NOVEMBER 3, 2020 GENERAL ELECTION
Here are my recommendations for the November 3 Election. Below the list of my positions are explanations.
I've included everything that's on my ballot plus a few other local Marin County races.
As usual, I urge you to take my advice with plenty of salt, and research the issues and candidates on your own. There are two websites I find particularly helpful: Voter’s Edge, sponsored by MapLight and the League of Women Voters of California Education Fund, and Ballotpedia. Both sites enable you to look up your own ballot and find information about the various candidates and issues on the ballot.
Whatever you do, make sure you vote!
Here are my recommendations for the November 3 Election. Below the list of my positions are explanations.
I've included everything that's on my ballot plus a few other local Marin County races.
As usual, I urge you to take my advice with plenty of salt, and research the issues and candidates on your own. There are two websites I find particularly helpful: Voter’s Edge, sponsored by MapLight and the League of Women Voters of California Education Fund, and Ballotpedia. Both sites enable you to look up your own ballot and find information about the various candidates and issues on the ballot.
Whatever you do, make sure you vote!
President and Vice President
JOSEPH R. BIDEN and KAMALA D. HARRIS
United States Representative, 2nd District
JARED HUFFMAN
(If this isn’t your district, vote for your local Democrat.)
Member of the State Assembly, 10th District
MARC LEVINE
(If this isn’t your district, vote for your local Democrat.)
Local - Marin County
Board Member, Marin County Board of Eduction, Trustee Area 4
FELICIA “FEL” AGRELIUS
Board Member, Marin Community College District (4 seats open)
PAUL DA SILVA
PHILIP J. KRANENBURG
STEPHANIE A. O’BRIEN
STUART TANENBERG,
Board Member, Tamalpais Union High School District (2 seats open)
KAREN K. LOEBBAKA
BRANDON JOHNSON
Sausalito Marin City School District (2 seats open)
LISA BENNETT
YASMINE MCGRANE
Fairfax Town Council (3 seats open)
CHANCE CUTRANO
BARBARA COLER
BRUCE ACKERMAN
City of San Rafael Councilmember, District 4
RACHEL KERTZ
Marin Healthcare District Director (2 seats open)
EDWARD J. ALFREY
ANN SPARKMAN
Marin Municipal Water District Director, Division 2
MONTY SCHMITT
State Ballot Measures
Prop. 14 - Stem cell research bonds: NO
Prop. 15 - Commercial property taxes: YES
Prop. 16 - Affirmative Action: YES
Prop. 17 - Post-incarceration voting rights: YES
Prop. 18 - Limited 17-year-old vote: YES
Prop. 19 - Property tax changes: NO
Prop. 20 - Parole restrictions: NO
Prop. 21 - Local rent control: YES
Prop. 22 - Exemption to worker benefit requirements: NO
Prop. 23 - Kidney dialysis clinics: NO
Prop. 24 - Consumer privacy: NO
Prop. 25 - Money bail referendum: YES
Local Ballot Measures
Tamalpais Union High School District Measure M - Parcel tax: YES
Sausalito Marin City School District Bond Measure P: YES
JOSEPH R. BIDEN and KAMALA D. HARRIS
United States Representative, 2nd District
JARED HUFFMAN
(If this isn’t your district, vote for your local Democrat.)
Member of the State Assembly, 10th District
MARC LEVINE
(If this isn’t your district, vote for your local Democrat.)
Local - Marin County
Board Member, Marin County Board of Eduction, Trustee Area 4
FELICIA “FEL” AGRELIUS
Board Member, Marin Community College District (4 seats open)
PAUL DA SILVA
PHILIP J. KRANENBURG
STEPHANIE A. O’BRIEN
STUART TANENBERG,
Board Member, Tamalpais Union High School District (2 seats open)
KAREN K. LOEBBAKA
BRANDON JOHNSON
Sausalito Marin City School District (2 seats open)
LISA BENNETT
YASMINE MCGRANE
Fairfax Town Council (3 seats open)
CHANCE CUTRANO
BARBARA COLER
BRUCE ACKERMAN
City of San Rafael Councilmember, District 4
RACHEL KERTZ
Marin Healthcare District Director (2 seats open)
EDWARD J. ALFREY
ANN SPARKMAN
Marin Municipal Water District Director, Division 2
MONTY SCHMITT
State Ballot Measures
Prop. 14 - Stem cell research bonds: NO
Prop. 15 - Commercial property taxes: YES
Prop. 16 - Affirmative Action: YES
Prop. 17 - Post-incarceration voting rights: YES
Prop. 18 - Limited 17-year-old vote: YES
Prop. 19 - Property tax changes: NO
Prop. 20 - Parole restrictions: NO
Prop. 21 - Local rent control: YES
Prop. 22 - Exemption to worker benefit requirements: NO
Prop. 23 - Kidney dialysis clinics: NO
Prop. 24 - Consumer privacy: NO
Prop. 25 - Money bail referendum: YES
Local Ballot Measures
Tamalpais Union High School District Measure M - Parcel tax: YES
Sausalito Marin City School District Bond Measure P: YES
Explanations
President and Vice President
Hopefully I don’t have to convince anybody about this one.
The choice is between an egomaniacal, racist, unhinged serial liar who has spent his life cheating other people (and, more recently, killing them as a result of his inept and dangerous response to the Coronavirus) and an empathetic, moderate Democrat who actually wants to help people, believes in science, and will make decisions based on what’s best for the American people, not on what might benefit him personally.
VOTE FOR JOE BIDEN AND KAMALA HARRIS.
United States Representative, 2nd District
I believe we’re being well served in Washington, D.C. by incumbent Jared Huffman. He’s very good on the issues and very good about staying in touch with his district.
VOTE FOR JARED HUFFMAN.
Member of the State Assembly, 10th District
Under California’s unusual open primary system, the top two finishers in the March primary, regardless of party affiliation, go on to the general election. In this case, the top two finishers, incumbent Marc Levine and former Santa Rosa Councilwoman Veronica “Roni” Jacobi, both happen to be Democrats.
I have always been somewhat skeptical of Marc Levine, however when I look at his voting record in the State Assembly, it’s actually quite good. He gets scores mostly in the 90-100% range from progressive organizations (83% from Courage Campaign) and very low scores from groups such as the National Rifle Association, the American Conservative Union, and the California Pro-Life Council.
Roni Jacoby has run against Levine and against State Senator Mike McGuire before. Her heart is definitely in the right place, but, as I said in 2016 after watching her stumble her way through a debate, I don’t see her as a potential leader and I’m afraid she would not be able to deliver for the district.
I recommend a VOTE FOR MARC LEVINE.
Local - Marin County
Board Member, Marin County Board of Eduction, Trustee Area 4
This is a contest between incumbent Robert K. Goldman and challenger Felicia Agrelius.
Goldman is a retired FBI agent who has a long history of involvement in Marin schools in addition to his nearly 11 years as a member of the Marin County Board of Education.
Agrelius is only a few years out of college. She is Director of Youth Programs at the Spahr Center, a nonprofit that serves Marin’s LGBTQ+ community. That work takes her to schools throughout the county, enabling her to establish ties to students, parents, teachers, and administrators, and enabling her to learn about the school system from the inside.
Previously she worked with people with disabilities and served on the board of the National Council of Independent Living.
One of my advisors says Agrelius is a great mentor to young people and describes her as “intelligent, impressive, and well-organized.”
One of the main issue-related differences between the candidates is that Goldman supports the Student Resource Officer program while Agrelius wants to end it. In an interview with the Marin IJ she said, “I support an increase of mental health resources and a decrease of police in schools.”
When I set out to research this race, I started with Voter’s Edge, a nonpartisan website that enables voters to look up their ballots and get information about the candidates and ballot measures. I found that Agrelius had provided her information while Goldman had not.
So I emailed him to urge him to do so. I also asked if he had a campaign website, as nothing had come up when I searched (Felicia Agrelius has a very professional-looking website).
Goldman responded the same day, asking for more information about Voter’s Edge, which I subsequently gave him. He also said he did not have a website and that he hadn’t yet started his campaign — he would do so closer to election time.
It was already September 12 when he told me this!
I encouraged him to start sooner rather than later. As I write this (Oct. 2), his profile is still not up on Voter’s Edge. The three other candidates (in other races) to whom I similarly reached out all promptly provided info to Voter’s Edge.
Meanwhile, Agrelius has lined up some major endorsements, including the California Democratic Party and the Marin County Democratic Party, as well as some of my favorite local elected officials.
Almost all of the current members of the Marin County Board of Education have been in office for a very long time. I think Felicia Agrelius would provide a welcome breath of fresh air to the board.
As another of my advisors put it, “I think it is critical for students to see boards that are comprised of intergenerational leadership. That especially holds true for a passionate, interested, and thoughtful leader like Fel. She is on the ground, in community. That kind of insight in invaluable.”
VOTE FOR FELICIA “FEL” AGRELIUS.
Board Member, Marin Community College District (4 seats open)
Of the six candidates in this race, I’ve heard the most (all good) about Paul Da Silva, a retired College of Marin professor. He’s committed to what he calls enhanced equity, to making education relevant for students, to making sure COM considers the environmental impact of its decisions, and to making sure all expenditures produce an educational benefit.
The folks in the know with whom I’ve conferred also recommend three of the four incumbents.
VOTE FOR PAUL DA SILVA, PHILIP J. KRANENBURG, STUART TANENBERG, AND STEPHANIE A. O’BRIEN
Board Member, Tamalpais Union High School District (2 seats open)
I watched the Marin League of Women Voters candidate forum for this race and I have to say that I like all five candidates very much. I think we’d be well served by any of them.
Maybe it’s because I watched this forum the day after the first presidential debate, but I found all these candidates to be thoughtful and well spoken. What a refreshing change of pace!
Not a single harsh word was uttered by one candidate against another; to the contrary, it was not uncommon to hear candidates complimenting each other for particularly insightful responses.
I didn’t hear much, if any, disagreement on the issues.
As a Black man who has participated in student-led anti-racist events, Brandon Johnson places equity at the forefront of his campaign. But all the other candidates seem to be on the same page with him, and, like Brandon, all are opposed to having armed uniformed police officers in the schools.
I’m giving a slight edge to Karen Loebbaka, one of the incumbents, for her excellent grasp of the workings of the district, and to Brandon Johnson, for bringing a fresh perspective. Also, as a basketball coach at Redwood High, he may be in the best position to keep the board informed about students’ concerns.
If you want to watch the forum for yourself, it’s on this page.
I don’t think we can go wrong in this race.
I’M VOTING FOR KAREN K. LOEBBAKA AND BRANDON JOHNSON.
Sausalito Marin City School District (2 seats open)
I feel compelled to weigh in on this race even though I don’t live in the district.
For years, the Sausalito Marin City school board favored its charter school at the expense of Bayside MLK Academy, its public school that happens to be mostly minority.
A dear friend has been heavily involved with Bayside MLK Academy for a long time and has intimate knowledge of the workings of the district. Here’s what she has to say:
I strongly support Lisa Bennett. She is a retired CPA, so she knows her way around fiscal matters. Among her many other qualifications are:
The Sierra Club recently endorsed her. For more about Lisa, go to her website.
My second choice is Yasmine McGrane. A parent of two children at the charter school, she has been a very positive advocate for unification of the schools. Even in difficult circumstances she has spoken out for unification and initiated some events that have built bridges in the community. She is a gifted communicator and a source of very optimistic energy.
For more about Yasmine, check out her website.
My friend in the trenches recommends a VOTE FOR LISA BENNETT AND YASMINE MCGRANE.
Fairfax Town Council (3 seats open)
Once again we have more good candidates than open seats for the Fairfax Town Council. The three incumbents have all served us well and the two challengers certainly have things to offer.
For me, the top choice is Chance Cutrano. While he’s only lived in Fairfax for about four years, Chance has done more for the town in that short time than most of us who have lived here for decades.
He got heavily involved practically from day one, joining the Fairfax Open Space Committee and the Fairfax Volunteer Board, and serving in other roles as well. He has a deep awareness of the workings of the town and the challenges facing it. And he is clearly a problem solver.
Chance comes to us with a strong environmental background. His day job is Director of Programs for the Resource Renewal Institute, a nonprofit founded by the late, legendary Huey Johnson, whom Chance considered his mentor.
Joe McGarry, the other challenger, touts himself as a second generation Fairfaxian. He is passionate about equity, which is clearly very important. Equity is also a strong part of Chance Cutrano’s platform. But Joe hasn’t had nearly the involvement in the town that Chance has, despite being here much longer, and he doesn’t seem to have a plan regarding other issues.
I think Joe can still be an effective moral compass for the town by doing what he’s been doing from the outside — pointing out areas where the council needs to take a more active role in promoting equity.
While I like all three incumbents, if I’m going to vote for Chance, which I am, something’s got to give. In the past I’ve criticized John Reed for a lack of followthrough on good ideas he’s had. I think that is still somewhat the case; for that reason, John draws the short straw in my book.
I recommend a vote for CHANCE CUTRANO, BARBARA COLER, AND BRUCE ACKERMAN.
City of San Rafael Councilmember, District 4
A dear friend who lives in Terra Linda and whose opinion I respect has asked me to include this race in my list. She is very familiar with all three candidates and strongly supports Rachel Kertz:
Rachel Kertz is by far the best of three candidates running for San Rafael City Council District 4, the Terra Linda area. The more I’ve gotten to know her and work with her on our pressing local issues, the more her strengths and collaborative style emerge.
Rachel is currently a San Rafael school board trustee and president of her neighborhood association. She’s past President of the Osher Marin Jewish Community Center. She has a long history of leadership in disaster preparedness and financial expertise.
Rachel believes the vision established by Responsible Growth Marin provides the direction and guidance needed to create a true town center.
She listens, learns, collaborates, plans, and acts. She’s honest and believes in transparency.
For more about Rachel, check out her website.
VOTE FOR RACHEL KERTZ.
Marin Healthcare District Director (2 seats open)
This race features two challengers (Edward Alfrey and Melissa Bradley) and two incumbents (Hank Simmonds and Ann Sparkman) seeking reelection. I have to confess that of all the races I’m weighing in on, I know the least about this one.
Some of my information comes from two years ago, when the other three seats on the district’s board were up, and the two challengers in this year’s race ran unsuccessfully. At that time, I heard universal praise for Alfrey and universally negative comments about Bradley.
That is still the case today.
Alfrey is the only one of the four to provide a statement for the county’s Voter Information Guide and Sample Ballot. Bradley is the only one of the four to not provide information to Voter’s Edge.
Alfrey is endorsed by two of the three current incumbents whom he ran against in 2018.
I feel it’s an easy decision to recommend Edward Alfrey. The question is, which incumbent do I also support?
I’m going with Ann Sparkman. The two people who gave me their thoughts on this race both give her the edge. She seems much more involved, she has stronger priorities, and she is preferred by more of her colleagues on the board than Simmonds.
I RECOMMEND A VOTE FOR EDWARD J. ALFREY AND ANN SPARKMAN.
Marin Municipal Water District Director, Division 2
This is another item that is not on my ballot, but two very knowledgeable people have reached out to me to urge me to include this race in my recommendations. They both feel it is the most important local race in this election.
My friend Armando Quintero is my main go-to person on water district issues anyway. He held this seat until just a few weeks ago, when Governor Newsom appointed him to be the new California State Parks director! He also served as chair of the California Water Commission for four years.
So when Armando contacted me to rave about Monty Schmitt, I paid attention. Here’s Armando’s pitch:
Monty Schmitt is a longtime environmental colleague who has been working on river protection, fishery restoration, and water policy for over 25 years. He made great progress in bringing together feuding interests to begin collaborative restoration of the San Joaquin River. He currently is a leader in the water program at the The Nature Conservancy, with a focus on restoring the health of Northern California rivers while increasing water supply reliability for landowners and communities. He has a graduate degree in watershed management, which is precisely the skill set our community needs on the MMWD board. Monty is smart, personable, and thoughtful. He lives in the Bret Harte area of San Rafael with his wife and two sons.
A few days later, Katie Rice, my County Supervisor, echoed Armando’s sentiments:
Armando’s departure a huge loss for MMWD and Marin County, but a great win for State Parks. We wish him well, but now we need to make sure that his successor brings the same strong environmental credentials and professional expertise in water issues and watershed management to the MMWD board. Thank goodness, the right person has stepped forward! Monty Schmitt, a longtime watershed specialist and senior project director with the Nature Conservancy is running for the seat! He is a San Rafael resident, husband, father, and passionate about the health of our beloved Mt Tam and the MMWD watershed.
VOTE FOR MONTY SCHMITT!
=========================
State Ballot Measures
Prop. 14 - Stem cell research bonds
This measure would authorize $5.5 billion in bonds to fund stem cell and other medical research through the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), continuing a program that was created in 2004 by Proposition 71 (the institute was set up by Prop. 71). The original funds have now nearly all been distributed in grants.
Having watched both of my parents waste away from degenerative brain diseases (my dad from Parkinson’s and my mom from Alzheimer’s), and having seen the same thing happen to loved ones of way too many friends, I’m all for thoroughly exploring the potential of stem cell and other treatments.
When I research ballot measures, I always look at who is for and who is against them.
The list of Prop. 14 supporters is not surprising — it’s a who’s who of nonprofits that promote research into a variety of diseases, which is exactly the research for which Prop. 14 would provide grants.
The ballot arguments against Prop. 14 are signed by two doctors: Vincent Fortanasce and Patrick James Baggot. Who are they and why are they leading the opposition?
A little searching on DuckDuckGo led to what I’m quite sure is the answer.
Dr. Fortanasce is a psychiatrist and neurologist in Southern California with an impressive list of awards and honors. He is also a vocal right-to-lifer who has appeared frequently on TV, radio, and in person to promote his beliefs.
Dr. Baggott is a Los Angeles OB/GYN with similar sentiments. Here’s what it says on the “Meet Dr. Baggot” page of the Guadalupe Medical Center’s website: “A pro-life advocate, he does not perform tubal ligation and instead encourages women to practice natural birth control by monitoring their menstrual cycle.”
Clearly Drs. Fortanasce and Baggott are opposed to stem cell research on moral grounds, even though you would never know it from their ballot arguments. They’ve carefully parsed their words to make it sound as though they’re all for the research being supported federally and privately, just not at the state level.
I know, it sounds like I’m supporting Prop. 14. When I wrote the original version of this explanation, I was. But as I looked into it more, I changed my mind.
While I’m mostly discounting the opposing arguments that appear in the state Voter Information Guide, I’ve found other arguments to take their place.
The League of Women Voters of California, which supports stem cell research, has taken a neutral position on Prop. 14 because of some troubling aspects of the measure:
1) General obligation bonds are not designed for this sort of expenditure; they are supposed to be for capital projects, purchase of facilities for public use, or repair of public facilities.
2) Prop. 14 requires a 70% supermajority vote of the legislature in order to change the law.
3) Profits from public research agreements could only be spent on CIRM-funded research.
When Prop. 71 was passed in 2004, a major impetus for it was that the Bush administration had banned federal funds from being spent on stem cell research.
Because of that situation, there was a reasonable rationale for diverging from the usual purposes of general obligation bonds, and for having California take the lead in something that would normally be the role of the federal government.
Times have changed. The Obama administration got rid of the stem cell ban and it has not been reinstated by the current occupant of the White House. The federal government, through the National Institutes of Health, is funding some stem cell research.
I am deeply concerned about the 70% supermajority vote requirement, especially because the governor and state legislature do not have the oversight of CIRM that they have with other state agencies.
Supermajority requirements resulting from other ballot initiatives have repeatedly screwed us. Think of how hard it is to get any local school tax passed because tax measures now need a 2/3 majority of the vote in order to pass. That’s all because of a diabolical initiative that only needed a simple majority.
I certainly don’t believe that the supermajority requirement of Prop. 14 would have the same far-reaching consequences. But I think it’s wrong nonetheless. I want our elected representatives to be able to fix any problems with the law or with CIRM, and I strenuously oppose efforts to keep them from doing their jobs.
Prop. 71 was sold to us in part with the potential of the state getting some of the money back in the form of royalties from newly developed treatments that turned out to be profitable. The requirement of Prop. 14 that any such royalties be plowed back into CIRM seems like a bait and switch to me. I think it should be up to the legislature to decide what to do with any revenue that comes out of CIRM’s work.
There are other strong arguments against Prop. 14 in this L.A. Times editorial.
VOTE NO ON PROP. 14.
Prop. 15 - Commercial property taxes
In 1978, Californians passed Proposition 13, which limited property taxes. It helped many people avoid getting priced out of their homes, but at a cost of declining support for schools and local governments.
It also led to vast inequities, since property taxes were now based on the purchase price of the property (plus limited increases over time) rather than the current market value. That means that two identical homes in the same neighborhood could have vastly different property tax rates if one of the houses was purchased recently and the other one was owned by someone who bought it decades ago.
The same is true of commercial properties.
Prop. 15 would partially repeal the commercial and industrial property aspects of Prop. 13 while leaving the residential parts of 13 intact. (I believe the residential inequities of Prop. 13 should also be addressed, in a way that still protects people on fixed incomes from being taxed out of their homes, but that’s an issue for another ballot!)
Provisions of Prop. 15 would exempt most small businesses from the changes, plus another business tax would be reduced for everyone and eliminated entirely for many small businesses.
The main backers of Prop. 15 are the California Teachers Association, SEIU California, and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. The leading opponents are the California Business Roundtable and the California Taxpayers Association.
According to the proponents, the state’s most valuable 10% of nonresidential commercial properties would provide 92% of the new revenue Prop. 15 would generate.
Local governments would receive 60% of the additional revenue generated by this measure; schools would receive 40%.
An op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times in support of Prop. 15 puts it nicely:
That money could turn out to be indispensable. Because of COVID-19, California is facing a $54-billion budget deficit over the next year. State revenues are expected to drop by a staggering $41.2 billion compared with a pre-coronavirus projection in January. Los Angeles estimates a budget shortfall up to $400 million, with concomitant cuts in city services.
Proposition 15’s deep-pocketed opponents will portray the measure as an all-out assault on Proposition 13, an attempt to raise homeowners’ property tax. But, in fact, it would have no effect on the tax bills of most Californians. The measure exempts all residential and agricultural property, and because it targets only high-value commercial and industrial property, the owners of your local café and dry cleaners will probably be unscathed as well.
On the other hand, Disneyland, whose property tax is still based on its assessment when Proposition 13 passed, would have to pay more.”
The author, Jacques Leslie, continues:
Besides improving the state’s bottom line, passage of Proposition 15 would have a huge symbolic effect. Before 1978, California invested generously in its future, and earned big dividends for its residents. Between the 1940s and the 1970s, the state built highways, dams and aqueducts, and its educational system earned a reputation for excellence. But Proposition 13 marked a retreat from public investment. Now California’s infrastructure is outdated, the state is ranked as the fourth-most-unequal state in the union and its school expenditures-per-pupil have dropped from 14th in 1978 to 39th. Proposition 15’s passage would mark the end of an era of magical thinking: You can’t have the benefits of government without revenues to pay for them.
Most important, Proposition 15’s reforms could go a long way toward overriding some of the most pernicious side effects of Proposition 13. For example, the initiative would eliminate the competitive tax advantage that longtime commercial property owners hold over recent buyers, which are often business startups. New businesses, a key to innovation (and in the wake of COVID-19, economic recovery) would face one less major obstacle in California.
And, says Leslie:
The initiative would also close what has been a gaping loophole in Proposition 13 that has added to its worst effects. New, market-value property assessments of commercial properties kick in under current law only when majority ownership changes. That has enabled publicly traded corporations to avoid new assessments even though their stock ownership may have rolled over many times, and it allows landowners to buy and sell and yet maintain lower assessments by dividing purchases among enough entities so that none holds majority ownership. Companies such as Chevron, Intel and IBM own land whose assessments are still based on 1975 values, while nearby properties are assessed at values as much as 50 times higher, according to the initiative’s organizers.
VOTE YES ON PROP. 15.
Prop. 16 - Affirmative Action
Proposition 16 would repeal Proposition 209, which banned affirmative action in 1996. The state of California would once again be able to consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in employment, education, or contracting decisions.
This would be a modest step in the right direction, to try to strike a blow against systemic racism, and sexism too.
The arguments against Prop. 16 make it sound as though there’s a level playing field right now, but they’re ignoring the many barriers facing people of color throughout their lives. And, contrary the the opponents’ claims, quotas would still be prohibited.
If you need some examples of systemic racism, here’s a good article from Business Insider with a lot of charts illustrating the problem.
VOTE YES ON PROP. 16.
Prop. 17 - Post-incarceration voting rights
Proposition 17 would restore voting rights to state prisoners once they’ve completed their sentences. Under current law, they have to complete parole before they can vote.
What Prop. 17 would NOT do is affect prisoners’ sentences or paroles in any other way.
The opposing arguments to Prop. 17 make it sound like this is a dangerous thing to do, that somehow, through the ballot box, ex-convicts will be able to reach out and murder your family. The truth, of course, is the opposite. At least one study shows that those who have had voting rights restored after serving their sentences are less likely to commit new crimes.
VOTE YES ON PROP. 17.
Prop. 18 - 17-year-old vote
Proposition 18 would allow 17-year-old citizens who will be turning 18 before the next general election to vote in any primary or special election that is held before that general election. This is a sensible measure that was placed on the ballot by the legislature with overwhelming support, including from some Republicans.
Frankly, I was surprised by the alarmist rhetoric of those who wrote the arguments against Prop. 18. It just doesn’t seem like that controversial a measure. And I was surprised to see the president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association as one of the signatories; I’m used to only seeing him weigh in on tax and bond measures.
It doesn’t take much reading between the lines to see that the opponents are scared that 17-year-olds might vote more liberally than the public at large, especially because, in the opponents’ distorted view of the world, 17-year-olds are likely to be under the mind control of radical teachers.
Clearly the Republicans in the legislature who voted to put this proposition on the ballot don’t see it that way. The purpose of this measure is to get young people engaged in the political process by being able to vote in both a primary and a general election, and thus to increase voter participation.
It may be an overly optimistic proposition, but it can’t hurt to try.
VOTE YES ON PROP. 18.
Prop. 19 - Property tax changes
In 2018, the California Association of Realtors put a measure on the ballot to greatly expand the ability of homeowners over 55, the disabled, and those whose property has been impacted by natural disaster to transfer the taxable value of their existing home when they sell it and move to another home they purchase.
That measure would have allowed unlimited transfers (the existing law allows only one, except for properties affected by natural disaster or contamination) and would have done away with some other restrictions as well.
It went down to defeat in a big way, losing by about 20 percentage points.
Now, two years later, it’s back, albeit in a somewhat modified form that backers hope will make it more palatable to voters and other interest groups.
Instead of unlimited transfers, Prop. 19 would allow those homeowners to transfer their property valuation up to three times.
As with their previous ballot measure, Prop. 19 would enable this group of homeowners to use the transfer on a more expensive home than the one they’re selling (the price difference would be added to the original valuation). Under the existing law, their exemption only applies if they buy a new home of equal or lesser value.
The way the law reads now, the exemption is only available if the homeowner moves within the same county or between counties that have agreed to accept transplanted valuations. Prop. 19 would enable the transfer for moves anywhere in California.
The biggest addition to this new version is the tightening of rules governing the ability of children to carry over the valuation of property they inherit from their parents (or grandparents if their parents are deceased).
Currently if a child inherits the parents’ home, there is no increase in valuation, hence no increase in the property tax. Under Prop. 19, children would have to move into the house within a year and use it as their primary residence in order to qualify for the tax savings.
This would eliminate what has become known as the “Lebowski Loophole,” so named because many wealthy people are getting enormous tax benefits from inherited homes they’re using as rental property, including Jeff Bridges, The Dude himself.
Inherited farms would be exempt from the change, except if a farm or inherited home could be sold for more than $1 million over the property’s taxable value. In that case, the property tax would go up somewhat.
Prop. 19 would require that most of the revenue generated as a result of this measure go toward fire protection. Because of that, they’ve got California Professional Firefighters on board.
Frankly, this seems like a totally unnecessary, pandering mandate. There is no question that California is going to be spending a lot of money for fire protection for the foreseeable future. Can you imagine any lawmaker voting against adequate funding for fire protection in the current climate?
The ballot arguments over Prop. 19 did not help my decision one bit. I don’t buy the arguments for the measure and I vehemently disagree with the arguments against.
The authors of the arguments against don’t like Prop. 19 because of the inheritance restrictions. I think that’s by far the best part of this proposition. If the ballot measure were only that, I would wholeheartedly support it. It would be a no-brainer.
It’s the rest of Prop. 19 that I have trouble with.
The proponents make it seem like the reason they’ve pushed to get this measure on the ballot is to protect cash-strapped seniors who want to downsize but couldn’t afford to if they weren’t able to take their tax valuation with them.
First of all, seniors and the other eligible homeowners can already do this… once.
Second of all, if the concern is for those who want to downsize, why change the rules to allow this for people moving to more expensive homes?
Realtor associations are not spending more than $56 million (that is no typo!) out of the kindness of their hearts. The only reason this is on the ballot is because it would increase home sales, thereby increasing commissions.
And to think that I was alarmed two years ago when they spent a bit more than $7 million on their first effort!
As I said in 2018, I believe the existing exemption should be limited, not expanded, so that it is targeted strictly to people who really need the relief — those for whom a doubling or tripling of their property taxes would financially imperil their ability to remain homeowners.
Furthermore, unlike the claims made by its proponents, Prop. 19 would not make the system more fair. Instead, it would dump an even greater percentage of the tax burden onto younger homeowners, many of whom are stretched very thin as it is.
In the course of my research, I was happy to find that the League of Women Voters shared many of my concerns. In declaring their opposition to Prop. 19, the League says:
Prop 19 exacerbates an already inequitable property tax system - offering tax breaks to people who do not need them. Providing tax breaks to homeowners over 55 who purchase a replacement home, and allowing them to “transfer” their current tax assessment to a new home anywhere in the state, does nothing to help low-income seniors or families struggling to find housing.
To me, Prop. 19 is like putting lipstick on a pig. Despite the window dressing, the major problems I had with the previous incarnation of this measure two years ago are still plain to see.
The Dude may abide, but I do not.
VOTE NO ON PROP. 19.
Prop. 20 - Parole restrictions
This proposition would impose restrictions on parole eligibility, alter how parole decisions are made, change some misdemeanors to felonies, and require the state to collect DNA samples from adults convicted of certain misdemeanors.
It’s a measure championed by correctional and police officer associations and it would lead us in exactly the wrong direction.
There’s a bucketload of hyperbole as well as misleading statements in the pro-20 arguments.
For instance, they deny that Prop. 20 would lead to more crowded prisons, claiming that “it doesn’t send one new person to prison.”
In my reading of the voter information guide, this does not appear to be true. The classification change of some crimes from misdemeanor to felony would likely lead to some people serving time instead of supervised probation. Plus Prop. 20 will lead to lengthier sentences for many prisoners.
The changes in the parole decision-making process contained in Prop. 20 seem particularly burdensome and unnecessary. According to the voter guide explanation by the nonpartisan legislative analyst, the way things work now, more than 80% of convicts being considered for release on parole are rejected.
I’m in agreement with the League of Women Voters’ take on this measure:
Over the past decade, California has made progress enacting laws that reduce the prison population and create a more effective and equitable public safety system. Prop 20 would roll back many advances in criminal justice reforms and reinstate a “get tough” law enforcement system that believes longer incarceration is a solution to crime. It would make minor theft of some goods worth over $250 punishable as a felony. It allows the state to collect DNA from people convicted of misdemeanors like shoplifting and drug possession. Prop 20 sends California in the wrong direction at a time when there is forward momentum toward smart justice approaches that increase public safety and reduce costs to the state.
VOTE NO ON 20.
Prop. 21 - Local rent control
This is a replay of another battle fought unsuccessfully two years ago — an attempt to allow local governments to enact their own rent control laws if they wish, or expand existing laws, to limit the percentage by which landlords could increase rent each year.
As with Prop. 19, the original version of this measure lost in a landslide two years ago. And, as with 19, the architects of Prop. 21 looked at the polling from 2018 and made adjustments in an attempt to address what appeared to be some of voters’ concerns.
This time, rent control restrictions could only be applied to properties more than 15 years old and it would exempt landlords who own no more than two homes from new rent-control ordinances.
Prop. 21 would allow landlords to increase rents by up to 15% in the first three years after a new renter moves in. That might be higher than what some local governments would prefer, but it does restore their ability to enact vacancy control above that allowance, a right that was taken away by Costa-Hawkins, a 1995 state law.
This measure would also require that any rent control laws allow landlords a fair rate of return, putting the law in conformity with past court rulings.
Some of the things this measure is seeking to fix have already been addressed by recent legislation.
There is a lot of money being poured into both sides of this issue.
Two well funded committees are working to defeat Prop. 21. Not surprisingly, their major backing is coming primarily from large property management companies plus the California Business Roundtable. They’ve raised more than $25 million at this point.
Nearly all of the funding in favor of Prop. 21 — about $23 million, to be more specific — is from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its “pugnacious president Michael Weinstein”, as CalMatters describes him. He was behind the previous attempt too, as well as at least a couple of other propositions in the past few years, including one involving the adult film industry.
It’s a heck of lot of money for a measure that probably won’t have a huge impact one way or the other.
A minority of California cities, representing 20-25% of the state’s population, have established their own rent control measures. Recently California instituted statewide rent controls and other protections for renters.
It’s possible that some of the localities that already had their own rent control laws might eventually enact stricter ones if Prop. 21 passes, but it seems unlikely that the places that didn’t have rent control before would suddenly decide to go beyond the statewide controls.
Clearly we have a housing crisis, with so much homelessness and so many people paying 50% or more of their income for rent (one in three Californians, says Courage California).
According to the League of Women Voters,
Rent control policies are one strategy to address California’s housing challenges, offer tenant protections, and prevent displacement. Rent control may be an effective short-term solution but studies suggest that its longer-term impact may, in certain cases, stifle the building of high-density and more affordable housing.
For that reason, the League is staying neutral on Prop. 21. It’s also the main reason Fred von Lohmann, a self-described “proposition geek” who writes a very thoughtful voting guide, has come out against this measure:
I worry that further rent controls will further depress the supply of rental units, and lack of supply is the root of our housing crisis. It will also create incentives for landlords to condo-convert or otherwise take their 15+ year-old units out of the rental market, as well as discouraging rental uses for older units not currently rented. I also don’t like the wasteful inefficiency of rent control--you end up helping the rich renters as much or more than the impoverished senior citizens and struggling families that are so often invoked. I would much rather see new rental assistance measures that are means-tested to help the 20% of Californians who live in poverty.
On the basis of giving local governments more control in determining what makes the most sense in their region, I’m going to vote for Prop. 21. But I can’t give it a ringing endorsement. This is the only one of the state ballot measures that I have mixed feelings about.
I EVER SO SLIGHTLY RECOMMEND A YES VOTE ON PROP. 21.
Prop. 22 - Exemption to worker benefit requirements
Prop. 22 is an obscenely expensive effort by Lyft, Uber, Doordash and others to exempt app-based transportation and delivery companies from a state law enacted recently that requires most kinds of workers in most kinds of businesses to be hired as employees rather than as contractors.
This entitles workers to benefits and protections they would not receive as contractors, such as minimum wage requirements, overtime pay, and sick pay.
Prop. 22 would carve out an exception to this law for app-based drivers, keeping them as contractors.
In an attempt to make this measure appear palatable to voters and to make the management of these companies not seem like greedy, heartless bastards, Prop. 22 includes requirements that the companies provide some benefits and protections to contractors.
These include:
• Minimum earnings of 120% of the local minimum wage (but only for the time the contractors are driving; they would continue to not get paid while waiting for their next assignment)
• Health insurance stipends for drivers who normally work more than 15 hours a week
• Coverage of medical costs and some lost income when a driver is injured while driving or waiting
• Drivers can’t work more than 12 hours in a 24 hour period
Other provisions require companies to have sexual harassment policies, conduct criminal background checks, and have safety training for drivers.
And Prop. 22 would limit the ability of local governments to place additional regulations on these companies.
The provisions in Prop. 22 could only be changed by a seven-eighths supermajority in the legislature, which is essentially saying the provisions could never be changed.
The modest benefits are less than what drivers would get under the current law. I say “would get” because Uber, Lyft, and the others have refused to follow the law, which they claim does not apply to them.
As a result, the California Attorney General has had to sue to get them to obey the law. The case is still pending.
Do you get the feeling that there’s a certain arrogance that pervades these companies? I sure do. And it’s evident in the ungodly amount of money they’ve put into passing Prop. 22 — nearly $186 million so far!
Labor unions have lined up against this measure. They’ve put what used to be considered a lot of money into defeating it — close to $9 million. That turns out to be less than 5% of what the app-based companies are spending.
It’s astonishing to me that these companies can somehow afford to spend almost a fifth of a BILLION dollars on Prop. 22, yet they couldn’t shell out for PPE and other items to protect their workers from COVID-19.
VOTE NO ON PROP. 22.
Prop. 23 - Kidney dialysis clinics
This is another rematch from 2018. In this case the substance of the proposition is somewhat different from the first one, but the battle lines are the same: Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West vs. the corporations that operate dialysis clinics in California.
This time, the proposition would require at least one licensed physician to be on site while treatments are given at chronic dialysis clinics (unless the California Department of Public Health [CDPH] grants waivers to certain clinics due to a shortage of kidney doctors in their regions).
Prop. 23 would also require clinics to report dialysis-related infection data to the CDPH (they already have to report it to the national Centers for Disease Control). Clinics could not close without permission from the CDPH. They would be prohibited from treating patients differently because of the source of their payments.
What this is really about is that SEIU has been trying for years, so far unsuccessfully, to unionize workers at dialysis clinics owned by DaVita, by far the largest clinic operator in California. This is SEIU’s way of getting back at them.
Much as I support organized labor, this is an abuse of the initiative process (as is the anti-labor Prop. 22). Plus there may be some real danger to patients if Prop. 23 passes. By requiring doctors to be present at the clinics, it will take them away from actually treating their patients.
This should not be taken as an endorsement of DaVita and the other companies that own dialysis centers.
Just a few days before I wrote this, a $135 million settlement was announced between DaVita and its investors, who had filed a class action lawsuit against the company. Investors claimed they were harmed because DaVita pressured patients to enroll in private insurance plans (DaVita and the other clinic owners get much higher reimbursements from private insurance than they do from Medicare or Medicaid).
In 2018, DaVita lost multiple wrongful death lawsuits in Colorado and was ordered to pay $383.5 million in damages.
I found a recent news story in Atlanta about clinic workers who had contracted COVID-19 returning to work before they were fully recovered because DaVita does not offer sick pay benefits.
I sincerely hope SEIU is ultimately successful in unionizing the clinics. It’s clear that the workers need the protections of a union.
But the fight should not be carried out on our ballots.
VOTE NO ON PROP. 23.
Prop. 24 - Consumer privacy
I certainly want my privacy protected. When I saw a proposition that appeared to create strong protections for consumers, I was inclined to support it. But the more I read and learn about Prop. 24, the less I like it.
Prop. 24 is the brainchild of Alastair Mactaggart, a wealthy real estate developer who has contributed more than $5 million to support this measure.
The provenance of Prop. 24 is very strange indeed.
Mactaggart qualified a predecessor to Prop. 24 for the November 2018 ballot. It was called the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). He then offered to remove it from the ballot if the state legislature would pass something very close to it as a bill instead.
This would give legislators more ability to fix any potential problems with the CCPA, but they had only one week before the state’s deadline to remove ballot measures. So they rushed the bill through and Governor Brown signed it just in time for Mactaggart to pull his initiative off the ballot.
CCPA didn’t take effect until January of this year and the state Department of Justice’s enforcement powers didn’t kick in until July. In the meantime, the legislature found and fixed a number of problems resulting from the hurried drafting of the bill, none of which changed much of the substance of it.
Perhaps unhappy that the legislature could actually do its job and oversee management of CCPA, Mactaggart decided to put another proposition on the ballot this year — Prop. 24, basically going back on his 2018 deal with lawmakers.
Just to make it more confusing, Prop. 24 is called the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA). CPRA makes changes to CCPA — improvements in some cases; in others, it’s worse.
But the two worst things about it are more general:
1) CCPA has barely been in effect. We should have a chance to see how it works before moving beyond it.
2) CPRA limits the ability of the legislature to change it.
Here’s the actual wording of the relevant section of Prop. 24 dealing with amending the measure:
The provisions of this Act may be amended after its approval by the voters by a statute that is passed by a vote of a majority of the members of each house of the Legislature and signed by the Governor, provided that such amendments are consistent with and further the purpose and intent of this Act as set forth in Section 3, including amendments to the exemptions in Section 1798.145 if the laws upon which the exemptions are based are amended to enhance privacy and are consistent with and further the purposes and intent of this Act and amendments to address a decision of a California state or federal court holding that a provision of the Act is unconstitutional or preempted by federal law, provided that any further amendments to legislation that addresses a court holding shall be subject to this subdivision.
There are 52 pages of similarly unreadable sentences in this proposition.
Here’s what the League of Women Voters has to say about Prop. 24:
The League of Women Voters supports the protection of consumers’ private data. Prop 24 includes some beneficial elements, but we oppose due to the complexity of a 52-page initiative with impacts and nuances that are difficult for voters to discern and rollbacks to existing protections.
Among the troubling aspects of Prop 24 is its expansion of “pay for privacy” through the addition of loyalty and rewards programs, allowing businesses to charge consumers more or provide worse service if they choose to exercise their privacy rights. The initiative also allows businesses to require consumers to direct each individual website and app not to sell information - weakening the current legal requirement that companies respect a global opt-out for all services.
These burdens are fundamentally inequitable, placing the onus on the average consumer to protect their own privacy. Working people don't have the time to do the paperwork and they can't afford to pay companies to respect their wishes.
Finally, the initiative comes less than a year after the 2018 California Consumer Privacy Rights Act went into effect, before we have had an opportunity to see how the new law works or the legislature has had a chance to address any defects.
I wholeheartedly agree.
VOTE NO ON PROP. 24!
Prop. 25 - Money bail referendum
Prop. 25 is a referendum on a 2018 bill passed by the legislature that would get rid of cash bail and replace it with a system of risk assessments to determine whether someone charged with a crime should be released pending their trial.
A yes vote would approve the new law and allow it to go into effect; a no vote would reject the change. (It’s very weird — because of the way Prop. 25 is written, the people who put this measure on the ballot are the ones urging its defeat!)
Of all the inequities in the criminal justice system, cash bail is probably the most blatant.
People who are charged with the most serious felonies are not eligible for pretrial release. For others, courts take into account the seriousness of the crime for which they’re accused, their previous criminal record, and whether or not they’re considered a flight risk.
Based on that, a decision is made to either keep the accused in jail until their trial, release them on their own recognizance, or release them on bail.
Those who have the means to pay bail or to post bond (usually around 10% of the bail amount) are released to await their trial. Those who don’t have the money are stuck behind bars for the duration.
Under the new law, people accused of most misdemeanors would automatically be released pending their trial. Those accused of domestic violence and those who have failed to appear in court more than two times in the past year would not be automatically released.
After an assessment process, those considered low-risk would generally be released. Some medium-risk people might also be released by assessment staff or by a judge, possibly with some monitoring conditions attached.
It appears that all of the money (nearly $8 million) behind defeating Prop. 25 is from the bail bond industry.
The money on the pro-side is coming mostly from people active in criminal justice reform efforts.
The state legislature realized that it is grossly unfair to have wealth determine whether a person stays in jail or gets out while awaiting trial. They enacted the new law to fix that.
Let the new law take effect!
VOTE YES ON 25!
=========================
Local Ballot Measures
Tamalpais Union High School District Measure M - Parcel tax
This measure would renew the existing parcel tax for nine years to provide funds for our high schools. Revenues from the parcel tax currently account for 17% of the district’s budget; losing it would necessitate huge cuts.
Despite the fact that my wife and I do not have children, we believe strongly in supporting our public schools, so much so that we are forgoing the senior exemption available to us. If you are a financially secure senior, we not only urge you to vote for this measure; we also urge you pay the tax rather than taking the exemption.
VOTE YES ON MEASURE M.
Sausalito Marin City School District Bond Measure P
This is not on my ballot, but the same dear friend who convinced me to include the Sausalito Marin City School Board race has also urged me to include this bond measure.
Here’s what she says:
The Sausalito Marin City School District will soon be unified and providing one Pre-K through grade 8 school on two campuses — an integrated, world-class school that everyone in the 94965 zip code can be proud of.
But the facilities are lacking and our kids deserve facilities on a par with neighboring districts.
Measure P would fund the replacement of outdated and deteriorating portable classrooms with modern permanent classrooms. It would also fund the modernization of school support facilities and provide specialty classrooms, such as maker spaces for robotics and technology and performing art spaces to enhance learning opportunities for all students.
Measure P would also provide funding for the replacement and modernization of school facilities and infrastructure at both campuses, including restrooms, roofing systems, upgrading electrical, internet, heating and ventilation systems.
The estimated tax rate for Measure P is $30.00 per $100,000 of assessed value per year. The tax rate is determined by a property’s assessed valuation, which is not the same as the market value. Assessed valuation is the value placed on property by the County pursuant to Proposition 13 and is typically lower than the market value for which a property may be sold.
VOTE YES ON MEASURE P.
President and Vice President
Hopefully I don’t have to convince anybody about this one.
The choice is between an egomaniacal, racist, unhinged serial liar who has spent his life cheating other people (and, more recently, killing them as a result of his inept and dangerous response to the Coronavirus) and an empathetic, moderate Democrat who actually wants to help people, believes in science, and will make decisions based on what’s best for the American people, not on what might benefit him personally.
VOTE FOR JOE BIDEN AND KAMALA HARRIS.
United States Representative, 2nd District
I believe we’re being well served in Washington, D.C. by incumbent Jared Huffman. He’s very good on the issues and very good about staying in touch with his district.
VOTE FOR JARED HUFFMAN.
Member of the State Assembly, 10th District
Under California’s unusual open primary system, the top two finishers in the March primary, regardless of party affiliation, go on to the general election. In this case, the top two finishers, incumbent Marc Levine and former Santa Rosa Councilwoman Veronica “Roni” Jacobi, both happen to be Democrats.
I have always been somewhat skeptical of Marc Levine, however when I look at his voting record in the State Assembly, it’s actually quite good. He gets scores mostly in the 90-100% range from progressive organizations (83% from Courage Campaign) and very low scores from groups such as the National Rifle Association, the American Conservative Union, and the California Pro-Life Council.
Roni Jacoby has run against Levine and against State Senator Mike McGuire before. Her heart is definitely in the right place, but, as I said in 2016 after watching her stumble her way through a debate, I don’t see her as a potential leader and I’m afraid she would not be able to deliver for the district.
I recommend a VOTE FOR MARC LEVINE.
Local - Marin County
Board Member, Marin County Board of Eduction, Trustee Area 4
This is a contest between incumbent Robert K. Goldman and challenger Felicia Agrelius.
Goldman is a retired FBI agent who has a long history of involvement in Marin schools in addition to his nearly 11 years as a member of the Marin County Board of Education.
Agrelius is only a few years out of college. She is Director of Youth Programs at the Spahr Center, a nonprofit that serves Marin’s LGBTQ+ community. That work takes her to schools throughout the county, enabling her to establish ties to students, parents, teachers, and administrators, and enabling her to learn about the school system from the inside.
Previously she worked with people with disabilities and served on the board of the National Council of Independent Living.
One of my advisors says Agrelius is a great mentor to young people and describes her as “intelligent, impressive, and well-organized.”
One of the main issue-related differences between the candidates is that Goldman supports the Student Resource Officer program while Agrelius wants to end it. In an interview with the Marin IJ she said, “I support an increase of mental health resources and a decrease of police in schools.”
When I set out to research this race, I started with Voter’s Edge, a nonpartisan website that enables voters to look up their ballots and get information about the candidates and ballot measures. I found that Agrelius had provided her information while Goldman had not.
So I emailed him to urge him to do so. I also asked if he had a campaign website, as nothing had come up when I searched (Felicia Agrelius has a very professional-looking website).
Goldman responded the same day, asking for more information about Voter’s Edge, which I subsequently gave him. He also said he did not have a website and that he hadn’t yet started his campaign — he would do so closer to election time.
It was already September 12 when he told me this!
I encouraged him to start sooner rather than later. As I write this (Oct. 2), his profile is still not up on Voter’s Edge. The three other candidates (in other races) to whom I similarly reached out all promptly provided info to Voter’s Edge.
Meanwhile, Agrelius has lined up some major endorsements, including the California Democratic Party and the Marin County Democratic Party, as well as some of my favorite local elected officials.
Almost all of the current members of the Marin County Board of Education have been in office for a very long time. I think Felicia Agrelius would provide a welcome breath of fresh air to the board.
As another of my advisors put it, “I think it is critical for students to see boards that are comprised of intergenerational leadership. That especially holds true for a passionate, interested, and thoughtful leader like Fel. She is on the ground, in community. That kind of insight in invaluable.”
VOTE FOR FELICIA “FEL” AGRELIUS.
Board Member, Marin Community College District (4 seats open)
Of the six candidates in this race, I’ve heard the most (all good) about Paul Da Silva, a retired College of Marin professor. He’s committed to what he calls enhanced equity, to making education relevant for students, to making sure COM considers the environmental impact of its decisions, and to making sure all expenditures produce an educational benefit.
The folks in the know with whom I’ve conferred also recommend three of the four incumbents.
VOTE FOR PAUL DA SILVA, PHILIP J. KRANENBURG, STUART TANENBERG, AND STEPHANIE A. O’BRIEN
Board Member, Tamalpais Union High School District (2 seats open)
I watched the Marin League of Women Voters candidate forum for this race and I have to say that I like all five candidates very much. I think we’d be well served by any of them.
Maybe it’s because I watched this forum the day after the first presidential debate, but I found all these candidates to be thoughtful and well spoken. What a refreshing change of pace!
Not a single harsh word was uttered by one candidate against another; to the contrary, it was not uncommon to hear candidates complimenting each other for particularly insightful responses.
I didn’t hear much, if any, disagreement on the issues.
As a Black man who has participated in student-led anti-racist events, Brandon Johnson places equity at the forefront of his campaign. But all the other candidates seem to be on the same page with him, and, like Brandon, all are opposed to having armed uniformed police officers in the schools.
I’m giving a slight edge to Karen Loebbaka, one of the incumbents, for her excellent grasp of the workings of the district, and to Brandon Johnson, for bringing a fresh perspective. Also, as a basketball coach at Redwood High, he may be in the best position to keep the board informed about students’ concerns.
If you want to watch the forum for yourself, it’s on this page.
I don’t think we can go wrong in this race.
I’M VOTING FOR KAREN K. LOEBBAKA AND BRANDON JOHNSON.
Sausalito Marin City School District (2 seats open)
I feel compelled to weigh in on this race even though I don’t live in the district.
For years, the Sausalito Marin City school board favored its charter school at the expense of Bayside MLK Academy, its public school that happens to be mostly minority.
A dear friend has been heavily involved with Bayside MLK Academy for a long time and has intimate knowledge of the workings of the district. Here’s what she has to say:
I strongly support Lisa Bennett. She is a retired CPA, so she knows her way around fiscal matters. Among her many other qualifications are:
- Core Group Member in Showing Up for Racial Justice in Marin County
- Elected delegate to the California Democratic Party
- Member of the Marin Democratic Central Committee
- Founder of Indivisible Sausalito
- Board member of the ACLU Marin
- Treasurer/Board member of the MultiCultural Center of Marin
- Secretary, MLK Coalition in Marin City
- Co-Chair of ICE Out of Marin
- Sausalito business owner
The Sierra Club recently endorsed her. For more about Lisa, go to her website.
My second choice is Yasmine McGrane. A parent of two children at the charter school, she has been a very positive advocate for unification of the schools. Even in difficult circumstances she has spoken out for unification and initiated some events that have built bridges in the community. She is a gifted communicator and a source of very optimistic energy.
For more about Yasmine, check out her website.
My friend in the trenches recommends a VOTE FOR LISA BENNETT AND YASMINE MCGRANE.
Fairfax Town Council (3 seats open)
Once again we have more good candidates than open seats for the Fairfax Town Council. The three incumbents have all served us well and the two challengers certainly have things to offer.
For me, the top choice is Chance Cutrano. While he’s only lived in Fairfax for about four years, Chance has done more for the town in that short time than most of us who have lived here for decades.
He got heavily involved practically from day one, joining the Fairfax Open Space Committee and the Fairfax Volunteer Board, and serving in other roles as well. He has a deep awareness of the workings of the town and the challenges facing it. And he is clearly a problem solver.
Chance comes to us with a strong environmental background. His day job is Director of Programs for the Resource Renewal Institute, a nonprofit founded by the late, legendary Huey Johnson, whom Chance considered his mentor.
Joe McGarry, the other challenger, touts himself as a second generation Fairfaxian. He is passionate about equity, which is clearly very important. Equity is also a strong part of Chance Cutrano’s platform. But Joe hasn’t had nearly the involvement in the town that Chance has, despite being here much longer, and he doesn’t seem to have a plan regarding other issues.
I think Joe can still be an effective moral compass for the town by doing what he’s been doing from the outside — pointing out areas where the council needs to take a more active role in promoting equity.
While I like all three incumbents, if I’m going to vote for Chance, which I am, something’s got to give. In the past I’ve criticized John Reed for a lack of followthrough on good ideas he’s had. I think that is still somewhat the case; for that reason, John draws the short straw in my book.
I recommend a vote for CHANCE CUTRANO, BARBARA COLER, AND BRUCE ACKERMAN.
City of San Rafael Councilmember, District 4
A dear friend who lives in Terra Linda and whose opinion I respect has asked me to include this race in my list. She is very familiar with all three candidates and strongly supports Rachel Kertz:
Rachel Kertz is by far the best of three candidates running for San Rafael City Council District 4, the Terra Linda area. The more I’ve gotten to know her and work with her on our pressing local issues, the more her strengths and collaborative style emerge.
Rachel is currently a San Rafael school board trustee and president of her neighborhood association. She’s past President of the Osher Marin Jewish Community Center. She has a long history of leadership in disaster preparedness and financial expertise.
Rachel believes the vision established by Responsible Growth Marin provides the direction and guidance needed to create a true town center.
She listens, learns, collaborates, plans, and acts. She’s honest and believes in transparency.
For more about Rachel, check out her website.
VOTE FOR RACHEL KERTZ.
Marin Healthcare District Director (2 seats open)
This race features two challengers (Edward Alfrey and Melissa Bradley) and two incumbents (Hank Simmonds and Ann Sparkman) seeking reelection. I have to confess that of all the races I’m weighing in on, I know the least about this one.
Some of my information comes from two years ago, when the other three seats on the district’s board were up, and the two challengers in this year’s race ran unsuccessfully. At that time, I heard universal praise for Alfrey and universally negative comments about Bradley.
That is still the case today.
Alfrey is the only one of the four to provide a statement for the county’s Voter Information Guide and Sample Ballot. Bradley is the only one of the four to not provide information to Voter’s Edge.
Alfrey is endorsed by two of the three current incumbents whom he ran against in 2018.
I feel it’s an easy decision to recommend Edward Alfrey. The question is, which incumbent do I also support?
I’m going with Ann Sparkman. The two people who gave me their thoughts on this race both give her the edge. She seems much more involved, she has stronger priorities, and she is preferred by more of her colleagues on the board than Simmonds.
I RECOMMEND A VOTE FOR EDWARD J. ALFREY AND ANN SPARKMAN.
Marin Municipal Water District Director, Division 2
This is another item that is not on my ballot, but two very knowledgeable people have reached out to me to urge me to include this race in my recommendations. They both feel it is the most important local race in this election.
My friend Armando Quintero is my main go-to person on water district issues anyway. He held this seat until just a few weeks ago, when Governor Newsom appointed him to be the new California State Parks director! He also served as chair of the California Water Commission for four years.
So when Armando contacted me to rave about Monty Schmitt, I paid attention. Here’s Armando’s pitch:
Monty Schmitt is a longtime environmental colleague who has been working on river protection, fishery restoration, and water policy for over 25 years. He made great progress in bringing together feuding interests to begin collaborative restoration of the San Joaquin River. He currently is a leader in the water program at the The Nature Conservancy, with a focus on restoring the health of Northern California rivers while increasing water supply reliability for landowners and communities. He has a graduate degree in watershed management, which is precisely the skill set our community needs on the MMWD board. Monty is smart, personable, and thoughtful. He lives in the Bret Harte area of San Rafael with his wife and two sons.
A few days later, Katie Rice, my County Supervisor, echoed Armando’s sentiments:
Armando’s departure a huge loss for MMWD and Marin County, but a great win for State Parks. We wish him well, but now we need to make sure that his successor brings the same strong environmental credentials and professional expertise in water issues and watershed management to the MMWD board. Thank goodness, the right person has stepped forward! Monty Schmitt, a longtime watershed specialist and senior project director with the Nature Conservancy is running for the seat! He is a San Rafael resident, husband, father, and passionate about the health of our beloved Mt Tam and the MMWD watershed.
VOTE FOR MONTY SCHMITT!
=========================
State Ballot Measures
Prop. 14 - Stem cell research bonds
This measure would authorize $5.5 billion in bonds to fund stem cell and other medical research through the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), continuing a program that was created in 2004 by Proposition 71 (the institute was set up by Prop. 71). The original funds have now nearly all been distributed in grants.
Having watched both of my parents waste away from degenerative brain diseases (my dad from Parkinson’s and my mom from Alzheimer’s), and having seen the same thing happen to loved ones of way too many friends, I’m all for thoroughly exploring the potential of stem cell and other treatments.
When I research ballot measures, I always look at who is for and who is against them.
The list of Prop. 14 supporters is not surprising — it’s a who’s who of nonprofits that promote research into a variety of diseases, which is exactly the research for which Prop. 14 would provide grants.
The ballot arguments against Prop. 14 are signed by two doctors: Vincent Fortanasce and Patrick James Baggot. Who are they and why are they leading the opposition?
A little searching on DuckDuckGo led to what I’m quite sure is the answer.
Dr. Fortanasce is a psychiatrist and neurologist in Southern California with an impressive list of awards and honors. He is also a vocal right-to-lifer who has appeared frequently on TV, radio, and in person to promote his beliefs.
Dr. Baggott is a Los Angeles OB/GYN with similar sentiments. Here’s what it says on the “Meet Dr. Baggot” page of the Guadalupe Medical Center’s website: “A pro-life advocate, he does not perform tubal ligation and instead encourages women to practice natural birth control by monitoring their menstrual cycle.”
Clearly Drs. Fortanasce and Baggott are opposed to stem cell research on moral grounds, even though you would never know it from their ballot arguments. They’ve carefully parsed their words to make it sound as though they’re all for the research being supported federally and privately, just not at the state level.
I know, it sounds like I’m supporting Prop. 14. When I wrote the original version of this explanation, I was. But as I looked into it more, I changed my mind.
While I’m mostly discounting the opposing arguments that appear in the state Voter Information Guide, I’ve found other arguments to take their place.
The League of Women Voters of California, which supports stem cell research, has taken a neutral position on Prop. 14 because of some troubling aspects of the measure:
1) General obligation bonds are not designed for this sort of expenditure; they are supposed to be for capital projects, purchase of facilities for public use, or repair of public facilities.
2) Prop. 14 requires a 70% supermajority vote of the legislature in order to change the law.
3) Profits from public research agreements could only be spent on CIRM-funded research.
When Prop. 71 was passed in 2004, a major impetus for it was that the Bush administration had banned federal funds from being spent on stem cell research.
Because of that situation, there was a reasonable rationale for diverging from the usual purposes of general obligation bonds, and for having California take the lead in something that would normally be the role of the federal government.
Times have changed. The Obama administration got rid of the stem cell ban and it has not been reinstated by the current occupant of the White House. The federal government, through the National Institutes of Health, is funding some stem cell research.
I am deeply concerned about the 70% supermajority vote requirement, especially because the governor and state legislature do not have the oversight of CIRM that they have with other state agencies.
Supermajority requirements resulting from other ballot initiatives have repeatedly screwed us. Think of how hard it is to get any local school tax passed because tax measures now need a 2/3 majority of the vote in order to pass. That’s all because of a diabolical initiative that only needed a simple majority.
I certainly don’t believe that the supermajority requirement of Prop. 14 would have the same far-reaching consequences. But I think it’s wrong nonetheless. I want our elected representatives to be able to fix any problems with the law or with CIRM, and I strenuously oppose efforts to keep them from doing their jobs.
Prop. 71 was sold to us in part with the potential of the state getting some of the money back in the form of royalties from newly developed treatments that turned out to be profitable. The requirement of Prop. 14 that any such royalties be plowed back into CIRM seems like a bait and switch to me. I think it should be up to the legislature to decide what to do with any revenue that comes out of CIRM’s work.
There are other strong arguments against Prop. 14 in this L.A. Times editorial.
VOTE NO ON PROP. 14.
Prop. 15 - Commercial property taxes
In 1978, Californians passed Proposition 13, which limited property taxes. It helped many people avoid getting priced out of their homes, but at a cost of declining support for schools and local governments.
It also led to vast inequities, since property taxes were now based on the purchase price of the property (plus limited increases over time) rather than the current market value. That means that two identical homes in the same neighborhood could have vastly different property tax rates if one of the houses was purchased recently and the other one was owned by someone who bought it decades ago.
The same is true of commercial properties.
Prop. 15 would partially repeal the commercial and industrial property aspects of Prop. 13 while leaving the residential parts of 13 intact. (I believe the residential inequities of Prop. 13 should also be addressed, in a way that still protects people on fixed incomes from being taxed out of their homes, but that’s an issue for another ballot!)
Provisions of Prop. 15 would exempt most small businesses from the changes, plus another business tax would be reduced for everyone and eliminated entirely for many small businesses.
The main backers of Prop. 15 are the California Teachers Association, SEIU California, and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. The leading opponents are the California Business Roundtable and the California Taxpayers Association.
According to the proponents, the state’s most valuable 10% of nonresidential commercial properties would provide 92% of the new revenue Prop. 15 would generate.
Local governments would receive 60% of the additional revenue generated by this measure; schools would receive 40%.
An op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times in support of Prop. 15 puts it nicely:
That money could turn out to be indispensable. Because of COVID-19, California is facing a $54-billion budget deficit over the next year. State revenues are expected to drop by a staggering $41.2 billion compared with a pre-coronavirus projection in January. Los Angeles estimates a budget shortfall up to $400 million, with concomitant cuts in city services.
Proposition 15’s deep-pocketed opponents will portray the measure as an all-out assault on Proposition 13, an attempt to raise homeowners’ property tax. But, in fact, it would have no effect on the tax bills of most Californians. The measure exempts all residential and agricultural property, and because it targets only high-value commercial and industrial property, the owners of your local café and dry cleaners will probably be unscathed as well.
On the other hand, Disneyland, whose property tax is still based on its assessment when Proposition 13 passed, would have to pay more.”
The author, Jacques Leslie, continues:
Besides improving the state’s bottom line, passage of Proposition 15 would have a huge symbolic effect. Before 1978, California invested generously in its future, and earned big dividends for its residents. Between the 1940s and the 1970s, the state built highways, dams and aqueducts, and its educational system earned a reputation for excellence. But Proposition 13 marked a retreat from public investment. Now California’s infrastructure is outdated, the state is ranked as the fourth-most-unequal state in the union and its school expenditures-per-pupil have dropped from 14th in 1978 to 39th. Proposition 15’s passage would mark the end of an era of magical thinking: You can’t have the benefits of government without revenues to pay for them.
Most important, Proposition 15’s reforms could go a long way toward overriding some of the most pernicious side effects of Proposition 13. For example, the initiative would eliminate the competitive tax advantage that longtime commercial property owners hold over recent buyers, which are often business startups. New businesses, a key to innovation (and in the wake of COVID-19, economic recovery) would face one less major obstacle in California.
And, says Leslie:
The initiative would also close what has been a gaping loophole in Proposition 13 that has added to its worst effects. New, market-value property assessments of commercial properties kick in under current law only when majority ownership changes. That has enabled publicly traded corporations to avoid new assessments even though their stock ownership may have rolled over many times, and it allows landowners to buy and sell and yet maintain lower assessments by dividing purchases among enough entities so that none holds majority ownership. Companies such as Chevron, Intel and IBM own land whose assessments are still based on 1975 values, while nearby properties are assessed at values as much as 50 times higher, according to the initiative’s organizers.
VOTE YES ON PROP. 15.
Prop. 16 - Affirmative Action
Proposition 16 would repeal Proposition 209, which banned affirmative action in 1996. The state of California would once again be able to consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in employment, education, or contracting decisions.
This would be a modest step in the right direction, to try to strike a blow against systemic racism, and sexism too.
The arguments against Prop. 16 make it sound as though there’s a level playing field right now, but they’re ignoring the many barriers facing people of color throughout their lives. And, contrary the the opponents’ claims, quotas would still be prohibited.
If you need some examples of systemic racism, here’s a good article from Business Insider with a lot of charts illustrating the problem.
VOTE YES ON PROP. 16.
Prop. 17 - Post-incarceration voting rights
Proposition 17 would restore voting rights to state prisoners once they’ve completed their sentences. Under current law, they have to complete parole before they can vote.
What Prop. 17 would NOT do is affect prisoners’ sentences or paroles in any other way.
The opposing arguments to Prop. 17 make it sound like this is a dangerous thing to do, that somehow, through the ballot box, ex-convicts will be able to reach out and murder your family. The truth, of course, is the opposite. At least one study shows that those who have had voting rights restored after serving their sentences are less likely to commit new crimes.
VOTE YES ON PROP. 17.
Prop. 18 - 17-year-old vote
Proposition 18 would allow 17-year-old citizens who will be turning 18 before the next general election to vote in any primary or special election that is held before that general election. This is a sensible measure that was placed on the ballot by the legislature with overwhelming support, including from some Republicans.
Frankly, I was surprised by the alarmist rhetoric of those who wrote the arguments against Prop. 18. It just doesn’t seem like that controversial a measure. And I was surprised to see the president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association as one of the signatories; I’m used to only seeing him weigh in on tax and bond measures.
It doesn’t take much reading between the lines to see that the opponents are scared that 17-year-olds might vote more liberally than the public at large, especially because, in the opponents’ distorted view of the world, 17-year-olds are likely to be under the mind control of radical teachers.
Clearly the Republicans in the legislature who voted to put this proposition on the ballot don’t see it that way. The purpose of this measure is to get young people engaged in the political process by being able to vote in both a primary and a general election, and thus to increase voter participation.
It may be an overly optimistic proposition, but it can’t hurt to try.
VOTE YES ON PROP. 18.
Prop. 19 - Property tax changes
In 2018, the California Association of Realtors put a measure on the ballot to greatly expand the ability of homeowners over 55, the disabled, and those whose property has been impacted by natural disaster to transfer the taxable value of their existing home when they sell it and move to another home they purchase.
That measure would have allowed unlimited transfers (the existing law allows only one, except for properties affected by natural disaster or contamination) and would have done away with some other restrictions as well.
It went down to defeat in a big way, losing by about 20 percentage points.
Now, two years later, it’s back, albeit in a somewhat modified form that backers hope will make it more palatable to voters and other interest groups.
Instead of unlimited transfers, Prop. 19 would allow those homeowners to transfer their property valuation up to three times.
As with their previous ballot measure, Prop. 19 would enable this group of homeowners to use the transfer on a more expensive home than the one they’re selling (the price difference would be added to the original valuation). Under the existing law, their exemption only applies if they buy a new home of equal or lesser value.
The way the law reads now, the exemption is only available if the homeowner moves within the same county or between counties that have agreed to accept transplanted valuations. Prop. 19 would enable the transfer for moves anywhere in California.
The biggest addition to this new version is the tightening of rules governing the ability of children to carry over the valuation of property they inherit from their parents (or grandparents if their parents are deceased).
Currently if a child inherits the parents’ home, there is no increase in valuation, hence no increase in the property tax. Under Prop. 19, children would have to move into the house within a year and use it as their primary residence in order to qualify for the tax savings.
This would eliminate what has become known as the “Lebowski Loophole,” so named because many wealthy people are getting enormous tax benefits from inherited homes they’re using as rental property, including Jeff Bridges, The Dude himself.
Inherited farms would be exempt from the change, except if a farm or inherited home could be sold for more than $1 million over the property’s taxable value. In that case, the property tax would go up somewhat.
Prop. 19 would require that most of the revenue generated as a result of this measure go toward fire protection. Because of that, they’ve got California Professional Firefighters on board.
Frankly, this seems like a totally unnecessary, pandering mandate. There is no question that California is going to be spending a lot of money for fire protection for the foreseeable future. Can you imagine any lawmaker voting against adequate funding for fire protection in the current climate?
The ballot arguments over Prop. 19 did not help my decision one bit. I don’t buy the arguments for the measure and I vehemently disagree with the arguments against.
The authors of the arguments against don’t like Prop. 19 because of the inheritance restrictions. I think that’s by far the best part of this proposition. If the ballot measure were only that, I would wholeheartedly support it. It would be a no-brainer.
It’s the rest of Prop. 19 that I have trouble with.
The proponents make it seem like the reason they’ve pushed to get this measure on the ballot is to protect cash-strapped seniors who want to downsize but couldn’t afford to if they weren’t able to take their tax valuation with them.
First of all, seniors and the other eligible homeowners can already do this… once.
Second of all, if the concern is for those who want to downsize, why change the rules to allow this for people moving to more expensive homes?
Realtor associations are not spending more than $56 million (that is no typo!) out of the kindness of their hearts. The only reason this is on the ballot is because it would increase home sales, thereby increasing commissions.
And to think that I was alarmed two years ago when they spent a bit more than $7 million on their first effort!
As I said in 2018, I believe the existing exemption should be limited, not expanded, so that it is targeted strictly to people who really need the relief — those for whom a doubling or tripling of their property taxes would financially imperil their ability to remain homeowners.
Furthermore, unlike the claims made by its proponents, Prop. 19 would not make the system more fair. Instead, it would dump an even greater percentage of the tax burden onto younger homeowners, many of whom are stretched very thin as it is.
In the course of my research, I was happy to find that the League of Women Voters shared many of my concerns. In declaring their opposition to Prop. 19, the League says:
Prop 19 exacerbates an already inequitable property tax system - offering tax breaks to people who do not need them. Providing tax breaks to homeowners over 55 who purchase a replacement home, and allowing them to “transfer” their current tax assessment to a new home anywhere in the state, does nothing to help low-income seniors or families struggling to find housing.
To me, Prop. 19 is like putting lipstick on a pig. Despite the window dressing, the major problems I had with the previous incarnation of this measure two years ago are still plain to see.
The Dude may abide, but I do not.
VOTE NO ON PROP. 19.
Prop. 20 - Parole restrictions
This proposition would impose restrictions on parole eligibility, alter how parole decisions are made, change some misdemeanors to felonies, and require the state to collect DNA samples from adults convicted of certain misdemeanors.
It’s a measure championed by correctional and police officer associations and it would lead us in exactly the wrong direction.
There’s a bucketload of hyperbole as well as misleading statements in the pro-20 arguments.
For instance, they deny that Prop. 20 would lead to more crowded prisons, claiming that “it doesn’t send one new person to prison.”
In my reading of the voter information guide, this does not appear to be true. The classification change of some crimes from misdemeanor to felony would likely lead to some people serving time instead of supervised probation. Plus Prop. 20 will lead to lengthier sentences for many prisoners.
The changes in the parole decision-making process contained in Prop. 20 seem particularly burdensome and unnecessary. According to the voter guide explanation by the nonpartisan legislative analyst, the way things work now, more than 80% of convicts being considered for release on parole are rejected.
I’m in agreement with the League of Women Voters’ take on this measure:
Over the past decade, California has made progress enacting laws that reduce the prison population and create a more effective and equitable public safety system. Prop 20 would roll back many advances in criminal justice reforms and reinstate a “get tough” law enforcement system that believes longer incarceration is a solution to crime. It would make minor theft of some goods worth over $250 punishable as a felony. It allows the state to collect DNA from people convicted of misdemeanors like shoplifting and drug possession. Prop 20 sends California in the wrong direction at a time when there is forward momentum toward smart justice approaches that increase public safety and reduce costs to the state.
VOTE NO ON 20.
Prop. 21 - Local rent control
This is a replay of another battle fought unsuccessfully two years ago — an attempt to allow local governments to enact their own rent control laws if they wish, or expand existing laws, to limit the percentage by which landlords could increase rent each year.
As with Prop. 19, the original version of this measure lost in a landslide two years ago. And, as with 19, the architects of Prop. 21 looked at the polling from 2018 and made adjustments in an attempt to address what appeared to be some of voters’ concerns.
This time, rent control restrictions could only be applied to properties more than 15 years old and it would exempt landlords who own no more than two homes from new rent-control ordinances.
Prop. 21 would allow landlords to increase rents by up to 15% in the first three years after a new renter moves in. That might be higher than what some local governments would prefer, but it does restore their ability to enact vacancy control above that allowance, a right that was taken away by Costa-Hawkins, a 1995 state law.
This measure would also require that any rent control laws allow landlords a fair rate of return, putting the law in conformity with past court rulings.
Some of the things this measure is seeking to fix have already been addressed by recent legislation.
There is a lot of money being poured into both sides of this issue.
Two well funded committees are working to defeat Prop. 21. Not surprisingly, their major backing is coming primarily from large property management companies plus the California Business Roundtable. They’ve raised more than $25 million at this point.
Nearly all of the funding in favor of Prop. 21 — about $23 million, to be more specific — is from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its “pugnacious president Michael Weinstein”, as CalMatters describes him. He was behind the previous attempt too, as well as at least a couple of other propositions in the past few years, including one involving the adult film industry.
It’s a heck of lot of money for a measure that probably won’t have a huge impact one way or the other.
A minority of California cities, representing 20-25% of the state’s population, have established their own rent control measures. Recently California instituted statewide rent controls and other protections for renters.
It’s possible that some of the localities that already had their own rent control laws might eventually enact stricter ones if Prop. 21 passes, but it seems unlikely that the places that didn’t have rent control before would suddenly decide to go beyond the statewide controls.
Clearly we have a housing crisis, with so much homelessness and so many people paying 50% or more of their income for rent (one in three Californians, says Courage California).
According to the League of Women Voters,
Rent control policies are one strategy to address California’s housing challenges, offer tenant protections, and prevent displacement. Rent control may be an effective short-term solution but studies suggest that its longer-term impact may, in certain cases, stifle the building of high-density and more affordable housing.
For that reason, the League is staying neutral on Prop. 21. It’s also the main reason Fred von Lohmann, a self-described “proposition geek” who writes a very thoughtful voting guide, has come out against this measure:
I worry that further rent controls will further depress the supply of rental units, and lack of supply is the root of our housing crisis. It will also create incentives for landlords to condo-convert or otherwise take their 15+ year-old units out of the rental market, as well as discouraging rental uses for older units not currently rented. I also don’t like the wasteful inefficiency of rent control--you end up helping the rich renters as much or more than the impoverished senior citizens and struggling families that are so often invoked. I would much rather see new rental assistance measures that are means-tested to help the 20% of Californians who live in poverty.
On the basis of giving local governments more control in determining what makes the most sense in their region, I’m going to vote for Prop. 21. But I can’t give it a ringing endorsement. This is the only one of the state ballot measures that I have mixed feelings about.
I EVER SO SLIGHTLY RECOMMEND A YES VOTE ON PROP. 21.
Prop. 22 - Exemption to worker benefit requirements
Prop. 22 is an obscenely expensive effort by Lyft, Uber, Doordash and others to exempt app-based transportation and delivery companies from a state law enacted recently that requires most kinds of workers in most kinds of businesses to be hired as employees rather than as contractors.
This entitles workers to benefits and protections they would not receive as contractors, such as minimum wage requirements, overtime pay, and sick pay.
Prop. 22 would carve out an exception to this law for app-based drivers, keeping them as contractors.
In an attempt to make this measure appear palatable to voters and to make the management of these companies not seem like greedy, heartless bastards, Prop. 22 includes requirements that the companies provide some benefits and protections to contractors.
These include:
• Minimum earnings of 120% of the local minimum wage (but only for the time the contractors are driving; they would continue to not get paid while waiting for their next assignment)
• Health insurance stipends for drivers who normally work more than 15 hours a week
• Coverage of medical costs and some lost income when a driver is injured while driving or waiting
• Drivers can’t work more than 12 hours in a 24 hour period
Other provisions require companies to have sexual harassment policies, conduct criminal background checks, and have safety training for drivers.
And Prop. 22 would limit the ability of local governments to place additional regulations on these companies.
The provisions in Prop. 22 could only be changed by a seven-eighths supermajority in the legislature, which is essentially saying the provisions could never be changed.
The modest benefits are less than what drivers would get under the current law. I say “would get” because Uber, Lyft, and the others have refused to follow the law, which they claim does not apply to them.
As a result, the California Attorney General has had to sue to get them to obey the law. The case is still pending.
Do you get the feeling that there’s a certain arrogance that pervades these companies? I sure do. And it’s evident in the ungodly amount of money they’ve put into passing Prop. 22 — nearly $186 million so far!
Labor unions have lined up against this measure. They’ve put what used to be considered a lot of money into defeating it — close to $9 million. That turns out to be less than 5% of what the app-based companies are spending.
It’s astonishing to me that these companies can somehow afford to spend almost a fifth of a BILLION dollars on Prop. 22, yet they couldn’t shell out for PPE and other items to protect their workers from COVID-19.
VOTE NO ON PROP. 22.
Prop. 23 - Kidney dialysis clinics
This is another rematch from 2018. In this case the substance of the proposition is somewhat different from the first one, but the battle lines are the same: Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West vs. the corporations that operate dialysis clinics in California.
This time, the proposition would require at least one licensed physician to be on site while treatments are given at chronic dialysis clinics (unless the California Department of Public Health [CDPH] grants waivers to certain clinics due to a shortage of kidney doctors in their regions).
Prop. 23 would also require clinics to report dialysis-related infection data to the CDPH (they already have to report it to the national Centers for Disease Control). Clinics could not close without permission from the CDPH. They would be prohibited from treating patients differently because of the source of their payments.
What this is really about is that SEIU has been trying for years, so far unsuccessfully, to unionize workers at dialysis clinics owned by DaVita, by far the largest clinic operator in California. This is SEIU’s way of getting back at them.
Much as I support organized labor, this is an abuse of the initiative process (as is the anti-labor Prop. 22). Plus there may be some real danger to patients if Prop. 23 passes. By requiring doctors to be present at the clinics, it will take them away from actually treating their patients.
This should not be taken as an endorsement of DaVita and the other companies that own dialysis centers.
Just a few days before I wrote this, a $135 million settlement was announced between DaVita and its investors, who had filed a class action lawsuit against the company. Investors claimed they were harmed because DaVita pressured patients to enroll in private insurance plans (DaVita and the other clinic owners get much higher reimbursements from private insurance than they do from Medicare or Medicaid).
In 2018, DaVita lost multiple wrongful death lawsuits in Colorado and was ordered to pay $383.5 million in damages.
I found a recent news story in Atlanta about clinic workers who had contracted COVID-19 returning to work before they were fully recovered because DaVita does not offer sick pay benefits.
I sincerely hope SEIU is ultimately successful in unionizing the clinics. It’s clear that the workers need the protections of a union.
But the fight should not be carried out on our ballots.
VOTE NO ON PROP. 23.
Prop. 24 - Consumer privacy
I certainly want my privacy protected. When I saw a proposition that appeared to create strong protections for consumers, I was inclined to support it. But the more I read and learn about Prop. 24, the less I like it.
Prop. 24 is the brainchild of Alastair Mactaggart, a wealthy real estate developer who has contributed more than $5 million to support this measure.
The provenance of Prop. 24 is very strange indeed.
Mactaggart qualified a predecessor to Prop. 24 for the November 2018 ballot. It was called the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). He then offered to remove it from the ballot if the state legislature would pass something very close to it as a bill instead.
This would give legislators more ability to fix any potential problems with the CCPA, but they had only one week before the state’s deadline to remove ballot measures. So they rushed the bill through and Governor Brown signed it just in time for Mactaggart to pull his initiative off the ballot.
CCPA didn’t take effect until January of this year and the state Department of Justice’s enforcement powers didn’t kick in until July. In the meantime, the legislature found and fixed a number of problems resulting from the hurried drafting of the bill, none of which changed much of the substance of it.
Perhaps unhappy that the legislature could actually do its job and oversee management of CCPA, Mactaggart decided to put another proposition on the ballot this year — Prop. 24, basically going back on his 2018 deal with lawmakers.
Just to make it more confusing, Prop. 24 is called the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA). CPRA makes changes to CCPA — improvements in some cases; in others, it’s worse.
But the two worst things about it are more general:
1) CCPA has barely been in effect. We should have a chance to see how it works before moving beyond it.
2) CPRA limits the ability of the legislature to change it.
Here’s the actual wording of the relevant section of Prop. 24 dealing with amending the measure:
The provisions of this Act may be amended after its approval by the voters by a statute that is passed by a vote of a majority of the members of each house of the Legislature and signed by the Governor, provided that such amendments are consistent with and further the purpose and intent of this Act as set forth in Section 3, including amendments to the exemptions in Section 1798.145 if the laws upon which the exemptions are based are amended to enhance privacy and are consistent with and further the purposes and intent of this Act and amendments to address a decision of a California state or federal court holding that a provision of the Act is unconstitutional or preempted by federal law, provided that any further amendments to legislation that addresses a court holding shall be subject to this subdivision.
There are 52 pages of similarly unreadable sentences in this proposition.
Here’s what the League of Women Voters has to say about Prop. 24:
The League of Women Voters supports the protection of consumers’ private data. Prop 24 includes some beneficial elements, but we oppose due to the complexity of a 52-page initiative with impacts and nuances that are difficult for voters to discern and rollbacks to existing protections.
Among the troubling aspects of Prop 24 is its expansion of “pay for privacy” through the addition of loyalty and rewards programs, allowing businesses to charge consumers more or provide worse service if they choose to exercise their privacy rights. The initiative also allows businesses to require consumers to direct each individual website and app not to sell information - weakening the current legal requirement that companies respect a global opt-out for all services.
These burdens are fundamentally inequitable, placing the onus on the average consumer to protect their own privacy. Working people don't have the time to do the paperwork and they can't afford to pay companies to respect their wishes.
Finally, the initiative comes less than a year after the 2018 California Consumer Privacy Rights Act went into effect, before we have had an opportunity to see how the new law works or the legislature has had a chance to address any defects.
I wholeheartedly agree.
VOTE NO ON PROP. 24!
Prop. 25 - Money bail referendum
Prop. 25 is a referendum on a 2018 bill passed by the legislature that would get rid of cash bail and replace it with a system of risk assessments to determine whether someone charged with a crime should be released pending their trial.
A yes vote would approve the new law and allow it to go into effect; a no vote would reject the change. (It’s very weird — because of the way Prop. 25 is written, the people who put this measure on the ballot are the ones urging its defeat!)
Of all the inequities in the criminal justice system, cash bail is probably the most blatant.
People who are charged with the most serious felonies are not eligible for pretrial release. For others, courts take into account the seriousness of the crime for which they’re accused, their previous criminal record, and whether or not they’re considered a flight risk.
Based on that, a decision is made to either keep the accused in jail until their trial, release them on their own recognizance, or release them on bail.
Those who have the means to pay bail or to post bond (usually around 10% of the bail amount) are released to await their trial. Those who don’t have the money are stuck behind bars for the duration.
Under the new law, people accused of most misdemeanors would automatically be released pending their trial. Those accused of domestic violence and those who have failed to appear in court more than two times in the past year would not be automatically released.
After an assessment process, those considered low-risk would generally be released. Some medium-risk people might also be released by assessment staff or by a judge, possibly with some monitoring conditions attached.
It appears that all of the money (nearly $8 million) behind defeating Prop. 25 is from the bail bond industry.
The money on the pro-side is coming mostly from people active in criminal justice reform efforts.
The state legislature realized that it is grossly unfair to have wealth determine whether a person stays in jail or gets out while awaiting trial. They enacted the new law to fix that.
Let the new law take effect!
VOTE YES ON 25!
=========================
Local Ballot Measures
Tamalpais Union High School District Measure M - Parcel tax
This measure would renew the existing parcel tax for nine years to provide funds for our high schools. Revenues from the parcel tax currently account for 17% of the district’s budget; losing it would necessitate huge cuts.
Despite the fact that my wife and I do not have children, we believe strongly in supporting our public schools, so much so that we are forgoing the senior exemption available to us. If you are a financially secure senior, we not only urge you to vote for this measure; we also urge you pay the tax rather than taking the exemption.
VOTE YES ON MEASURE M.
Sausalito Marin City School District Bond Measure P
This is not on my ballot, but the same dear friend who convinced me to include the Sausalito Marin City School Board race has also urged me to include this bond measure.
Here’s what she says:
The Sausalito Marin City School District will soon be unified and providing one Pre-K through grade 8 school on two campuses — an integrated, world-class school that everyone in the 94965 zip code can be proud of.
But the facilities are lacking and our kids deserve facilities on a par with neighboring districts.
Measure P would fund the replacement of outdated and deteriorating portable classrooms with modern permanent classrooms. It would also fund the modernization of school support facilities and provide specialty classrooms, such as maker spaces for robotics and technology and performing art spaces to enhance learning opportunities for all students.
Measure P would also provide funding for the replacement and modernization of school facilities and infrastructure at both campuses, including restrooms, roofing systems, upgrading electrical, internet, heating and ventilation systems.
The estimated tax rate for Measure P is $30.00 per $100,000 of assessed value per year. The tax rate is determined by a property’s assessed valuation, which is not the same as the market value. Assessed valuation is the value placed on property by the County pursuant to Proposition 13 and is typically lower than the market value for which a property may be sold.
VOTE YES ON MEASURE P.
