Green Party of Santa Clara County Voting Guide for the Nov. 6 General Elections
Statewide Propositions
Proposition 1– VOTE YES with reservations
SB 3 (Chapter 365, Statutes of 2017), Beall. Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2018.
GPSCC believes that affordable housing is one of the most desperate needs in our area that affects the most vulnerable people in our communities. We recommend voting YES on this prop for the simple reason that we need this very basic of life necessities for Veterans by providing homeownership assistance programs, infrastructure improvements, housing assistance programs, multifamily housing development and rental and owner-occupied farmworker housing.
Reservations: The down side of this proposition is that, like all other bond funded measures, the true cost is double the $4B figure. The Green party believes prioritizing our national and state budget away from the war machine and towards addressing pressing social and economic needs is the solution to funding all needed programs.
Proposition 2 – VOTE YES with reservations
AB 1827 (Chapter 41, Statutes of 2018). Committee on Budget. No Place Like Home Act of 2018.
GPSCC’s strong stand on the need for affordable and accessible housing for our communities inspires us to vote YES for this proposition. We recognize this prop may not be very efficient but we believe any housing development focused on the most disenfranchised segments of our communities needs our support. The thousands of unhoused residents in Santa Clara County include many who suffer from the emotional and psychological effects of housing insecurity and they need our resources to be put to work for them. Treating the homeless is always more difficult (if not impossible) than treating housed patients.
Reservations: As a bond measure the true cost of Prop 2 is double the stated figures due to bond servicing costs. Also, new construction (often with the demolition of whatever is there now) is often not the best and always the most expensive method to solve a problem.In addition, the Contra Costa chapter of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, is against this measure, because they are concerned about this causing a diversion of funds away from fully funding Prop 63 (previously passed to address a similar issue). Other concerns are about the low ROI on this measure with the 6B$ price tag building only 20,000 units.
Proposition 3 – VOTE NO
Authorizes Bonds to Fund Projects for Water Supply and Quality, Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Water Conveyance, and Groundwater Sustainability and Storage. Initiative Statute
Proposition 3 has found its way to our November ballot through a signature drive paid for by those who will benefit from passing it. The ~$9B bond issue has about 20 projects, among which is a massive repair and capital improvements project for the Friant Water Authority. The Sierra Club opposes Prop 3 and call it “A Fiscally Irresponsible Approach to California’s Water Problems”. We also have concerns about this large bond measure finding its way to funding dams and the dreaded Delta tunnel project in the absence of any assurances that it won’t! In light of passing the $4B Proposition 68 only in June of this year, we stand opposed to Prop 3 and urge voters to vote NO.
Proposition 4 – VOTE YES with reservations
Authorizes Bonds Funding Construction at Hospitals Providing Children’s Health Care. Initiative Statute.
GPSCC is in favor of Prop 4 because our non-profit and university hospitals’that service our communities desperately need these resources now to address their crumbling infrastructure. We support the use of grants focused on healthcare facilities that treat children and low-income communities. We’d much prefer to have universal health care through a single payer system, and a functioning health department to support a network of well-funded public community clinics and hospitals. We encourage voters to vote YES.
Reservations: As a bond measure the true cost of Prop 3 is double the stated figures at a total of almost $3B. The Green Party supports responsible fiscal policies and in general we do not consider bond measures the best way to fund public community projects. Implementing public banks at the regional and state is another fiscally responsible way to fund such projects.
Proposition 5 – VOTE NO
Changes Requirements for Certain Property Owners to Transfer Their Property Tax Base to Replacement Property. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Starting with who has funded this prop, we get a picture of who it will benefit: by the end of July well over $7M has been raised to support Prop 5 almost entirely by the National Association of Realtors and the California Association of Realtors Issues Mobilization PAC. Among those who oppose Prop 5 are The Congress of California Seniors, AFSCME California, CA Alliance for Retired Americans, CA Federation of Teachers, CA Professional Firefighters, CA State Association of Counties, CA Teachers Association, League of Women Voters of CA, National Housing Law Project, Middle Class Taxpayers Association, SEIU California.
History:
Proposition 5 is a great example of a prop trying to amend existing protective legislature to turn it from benefiting people into benefiting developer and realtor interest.
The 1978 Prop 13 put limits on residential property taxation, the 1986 Prop 60amended it so home owners over 55 could transfer the taxable value of their home to a new home of lesser or equal value, in the same county, purchased within two years, and this could be done only once. The 1988 Prop 90 amended 13 to remove the county restriction if the new country agreed, currently 10 counties allow it.
Prop 5 now amends Prop. 13 to allow disabled homeowners over 55, to transfer taxable value of their home to a more expensive new home, anywhere in the state, for an unlimited number of times.
The negative financial impact to schools and local governments is estimated at $100M – $1B a year loss progressively through the years (info from the Legislative Analyst Office). We urge voters to vote NO on Proposition 5.
Proposition 6 – VOTE NO
Eliminates Recently Enacted Road Repair and Transportation Funding by Repealing Revenues Dedicated for Those Purposes. Requires Any Measure to Enact Certain Vehicle Fuel Taxes and Vehicle Fees Be Submitted to and Approved by the Electorate. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Prop 6 repeals all fuel and vehicle taxes and fees mandated by the 2017 Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), defunding the bill and it will further amend the CA Constitution to prohibit any future increases in gas tax without voter approval. While it originally had some minor issues, SB 1 has been a success over the years, and through fuel taxes and vehicle licensing fees has yielded an annual revenue of $5B to fund climate change mitigation projects, mass transit, rail/ bicycle/ pedestrian infrastructure, road repairs, and transportation analysis and planning. SB 1 has provided California a sustainable resource to address the needs of our transportation infrastructure, and we in the Green Party believe that it is the responsibility of the government.It is estimated that Prop 6 will cut $2B out of SB 1 tax revenues.
Proposition 7– YOU DECIDE
AB 807 (Chapter 60, Statutes of 2018), Chu. Daylight saving time.
GPSCC sees prop 7 as a personal choice, so you decide.
A YES vote on this measure means: The Legislature, with a two-thirds vote, could allow us to go back to year-round normal standard time OR have year-round daylight-saving time (DST). The year-round DST would need to further be approved by congressional authorization at the federal level. Absent any legislative change, California would maintain its current DST period (early March to early November).
A NO vote on this measure means: California would maintain its current DST period.
See the description of the prop: https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=7&year=2018
Review arguments for and against here.
Proposition 8 – VOTE YES
Authorizes State Regulation of Kidney Dialysis Clinics. Limits Charges for Patient Care. Initiative Statute. Initiative Statute.
Prop 8 (the Fair Pricing for Dialysis Act)is a revenue cap on private dialysis clinics limiting the non-care costs and profits to 15% above the actual cost of providing care, versus the current industry’s 350%. The $3B California dialysis clinic industry is dominated by one for-profit corporation, DaVita, with 50% share of the market, and net income of $901M in 2017 and $1B in 2016.
Prop 8 requires this industry to pay more in benefits, salaries and employee development for front line workers by limiting the amount of administrative overhead. In addition, all revenues above 115% of the actual cost of care will be refunded to the payee including (Medicare/Medicaid/insurance companies/or patients).Prop 8 is supported by CalPERS and the Congress of CA Seniors, since it reduces costs to health insurers, individuals and pensions. We urge a YES vote.
Proposition 10 – VOTE YES
Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property. Initiative Statute.
Alameda county’s analysis:
This is an initiative to repeal the Costa Hawkins law enacted by the state legislature and signed by Republican Governor Pete Wilson in 1995. Jim Costa was, at the time, a Democratic State Senator from the Fresno Area, currently a member of Congress. Phil Hawkins was a Republican Assemblyman from Southern California. The truly bi-partisan history should be noted.
Basically, Costa Hawkins is a great gift to the landlords of California. At root, its purpose was the pre-emption (stopping) cities and counties from strengthening rent control ordinances in 3 important ways. Firstly, it prohibits vacancy controls even where there is rent control. If tenants leave, landlords are free to raise rents without limit. The effect of this loophole has been to encourage evictions or to “encourage” people to move. Secondly, Costa Hawkins prohibits rent control on single-family homes and condominiums. Lastly, it prohibits rent control on rental property constructed after 1995.
We now find ourselves in a time of rapidly rising rents and forced relocations in increasing parts of the state. We are paying the price for weak or non-existent rent control. The situation has brought about Proposition 10 in response. Our view of Prop. 10 is yes, yes, yes. Many on the left are making the passage of Prop 10 a priority for November. We think it is the right thing to do. However, the passage of Prop 10 is only the beginning. If we can pass it in November, the battle for affordability will move to every city and county. Vote YES.
Proposition 11– VOTE NO
Requires Private-Sector Emergency Ambulance Employees to Remain on Call During Work Breaks. Changes Other Conditions of Employment. Initiative Statute.
Prop 11 aims to weaken private sector workers protection and legal rights by allowing private ambulance companies to continue their current practice of having emergency medical technicians (EMTs) and paramedics stay on-duty during their meal and rest breaks in order to respond to 911 calls.
This was originally described as “Requires Private-Sector Emergency Ambulance Employees to Remain onCall During Work Breaks. Changes Other Conditions of Employment Initiative Statute”.
This prop is being supported by the largest U.S. medical transportation firm, American Medical Response, and is an attack on the 2016 CA Supreme Court’s ruling upholding Federal labor law requiring rest breaks to be uninterrupted. We urge a NO vote.
Proposition 12 – VOTE YES
Establishes New Standards for Confinement of Certain Farm Animals; Bans Sale of Certain Non-Complying Products. Initiative Statute.
This Prop creates new minimum requirements on farmers to provide more space for egg-laying hens, breeding pigs, and veal calves, most importantly it BANS the sale of non-compliant products(defined as product not complying with the new minimum requirements on space), which applies to products from animals raised in California or out-of-state, Humane Society of the US is supporting and sponsoring ‘Prevent Cruelty California’ campaign. Vote YES.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~