Thanks to conversations with a number of friends, I’ve firmed up my thoughts on the statewide propositions. Here’s an updated overview with some details below.

Statewide Propositions

  • Proposition 1: Legislative Bond Measure 4 billion in bond funds for homeless and veteran’s housing - yes
  • Proposition 2: Legislative State Statute Authorize state use of mental health funds for housing - yes
  • Proposition 3: Almost 9 billion in bond funding for water projects - no
  • Proposition 4: 1.5 billion in bond funding for Children’s hospitals - tentative no
  • Proposition 5: Extension of tax transfer right for homeowners over 55 - strong no
  • Proposition 6: Repeal of last year’s gas tax increase, requires public vote on future increases - strong no
  • Proposition 7: Legislative State Statute Authorizes CA legislature to adopt permanent daylight savings time - yes
  • Proposition 8: Limits the profits of dialysis clinics - no
  • Proposition 9: Split CA into 3, but No longer on the ballot!
  • Proposition 10: Costa-Hawkins repeal, rent control up to cities - yes
  • Proposition 11: Allow ambulance workers to remain on call during paid breaks - no
  • Proposition 12: Ban sale of meat & eggs from animals grown in confined spaces with certain dimensions - no

Proposition 1 - position unchanged

Homelessness and rampant poverty are, to my mind, the core moral failures of contemporary California. There is some concern about how these bonds will be repaid (see below), how this money would be spent and how it would affect other forms of housing assistance. But there is now abundant and strong evidence for housing-first as a means of addressing many poverty-related ills. I am willing to overcome my general opposition to ballot propositions in favor of a strong ethical statement that the homeless should be housed - i.e. that we should live in a more giving society.

Also - my general hesitance about ballot initiatives is assuaged by the fact that Prop 1 was put on the ballot by a large majority of the CA state assembly & senate.

Proposition 2 - position unchanged

See above - housing first is probably the most important tool we have in addressing homelessness and the mental health of homeless people. Also - CA was already spending mental health dollars on housing, but was challenged in the state courts. This proposition is a means of allowing California to finish construction on projects that have already begun.

Also - my general hesitance about ballot initiatives is assuaged by the fact that Prop 2 was put on the ballot by a nearly unanimous vote of the CA state assembly & senate.

Proposition 3 - position unchanged

This proposition is designed to have wide popular appeal by attempting to address a problem dear to the hearts of Californians - water shortage. However, if you look at the list of supporters, it includes several agricultural lobbies. The sensible-sounding opposition to this proposal (e.g. from the Sierra Club and LA Times) argues that this proposition shifts the costs of building and maintaining water infrastructure from the major consumers (e.g. agriculture) onto taxpayers. I tend to agree that improvements to water infrastructure should be paid for by the companies that use the bulk of CA water (no individuals use a sizable fraction of CA water).

Proposition 4 - leaning no

Children’s hospitals are the de facto source of health care for many Californian children. This is not a good status quo - we should have a more comprehensive healthcare system in California and in the US - but we don’t. Most of the revenue from Prop 4 goes to non-profit and UC hospitals, though 10% goes to private hospitals with childrens units. The money is ostensibly for construction and improvement projects. However, I’m leaning no on this proposition because I don’t really understand the factors that brought it to the ballot and a number of close friends have expressed skepticism about it.

The arguments against that make sense to me are:

  • Many non-profit hospitals being funded have very large corporate-sized budgets and sizably donations.
  • The proposition funds capital projects, but maintenance is much harder to raise donations for. Maintenance and staffing are actually what CA children benefit from, not construction.
  • The same hospitals promoting the proposition will benefit from it (not sure I think this is a problem).
  • We should build a better mechanism for funding child healthcare, rather than throwing bond money into new buildings.

I plan to vote no on propositions I don’t fully understand. If you are a medical professional or understand the state budgeting process well, I would love to hear from you about this process.

Proposition 5 - position unchanged

Proposition 5 takes a big existing tax benefit for people older than 55 and makes it much bigger. The current state of affairs (as of prop 60 in 1986) is that Californians who are over 55 or severely disabled get to keep their current tax assessment when they move to a house of lesser or equal value in the same county. Proposition 5 removes both restrictions - allowing older and disabled Californians to transfer their tax assessment (using an updated formula) out of the county and to houses of greater value. This proposition is both a huge wealth transfer to wealthy older Californians and also phenomenally expensive - estimated to cost upwards of 1 BILLION DOLLAS PER YEAR. Vote no no no no. A thousand times no.

Proposition 6 - position unchanged

Repeals the gas tax that was passed last year by ballot initiative. The gas tax is supposed fund improvements to California’s abysmall roads (have you ridden a bike in Oakland, friend?) and fund transit projects (including but not at all limited to high speed rail). Although gas taxes are regressive and affect the poor more than the rich in transit-poor California, we need the money for the roads and transit and it makes sense that drivers should shoulder some of that burden. Gas taxes are also on an item with negative externalities - gas makes CO2, driving is dangerous and commuting long distances is unhealthy. Vote “no” on prop 6 to keep the gas tax in place please.

Proposition 7 - leaning yes

I don’t have a strong feeling on this one, but since it is a legislative proposition and was put on the ballot with sizable margins I will probably vote for it. Convince me otherwise.

Proposition 8 - position unchanged

Prop 8 is advanced by dialysis clinic staffers. This measure attempts to increase staffing and pay in dialysis clinics by limiting the profits of dialysis clinics to 15% above costs. Any profits above that would need to be refunded to patient insurance. On the one hand I am in favor of good working conditions and adequate staffind at all California businesses and medical institutions. On the other hand I am not sure that a specific remedy for dialysis clinics warrants another ballot prop. Leaning no on this one.

Proposition 10 - position unchanged, but many thoughts below

Prop 10 repeals the 1995 Costa Hawkins law that prevented CA cities from making new rent control regulations. As a result of Costa Hawkins, rent control is restricted to older buildings in all CA cities. Voting yes on Prop 10 would enable CA cities to enact new rent control. Many cities would do this (e.g. Oakland, SF, Berkeley). There are strong arguments on economic grounds that rent control restricts housing supply, but these are quantitative arguments - i.e. it depends how strictly you control the rent, how much of the housing stock is under rent control and how much demand there is for housing. Some cities would no doubt enact highly restrictive rent control laws to discourage local development (e.g. Beverly Hills). Prop 10 also increases local control of housing by allowing individual cities to determine rent control rather than making policy at the state level. Many CA cities advance a philosophy of extreme local control to avoid building housing to regional or statewide targets, so you might reasonably be skeptical of prop 10 on those grounds. Still, considering all these factors, I think displacement in CA is so massive and the value of stability is so high that I support prop 10 and will yes.

I think the question of how you vote on Prop 10 reduces to the question of what you think the CA housing crisis is. Do you think the housing crisis is primarily a crisis of mobility? i.e. is the problem that it is hard for people to move to and within CA? Or do you think the problem is one of stability and displacement? i.e. is the problem that it is hard for individuals to afford rent in one place, put down roots, send their kids to school, etc.? I feel that both of these are important problems and I would like to address them both. Many peers who have argued against Prop 10 do not personally see the value of stability, often because they (like me) are very mobile and recent arrivals in the Bay Area. I tend see a lot of value in stability, perhaps because I haven’t had very much of it as peripatetic academic adult. Regardless, I am voting yes.

Proposition 11 - position unchanged

This is a small dispute wherein private ambulance companies are trying to pre-empt any future claims that ambulance workers should get breaks where they are off-call i.e. where their radios are off. Voting no is a win-win here - you can lodge a protest vote against piddling propositions and also support labor against management (if that’s your thing).

Proposition 12 - voting no

This one turns out to be more complicated than I initially thought. I tried to understand what the net effect on animal suffering and meat eating would be, but it turns out to be challening to figure out the interactions between this proposition and previous ones. The general claim is that Prop 12 makes 2008’s Prop 2 more specific by attaching specific numbers to cage sizes for chickens, pigs and calves raised for veal. Those changes would roll out over the next few years. However Prop 2 was supposed to require cage-free eggs by 2015 in CA (that has been delayed for some reason I don’t understand) and so this year’s Prop 12 changes the legal reality for egg-laying hens (unless I am mistaken). Moreover, since the proposition doesn’t cover beef or dairy (only veal and pigs) the environmental impact will be limited as beef is the major source of land use and emissions of all food products in the USA. For all these confusing reasons I am leaning towards voting no on Prop 12.