Eleven California propositions are on the ballot for the upcoming November elections. Of those the Clarion focuses on Propositions 1, 3, 6 and 10, which may have the largest impact on Californians.
Proposition 1 authorizes $4 billion in bonds to be used for home loans for veterans and affordable housing programs for low-income people and seniors. To pay off the bonds, taxpayers will have to pay $170 million a year for 35 years.
Pro: Voting “yes” provides home loans to veterans and affordable homes for low-income families and seniors. The proposition allows for the construction of new housing without raising taxes.
Con: The proposition is expensive to repay. It will cost $170 million annually for 35 years. Voters could see an increase in state property tax to pay off bond interest.
Our Position: Vote “yes” to authorize $4 billion in general bonds. The measure addresses the housing shortage by setting aside funds toward construction. This is a long-term solution to the homeless crisis that California is facing. The proposition also addresses homelessness among veterans by providing them reduced-rate home loans.
Proposition 3 will invest $8.877 billion in California water infrastructure, including safe drinking water, sustainable groundwater management, watershed restoration, fish and wildlife habitat conservation and infrastructure repair.
Pro: The bond money would be used to repair dams, canals and other water-related infrastructure, including desalination, which would remove salt and other contaminants from water so it can safely be used.
It provides much-needed investment for drought and natural disaster preparedness.
Con: The projects will cost the state $17.3 billion. Taxpayers will pay an average of $433 million per year over a 40 year period.
Our position: Vote “yes” on proposition 3. This water bond will invest in water infrastructure, directing California into a sustainable future, which is needed given the drought California is facing.
Proposition 10 allows city governments to place rent control restrictions on any type of rental housing. The proposition would repeal Costa-Hawkins’ Rental Housing Act, which prevents cities from enacting rent control on properties occupied after 1995. The economic impact of Proposition 10 is unknown. But it would likely decrease state and local tax revenue.
Pro: Proposition 10 will give more power to municipal governments to adopt rent control measures. The proposition will provide greater access to affordable housing and help alleviate homelessness.
Con: Passage of the proposition could disincentivize housing construction and investment. The proposition may result in a net decrease in state and local government revenue.
Rental housing owners will pay fees up to tens of millions of dollars to cover increases in local government costs.
Our Position: Vote “yes” to give city governments the power to choose to adopt rent control. Each city knows how to best deal with its own housing issues. Proposition 10 gives city and municipal governments the flexibility they need to address the specific housing concerns in their own cities.
Proposition 6 will repeal gas, diesel and vehicle taxes enacted in 2017. Any future gas, diesel or vehicle tax increase would need to be voter-approved before the California Legislature imposes them.
Pro: Repealing the gas tax will reduce the amount of taxes people pay at the pump, possibly alleviating some of the economic burdens low-income people face.
Voting to repeal the gas tax will allow voters to decide on new gas or vehicle tax increases.
Con: Maintaining the gas tax increases state revenue to be spent on transportation-related improvement projects, including roads, railways and bridges.
The gas tax also stimulates job growth.
Our position: Vote “no” on Proposition 6. The U.S. News and World Report ranks California’s infrastructure among the poorest in the nation. The state’s road and bridges have become dangerous to drive and lead to car accidents and car damage. The gas tax provides the money needed to fund to transportation infrastructure improvements, road safety and public transportation. In the long-term, this would benefit taxpayers by ensuring that their money is used for their own safety. The average cost of the gas tax to drivers is less at the pump than the cost of auto repairs from driving outworn roads.
