californians with 55% vote. Accountability requirements. Fiscal Impact: Increased local borrowing to fund affordable housing, supportive housing, and public infrastructure. The amount would depend on decisions by local governments and voters. Borrowing would be repaid with higher property taxes. Supporters: California Professional Firefighters; League of Women Voters of California; Habitat for Humanity California Opponents: California Taxpayers Association; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce; Women Veterans Alliance

Reference: Voter Guide

⚫ Yes

For all the lofty talk on the YES page, Prop. 5 doesn’t allocate any funds. The Legislative Analyst’s analysis makes that clear. What this measure does is two things: (1) it makes it easier to pass a subset of bonds dealing with public infrastructure and housing projects; and (2) adds oversight for those bonds and projects. So where you should go on this proposition really boils down to whether you think it should be easier to pass those types of bonds. Naturally, you can guess what the Howard Jarvis Association (the NO side) and the Republicans think about that.

The coalition behind Prop. 5 is thus predictable: the same folks that are behind public infrastructure and housing bonds. Progressive organizations. Unions. Housing organization. Civic rights groups.

◯ No

The NO side, which seems generically opposed to any tax, feels this is an attack on Proposition 13: “Proposition 5 is ACA 1, a direct attack on Proposition 13. It makes it easier to raise taxes by eliminating the longstanding two-thirds vote of the electorate required to pass local bonds (borrowed money that must be repaid with interest). All new bond measures for “infrastructure” (nearly everything is “infrastructure”) and for public housing projects would pass with just 55% approval instead of the current 66.7%.” They note that local bonds are paid for with extra charges on property tax bills, adding to the tax burden on homeowners and businesses, leading to higher rents for tenants and higher consumer prices for everyone.

Conclusion

The funding disparity here is interesting. The “YES” side raised $5 million as of Sept 10, per Calmatters. The NO side has raised $29.6 million — almost 6 times the YES side.  What this shows is that Prop. 13 — the original one, with the retired Jersey number — is still a third-rail in California politics. Organizations are loath to change it, even thought Prop. 13 has brought worse schools and worse infrastructure, and increasing inequity in property taxes paid.

Straddling the third rail, the real question is whether public infrastructure bonds and housing bonds should be easier to pass than other bond measures. The Jarvis folks do have a reasonable argument that most bonds fall into the categories covered by this measure.  But is that necessarily a problem. Supermajorities have become a tool of Conservatives to prevent progress. The desire to keep things cheap for them now impairs our ability to make things better for the future. We need to start working towards what is better for the community at large, and this seems to be movement in that direction.

Conclusion: ⚫Yes

❧

Proposition 6: Remove Involuntary Servitude as Punishment for Crime Amendment

ELIMINATES CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ALLOWING INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE FOR INCARCERATED PERSONS. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Amends the California Constitution to remove current provision that allows jails and prisons to impose involuntary servitude to punish crime (i.e., forcing incarcerated persons to work). Fiscal Impact: Potential increase or decrease in state and local costs, depending on how work for people in state prison and county jail changes. Any effect likely would not exceed the tens of millions of dollars annually. Supporters: Assemblymember Lori Wilson Opponents: None submitted

Reference: Voter Guide

⚫ Yes

LAist has a good summary on this. They note “The measure aims to change the state constitution to prohibit involuntary servitude as a punishment for a crime. Prop. 6 also would prohibit state authorities from punishing incarcerated people who decline to work. It would allow incarcerated people to work to earn so-called good-time credits, which could reduce the amount of time they serve behind bars. Prop. 6 is one of 14 bills that were prioritized by the California Legislative Black Caucus as part of its reparations package — all aimed at recognizing the need to right the wrongs done to Black Californians, especially those who are descendants of enslaved people.  The recommendation to end forced labor in California prisons comes out of the California Reparations Task Force. Assemblymember Lori Wilson, chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus, called for “a comprehensive approach to dismantling the legacy of slavery and systemic racism.” And Prop. 6 is seen as part of that dismantling.

Surprisingly, there might be costs associated with this. The LAO’s notes that is because the state could end up paying people more in order to encourage them to work, increasing costs. But the state could also encourage people to work by offering more time credits, which might reduce overall prison costs.

◯ No

There is no formal opposition.

Conclusion

I can’t see any reason why we need to keep involuntary servitude in the state constitution. Conclusion: ⚫ Yes

Voter-Originated Initiatives

❧

Proposition 32: $18 Minimum Wage Initiative

RAISES MINIMUM WAGE. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Raises minimum wage as follows: For employers with 26 or more employees, to $17 immediately, $18 on January 1, 2025. For employers with 25 or fewer employees, to $17 on January 1, 2025, $18 on January 1, 2026. Fiscal Impact: State and local government costs could increase or decrease by up to hundreds of millions of dollars annually. State and local revenues likely would decrease by no more than a few hundred million dollars annually. Supporters: None submitted Opponents: California Chamber of Commerce; California Restaurant Association; California Grocers Association

Reference: Voter Guide

⚫ Yes

What this does is pretty straightforward. The issue is that the cost of living is so high in California that the current minimum wage is insufficient for a single job to provide basic food and housing. As such, workers end up homeless or on social services, even thought they are working minimum wage laws. Alternatively, they are pushed to working 3-4 jobs just to make ends meet.

◯ No

The No argument, which comes from predictable business sources, is that business in California can’t afford this, and it will force business out of the state, yada yada. I don’t buy all of that: service and retail businesses, which is where most of the low-wage hourly jobs are, can only be done locally. Prices will go up, but that’s the cost of business.  The LAist analysis provides one piece of data that might support the NO side: A separate LAO report looked at the minimum wage and workers. It found:

  • For a single parent with three children, the statewide minimum wage is right around the poverty level. For a single parent with four or more children, the minimum wage is below the poverty level.
  • For a single parent with one or two children, the statewide minimum wage is somewhat higher than the poverty level.
  • For the most common types of low-wage workers — those who do not have children or who live with at least one other worker — the minimum wage is at least two times the poverty level.

Factoring in housing costs, the LAO found “housing in California’s major metro areas and much of the Central Coast is unaffordable for minimum-wage workers.”

The California Chamber of Commerce, in its argument against, notes something interesting: “Importantly to employers, the measure will lead to an increase in payroll expenses because they will be forced to increase wages for many exempt workers. Under California law, to qualify as “exempt,” an employee must make at least twice the minimum wage. Currently, that minimum annual salary with a $16 an hour minimum wage is $66,560. Under an $18 an hour minimum wage, that minimum salary would be $74,880.”

Conclusion

The real question is whether it is ethical for businesses to knowingly pay full time workers an amount that insufficient to live on? When they don’t pay a living wage, who ends up paying the cost: The taxpayers, in the form of increased social services. We also pay in terms of increased homelessness, and damage done by the unhouses. Paying an extra buck or two for a latte seems small in comparison to that. We really need to put the needs of people ahead of the need for profit. Further, this measure could have the side effect of raising wages for salaries workers. I could easily see this measure having a significant impact on the unhoused population, which could really help the overall quality of life. There are so many positive ripple effects I can see from this. It is well worth paying a buck or two more for a burger or a coffee.

Conclusion: ⚫ Yes

❧

Proposition 33: Prohibit State Limitations on Local Rent Control Initiative

EXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ AUTHORITY TO ENACT RENT CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Repeals Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, which currently prohibits local ordinances limiting initial residential rental rates for new tenants or rent increases for existing tenants in certain residential properties. Fiscal Impact: Reduction in local property tax revenues of at least tens of millions of dollars annually due to likely expansion of rent control in some communities. Supporters: CA Nurses Assoc.; CA Alliance for Retired Americans; Mental Health Advocacy; Coalition for Economic Survival; TenantsTogether Opponents: California Council for Affordable Housing; Women Veterans Alliance; California Chamber of Commerce

Reference: Voter Guide

⚫ Yes

What this does is tricky to understand, but it can be worked out through the legislative analyst’s writeup. You need to know that a state law, known as the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Costa-Hawkins), limits local rent control laws in three main ways. First, rent control cannot apply to any single-family homes. Second, rent control cannot apply to any housing built on or after February 1, 1995. Third, rent control laws generally cannot tell landlords what they can charge a new renter when first moving in. Instead, rent control can only limit how much landlords increase rent for existing renters. This measure eliminates Costa-Hawkins. Under the proposition, cities and counties can control rents for any housing. They also can limit how much a landlord may increase rents when a new renter moves in. The proposition itself does not make any changes to existing local rent control laws. Generally, cities and counties would have to take separate actions to change their local laws.  Further, the measure prevents the state from taking future actions to limit local rent control.

Naturally, landlords hate this, because rent control can limit their ability to make money from properties, and possible to even cover their costs of ownership and maintenance. Realtors hate this, because it reduces the value of rental properties, and perhaps even single-family homes that were anticipated to be used as rental properties. On the other hand, civil justice folks love this, because it makes housing more affordable. The LAO summarizes this as:

  • Some renters who live in properties covered by rent control would spend less on rent. Some renters who live in properties not covered by rent control would spend more on rent.
  • Some renters would move less often.
  • Fewer homes would be available to rent. One reason for this is that some landlords would sell their properties to new owners who would live there instead of renting it out.
  • The value of rental housing would decline because potential landlords would not want to pay as much for these properties.

The folks in favor of this are predictable: Civil justice organizations. Racial justice organizations. Tenants organizations. Democratic (progressive) organizations. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which has so pissed off the apartment owners and realtor that they have massively funding an initiative specific targeting that group (see Prop 34).

◯ No

As noted above, the NO argument looks at the impact of Rent Control on the housing supply, the rental housing supply and such. With a mix of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Distrust)  and reality, the NO side points out that this could be a net negative. The endorsements on the NO side are also predictable:  Builders, Real Estate, Chambers of Commerce, Conservative/Republican groups, and such.

Conclusion

This is a hard one. Rent control can be a positive thing, but should really only be needed when one is faced with the stereotypical greedy landlord that is overcharging. In an ethical world, landlords should be charging based on cost, supply and demand. But this also wouldn’t change things immediately: cities and counties would have to enact new rent control laws, and so people would still have their councilcritters and the ballot box to protect them. We’ve had some good proposals in the past that were limited in impact because of the law this overturns.

I think we need to return the ability to impose rent control to the local jurisdictions: ⚫ Yes

❧

Proposition 34: Require Certain Participants in Medi-Cal Rx Program to Spend 98% of Revenues on Patient Care Initiative

RESTRICTS SPENDING OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG REVENUES BY CERTAIN HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Requires certain providers to spend 98% of revenues from federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care. Authorizes statewide negotiation of Medi-Cal drug prices. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs, likely in the millions of dollars annually, to enforce new rules on certain health care entities. Affected entities would pay fees to cover these costs. Supporters: The ALS Association; California Chronic Care Coalition; Latino Heritage Los Angeles Opponents: National Org. for Women; Consumer Watchdog; Coalition for Economic Survival; AIDS Healthcare Foundation; Dolores Huerta

Reference: Voter Guide

◯ Yes

The Legislative Analyst notes on this: “Proposition 34 creates new rules about how certain health care entities spend revenue from the federal drug discount program. Specifically, the entities would have to spend at least 98 percent of their net revenue earned in California on health care services provided directly to patients (“direct patient care”). These rules apply only to entities that meet certain conditions (“affected entities”).” Further, the LAO notes: “Under Proposition 34, likely few entities would meet the conditions described…” Why do I mention this? Because the NO side argues that Prop 34 was created specifically to kneecap AIDS Healthcare Foundation – in retaliation for its sponsorship of Prop 33, which advocates for rent control. Interesting. But is there anything to back that up?

Look at the supporters for Prop. 34: A bunch of specialty healthcare organizations. But look, down at the bottom: “Paid for Yes on 34, Protect Patients Now: A Coalition of Nurses, Women, Firefighters, Veterans, LGBTQ+ Advocates, and Patient Groups, Sponsored by California Apartment Association. Committee’s top funders: California Apartment Association; California Association of Realtors.” Why would apartment owners and realtors be sponsoring a healthcare initiative that has limited impact? Something is fishy here. Let’s explore further.

Who does the YES side say this initiative would impact? Answer: They don’t. When they talk about this does, they talk broadly. They say “requiring the greediest healthcare corporations to spend at least 98% of the taxpayer funds they receive through the drug discount program in California on directly treating patients.” It’s clear their focus is not price negotiation, but the following (emphasis added): “However, healthcare corporations across the country have used a legal loophole to game the system and divert money from the discount drug program to pet projects that have done nothing to benefit patients: wasting money on renting out football stadiums to put on private concerts, giving their executives multimillion dollar salaries, paying for naming rights on sports stadiums, spending millions on lobbying and dumping millions more into political campaigns. Worse yet, some of these same corporations that get billions in taxpayer dollars have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on housing projects that are often run like slums. An LA Times investigation found that residents at several of these housing projects were forced to live in squalid conditions, exposed to roach and bed bug infestations, putting the health and safety of tenants at risk.”

This makes it clear their target is AIDS Healthcare Initiative.  LAist makes that clear: “The healthcare organization would need to have spent more than $100 million on things other than direct patient care in the last decade — and own and operate multifamily housing units “with at least 500 high-level violations. So far, only one group appears to match that description: The AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which operates HIV clinics and thrift stores across the country.”

⚫ No

The NO side, naturally, is AIDS Healthcare Initiative and those that approve of its work. They are being outspent. According to LAist: “Supporters for Prop. 34, led by the California Apartment Association, have raised more than $18 million. Opponents, led by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, have raised at least $530,000.” Wow. Others opposing this are National Organization for Women, Consumer Watchdog, Coalition for Economic Survival, and Dolores Huerta. Other renters organizations are joining the bandwagon.

Conclusion

Prop. 34 is misleading, and is specifically targeted as revenge against a single organization. Whether or not you like the organization, specifically targeted legislation like this is an abuse of the initiative process. It should be rejected resoundingly at the ballot. If you don’t like what AIDS Healthcare Foundation does, vote against their initiatives at the ballot box. Don’t do this. Conclusion:  ⚫ No

❧

Proposition 35: Managed Care Organization Tax Authorization Initiative

PROVIDES PERMANENT FUNDING FOR MEDI-CAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Makes permanent the existing tax on managed health care insurance plans, which, if approved by the federal government, provides revenues to pay for Medi-Cal health care services. Fiscal Impact: Short-term state costs between roughly $1 billion and $2 billion annually to increase funding for certain health programs. Total funding increase between roughly $2 billion to $5 billion annually. Unknown long-term fiscal effects. Supporters: Planned Parenthood Affiliates of CA; American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists; American Academy of Pediatrics, CA Opponents: None submitted

Reference: Voter Guide

◯ Yes

Calmatters has a good explanation of this: Proposition 35 would require the state to spend the money from a tax on health care plans on Medi-Cal, the public insurance program for low-income Californians and people with disabilities. The revenue would go to primary and specialty care, emergency services, family planning, mental health and prescription drugs. It would also prevent legislators from using the tax revenue to replace existing state Medi-Cal spending. Over the next four years, it is projected to generate upwards of $35 billion.

Note that this isn’t a new tax. The LA Times notes California has imposed an “MCO tax” off and on over the years. The latest version of the tax is expected to generate between $7 billion and $8 billion annually, according to estimates from the Legislative Analyst’s Office. So why the initiative? According to the LA Times, “Lawmakers said they would dedicate some of that tax revenue to increase the reimbursement rates that healthcare providers are paid under Medi-Cal. Healthcare providers said boosting rates was crucial to prevent Medi-Cal patients from facing shortages of providers and long waits. This year, however, Newsom sought to repurpose billions of dollars from the MCO tax to cover other Medi-Cal program costs. The budget plan ultimately agreed to by state lawmakers included money for Medi-Cal rate increases for healthcare providers, but less than what was previously planned.” Doctors and nurses and hospitals didn’t like that; hence, they sponsored this initiative. As always, follow the money.

So what this is doing is directing how particular tax income for the state must be spent. As such, it provides increased support for Medi-Cal. Hospitals, doctors, the Democratic party and the Republican party are in favor of this.

The California Budget Center has a good deep-dive analysis of this.

⚫ No

So who is opposed to it? Nothing formally organized yet. Gavin Newsom says he will oppose it, because it ties his hands on how to spend the funds. Other opponents include League of Women Voters of California, California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, The Children’s Partnership, California Alliance for Retired Americans, and Courage California.

But why is this opposed. Only the Children’s Partnership has written something up. They write: “The Children’s Partnership is grateful that the 2024-25 state budget included funding to implement the multi-year continuous Medi-Cal coverage protection for children from birth to age 5. Unfortunately, this policy – and many other programs and initiatives that support people on Medi-Cal, including a living wage rate increase for community health workers – would be rendered “inoperative” if Proposition 35 passes this November. Prop 35 directs revenue raised from the Managed Care Organization tax to fund rate increases for a limited number of Medi-Cal providers, forever limiting the Legislature’s ability to use any of those funds for other budget needs – even if those needs include other Medi-Cal supports.”

In other words, on the medical side, the argument is that the initiative is too limiting. TCP notes “The allocation of funding under Prop 35 is decided by a few provider organizations with little voice from Medi-Cal enrollees, community members, Legislature, or other essential provider groups, such as community health workers.”

The California Budget and Policy Center notes: “While Prop. 35 provides some flexibility for the state to structure future versions of MCO tax proposals to comply with federal regulations and ensure federal approval, it does set limits to the tax on commercial enrollment. This limitation could affect the state’s ability to secure future approval for a tax that generates the same level of revenue as the current tax. The measure also specifies that the MCO tax would not go into effect if the state does not receive federal approval and federal funding in the future. Additionally, Prop. 35 would establish rules for how MCO tax revenue would be spent in the short term (2025 and 2026) and long term (2027 and beyond). The key difference is that policymakers would no longer be able to use the bulk of the dollars to offset General Fund spending in Medi-Cal. Another notable difference is that Prop. 35 would require funds to be spent by the end of each calendar year or fiscal year, beginning 2027. Currently, policymakers have the flexibility to save funds for future years to help cover costs if the MCO tax is not approved in the future.”

The League of Women Voters similarly doesn’t like the initiative because it is ballot box budgeting and too restrictive.

Conclusion

One of the problems with the initiative process is that we get flawed initiatives that may sound like good ideas, but in the long term are bad and overly limiting. Would we have known then what we know now on the impact of Prop. 13… So how you should move on this really depends on whether you think this is moving the needle forward in a way that overcomes its flaws, or you think the flaws impact the advancement this brings. Reading through the arguments on both sides, my gut is telling me that this particular initiative is here to benefit specific Medi-cal organizations at the expense of others, and it limits the flexibility of the legislature far too much. Conclusion.  ⚫ No

❧

Proposition 36: Drug and Theft Crime Penalties and Treatment-Mandated Felonies Initiative

ALLOWS FELONY CHARGES AND INCREASES SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN DRUG AND THEFT CRIMES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Allows felony charges for possessing certain drugs and for thefts under $950, if defendant has two prior drug or theft convictions. Fiscal Impact: State criminal justice costs likely ranging from several tens of millions of dollars to the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Local criminal justice costs likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually. Supporters: Crime Victims United of California; California District Attorneys Association; Family Business Association of California Opponents: Diana Becton, District Attorney Contra Costa County; Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice

Reference: Voter Guide

◯ Yes

Prop. 36 was put on the ballot by folks who believed something needed to be done about all the “smash and grab” crimes they saw in the news, and the increasing drug use. But guess what folks: America’s stores are winning the war on shoplifting. According to CNN: “A year ago, America’s stores declared a shoplifting epidemic. They closed stores in major cities, hired extra security, locked up key merchandise and declared big losses in their financial statements. This year, retailers are telling a very different story — or no story at all. It’s as if the shoplifting crisis suddenly vanished.” They also note:

Shrink has been improving in large part because companies’ accounting of their merchandise has gotten more accurate.

At first, retailers underestimated how much merchandise they were losing. When they adjusted their metrics to compensate, they overestimated their original losses in some cases.

Stores have also added ways to prevent theft, which may have been effective at reducing the problem, even if they frustrated shoppers. Companies locked up products and removed self-checkout stations.

And retailers are getting more assistance from many local and state governments, which are devoting additional resources and passing legislation to crack down on theft and organized crime. In California, for example, Gov. Gavin Newsom last month signed legislation creating stricter penalties for retail theft, including longer sentences for large-scale theft rings and lower thresholds for prosecutors to charge people for felony thefts.

Regarding theft, the LAO’s office notes: “Turns Some Misdemeanors Into Felonies. For example, currently, theft of items worth $950 or less is generally a misdemeanor. Proposition 36 makes this crime a felony if the person has two or more past convictions for certain theft crimes (such as shoplifting, burglary, or carjacking). The sentence would be up to three years in county jail or state prison. These changes undo some of the punishment reductions in Proposition 47.” But making a crime a felony does nothing if (a) the retailer doesn’t prosecute the fine; and (b) if the police and DA don’t solve crimes and prosecute. Retailers won’t prosecute simply because the cost of the lawyers to do so will greatly exceed the cost of the goods and the time of the lawyer. It’s cheaper to let insurance take care of it.  If there are no charges, then something targeting repeat offenders is less useful.

This also increases drug penalties and fines for certain drugs: “Requires Some Felonies Be Served in Prison. For example, as discussed above, sentences for selling certain drugs (such as fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, or methamphetamine) can be lengthened based on the amount sold. Currently, these sentences are served in county jail or state prison depending on the person’s criminal history. Proposition 36 generally requires these sentences be served in prison.”. As such, it makes more business for prison (which is very expensive housing), and it does nothing to get people off drugs. It addresses to a very small extent the supply; it does nothing to address demand. When there is enough demand, supply will find a way.

Prop. 36 has a large number of supporters. Businesses. Politicians (often Conservative). Conservative taxpayer groups. Public safety.  When you follow the money, big contributors are folks like Walmart, Target, Home Depot, In-N-Out.

⚫ No

The No side argues “It reignites the failed war on drugs, makes simple drug possession a felony, and wastes tens of millions of dollars on jails and prisons, while slashing crucial funding for victims, crime prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation.” They state “Prop 36 is a MAGA-Republican-led bait and switch, plain and simple. Crime victims and law enforcement leaders oppose Prop 36 because it slashes money meant for crime victims, and for mental health and rehabilitation programs that help ensure people getting out of jail or prison are less likely to reoffend. Prop 36 is a Republican-led effort to bring back to 1980s style drug war tactics that destroy families and communities and pack our state prisons without any benefit to public safety.”

There are a large number of folks opposed to Prop 36: Democratic leaders. Civil Justice folks. ACLU. Many unions. The California Democratic Committee. Jewish Action California.

Conclusion

I think where you come down on Prop. 36 will go closely with how you think on the LA County DA race. Are you scared crime is increasing? Do you think the answer to crime is more prison time and harsher penalties? On the other side: Do you think that as the economy and housing issues improve, and retailers understand shrink better and learn self-checkout was a failure, crime will go down? Do you think that perhaps the answer to “smash and grab” crimes is not harsher penalties, but more staff to monitor the store and have a visible deterrence presence? Could the desire to downstaff and remove the sales people from the shopping be the real reason why these crimes have increased: we’ve increased the opportunity?

As for fentanyl: The issue is not the end drug sellers and the users. The issue is the large scale importers and manufacturers, and we already have harsh penalties for those. All the additional penalties of Prop 36 will do is increase our prison population, making things more expensive for the state.

The Los Angeles Times makes some additional points. I wrote up my analysis independent from the LA Times.

I understand the concerns and fears behind Prop 36, but I don’t think it is the right solution for the problem. Conclusion:  ⚫ No

Los Angeles County

❧

Measure A: Raising LA County’s sales tax to fund homelessness efforts

Reference: https://laist.com/news/politics/2024-election-california-general-measure-a-fund-homelessness-relief-efforts

To require accountability and results, create affordable housing, support home ownership, provide rental assistance, increase mental health and addiction treatment, reduce and prevent homelessness; and provide services for children, families, veterans, domestic violence survivors, seniors, and disabled people experiencing homelessness; shall the measure repealing the Measure H tax and replacing it with a 1/2 cent sales tax, raising approximately $1,076,076,350 annually until voters decide to end it, with new audits and oversight, be adopted?

⚫ Yes

According to Liberty Hill, a progressive organization, writes: “If passed by LA voters, Measure A would replace the quarter-cent sales tax established through Measure H in 2017 with a permanent half-cent sales tax, raising an approximate $1.2 billion dollars in annual revenue.” How will it do this? According to Liberty Hill, “by increasing and accelerating the availability of affordable housing and creating mental health and substance abuse prevention services that meet the needs of the population. The measure will also preserve currently affordable housing and secure tenants’ rights and services including rental assistance, legal assistance and other measures.”

There is a broad coalition behind Measure A. Civil justice. Housing. Builders. Unions. Democratic organizations. UTLA.

◯ No

The “No” side doesn’t seem to have organized yet. However, the opposition is predictable: Taxpayer groups. Conservatives. People who wonder where our previous housing funds have gone.

LAist notes: “Taxpayer groups say L.A. voters haven’t gotten their money’s worth when it comes to all the sales tax they’ve paid since Measure H passed in 2017. The county’s unhoused population has increased 37% since then. Opponents argue doubling the sales tax now would hurt Angelenos already struggling to keep up with inflation, and wouldn’t guarantee reductions in homelessness.”

Conclusion

LAist provides a bit of history here:  More than 75,000 people in L.A. County do not have a home, according to the latest count. Those numbers plateaued this year. But in years past the region saw huge annual increases, sometimes by more than 10%.  Attempts to address these spikes are not new. In fact, more than 69% of L.A. County voters approved a 1/4 cent increase in sales taxes in 2017 to address homelessness. It was called Measure H, and it has raised hundreds of millions of dollars every year to provide services to people trying to exit homelessness. Measure H is set to expire in 2027. That’s where this new measure comes in. Measure A aims to replace the existing 1/4 cent sales tax with a new 1/2 cent tax. That increased revenue would continue homeless services indefinitely, and it would funnel money into new efforts to develop affordable housing, provide rent relief to struggling tenants and offer free attorneys to renters facing eviction.

What this really boils down to is: In this time where the cost of living is very high on the minds of folks, and where there are already two $10 billion bonds on the ballot (one for schools, one for climate/parks), will people be willing to increase their sales tax? Will they trust a county that has repeatedly had ballot stuff to raise funds to combat homelessness, only to see the number of unhoused folks increase? At what point will people say that sales tax is not the way to combat a problem, no matter how worthy the issue?

I’m inclined to support it, given all that. Why, you might ask. What are the options for addressing this problem? Adding to the property tax rate burdens homeowners, and can be a large lump sum. It may or may not be passed on to renters. The sales tax is more evenly spread. It is also less noticable. We’re going from a tax of $2.50 on $1000 to $5. That’s at the level of change, for most people. That change is likely to create real change. I’ll note that the Measure text does state where the money goes.

The NIMBYs will fight this, as will the realtors and probably many property owners. Housing the unhoused means increasing density. It means putting people some might call “undesirable” (because they are poor) in places of high home value. But cities and urban areas are the best place to home the unhoused, because that’s where the jobs are, and that’s where the transit is. Trying to put the unhoused somewhere out of sight won’t work, because they can’t get to the jobs and they can’t get the help they need.

I think I’ve convinced myself: ⚫ Yes

❧

Measure G: Increasing Size of Board of Supervisors; County Executive

Future Ref: https://laist.com/news/politics/voter-game-plan

LAist reports that Measure G appears to do a few things. The proposal would increase the size of the board to five to nine elected members, each with smaller districts. It would also make the county CEO an elected position — sort of like a mayor — instead of appointed by the board members. It would also create an independent ethics commission that would increase restrictions on lobbying and investigate misconduct. Lastly, it would create a non-partisan legislative analyst’s position to review proposed county legislation. The city and state have similar positions.

◯ Yes

The YES side argues that the powerful county board now has five members, who represent 2 million people each and oversee a $46 billion budget.  That’s incredibly large representation — too large to be responsive to all their constituents. The idea is that members would represent fewer people and smaller geographic areas so they would be better attuned to the needs of their districts. Three supervisors support the measure, as do LA County Democrats, although Democratic Supervisor (Supe) Mitchell opposes it.

⚫ No

Two supervisors oppose the measure. Supe (Supervisor) Mitchell isn’t sure how the county can stand up the infrastructure as proposed with no additional funds with a perception of simply reallocating funds. Supe Barger thinks the current board is sufficient. The Daily News opposes it, disliking the proposal for a countywide “mayor,” above and beyond the supervisors, who would get into office by having to campaign for votes from the High Desert to the South Bay, from Pacific Palisades to Claremont, with 10 million constituents, second only in California to statewide officeholders in Sacramento. Supe Mitchell indicates regarding that proposal: “This ballot measure weakens the Board of Supervisors’ ability to hold county departments accountable to the unique needs of their constituents by adding a new countywide elected position that will have no term limits, and control over all county departments and the county’s budget”

Conclusion

So where does the funding for this come from? According to the County Analysis, “The Charter Amendment requires that implementation costs be funded with existing County funding sources and result in no additional costs to, or taxes imposed on taxpayers. Accordingly, implementation costs including, but not limited to, the office and space requirements of the four new Supervisorial districts, establishing new departments and officials as outlined in the Charter Amendment, and additional technology and election costs may be addressed by reallocating funds from other County functions/programs, setting aside future growth of existing funding sources, and/or realizing savings from operating efficiencies. Overall, estimates indicate onetime implementation costs could be $8 million or more, depending on future policymaker decisions. Ongoing costs of the Charter Amendment would include salaries and benefits for newly created positions and offices, ongoing costs for office space, and other administrative and support needs.”

Does the county have excess funds for this purpose? No. We’re having to raise the sales tax to address homelessness; we wouldn’t need to do that if we had the funds. I don’t think the need for more supervisors (which we do need) is strong enough to pull money from other county programs that directly serve the people.

Conclusion: ⚫ No

Los Angeles City

Reference: https://clerk.lacity.gov/clerk-services/elections/municipal-elections/ballot-measures

❧

Charter Amendment DD: INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Shall the City Charter be amended to establish an independent redistricting commission to redraw Council district lines every ten years in the City of Los Angeles?

Ref:

⚫ Yes

According to the LA City summary: This measure will establish an Independent Redistricting Commission to: (a) Make final decisions on City Council District boundaries following each ten-year federal census without the involvement of the Council or Mayor; (b)  Comply with redistricting criteria and processes set forth in the Charter and other City law; (c) Act in an impartial manner that ensures integrity and fairness in the redistricting process; (d) Educate and inform the public about redistricting; (e) Receive and consider public input; (f) Make recommendations to City officials on the redistricting process; and (g) Perform other redistricting functions as set forth in City law. The Commission would consist of 16 members and four alternates, selected without involvement from elected officials. No City official, employee, commissioner, lobbyist, or any person who has contributed to a political campaign of an elected City official, as set forth in City law, would be eligible to serve on the Commission.

LAist noted that, in the past, the L.A. City Council would draw the political boundaries, so council members drew their own districts — usually to keep themselves in power. Currently, the commissioners who do the redistricting are selected by elected city officials, including councilmembers whose districts are to be redrawn. Advocates say this could lead to corruption, since  commissioners may be lobbied and replaced at will by the very people who appointed them.

This measure establishes a new independent redistricting commission composed of 16 members and four alternates who will serve 10-year terms. After completing their service, commissioners will be ineligible to run for any council district seat whose boundaries they helped draw. It’s a two-step random selection process. Applicants who are 18 and over are screened before their names are entered into a lottery. The city clerk’s office would then randomly select eight people from that pool. Selected applicants would be responsible for appointing the rest of the commission from that same pool to ensure that the rest of the commissioners reflect the diversity of the city. They are supposed to consider race, gender, age, income and other factors.

◯ No

According to LAist, groups that opposed similar legislation in California have argued that elected officials are in the best position to draw district boundaries because they have more experience and know how these processes work.

Conclusion

I think Gerrymandering (drawing districts to favor the re-election of a candidate or party) is one reason this country is so divided, and why there is so little turnover in political offices. It is a bad bad thing. Independent commissions like this are a key tool to break the grip of Gerrymandering. They do lessen, but not eliminate, the possibility that the districts are drawn to favor particular parties. Conclusion: ⚫ Yes

❧

Charter Amendment LL: INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION FOR THE LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.

Shall the City Charter be amended to establish an independent redistricting commission to redraw Board of Education District boundaries in the Los Angeles Unified School District every ten years?

Refs:

⚫ Yes

This is very similar to Charter Amendment DD, except that it applies to LAUSD districts. According to the city’s summary: “This measure would change the City Charter to establish an Independent Redistricting Commission to: (a) Make final decisions on LAUSD Board District boundaries following each ten-year federal census without the involvement of the Council or Mayor; (b)  Comply with redistricting criteria and processes set forth in the Charter and other City law; (c) Act in an impartial manner that ensures integrity and fairness in the redistricting process; (d) Educate and inform the public about redistricting; (e) Receive and consider public input; (f) Make recommendations to City officials on the redistricting process; and (g) Perform other redistricting functions as set forth in City law. The Commission would consist of 14 members and four alternates. Members of the Independent Redistricting Commission would be selected without involvement from elected officials. No LAUSD official, employee, commissioner, lobbyist, or any person who has contributed to a political campaign of an elected LAUSD official, as set forth in City law, would be eligible to serve on the Commission.

LAist notes that “There are seven LAUSD districts, each represented by a board member who’s directly elected by voters. Currently, the body in charge of redrawing district boundaries is the LAUSD Redistricting Commission. Members of the commission are appointed by politicians: LAUSD board members, the L.A. City Council President, and the L.A. Mayor. The independent redistricting commission ballot measure would end those political appointments — and allow for members of the community to apply to serve on the commission when it convenes in 2030. It would also remove the City Council’s approval process of the final maps.”

According to LAist, after Amendment LL, “Every 10 years, an independent redistricting commission for LAUSD would be made up of 14 members, four of whom must be parents or guardians of an LAUSD student. State law would require commission members to be at least 18 years old, but the charter amendment allows for youth participation. Residents would apply to become part of the commission. Eligible residents must live in the boundaries of LAUSD, have not worked for the district for four years, and may not have family members who are lobbyists. The L.A. City Clerk’s office would oversee the selection process, which will start in 2029. The Clerk’s Office will randomly select seven commission members — one from each board district — who will then in turn select the seven remaining members. The process would then start over for the next Census in ten years.”

◯ No

There is no organized opposition.

Conclusion

My conclusion here is very similar to Charter Amendment DD: Gerrymandering is bad; independent commissions drawing the lines are good. The major concern here is districts could still be politically biased, which is a concern in the current environment were MAGA-ites want to controls the schools. Still, I think it is better to have the independent commission. Conclusion: ⚫ Yes

❧

Charter Amendment HH: CITY GOVERNANCE, APPOINTMENTS, AND ELECTIONS.

Shall the City Charter be amended to: require that commission appointees file financial disclosures before they can be confirmed; clarify the Controller’s auditing authority regarding City contractors; expand the City Attorney’s subpoena power; authorize temporary appointments to certain general manager positions; establish a process to evaluate the impacts of laws  proposed by initiative or referendum petition; and make other changes and clarifications regarding City governance, appointments, and elections?

Refs:

⚫ Yes

According to the city, approving this means that changes and clarifications would be made to the City Charter regarding City governance, appointments, and elections, including to: ● Require that Commission appointees file financial disclosures before they can be confirmed by the City Council; ● Clarify the Controller’s audit authority over City contractors and subcontractors that are expending or receiving City funds; ● Expand the City Attorney’s subpoena power; ● Authorize temporary appointments to certain general manager positions; ● Establish a process to evaluate the fiscal and other impacts of laws that are proposed by initiative or referendum petition; and ● Require that at least two members of the Board of Harbor Commissioners reside in the Harbor area

LAist notes that this amendment is “part of a larger charter reform effort that began in late 2022 after three city officials and a labor leader were caught on tape making racist and homophobic remarks while discussing how to amass more power in the city’s once-a-decade redistricting process. ”  This one is a bunch of various changes that fix problems that these incidents identified, and that are described in detail in the LAist article.

◯ No

No argument was submitted against the measure.

Conclusion

One thing I always like to remind people is that many of our laws and regulations come about because someone who we trusted to behave ethically didn’t. To prevent future fuck-ups, we put in laws or revise laws so those things can’t happen again. This charter amendment is a prime example of that. The Council fucked up, and so we’re fixing the city charter so it doesn’t happen again. Conclusion: ⚫ Yes

❧

Charter Amendment II: CITY ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATIONS

Shall the City Charter be amended to: clarify that the El Pueblo Monument and the Zoo are park property; clarify that departments may sell merchandise to support City operations; include gender identity in non-discrimination rules applicable to employment by the City; clarify the Board of Airport Commissioners’ authority to establish fees, rules, and regulations; and make other changes to City administration and operations?

Refs:

⚫ Yes

According to the city, the measure would make changes and clarifications to the City Charter regarding City administration and operations, including to: ● Clarify that the El Pueblo Monument and the Zoo are park property; ● Clarify that departments may sell food and merchandise to support City operations; ● Include gender identity in non-discrimination rules related to employment by the City; ● Clarify the Board of Airport Commissioners’ authority to establish fees, rules, and regulations regarding ground transportation at airports; ● Allow electronic signatures on certain City documents; ● Allow the City to lease sites in public parks to the Los Angeles Unified School District for uses that are consistent with public park purposes; and ● Change the title of “Director of the Office of Administrative and Research Services” to the “City Administrative Officer.”

LAist has a nice summary of the changes in this amendment. The changes here are interesting. City departments would be allowed to sell food and merchandise as long as they’re in line with city purposes and operations, for example selling merch at the Greek Theatre. It would prohibit the city from discriminating on the basis of gender identity or gender expression when it comes to hiring or paying city employees (I could see this provision as being a problem for the MAGA/Anti-Woke crowd). It would allow the Board of Airport Commissioners to set fees and regulations for use of airport property for flights or ground transportation, meaning they could do congestion pricing for parking or Flyaway or airport busses. It would name the El Pueblo de Los Angeles Historical Monument and the L.A. Zoo as public parks, although they would still be governed by their own commissioners. It would also allow leasing park land to LA Unified (i.e., it adds LA Unified to the list of government orgs that can lease land for up to 50 years for a public building). Other changes cover the use of electronic signatures for revenue bonds and public access to zoning regulations. You can read the full text of the proposed amendments here.

◯ No

Although no “NO” argument has been submitted, I could imagine the MAGA-ites being upset by some provisions here, especially the non-discrimination provisions.

Conclusion

All the changes here seem reasonable. I can’t see a good reason to oppose this. Conclusion:  ⚫ Yes

❧

Charter Amendment ER: CITY ETHICS COMMISSION AUTHORITY AND OPERATIONAL INDEPENDENCE

Shall the City Charter be amended to establish a minimum annual budget for the City Ethics Commission; increase the Commission’s authority over spending decisions and hiring matters; allow the Commission to obtain outside counsel in limited circumstances; impose additional qualification requirements on Commission members; require the City Council to hold a public hearing on Commission proposals; and increase penalties for violations of City laws?

Refs:

⚫ Yes

This is the last of a series of charter amendments that came out of the recent string of political scandals, including a 2022 audio leak that exposed how elected officials can manipulate the redistricting process to stay in power.

According to the city, this measure would change the City Charter to: ● Establish a minimum annual budget for the Commission; ● Allow the Commission to have more authority over spending decisions, hiring and personnel matters; ● Allow the Commission to retain its own legal counsel under limited circumstances, including for a specific investigative or enforcement matter; ● Impose additional qualifications on Commission members and the Executive Director, including prohibiting Commission members and the Executive Director from having an ownership interest in a business that contracts with or seeks approvals from the City, contributing as a major donor or providing paid services to political campaigns; ● Prohibit the appointment of a relative of an elected City official, a paid campaign consultant, or a major campaign donor, to the Commission; ● Require the City Council to hold a public hearing on Commission policy proposals; and ● Increase maximum penalties the Commission may impose, from the current level of $5,000 per violation, to $15,000 per violation adjusted annually

LAist notes that under the new rules, the Ethics Commission would have an annual budget of $6.5 million to help oversee and enforce the city’s lobbying, ethics and campaign finance rules. Penalties for ethics code violations would rise from $5,000 to $15,000. Officials would no longer be able to appoint family members or major donors. Other changes include compelling the City Council to consider all commission recommendations within 180 days; allowing the Ethics Commission to control its own budget without requiring council approval for specific expenditures; allowing the commission to retain outside counsel; and allowing the commission to impose multiple penalties for multiple violations, or hold the offender liable for triple the amount of an unlawful or improperly reported transaction, whichever amount is greater.

◯ No

There are some feel that the changes proposed here are insufficient.

Conclusion

Changes to ethics laws arise because someone tried to win the game of “Best Abuse of the Rules”. When they do, we fix the rules, and the cycle repeats. But we continue to move the ball forward: ⚫ Yes

❧

Charter Amendment FF: LOS ANGELES FIRE AND POLICE PENSIONS; PEACE OFFICERS

Shall the City Charter be amended to: allow peace officers employed by the Police, Airports, Harbor, and Recreation and Parks Departments to transfer membership and service from the
Los Angeles City Employees’ Retirement System (LACERS) to the Los Angeles Fire and Police Pension Plan (LAFPP); and require the City to pay associated costs, including refunds to  certain Airports and Police Department members for prior transfers?

Refs:

⚫ Yes

And lastly, we have an amendment that has nothing to do with correcting the abuses of the LA City Council. This is good old pension transferability.

According to the argument in favor of this: Measure FF is a simple measure that would give all peace officers employed by the City the opportunity to be covered by the same pension plan, regardless of what department they work for. All of these peace officers must meet the same training and licensing requirements, perform similar functions, and face similar risks. They should be eligible for the same benefits. Currently, peace officers employed by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) are covered by the LA Fire and Police Pensions Plan (LAFPP), as are new hires to the Port Police (since 2004) and the Airport Police (since 2018). However, some peace officers employed by the Airport, Harbor, Recreation and Parks Department and LAPD are covered by the LA Civilian Employee Retirement System (LACERS). Some but not all of the peace officers covered by LACERS receive enhanced public safety pension benefits. This is the result of various changes to State law and the City Charter over the past 20 years. This mishmash of different pension plans and benefits for some peace officers creates problems for the City. Measure FF will eliminate the disincentive for transfers among the City’s law enforcement agencies, ensuring that highly-qualified personnel can fill positions at other departments. It will also ease the administrative burden on the City by simplifying the pension categories which cover similar employees. Officers in both the Port and Airport Police are making a contribution to the cost of this change to reduce the fiscal impact.

A reasonable argument.

◯ No

No argument against was submitted.

Conclusion

Having a single pension plan that can cover all peace-officer-equivalents in the city makes sense, and it gives stability and strength to that plan. These days, a strong pension plan can be a unique incentive to retain employees. We should do it:  ⚫ Yes

===> Click Here To Comment <==This entry was originally posted on Observations Along the Road as Nov 2024 General Election Ballot Analysis (III): Local and State Measures by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link to the left. You can sign in with your LJ, DW, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. Note: Subsequent changes made to the post on the blog are not propagated by the SNAP Crossposter; please visit the original post to see the latest version. P.S.: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

  • Add Memory
  • Share This Entry
(0 comments)

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting
 
Notice: This account is set to log the IP addresses of everyone who comments.
Links will be displayed as unclickable URLs to help prevent spam.