Prop 14: authorize $5.5 billion in bonds for medical research
I think NO. Why bonds? If we want to spend money on research, just spend it; don't borrow it. This is like taking out a loan to fill the tank for the next year. I'm unconvinced by the proponents' arguments.Prop 15: property tax on commercial and industrial real estate to be based on market value
YES. In the 1970s, proposition 13 was a bad idea (i voted NO), but only now do we understand the effect of REDUCING the property tax burden on businesses. When you or I buy a home, we buy it. When a company buys real estate, the company doesn't actually buy it; instead, there is some hocus-pocus by which the real estate doesn't legally change hands. Thus, those commercial and industrial properties that have different businesses on them than they did in the early 1980s—those properties are still owned by the same legal entities that are/were the landlords in the 1980s. Thus, the property tax burden on those parcels of real estate are based on the last "real" purchase, which was in the 1980s or earlier!That's why homeowners now pay a higher share of the state's property tax burden then they did in the late 1970s.
It's time for businesses to pay their fair share of the property tax burden in California. Opponents say it'll increase the cost of doing business. Well, yeah. Failing to pass that will make it harder for your children and grandchildren to buy a home in California. What's more important? I've made my decision.
Prop 16: Make Affirmative Action Great Again
YES. Having read White Fragility and White Awake and the alarming statistics on racism's toxic effect on our country, I repent of my past opposition to race-based affirmative action.The current ban on considering race, sex, color, ethnicity, etc. in public education, employment, contracting—the current ban is the way that the establishment is effectively saying "Keep Racism, Sexism etc. Alive!" It's time to reject that thinking.
Prop 17: Let parolees vote
YES. Parolees already have the deck stacked against them. Restoring their right to vote once they're "out" reduces recidivism. Let's give them a fair chance.Prop 18: Let 17-year-olds vote in primary/special elections if they'll be 18 for the general
NO. Suppose this were the law in 2019. If you were born November 2, 1992, you could have voted in this year's primary election, but not if it were November 4th. So on March 3, you would have been 17 years and four months old.Yeah, NO.
Prop 19: Close property tax loopholes
YES (as if you couldn't tell from the title I gave it). Why should inherited real estate be immune to reassessment— other than what's used for a home, I mean? Suppose a guy has bought two houses: one where he lives, purchased in the 1980s for about $125K, and another as a rental, purchased in 2000 for about $400K. When he and his wife die, the houses will likely be worth substantially more than what he paid for them. Suppose his heirs move into the family home, and keep the rental as a rental.Both houses have changed hands; why should either of them be immune from reassessment (for purposes of calculating property taxes)? Even if the family home isn't re-appraised or reassessed, why should the rental be immune? Prop 19 doesn't require the famiily home to be reassessed in this case, but it would allow the rental to be reassessed—as it should be!
Prop 20: Disallows parole for certain offenses; requires more DNA samples to be collected
NO. This is rather a tough one. Prisons are already overcrowded. For-profit prisons love this proposition. This increases costs of various kinds; where is the evidence that it will reduce crime or improve the chances of catching perpetrators of future crimes?What makes this a tough one is the scary stories of crimes that are currently considered nonviolent. But on balance I still think NO.
Prop 21: Allows localities to have stricter rent control than state law
NO. This depresses new construction and new improvements. I understand that rents are too high, but the state already has rent control, and further depressing new construction is absolutely not the answer.Prop 22: Let uber, lyft, doordash &c to continue exploiting drivers
NO. Just no. Drivers really are employees.Here's an example. Suppose you're an uber driver in Monterey, and you get a fare around 10am. You don't know where the fare's destination is; all you know is that they want a ride somewhere. If they want to go to the beach or to Pacific Grove or Carmel, that's fine, but you don't want to drive them to SFO because you would miss your 1pm medical appointment. Suppose you say "yes" and you find out they really do want to go to SFO? If you reject them, uber *will* penalize you. You really are not a contractor.
Uber and Lyft and Doordash and their ilk are mis-characterizing their employees as contractors. This injustice was remedied by state law, but now they want to overturn the law so they can continue exploiting drivers.
Prop 23: Stricter requirements on kidney dialysis clinics
YES. Operators of these (mostly lucrative) clinics do not want higher safety standards because they want to keep milking this cash cow. But people die because of preventable screwups at these clinics. I remember reading about a case where some plastic tubing came loose during dialysis and sprayed blood all over the place. A tech grabbed it and reconnected it. The patient died a few days later from an infection.If a certified MD had been present, could that have been prevented? Would stricter safety procedures have been in place? Maybe, maybe not, but given that no MD was required, and given the industry's opposition to prop 23, I have eto guess that lots of these clinics don't have MDs present during treatment.
Let's put patients ahead of profits—that's what I think
