Here is the first of a series of posts on the upcoming California election. I promised this over a week ago, and a series of project deadlines, combined with being sick, got to me. This post focuses on the propositions and similar measures. The people will be covered in a subsequent post.
Statewide Measures
- Proposition 13: Limits on Property Tax Assessment: Seismic Retrofitting of Existing Buildings.
Don’t care. This proposition fixes a minor quirk in the original Prop 13 rules for reassessments regarding seismic retrofitting. Unreinfored brick (masonry) buildings were originally excluded from reassessment for 15 years; other earthquake safety modifications had no time on the exclusion, except that both terminated on sale. This would get rid of that 15-year limit, making all earthquake safety modificati0ns the same. One the one hand, I’m in a “no” mood, and I’m getting tired of all these Prop 13 exclusions (that don’t apply to me :-)) that end up making the rest pay. On the other hand, though, this is an exclusion that is already there, the time limit wasn’t being enforced, and it simplifies the law. There were no arguments against this one. I really don’t care.
- Proposition 14: Elections: Increases right to participate in Primary Elections.
No. This proposition would change the primary system in California from party primaries, where the winners from each party run in the General Election, to a system where the primary is in essence a general election with no party affiliation, and the top two placers go on to a runoff in the general election. The argument for this is that it breaks the party stranglehold on elections, and that people could vote for any person they want… and by doing so, will elminate the partisanship. The argument against this is that the current approach, although party-based, has strengths as well. It ensure that candidates from minor parties have a chance by getting on the ballot. It ensure that there will be a wide spectrum of positions on the General Election ballot. I also see an effect on campaign spending: the “open primary” would means that more money would be spent to get in the top two positions: this eliminates the chance for lesser-funded candidates, and increases the power of special interests. Much as I agree that politics has gotten too partisan, this particular proposition is not the answer.
- Proposition 15: California Fair Elections Act.
No. This is an experimental proposition that creates a voluntary system for candidates for Secretary of State to qualify for a public campaign grant if they agree to limitations on spending and private contributions, and each candidate demonstrating enough public support would receive same amount. Participating candidates would be prohibited from raising or spending money beyond the grant. The key aspects to me are that this only applies to one office (right now), and is voluntary. As we’ve seen in this election, if you have enough money, you simply won’t volunteer. Further, applying it to one office makes it pointless. I can’t see any reason for this.
- Proposition 16: Two-Thirds Voter Approval Requirement for Local Public Electricity Providers.
Hell No. This has been one of the most misleading campaigns I can recollect, save that for Proposition 8. This proposal requires two-thirds voter approval before local governments provide electricity service to new customers or establish a community choice electricity program using public funds or bonds. It has been funded almost entirely by the Northern California mega-corp Pacific Gas and Electric, and is on the ballot primarily to preserve their monopoly on electrical service. Municipal electrical service has its strengths and weaknesses (as us LA DWP customer’s know): rates used to be lower, but the city can raid utility funds to balance their budget (as I write this, LA DWP folks are facing water rate increases of 8%). I don’t necessarily have a problem with providing people the ability to vote before municipalities start providing such service, but two-thirds is too high of a bar, as we’ve seen in the state budget battles.
- Proposition 17: Allows Auto Insurance Companies to base their prices on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage.
No. This is another single-company funded proposition, in this case, Mercury Insurance. Obstensibly it permits companies to reduce or increase cost of insurance depending on whether driver has a history of continuous insurance coverage. Mercury claims it will allow them to give discounts for long periods of continuous coverage. However, companies can already do that: they are called loyalty discounts. More significantly, this allows companies to increase rates (i.e., give surcharges) for new policy holders: newly-minted drivers (not based on record), people shopping for better rates. We have enough problems with rate setting in the insurance industry. We don’t need this.
Local Measures
- Measure E: Emergency Neighborhood School and Teacher Retention Measure (LAUSD)
No. This measure would impose a parcel tax (i.e., a fixed amount per each entry on the property tax rolls) of $100 for the next 4 year to obstensibly offset severe state budget cuts, promote student achievement in reading/mathematics/science/arts, maintain vocational education/job training programs, limit class size increases, reduce teacher/staff layoffs, and keep schools safe/bathrooms clean. The measure would exempt low-income seniors, and provide no money for central district administrators’ salaries, require mandatory audits, and have all funds going to neighborhood schools. On the one hand, $100 is a small amount, and over a year, at the level of noise for many people… and as a parent of a student in a LAUSD school, I know that the local schools can well use the money. By being district-wide, it would be more egalitarian: schools in poorer areas with more rentals wouldn’t suffer as greatly. On the other hand, there should be an exemption process for those whom the $100 would be a hardship (senior citizen or not—although I wonder whether someone living that close to the edge should really be a homeowner vs. a renter, for there are too many unexpected home expenses that are much more than $100). More significantly, LAUSD has been coming back for more and more money every election—recently, for a lot of construction funds. They still prefer to cut at the edge (affecting students), as opposed to getting their managerial house lean and efficient and streamlining the processes. Managerially, LAUSD should operate like a non-profit charity, meaning administrative overhead should be the legal minimum, with the bulk of income going to the recipients. They don’t do this now, and I think this measure would only encourage them to continue. Ballotpedia shows that LAUSD couldn’t raise enough funds to run a campaign for this, and most papers have come out against.
Want to help your local schools. Vote “No” on this, and double the amount (up to what you can afford) and give it to your local school’s booster association or donate it directly to the school. You’ll bypass the downtown bureauocracy, and help the students much more directly.
Still to come: my opinions on the candidates…
