Context: every election, we host a Proposition Party at our house, to gather folks together and discuss the long and sometimes bewildering list of propositions on the ballot for the state of California and the City of San Francisco. My partner Jen tallies the votes and provides a brief description of the discussion & ballot. Opinions expressed are those surfaced during the discussion between the 30 or so people in the room; this is not an endorsement from a specific group or organization. Our household is just doing what we can to foster the informed, thoughtful exercise of the democratic process.
Here’s a description of the proposition process, as well as a recent article in the Christian Science Monitor on the pros and cons of the system. However, our gatherings focus on the impact, intention and likely outcomes of the ballot initiatives themselves.
Prop Party Results – Straw Poll
Y=Yes N= No A= Abstain (u) indicates unanimous among those then present
State Props
30 Brown Sales and +250k Income Tax Increase Y 18(u) N 0 A 0.
31 2 year budget. Y 0 N 14 A 6
32 Eliminate payroll deductions Y 0 N 22 (u) A 0
33 Auto Insurance Y 0 N 29 (u) A 0
34 Eliminate Death Penalty. Y 27 No 0 A 2
35 Human Trafficking and Registry Y 0 N 29 A 2
36 3 Strikes Amendment Y 19 No 0 A 11
37 GMO Food Labeling Y 24 N 1 A 4
38 Munger Alternative Tax initiative Y 8 No 5 A 3
39 Multistate Business Tax Y 18 No 0 A 10
40 Senate Redistricting Y 19 No 1 A 4
City props
A City College Property Tax. Y 4 No 2 A 14
B Parks Bond Y 2 No 4 A 13
C Housing Trust Fund Yes 5 No 4 A 10
D Unified City Elections Y 16 No 1 A 4
E Gross Receipts vs Payroll Tax Yes 10 No 1 A 9
F Drain and Restore Hetch Hetchy Y 0 N 19 A 0
G Corporations aren’t People Y 15 No 3 A 1
Once again, a lively and interesting discussion of the 11 state propositions and 7 city props – in about 3 and a half hours, with drinks and regular World Series updates.
State Props
30 Brown Sales and +250k Income Tax Increase Y 18(u) N 0 A 0.
Increases sales tax ¼ cent and income tax above $250K income. This measure competes with #38: if both pass, the one with higher votes wins. This measure allows the Legislature more flexibility than 38 and includes funding for community colleges and universities, not just K-12 and pre-K education. If it doesn’t pass, draconian cuts will ensue in education and other areas; Governor Brown is putting all his eggs in this basket.
31 2 year budget. Y 0 N 14 A 6
While 2-year budget might improve planning, this measure would make it harder for the Legislature to adapt to fluctuating revenue. It also includes some provisions for performance-based budgeting that are untested and unclear, and some provisions further restricting the flexibility of the Legislature to budget with the 10 percent of the State budget that isn’t already dedicated.
32 Eliminate payroll deductions Y 0 N 22 (u) A 0
This would significantly limit a major source of union political donations, while not limiting the primary source of corporate donations, which are not typically enacted through employee payroll deduction (or voted on by stockholders, whose money is being used).
33 Auto Insurance Y 0 N 29 (u) A 0
Proposition primarily funded and backed by a billionaire car insurer president which would allow companies to charge substantially higher rates to someone who had a break in insurance coverage for any reason – including not needing a car, being at college, not being able to afford a car, etc. Would also create a substantial disincentive to anyone who ever considers experimenting with giving up their car, because they could face significantly higher premiums if their commute changed such that they needed a car again.
34 Eliminate Death Penalty. Y 27 No 0 A 2
Only 13 of 700+ individuals put on death row have actually been executed. Most cost the state more money in appeals and for special housing. This measure would save money while ensuring that the worst of the worst stay imprisoned for life.
35 Human Trafficking and Registry Y 0 N 29 A 2
Unclear categories of who qualifies as a human trafficker; significant new restrictions on all registered offenders; mandatory sentencing that might exacerbate prison overcrowding. This is an issue that the Legislature can and has addressed.
36 3 Strikes amendment Y 19 No 0 A 11
Would require last strike of 3 to be a serious or violent felony, not just any felony. Assist in limiting prison overcrowding, and prevent outrageous oversentencing. Didn’t have time to discuss abstainers’ views; may be concern about taking this “hammer” off the table for district attorneys who want to use it to encourage plea bargains.
37 GMO food labeling Y 24 N 1 A 4
Many other nations (including notoriously progressive Russia) have banned or required labeling of food with GMO ingredients. The U.S., with the FDA staffed by former Monsanto executives, has been resistant. Labeling food already happens: despite advertising stating that this would increase food cost by $400, actual cost estimate is more like $0.68 a month. If California requires this, national manufacturers will probably label for everyone, so this is a big deal, and it’s why corporations have poured millions into advertisements against it.
38 Munger Alternative Tax initiative Y 8 No 5 A 3
There is some gamesmanship going on here between voting on prop 30 and prop 38. Studies show that if there are 2 competing tax initiatives, both are less likely to pass. Most supported 30 over 38, but some advocate voting for both to make sure at least one passes, but if both pass and 38 attracts more votes, it will take effect instead of 30.
39 Multistate Business Tax Y 18 No 0 A 10
This will restore California’s prior tax structure, changing it back to the way it was before corporations had the option to pick how they would be taxed. For the first five years, half of the expected $1B annual tax revenue generated from this initiative will be allocated to energy efficiency retrofits for schools and other public buildings, as well as other green/clean tech projects. We didn’t have time to discuss reason for abstentions, but discussion included concerns about whether this will discourage businesses from doing business in California (which seems unlikely since 10 percent of the customer base in the U.S. is here) or creation of a new oversight committee to handle the funds.
40 Senate Redistricting Y 19 No 1 A 4
This prop was put on the ballot by individuals opposed to the new redistricting maps, who have since withdrawn their opposition, but are unable to withdraw the prop. A “Yes,” vote is still recommended because a “No,” vote might cause an expensive re-redistricting prior to the 2020 census.
San Francisco City Proposition
A City College Parcel Tax. Y 4 No 2 A 14
Some questions came up about how City College is handling its funding and accreditation issues, and whether current management should be given more funding. 8-year Parcel tax is a flat $79 per property (not adjusted for size or cost) and cannot be passed on to renters. If Prop 30 does not pass, City College will really need this money to stay afloat, however.
B Parks Bond Y 2 No 4 A 13
Recreation and Parks has made some unpopular moves, including firing 160+ recreational staff, staffing up their higher-paid property management and concession team (to wring more revenue out of the parks), increasing fees on park events, etc. Many of the recommendations against this bond come from groups opposed to current Rec and Parks management, who would carry out the work on the projects supported by these bonds.
C Housing Trust Fund Yes 5 No 4 A 10
This would dedicate a source of funding to affordable housing that was previously managed by the Redevelopment agencies eliminated by Governor Brown. While the measure states that it requires no new taxes, the amount of set-aside exceeds the likely amount of funding available, so the General Fund would have to be used. There’s some concern about provisions in the legislation that restrict affordable housing requirements on “certain projects” to whatever was in effect on January 1, 2013 (i.e., no more can be required). It’s not clear why this was necessary.
D Unified City Elections Y 16 No 1 A 4
Electing all city offices in same election – saves money, and makes it harder for the same people to hop from office to office (e.g., city attorney to mayor). Downsides are a longer ballot, and more expense to advertise.
E Gross Receipts vs Payroll Tax Yes 10 No 1 A 9
Everyone (the Supervisors, the Chamber of Commerce, the Republican Party) seems to support this change, because a payroll tax discourages employers from adding staff working in the City. The concern by abstainers was that gross receipts are a lot harder to track and audit than payroll. For example, how much of Twitter’s gross receipts will be attributable to business done in SF? Given creative accounting, this change could hurt the city in the long run. None of it will affect small business as it only kicks in after the first $1 million, though the Controller expects it to increase revenues over time.
F Drain and Restore Hetch Hetchy Y 0 N 19 (u) A 0
Prop would require $8 million out of the general fund to study a concept that would probably cost $3 to $10 billion and lose the city a source of non-carbon emitting, low-cost power and water.
G Corporations aren’t People Y 15 No 3 A 1
This is just an expression of city policy and would have no practical effect. Opposition was not to the concept but to putting items on ballot that have no practical effect.
![Gary Lauder](http://images.ted.com/images/ted/tedindex/embed-posters/GaryLauder-2010.embed_thumbnail.jpg&vw=432&vh=240&ap=0&ti=789&introDuration=16500&adDuration=4000&postAdDuration=2000&adKeys=talk=gary_lauder_s_new_traffic_sign_take_turns;year=2010;theme=new_on_ted_com;theme=a_taste_of_ted2010;event=TED2010;"></embed></object>){kind=link}
Recent Comments