The Practical Party’s Voter Guide for the November 2018 Election
It’s that time again! My bi-annual explainer on direct democracy is here.
Background: I am for making it easier to govern. A decade ago it was becoming clear that California was becoming impossible to govern because our state’s initiative system had spiraled out of control. Our elected officials are responsible for making laws and we should hold them accountable for that. To ensure they don’t shirk their responsibilities, I support initiatives, propositions, and measures that represent good governance. Likewise, I oppose putting into place budget set asides, patchwork taxation, and short term fixes to long term problems.
I live in San Francisco so I focus on San Francisco initiatives, Bay Area regional measures, and California propositions. I provide how I will be voting; you don’t have to vote like me, just as long as you vote!
Before we begin: Check your voter registration status here and re-register to vote before October 22nd if you have moved recently. Election day is November 6th!
State Propositions
1: Hands down, the biggest problem Californians face today is the cost of housing. This bond will make a small dent in that by funding programs to build new housing that is transit oriented or for farmers and veterans. I am voting an enthusiastic YES.
2: In 2004 voters approved a “millionaires tax” to fund programs for people living with severe mental illness. I am 100% in support of programs for people living with severe mental illness, but the original law did not allow that money to be spent on housing for people with severe mental illness. This will adjust the law and allow bonds to be issued to allow new housing to be built. I am voting an enthusiastic YES.
3: Bonds, bonds, bonds, bonds, bonds. I feel like all I do is vote on bonds. Bonds are an important way for us to fund critical infrastructure that our elected officials would otherwise not have the foresight to fund. This particular bond is complementary to the OTHER water supply bond that we voted on in June. I am voting YES, because I believe that we need to continue to invest in our water infrastructure.
4: Another bond! This one is to fund nonprofit children’s hospitals. Look, I like children. I want them to be healthy. But the California Children’s Hospital Association who funded the $10M to put this on the ballot is the exact group that would benefit from bond AND they bypassed the legislative process to get it on the ballot. Because of that I am voting NO, but if you believe that children’s hospitals should be able to fund life saving medical technologies, you should vote yes.
5: Without getting into the nitty gritty of prop 13 passed in the 1970’s, this initiative makes a bad problem worse. Real estate agents make the case that letting people 55+ transfer their below market property taxes to a new home will open up more homes for our generation to buy. I don’t believe this nor does the legislative analyst who estimates this will cost the state $1B annual in lost property tax revenues. I am voting an enthusiastic NO.
6. THIS IS BY FAR THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE ON THE BALLOT! In 2017 our legislature passed a gas tax to fund extremely important transportation infrastructure. Republicans placed this initiative on the ballot to repeal that tax and make future gas taxes more difficult to pass. I am voting NO and evangelizing why we can not let this outrageous defunding of our infrastructure happen.
7. This is the measure that I’m like, “why am I voting on this”? It’s because when Californian’s originally voting to enact daylight savings time 70 years ago we made it so we can only change it with voter approval. The initiative system- the gift that keeps giving. I am voting YES.
8. This is a very complicated issue that should not be decided at the ballot box. It has a weird union versus dialysis center back story that I am not quite following. I am voting NO because the potential unintended side effects from such a complex measure could result in less people getting the care they need.
9. RIP measure to separate California into 3 states
10. Again in an attempt to avoid the nitty gritty here are two questions: Do you believe that cities should be able to limit how much rent can be raised on tenants living in single family houses and in homes built after 1995? If so, vote yes. OR, do you believe that the potential of new rent control laws could have a negative effect on the building of new homes? Is so, join me in voting NO.
11. This modifies state labor law to allow companies to require EMT workers to stay on call during paid breaks. This makes sense, but behind this measure there are court rulings, pending lawsuits, and disagreements with the union that could have been solved through the legislative process rather than the largest ambulance operator forking out $24M to get this measure on the ballot. I am voting NO.
12. In 2008 Californians voted on a very similar measure which restricted the sale of eggs and meat from animals who were in cages too small for the animals to turnaround. This new measure does the same thing but outlines exactly what the size of the cages should be. I only buy cage free eggs and humanely farmed meat. I think consumers can make this decision themselves without bringing it to the ballot. I am voting NO.
San Francisco Measures
A: This is a bond to fund the strengthening seawall which stretches from Fisherman’s Wharf to the ball park. According to nearly everyone, this will save a bunch of money if we invest now rather then wait until the next earthquake or sea level rise; however, this will also cost a LOT more than $400M. The idea is that if San Francisco can come up with local funds to partially fund, we could ask federal/state agencies to fund the rest. This will need a 2/3 majority to pass. I am voting YES.
B: This measure creates guidelines for collecting and storing personal data by the city and city vendors insofar that it creates a “Privacy First Policy”. It doesn’t actually change any laws. We have in place a similar “Transit First Policy” that has little effect on our city government. I am voting NO, but if you strongly believe we should consider privacy laws at every level of government, you should vote yes.
C: This is the mother of all budget set asides, but I’m still voting YES.
D: This is would add an additional tax to just the cannabis industry in San Francisco. I find this industry-specific tax as bad governance so I am voting NO, but honestly, every other city seems to have a cannabis specific tax and this tax is better structured than others.
E: In San Francisco there is a hotel tax with the original intention to fund the arts so people would want to come and visit (thus creating a virtuous cycle of economic activity). In 2013, we voted to allocate that hotel tax to the general fund so that the board of Board of Supervisors could determine exactly how much would go to the arts each year because budget set asides are bad during recessions. Now they are asking the voters to reallocate some of those funds back to an arts-only budget set aside… I am voting NO.
Happy voting!
