November 6, 2018 Voter Recommendations

After two terrible, long years of the worst president in history of our country we finally have a chance to do something about it. I know that many of you are fatigued, but now is the time to double down on your activism. I will outline everything you need to know to fill out your absentee ballot or go to the polls, but I hope that you will do more than just your civic duty. Will you encourage everyone you know to vote? Will you help organizations like the ACLU get out the vote (https://www.aclu.org/voter/)? Even better, will you knock on doors for Katie Hill (https://www.katiehillforcongress.com/volunteer) or Harley Rouda (https://events.mobilizeamerica.io/roudaforcongress/)?

Stopping Trump depends on democrats going to the polls. There are more of us then them, but we don’t vote in midterm elections. Please help to change that. Post on social media about voting. Tell your family and friends about voting. This is the most important topic to check in with everyone you know about for the next few weeks.

As with all my voter guides take what you like and leave the rest. These are my personal opinions and I hope that you will feel free to use the guide to gain more information and make your own informed decisions. Please do not skip anything on the ballot. There are extremely important state and local ballot measures. Positions in bold I feel very strongly about.

Governor: Gavin Newsom

Lieutenant Governor: Eleni Kounalakis

Secretary of State: Alex Padilla

Controller: Betty Yee

Treasurer: Fiona Ma

Attorney General: Xavier Becerra

Insurance Commissioner: Ricardo Lara

State Board of Equalization: Tony Vazquez

U.S. Senator: Dianne Feinstein

U.S. Representatives:

CD25: Katie Hill

CD27: Judy Chu

CD28: Adam Schiff

CD34: Jimmy Gomez

CD37: Karen Bass

CD43: Maxine Waters

CD44: Nanette Barragan

CD48: Harley Rouda

State Senator - 24th District: Maria Elena Durazo

State Assembly - 51st District: Wendy Carrillo

Judicial Supreme Court Judges & Judicial Court of Appeal Judges

-Just say Yes to all

Judicial Office #4: A. Veronica Sauceda

Judicial Office #16: Sydne Jane Michel

Judicial Office #60: Holly Hancock

Judicial Office #113: Michael P. Ribons

Superintendent of Public Instruction: Tony Thurmond

County Assessor: Jeffrey Prang

County Sheriff: Jim McDonnell

Proposition 1: Yes

Prop 1 is great! It is a $4 billion state bond to fund affordable housing. It will fund a variety of programs from affordable housing construction to a limited amount of home ownership subsidies. It is a great initiative that is desperately needed right now.

Proposition 2: Yes

Keep the housing measures coming! Prop 2 is a bit confusing because it is building on Prop 63 from 2006. Prop 63 is the millionaires’ tax that funds mental health services. This proposition clarifies a legal question about whether the state can issue bonds that bond against the future revenues from the millionaires’ tax. The bond proceeds will be used to construct supportive housing for people who are homeless and suffer from mental illness.

Proposition 3: No

I really struggle with Prop 3 because it has some things in it I really like – primarily $2.5 billion for watershed restoration and $2.1 billion for storm water recapture (which you will read more about below). The problem is that $4.6 billion in good stuff is stuck in there with $4.3 billion of not-great-stuff. The campaign is funded by big Ag and opposed by the League of Women voters. In the end it is a really expensive Christmas tree and it is up to you if want your taxes funding gifts for good and bad actors. 

Proposition 4: Yes

This is a $1.5 billion bond for children’s hospitals. I was very grateful for Valley Children’s Hospital in Fresno when Sadie broke her leg. I hope that none of you ever have to bring your children to a children’s hospital, but if you do you will be grateful that the voters of California helped ensure that these are some of the best hospitals in the world.

Proposition 5: No!

Do you like robbing children and millennials to make the baby boomers richer? If so, this is the ballot initiative for you. You may have heard about the worst thing that ever happened to California - Prop 13? Remember when California went from the best public schools in the country to 48^th in the country? If you liked robbing students of a decent public education then, the realtors have an opportunity to double down and take even more money from public schools. The California Association of Realtors is right up there with the NRA in terms of most self-serving mega-lobbyists of all time. In California today if you are a senior citizen who wants to downsize because your kids have moved out you can take your Prop 13 - artificially low - tax rates with you to a home of lesser value. But that apparently is not good enough for the realtors who get a commission every time you move. Now they want seniors to be able to take their artificially low property tax rates with them if they move to a home of greater value! Forget downsizing. You're done paying for your kids’ college and now you want to buy yourself a mega-mansion? Please let California tax payers help subsidize your mega-mansion. This is the most ridiculous ballot initiative ever. I hope it goes down in flames.

Proposition 6: No

While the realtors are trying to destroy public education, the Republicans are trying to destroy our roads. The Republicans want to repeal the gas tax, which funds roads and transportation infrastructure. We want gas cheap so that you can drive over roads that will destroy your car because of so many potholes. What is the point of that? There is bipartisan agreement that we desperately need these funds for roads and infrastructure. But maybe, just maybe, this isn’t about repealing a tax and is really about turning republicans out at the polls to try to keep republican control of the House…

Proposition 7: Yes

This is a funny proposition because it does not do much. It would repeal part of an existing state law, thus making it possible for the state legislature to adopt daylight savings time year-round, but there is a hitch – the feds would also have to approve any change. So, this is one small step towards not having to turn our clocks backwards and forwards twice a year, but don’t expect anything to change soon. I would be thrilled if someday in the future we do make the full move to permanent daylight savings time.

Proposition 8: Amended from Neutral to Yes

I am torn on this initiative because there is not a lot of information. It also seems too complicated to be legislated at the ballot box. This proposition would cap the profits of dialysis centers. SEIU put it on the ballot in the hope that dialysis centers would put the revenue they couldn’t keep into more staff. Many groups are opposing the measure out of fear that it would lead to dialysis centers closing at time when we need more to open.

*Addendum to my analysis on Prop 8. The best part of sharing the guide is all the feedback I get that helps me be more informed. My wonderful friend Julie, who is a doctor, shared the following about why she is voting for Prop 8. "I ended up voting yes on 8 because dialysis centers would receive incentives to care for more patients in the same way that hospitals used to get extra money (DSH) for serving a higher proportion of MediCal patients. Dialysis is an automatic MediCare and disability qualifier. So those healthcare dollars are coming out of our pockets no matter what, and, yet dialysis centers turn hefty profits. If the public is going to fund healthcare (which I believe we should because it is a human right), then no one should be making profits. AND, since I’ve been reading about this one, I have to throw in my 2 cents about the inherent bias that the world of kidney care has toward leading people to a lifetime of dialysis and never recommending kidney transplant." Julie convinced me to also support Prop 8.

Proposition 9: Nothing here because this proposition was removed from the ballot.

Proposition 10: YES!!!

Of everything on the ballot this is the initiative I feel most strongly about. Don’t be fooled by the $60 million in ads saying this initiative will hurt housing construction in California. The ads are all lies and funded by realtors and landlords who want property values and sales to keep going through the roof. Prop 10 repeals a horrible state law called Costa-Hawkins. Costa-Hawkins passed the state legislature in 1995 by 1 vote. It prohibits cities from protecting tenants from rent increases by doing three things. The worst part of Costa-Hawkins is that it prevents limiting rent increases on any apartment built after 1995 or locks in the year of rent stabilization policies in any city that had rent stabilization before the state law passed. This is why the supply of rent stabilized apartments in LA shrinks every year – we are locked into only regulating apartments built before 1978, the year the city used as the cut-off when Costa-Hawkins passed in 1995. The next thing it does is prohibits regulating rents on single-family homes, despite more than 1/3 of renters in California living in single-family homes. The third thing it does is prohibits vacancy control. I think New York is the only city left in the country that has any form of vacancy control – this is when a tenant leaves an apartment and the rent is kept below-market for the next tenant who rents the apartment. Prop 10 won’t change anything over night, but it will repeal this state law that has prevented cities from regulating many thousands of apartments. Many cities, including Los Angeles, are poised to implement stricter tenant protections if voters approve Prop 10. I hear from tenants constantly who have faced outrageous rent increases. This is the most important thing we could do to curb abusive and exploitative landlords.

Proposition 11: Neutral

This is another proposition that I am torn on. There is no formal opposition. All the major papers are supporting the proposition, but it is a complicated issue that would be better resolved by the legislature. A recent court decision said that security guards should not have to be on-call when they take breaks. Private ambulance companies want California voters to approve this proposition exempting private ambulance EMTs from these worker protections so that their employees would have to be on-call when they take breaks. Labor unions oppose the measure.

Proposition 12: Yes

10 years after I opposed Proposition 2 in 2008 because I thought we should give gay people rights before we focused on animal rights my husband still makes fun of me for feeling so strongly against Prop 8, which was on the same ballot, that I opposed Prop 2. Prop 2 banned battery cages for chickens in 2008. This proposition would go farther and require all eggs sold in California to be cage-free by 2022. I am sure that this is a good thing. It just feels weird to me that so many people are pro-chicken when we can’t do the simplest things to help humans in need. 

Measure W: Yes

Did you know that an obscene amount of energy in California is used just to transport water from northern California and the Colorado River to Southern California? We could significantly reduce energy consumption in the state if we simply captured our storm water, treated it, and used it to replenish our water supply. Instead we let billions of gallons of water pick up toxins and trash and then flow into our oceans and poison marine life. Measure W is a County measure that would tax property owners based on how much impenetrable surface we each have on our property. You can estimate what the tax would be for you by going to https://safecleanwaterla.org/calculator/. The proceeds would be invested in storm water recapture infrastructure that would collect enough water to serve close to a quarter of the County’s population.

Measure B: Yes

I don’t think the City of LA will ever establish a public bank, but I like the idea. Unfortunately establishing a public bank is very expensive and difficult. The good news is that this ballot measure won’t hurt anything, so why not vote yes and open the door for the city to establish a public bank?

Measure E: Yes

Many local governments, including the City of LA, have been working to increase voter turnout by moving away from the off-cycle elections to align votes for local offices with larger statewide elections. This is a good thing because very few voters turn out for the off-cycle elections. This proposition amends the city charter to align city elections with state elections.

Measure EE: Yes

Measure EE does the same thing as the measure above, but for elections for school board member elections.

March 7, 2017

Since the November election I have been thinking a lot about the Gil Scott Heron song “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.” Our revolution will not be on social media or through online petitions. Calls are great, but they don’t change who is in power. There is one way to change who is in power and that is through voting. Building power will come through registering people to vote, educating the voters, building coalitions behind strong candidates and measures, and getting people to the ballot box. 

Historically about 10% of voters, and often times less, show up for off-cycle elections like our March 7th election. But if 20% of the city marched in the streets on January 21st maybe that can change this time around. I appreciate everyone who takes the time to read these recommendations, but I will be even happier if you share them with 10 people you know and remind them to vote on March 7th. I think our city has woken up to the full potential of apathy to destroy democracy as we know it. March 7th is an opportunity exercise some of the power we still have and make meaningful positive changes right here in our communities. We are already feeling the effects of the federal government withdrawing support for immigrants, refugees, the LGBTQ community, people of color, healthcare, welfare, and housing. We have a lot of work ahead of us to bolster our state, county, and city against these horrible policies and budget cuts. March 7th is our first opportunity to act locally. 

Measure H - Hell Ya!

Full disclosure I was involved in crafting these measure. It is long overdue. Measure H will raise revenue to provides services and housing to people experiencing homelessness. It will also provide homelessness prevention to people on the verge of homelessness. The revenue will be raised through a $.025 cent sales tax. Yes, that zero is in the right place. For a $.025 cent on every dollar you spend on taxable items (these do not include food or rent) the County is estimated to raise $355 million annually that will be 100% dedicated to addressing homelessness. $.025 means that tax is 25 cents on every $100 you spend. The tax also has a 10 year sunset. Because this is a dedicated specific tax it needs 67% of voters to support it to pass. That means we need you and everyone you know to show up on the 7th to vote yes on H. 

I am not going to spend time on city candidates, but these are my recommendations:

Mayor - Eric Garcetti

City Attorney - Mike Feuer

City Controller - Ron Galperin

CD1 - Joseph Bray-Ali

CD3 - Bob Blumenfield

CD5 - Paul Koretz

CD7 - Monica Rodriguez

CD9 - no recommendation

CD11 - Mike Bonin  

CD13 - Mitch O’Farrell

CD15 - no recommendation

Measure M: Yes

Measure M and Measure N are competing measures on the ballot relating to marijuana regulation. Measure M was sponsored by the city. Measure N is sponsored by the marijuana industry. Measure M allows the city to repeal Prop D, which was passed in 2013 and only relates to medical marijuana. Measure M would give the city a time frame within which to develop new regulations for recreational and medical marijuana. It also imposes a 5% gross receipts tax on medical marijuana (down from an existing 6% tax) and a 10% gross receipts tax on recreational marijuana. It also creates criminal penalties for marijuana businesses that do not follow the guidelines that will be developed under the Measure.  

Measure N: No

Measure N was sponsored by the marijuana industry and has been abandoned by the industry, but not in time to get it off the ballot. It is disliked because it would give a monopoly to the 135 dispensaries grandfathered in under Prop D. It would not allow new businesses to operate in the city under the new recreational marijuana era. The industry dropped the Measure and now supports the City’s measure M. 

Measure P: Yes

This measure amends the city charter to allow leases of public land that is part of the Port of LA to be leased for 66 years instead of 50 years. The main proponent is San Pedro Councilman Buscaino, who is pushing this to make development of the Port of LA more attractive. It really comes down to whether you support the redevelopment of the Port of LA. I am not a big fan of commercial district as it is, so I am fine with this. 

Measure S - Hell No!

This is a really complex measure with a gnarly origin. I know on first blush stopping development in the City of LA sounds good to some people, but this is an incredibly deceptive measure that could have disastrous consequences. Measure S was placed on the ballot by one man - Michael Weinstein. Michael Weinstein is an extremely controversial figure, who despite running the AIDS Healthcare Foundation is at odds with the entire LGBTQ leadership in California and the nation. Weinstein became obsessed with development in LA when he wasn’t able to stop a large development next to the headquarters of AIDS Healthcare Foundation. The reality is that he probably wasn’t successful because he has an extraordinary number of political enemies, but he is convinced that his failure was because LA city politicians are in the pocket of developers. There are a lot of problems with land use and zoning in LA. It is a good target for Weinstein because the system is broken. The challenge is we need a really nuanced solution because we are in housing crisis and Measure S is like a sledge hammer. The housing crisis is driven by a supply and demand problem. Housing production slowed dramatically in the 1990s and the population of the city continued to grow. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that what we need is housing affordable to people with low incomes and market-rate developers only build luxury housing because that is how they make the most profit. While I don’t support creating endless amounts of luxury housing, I also know stopping all housing production would only exacerbate the crisis because it would further limit supply at a time that demand will continue to grow, which will further drive up prices. Most problematic is the fact that Measure S would limit affordable housing production. The Measure has a pseudo-exemption for affordable housing, but only if the affordable housing development does not need additional height, additional density, or a zone change. Affordable housing developers unanimously oppose the measure because most affordable housing sites falls into the category of needing one of those three things. Measure S would stop a good chunk of affordable housing, it would drive up rents, and, as a result, it would increase homelessness in the city. This Measure is very dangerous. Thankfully a huge coalition of non-profit organizations have come out against the Measure. If you are on the fence about the Measure I hope that you will check out the list of opponents at www.goestoofar.com/coalition. 

LAUSD

There are no great choices when it comes to LAUSD board members. United Teachers LA backs one candidate and the charter school cheerleaders back another. Both sides refuse to admit that each of the systems they back need serious work. Nothing depresses me more than school board elections. Sadly, I did not find one school board candidate I could recommend for districts 2, 4, or 6. I look for candidates who are going to do a good job of governing the school district. None of the incumbents or new candidates demonstrated a strong commend of public stewardship, which is the most important skill for school board members. Michelle King is in charge of educational instruction. I am looking for candidates who can choose strong superintendents and skillfully handle budgeting. These candidates did not demonstrate either. 

Los Angeles Community College Board

I did not have time to look closely into these races, but the LA Times endorsements seem well done. They are:

Seat 2: Steven Veres

Seat 4: Ernest Moreno

Seat 6: Gabriel Buelna

You made it to the bottom of the ballot. Good work. For those of you in congressional district 34 we will be back at the polls on April 4th. See you very soon!

November 8, 2016

I know that everyone is ready for this election to be over and to never see Donald Trump again. The incredible length of the ballot is only making voter angst worse. Please don’t tune out or just vote up-ticket. There are some amazing down-ballot initiatives that have the potential to transform thousands of lives. These initiatives make me really hopeful for California and LA. I will keep my comments short to help you make it to the end of the ballot. Statements in bold are positions I feel especially strongly about. 

I think you all know the candidates, so I am going to focus on the propositions. I am not explaining my candidate picks. You can message me if you have questions.

President: Hillary Clinton

Senate: Kamala Harris

Assm. 51: Jimmy Gomez (running unopposed)
LA County Supervisorial District 4: Janice Hahn
LA County Supervisorial District 5: Kathryn Barger

Judge seat 11: Debra Archuleta

Judge seat 42: E. Matthew Aceves

Judge seat 84: Susan Jung Townsend
*Townsend is well qualified and endorsed by the LA Times, but defense attorneys tell me they like her opponent Perez. After lots of research I am supporting Townsend, but I think both candidates would make good judges. 

Judge seat 158: Kim Nguyen

Prop 51 - No

I am generally a fan of bonds and taxes, but this initiative is fishy. Governor Brown opposes it. Not a single Los Angeles education organization has endorsed it. The LA Times is against it. The proposition is funded by the construction industry rather than education groups. Local bonds to fund school construction make more sense than this bad mojo. 

Prop 52 - Yes

This proposition extends an existing charge on private hospitals to fund increased payments to hospitals to pay for care to low-income patients. Hospitals are afraid that the existing system will go away when the current charge expires in 2018. The Hospital Association of CA sponsored this bill because they are afraid that the fee will get extended without the funds returning to hospitals to pay for care for patients who can’t pay. This is much too wonky for a ballot initiative, but it doesn’t seem like a bad program.

Prop 53 - No

Do you like the bullet train project and other major infrastructure projects? Dean Cortopassi doesn’t. Mr. Cortopassi is a very wealthy Stockton food producer and distributer who has an issue with a water infrastructure project near his property. His answer - $4 million to put Prop 53 on the ballot. He is the only financier of the proposition. It would require that state revenue bonds of $2 million or more would need to get statewide voter approval before being issued. Right now only general obligation bonds require voter approval because revenue bonds are paid back by the end users of the infrastructure rather than tax payers (think utility customers and bullet train customers). This proposition has an incredible number of opponents and very few supporters. 

Prop 54 - No

This proposition sounds good and might not do any harm, but I am concerned because it is funded by one man - Charles Munger, Jr. Munger is active in Republican politics. Not surprisingly, this proposition is supported by the state republican party and opposed by the state democratic party and unions. That said, the dems and unions have not raised any money against it, so it can’t be too dangerous. The proposition would require that all bills, including any changes to a bill, be made public 72 hours before a vote can be taken. That sounds harmless, but it means no compromises could be made on the floor while a bill is being heard. Slowing down the legislative process can be a double-edged sword - sometimes it helps, sometimes it hurts. Either way, we shouldn’t change the current rules because one rich man wants them changed.

Prop 55 - Yes

Prop 55 is commonly called the “Prop 30 extension” because it extends an existing income tax on people earning more than $250,000 that was created through Prop 30 in 2012. Prop 30 also included a sales tax that is not extended by this proposition. If the existing income tax sunsets in 2018 (as it is currently scheduled to do) K-12 schools could lose up to $4 billion (yes, that is a "B") per year. This would be devastating to schools. All the major democrats in the state support Prop 55 and it is opposed by the Republican party and anti-tax groups. 

Prop 56 - Yes

I am a supporter of sin taxes, so I am fine with this, but I know lots of people who hate sin taxes and will not support this. According to the LA Times, California has one of the lowest tobacco taxes in the country. This proposition would increase the existing tax of $0.87 to $2.87 per pack. The increased tax revenue would fund healthcare for low-income Californians through the Medi-Cal program. 

Prop 57- Yes

This is one of my favorite initiatives on the ballot! Let’s turn back the tide of mass incarceration! Most important to me, this proposition would require that judges weigh in on whether juveniles are tried as adults. Right now it is solely up to criminal prosecutors to decide if juveniles are tried in adult court or juvenile court. This has had disastrous consequences with kids as young as 14 tried as adults and sent to adult prisons. This practice must stop and making it harder for kids to be tried as adults is an important first step. The initiative will also allow parole hearings for individuals sentenced for non-violent crimes that have received sentencing credits for good behavior.

Prop 58 - Yes

Prop 58 seeks to reverse Prop 227 from 1998 that required instruction primarily in English for English learners in California public schools. All children deserve a quality education. Prop 227 unfortunately focused on the language instruction is provided in rather than the quality of that instruction. Many dual language programs have shown that all students, regardless of native language, can thrive in these programs. Prop 58 would not expand dual language programs, but it would give school districts more flexibility to create these programs, if desired. It is highly supported by the state democratic party, but opposed by the state Republican party. 

Prop 59 - Yes

This is a tough one. I hate the Citizens United decision allowing corporations to spend unlimited amounts in campaigns. I am just not sure if this proposition does any good to overturn it. The proposition would ask elected officials to use their authority to seek increased regulation on campaign spending, including proposing an amendment to the U.S. constitution. I don’t see any hope of amending the constitution, but since nothing else is working to move the dial on campaign spending I guess this is the best option we have to register our dislike at the moment. 

Prop 60 - No

I like condoms. I want adult film performers to be protected. But I do not trust Michael Weinstein, this initiative’s author, as far as I can throw him. This proposition is notoriously poorly written, which is why it has less than a handful of supporters and a long list of opponents. 

Prop 61 - No

This initiative is like bad vs. bad. Prescription drug companies have spent $89 million trying to stop this proposition, which would normally make me want to vote for it, but its main backer is, again, Michael Weinstein. Really, he needed two propositions on this ballot?! This one is, again, poorly written. Every major newspaper in the state has come out against it. The initiative seeks to tie what state-run insurance programs (i.e. Medi-Cal, state college students, prison inmates, etc.) could pay for prescription drugs to what the VA pays for the same drugs. The feds limit what the VA can pay for prescription drugs, but the VA is also a tiny healthcare system compared to the state’s Medi-Cal program. Many newspapers think that this initiative will do nothing to lower costs and could limit access to critical prescription drugs. 

Prop 62 - Yes

Whoa, finally an initiative I am excited about. There were some doozies leading up to this, but this one is straight forward - Do you want to abolish the death penalty in California? Absolutely, my vote is to abolish the death penalty. I do think that there are terrible criminals in the world, but humans make mistakes and we have made far too many with the death penalty. Germans know that humans should not be given the right to legally put people to death because there is never a guarantee that that right will not be abused. We are far too imperfect beings to be allowed a power so great. Our implicit, and sometimes explicit, bias drives us to sentence people of color and people in poverty far more often than others on trial. There are far too many examples of innocent people sentenced to death. We have clearly shown that we cannot, and should not, be allowed the sentence others to death. 

Prop 63 - Yes

This initiative imposes stricter gun control regulations in the state, including requiring that people who are ineligible to have a fire arm dispose of any existing fire arms they have. Right now you can be deemed ineligible to have a fire arm (say someone takes out a restraining order on you), but no one actually follows up to make sure you get rid of any existing guns you own. The proposition also requires gun owners to report if their fire arm is stolen. NRA take note - you are not welcome in California. 

Prop 64 - Yes

Another fun proposition! We took on mass incarceration earlier and now we are taking on the war on drugs. Prop 64 will legalize recreational use of marijuana for adults 21 and over. There are lots of reasons to support legalization - the war on drugs disproportionately put people of color in jail, increased tax revenue, decreased drug cartels and gangs, etc. There will be challenges no doubt. Four states and D.C. have already legalized marijuana and there are some downsides, like increased driving under the influence and kids accidentally overdosing on edibles. There are lots of questions about if teenagers will use pot at a higher rate if it is legalized. These are legit concerns, but they do not outweigh the horrible impacts of criminalizing marijuana use. 

Prop 65 - No

This confusing ballot measure is bizarre. It was placed on the ballot  by the plastic bag industry to try to confuse voters and make them think the ban on plastic bags is a money grab by store owners. They hope that if they can make voters think that the ban is all just a money grab that voters will vote against Prop 67, which ratifies the state’s ban on plastic bags. 

Prop 66 - No

Prop 66 was placed on the ballot to try to get voters to vote against Prop 62, the anti-death penalty measure. The backers hope that if they can make the death penalty more appealing (!) voters will not vote to abolish it. Their slogan is “Mend, Not End.” Prop 66 would speed up death penalty proceedings so that people on death row wouldn’t sit there for 30 years. They assume that voters are voting for Prop 62 because of a fiscal concern that we spend too much money on people on death row. As stated above, there are far more reasons to repeal the death penalty.

Prop 67 - Yes

My husband and I may differ on this one. He loves plastic bags. I support California’s ban on plastic bags. This initiative ratifies the state’s law that prohibits stores from giving out free paper or plastic bags. 

Take a breath. You made it through the state propositions. Now on to the local! 

Local Propositions

County

Measure A - Yes

Measure A replaces an existing tax that is set to expire that supports County and local cities’ parks. It would levy a $0.015 (1.5 cents) parcel tax per square foot of development. The average home owner has 1,500 square foot home and would be taxed $22.50 per year. This would generate $94 million per year to support the region’s parks.  

City of LA

Proposition HHH - Yes

Help House the Homeless! Let’s do this people! Prop HHH would allow the city to issue $1.2 billion in general obligation bonds to build 10,000 units of affordable housing including 8,000 units of permanent supportive housing for people experiencing homelessness. It is impossible to overstate how badly we need this. 10,000 units is enough to be a game changer on homelessness. The County is all in on providing the services to support these units. Yes, your property taxes will go up slightly to pay for this. The impact on property taxes will vary as it will take a while to issue all the bonds, but at its peak property owners will be assessed $18.54 for every $100,000 of assessed value on the property. The average home owner has an assessed value of $341,000 and would pay $63 at the bonds’ peak in 2027. I personally think that it is a small price to pay for saving thousands of lives. 

Measure JJJ - Yes

I will be voting yes on measure JJJ, but I don’t love it. The intent is good - require market-rate developers to include affordable housing in their developments and pay good wages to construction workers. I will be voting yes on this initiative because the city council and Mayor have been talking about inclusionary zoning (requiring affordable units in market-rate development) for over 15 years and done nothing to require that a single unit be built. The downside of this initiative is that the County Federation of Labor (who wrote it) spent much more time on the labor requirements rather than the affordable housing provisions. The LA Times is opposing it for fear that this initiative could make the affordable housing crisis worse by making it more expensive to build any housing in LA. I think there is enough profit in housing development that this initiative will be a headache for developers, but it will not squash development. 

Measure RRR - Yes

The best anyone can say about Measure RRR is that it is helpful. It will provide some incremental improvements at DWP. There are a lot of people against RRR, but their main complaint is that it does not go far enough in reforming DWP. Without any other path to get greater reform this is the best option we have right now.  

Measure SSS - No

This is another fun proposition. It would allow new airport police to enter the LAPD and LAFD pension system, but not existing airport police officers. If you are not familiar with police and fire pension systems you should know that they provide incredibly rich retirement benefits under the assumption that if you risk your life for the community you should be able to retire comfortably. But because this proposition does not apply to current airport police officers and the airport police union does not support this. I know dangerous things happen at airports sometimes, but I don’t think it is the same as being a police officer or fire fighter. If their own union doesn’t back it there does not seem to be any reason to support this.  

Special Districts

Measure CC - Yes

Measure CC is the tax initiative that I am most torn about how to vote on. I am a huge admirer of community colleges. Lives are transformed at Pasadena City College, Santa Monica College, Mission College, and many other community colleges in LA. These schools take the students with the greatest barriers and get many of them on track to successful careers and higher education. I also believe that quality facilities make a huge difference in education. This would be a no-brainer yes vote if the community college district had not already had three other bond measures approved in the last 15 years. Ultimately I decided to vote yes because this is exactly the type of infrastructure investment that makes a real difference in people’s lives. It took a bit to make my way to this decision and I do not begrudge anyone who disagrees. 

Measure M - Yes

Did you know that LA is expanding our public transit system faster than any other major city in America? We all know that there is lots of work to do to on our transportation system. Metro is not perfect, but they are doing a pretty damn good job expanding our transportation system. I did not expect to be able to take a train to the beach before I was 50. I have no qualms with paying an extra $.005 (half cent) sales tax to fund an expanded transit  system.

You made it to the end of the ballot! Or did you? If you live in another city like Santa Monica, you may be facing other initiatives. I am not familiar with all of these, but if you do happen to be in Santa Monica please vote no on LV, and yes on GS and GSH. 

Other than positions in bold, there are many of these I do not feel strongly about. If you disagree do your homework and vote your conscience. No matter what, pat yourself on the back for getting through this monster ballot!