tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3183388309250235222024-03-13T06:38:00.023-07:00The Eightfold Path of NaniwaUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger358125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-318338830925023522.post-18636740270168850552018-10-17T07:19:00.002-07:002018-10-17T07:20:20.757-07:00Ballot recommendations, Nov. 2018: Oakland and area<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Thank you for continuing to read my ballot writeups. See my statewide recommendations for Props 1-12 in <a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2018/10/ballot-recommendations-nov-2018.html">my previous post here</a>.<br />
<br />
My measure discussions for Oakland can be briefer, because a guiding principle unifies most of them. As I introduced my last post:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I think most of my readers would now accept that we are in the long-term grip of a loose cabal of plutocrats who care about nothing but their own power and wealth, and have let everything else go to pot. So I will take it as my starting point that more public spending on these key priorities is a good thing and does not need an elaborate fact-based defense. </blockquote>
We have many opportunities on the Oakland ballot to support, defend, and enhance the public sphere. Sometimes this is via collecting tax revenues progressively - targeting where the most wealth is. But there are also proposed taxes that are not as progressive, and that is not an inherently bad thing. Some taxes will always have to hit the whole economy; a revenue system that collects only from the wealthy is not sustainable. Parcel taxes in particular, set amounts per parcel of land, are not highly targeted to wealth, but are one of the few collection mechanisms state law allows to local measures; and by falling more on property owners than on renters, it is wrong to call them flat or regressive.<br />
<br />
Don't think of these local issues as ultimately distinct from national. A vote for properly funding public services is a vote for the solidarity and opportunity that constitutes a true alternative to the horrors in DC.<br />
<br />
<i>Quick-reference chart </i>(local, <a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2018/10/ballot-recommendations-nov-2018.html">state measures here</a>):<br />
<b id="docs-internal-guid-f7aef81d-7fff-7ef8-af34-2b0c89dc4b6b" style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-left: 0pt;">
<table style="border-collapse: collapse; border: none;"><colgroup><col width="133"></col><col width="104"></col><col width="251"></col><col width="135"></col></colgroup><tbody>
<tr style="height: 0pt;"><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Jurisdiction</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Measure</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Topic</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Recommendation</span></div>
</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 0pt;"><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Oakland</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">V</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Cannabis tax (reduction)</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Yes</span></div>
</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 0pt;"><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Oakland</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">W</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Vacancy tax</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Yes</span></div>
</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 0pt;"><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Oakland </span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">X</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Real estate transfer tax</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Yes</span></div>
</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 0pt;"><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Oakland</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Y</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Eviction by just cause for duplexes / triplexes</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Yes</span></div>
</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 0pt;"><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Oakland</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Z</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">“Time’s Up” hotel labor standards and protections</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Yes</span></div>
</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 0pt;"><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Oakland</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">AA</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Early education and college preparation parcel tax</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Yes</span></div>
</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 0pt;"><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">East Bay Reg. Parks District</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">FF</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Parks parcel tax renewal</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Yes</span></div>
</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 0pt;"><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Peralta Comm. College District</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">E</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Community college parcel tax renewal</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Yes</span></div>
</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 0pt;"><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Peralta Comm. College District</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">G</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Community college bond measure</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 1pt; border-left: solid #000000 1pt; border-right: solid #000000 1pt; border-top: solid #000000 1pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Yes</span></div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<br />
<u>Measure V: Cannabis taxes: Yes</u><br />
<br />
This measure would reduce local taxes on licensed Oakland cannabis (marijuana) sellers - both medical and recreational - and raise the prospect of more reductions in the future.<br />
<br />
Right now the city taxes medical cannabis business at 5% of gross receipts - that's however much money comes through the door, not looking at expenses or profits - and recreational cannabis at 10%. These taxes were both passed as city ballot measures, long before 2016's legalization. (The recreational tax passed in 2010, the year a statewide legalization measure failed.)<br />
<br />
We've now had legal recreational sales since January, and retailers are increasing sharply in number. Oakland has developed an equity program to allow half of licenses to go to people from certain marginalized or criminalized backgrounds - a laudable effort to prevent new wealth from accumulating mostly in white hands, which would be the predictable result of "neutral" administration. But the city has never exactly been a well-oiled machine, and the licensing process drags on, even as the equity licensees suffer from a lack of startup capital. Reportedly, new market entrants wonder why they should wait when the taxes, all together, will be around the highest in the region. There is concern that the entire city could see business pullout.<br />
<br />
That sounds like corporate propaganda, but the taxes really are quite high when you consider the multiple taxes we added statewide in 2016. Prop 64 (legalization) added $9.25 per ounce at the cultivation level, and 15% of the retail price, not counting sales tax which is also due for anyone without a medical card. 5% or 10% of gross receipts at the city level made sense in the old days when Oakland was one of the only cities sticking its neck out to license dispensaries. Then, high taxes were a tradeoff a few businesses could accept to live in this small space of semi-legality. Now, they are probably excessive.<br />
<br />
So Measure V would:<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Allow the city tax to be assessed as a percent of gross receipts <i>net of raw material costs</i>, a significant effective cut</li>
<li>Allow the Council, at its discretion, to lower, but not raise, the 10% recreational tax (it can already do this for the 5% medical)</li>
</ul>
We should hope for a regularized cannabis industry that takes over from the illegal trade, ensures product testing and environmental safety, and channels taxes to public services and community reinvestments as Prop 64 directs. A healthy industry is also necessary for the equity program to work. Measure V enables this.<br />
<br />
The defect of Measure V is that it seems to have been written such that the Council can lower taxes at its discretion, <i>but not raise them again</i> - it builds in a ratchet effect. It didn't have to do this. Emeryville has a similar measure this year, which specifies that its Council may raise or lower taxes as long as they remain below 6%. And we may need to raise taxes later! The experience of other legalization states is that as the market gets crowded, competition craters the retail price, and we will start to worry whether taxes are too low. So Measure V may necessitate another public vote in the future. But that is some years in the future, and our situation will be unpredictably different then, so a Yes vote will keep moving us in the right direction for now.<br />
<u><br /></u>
<u>Measure W: Vacancy tax: Yes</u><br />
<br />
This measure would impose a uniform tax on properties in Oakland that are being deliberately kept vacant. Specifically, this would be $6,000 per year for most parcels, or $3,000 for single units within larger structures.<br />
<br />
Oakland has long griped at the large tracts of visibly unused space: we need housing, businesses, community space, and it does nobody any good for buildings that could go to use to stay vacant. But it does happen, evidently because many owners are happier to wait for a huge payday from an ideal and nonexistent tenant than to accommodate the applicants that exist. (Prop 13 tax caps on commercial property also blunt the incentive to put space to use.)<br />
<br />
The city estimates, plausibly, that thousands of spaces are vacant, and this tax could raise up to $10 million annually. This revenue would be earmarked for homelessness, dumping cleanup, blighted property cleanup, and affordable housing. But it could be that most affected owners choose to put their properties to some use to avoid the tax, and that would be a perfectly acceptable outcome too.<br />
<br />
Measure W has all the right exemptions to keep it from applying unjustly: it does not hit nonprofits, people with very low incomes*, senior or disabled people with merely low incomes**, or properties under construction or awaiting approvals or permits. It lets the City Council further define hardship exemptions or other necessary exemptions that the text did not identify. It also defines "vacant" as used for less than 50 days during the year, so intermittent or seasonal use would be allowed.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.spur.org/">SPUR</a>, an urban improvement policy shop I have a lot of respect for, after praising the vacancy tax concept, ruefully recommended a no vote, saying the "vague language would make it very difficult for staff to implement the tax fairly". But I don't see how the measure could or should have specified every contingency: the Council will put meat on the bones over time, indeed, is instructed to. City staff will not be on their own. As SPUR notes, many cities around the world like Seoul, Vancouver, and Hong Kong use vacancy tax as a component of urban policy. If we think it's a good idea in principle, we ought to give it a fair try in practice, and these warts they've seized on are minor and inevitable.<br />
<br />
* Very Low Income levels for this area from HUD: $40,700/year for a single person on their own; $58,100 for a 4-person household.<br />
** Low Income levels (seniors): $62,750 for one person; $89,600 for four people.<br />
*** Disabled defined as on SSI or SSDI - with income under 250% of federal poverty level, so $30,350 for one person, $62,750 for four people.<br />
<br />
<u>Measure X: Progressive real estate transfer tax: Yes</u><br />
<br />
Right now the city imposes a 1.5% tax on value when a property is sold. This Measure X would change that rate from its current single bracket to four brackets: 1% for the lowest-value properties, up to 2.5% for the highest-value (more than $5 million). It also reduces the rate by half a percent for first-time buyers with low or moderate incomes - in the HUD definition, that's up to $104,400 for a family of four, $73,100 for a singleton.<br />
<br />
That's really all there is to it; there are no pitfalls or defects. The money would not be earmarked for any purpose, allocation up to the Council, making it a welcome respite from ballot-box budgeting. Nonprofits developing affordable housing are exempt. The money will dry up in property slumps, but that's normal and we can prepare for it. Collect more from those benefiting the most from our unequal society. Go team!<br />
<br />
<u>Measure Y: Just cause eviction for more units: Yes</u><br />
<br />
In 2002 Oakland required evictions be for just cause only - not at the landlord's whim or desire for a richer tenant - for most buildings built prior to 1980. In 2016 we expanded this law, pushing the cutoff date to 1995. However, in both cases we exempted buildings of fewer than four units where the owner was the resident in one of the units - that is, duplexes and triplexes. Measure Y would bring duplex/triplex renters under the same protections given to most other renters.<br />
<br />
We have the potential to build more housing in Oakland to accommodate everybody, but even if we do that, communities and longtime residents will still be displaced like crazy unless we put in measures that combat displacement directly. Converting housing <i>into </i>duplexes and triplexes also should be a tool in our belt to increase capacity (the missing middle), so such units shouldn't be a permanent exception to our principles.<br />
<br />
The main sympathetic arguments from duplex and triplex owners are that some seniors on fixed incomes may have trouble navigating the eviction process with the Rent Board; and some want to move their relatives in with them as they age. But we should not make policy based on exceptions. Rent Board proceedings should be transparent and navigable, for the sake of both owners and tenants, and there could even be cases where landlords deserve legal aid in the process. Owners wanting to move in relatives are going to be a small chunk, and will also be relatively well-off given the simple fact that they own property here.<br />
<br />
Under current law, as I read it, an owner of multiple buildings could move into a different one of their buildings every year and use that as the excuse to evict everyone there. Expanding just-cause eviction is part of the project of making fair treatment of renters a baseline condition of how the market works. (Or putting it in economical language, evictions have huge externalities.)<br />
<br />
Measure Y would also give the Council more power to increase just-cause protections over time - for example, making the protections apply on a rolling basis as each building turns 10 or 20 years old, rather than the fixed date of 1995. So that will likely reduce the need for future measures on this topic - strike a blow for shorter future ballots!<br />
<br />
<u>Measure Z: "Time's Up" labor protections and standards, hotel focus: Yes</u><br />
<br />
With Weinstein and the MeToo movement started last year, many progressive women of color tried to keep in the picture that the vast majority of work-related exploitation was against non-celebrity women in low-wage jobs. Measure Z would take strong action protecting women and men in one of the most notoriously unprotected jobs - hotel work.<br />
<br />
Measure Z applies to hotels of 50+ beds and requires:<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>$15 minimum wage, or $20 without benefits (the current minimum wage for all Oaklanders is $13.23)</li>
<li>10-hour maximum workday - employers may not mandate any hours over that threshold, although employees may consent with notice and non-retaliation</li>
<li>Workload limitations for cleaning staff: no more than 500 square feet per hour, or double pay on days this is exceeded</li>
<li>Firing only for just cause</li>
<li>Panic buttons for all staff working in hotel rooms, and no retaliation to staff for using them, or for leaving an area with a threatening guest</li>
<li>Strict recordkeeping requirements to enforce all this</li>
</ul>
Measure Z also makes a change for all employees, not just hotel workers: creating a new city department to enforce these and other standards that the city has passed into law over time, such as minimum wage and sick leave. It does not prescribe the level of enforcement, but if it did it would be ineffective.<br />
<br />
So, better wages, better conditions, and new protections targeted to the specific situations that leave people victims. Yes, yes, and yes.<br />
<br />
<u>Measure AA: Early education and college preparation parcel tax: Yes</u><br />
<br />
In June, there was a countywide Measure A that would have raised the sales tax to vastly increase the provision of childcare and early education. Unfortunately, while it got strong support of 66.2%, it needed 66.7% to pass under the state constitution. Measure AA helps fill the gap for Oakland only.<br />
<br />
Most of the same arguments I made in favor of Measure A at the time also apply to Measure AA, except that it focus on early childhood education like preschool (62% of the revenue) as well as funding an existing city program supporting college attainment, the <a href="http://oaklandpromise.org/">Oakland Promise Fund</a>, rather than childcare.<br />
<br />
On the early childhood education side, where it spends $20 million annually, AA's labor protections are stronger than A's were - it imposes a minimum wage of $15 for employees, union neutrality from employers, and other protections.<br />
<br />
The Oakland Promise Fund seems like a good effort worth continuing, although the causes should already have been the norm. One noteworthy component is the "brilliant baby College Savings Account", starting disadvantaged kids off with a $500 savings fund; another is in-school financial aid assistance centers; and of course, a portion goes to plain-vanilla full scholarships. The Fund has a good deal of philanthropic support ($3<span style="background-color: white;">2m to</span> date according to its latest report), but the tax infusion of about $10 million a year would put it on a more solid footing. Some of its elements read as vague, conducive to cushy nonprofit contracts (one goal "instilling a college-bound identity in students"), but most is solid enough.<br />
<br />
The tax level of Measure AA is $198 per year per single-family home; $135 per units in buildings. This is comparable to what Measure A would have cost, but is more progressive since it is not a sales tax.<br />
<br />
<u>Measure FF: East Bay Regional Parks District parcel tax renewal: Yes</u><br />
<br />
$12 per parcel per year ($8.28/unit for units in buildings); supports the whole East Bay Regional Parks District; a renewal of a tax that already exists and would otherwise expire. Doesn't just support the continued existence of parks, also helps them fund wildfire prevention by clearing invasive and otherwise unsafe vegetation. This, too, is a no-brainer.<br />
<br />
There are now signs popping up around town reading "Stop Pesticides - Save Trees - No on FF". This is a group of strong-hearted souls who oppose the eradication of eucalyptus. Don't be fooled: longstanding environmental groups that accept ecological science, like the Sierra Club, the Save Our Redwoods League, and the Audubon Society all support FF.<br />
<br />
<u>Measure E: Peralta Community College District parcel tax renewal: Yes</u><br />
<br />
Measure E seems like an easy yes - keep funding the East Bay's community colleges by renewing a $48/parcel tax that already exists - but the issues its opponents raise are important, if tedious and difficult to get to the truth of.<br />
<br />
The former chair of the citizen's oversight committee that monitors Peralta's existing parcel tax package has pled for voters to reject E, on grounds that the administration has not used the money as advertised. They charge the district upped spending on administrators and consultants, and did not make use of the new $8m/year to increase instruction capacity. The rebuttal is correct that the prescribed audit found the funds were spent legally; but it is also true the audit was limited and might not tell the whole story.<br />
<br />
I took a quick look over the district's financial reports for the past several years and found evidence pointing in different directions.<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Consistent with the "misuse" story:</i><br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>The audit acknowledged that in 2015 and 2016, the majority of the special tax revenue went to non-academic salaries and benefits - although this is legal since the measure was supposed to help "protect and maintain core academic programs".</li>
<li>Outside the special tax revenue, in 2014, the district's financials added a new expense category "planning, policymaking, and coordination", which could accommodate a lot of consulting and central administrative positions: $8m in 2014, $14m in 2017.</li>
<li>Even as district revenues rose sharply with the economy, it ran major deficits in 2015 and 2016; it recovered in 2017, but is back in the red this year.</li>
<li>The district's performance audits over the years point to poor internal controls: account balances not being cleared, trust funds not being reconciled, capital expenses not being tracked. In 2016, the district's response was to point to a restructuring of the financial office; in 2017, many of the auditor's notes were repeated. It does not seem the house is in order.</li>
<li>This summer, Moody's downgraded the district's debt rating, citing management and accounting problems.</li>
<li>The number of administrative staff has risen in the years since the special tax passed, from 51 in 2012 to 74 in 2017.</li>
</ul>
<i>Not consistent with that story:</i><br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>The percentage of overall expenses going to instructional salaries (not including benefits) has increased over that time, from 55% in 2012 to 59% now; an $11 million increase.</li>
<li>While administrative staff has risen since 2012, academic staff has risen more: 77 more tenure or tenure-track faculty, 87 more temporary faculty (but note this is not necessarily full-time employees).</li>
<li>While significant, the special tax revenues are less than 3% of overall revenues, so administrators have little incentive to finagle how to best use it to their desires. </li>
<li>The shortcomings in internal controls and management could well be a reasonable justification for spending more money than before on administration and consultants - a healthy school needs a healthy central office that can properly support the faculty.</li>
</ul>
The other story I can construct from the above that fits the facts about as well is: while Peralta administration has its share of problems, the critics are fierce proponents of more academic hiring (Mills either is or was the faculty union president) and are not sympathetic to any moderation of this effort. They may also not like to acknowledge the constraints created by rising salary and benefits costs.<br />
<br />
There is always an impulse to ramp up spending in boom times, in ways that might not be sustainable in a recession, and administrators can fall victim to that impulse (the "featherbedding and consultants" story) or alternatively, they can encounter pushback for resisting that impulse (the "demanding faculty union" story). In the end, what we can be pretty sure of is that if a recession comes soon, removing the special tax revenue would be a body blow to a district facing many other challenges.<br />
<br />
In the absence of an inside look at which story we're really in, I recommend a yes vote out of a desire to keep from defunding our community colleges. But I would understand if someone reads these same observations and votes no. (It is true that there are two years before expiration in which time they could recraft the renewal to satisfy critics.)<br />
<br />
<u>Measure G: Peralta Community College District bond measure: Yes</u><br />
<br />
This is a new bond measure that would allow Peralta CCD to spend another $800 million on infrastructure. It would come out of property taxes - $24.50 per year per $100,000 of assessed valuation, so a home assessed at $500,000 for tax purposes would have an extra bill of $122.50 for 40 years. It would pay for more classrooms, IT upgrades, building repairs and upgrades, acquiring new property, etc.<br />
<br />
Measure G has no opposing ballot argument, so it has the tacit approval of the critics of the Measure E parcel tax renewal. This is probably because it does have the tighter kind of oversight they are looking for - an exclusive list of the exact items it will fund, a requirement to have a master plan of facilities needs, and annual independent financial audits of the money's use. Measure G, unlike E, is an easy yes.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-318338830925023522.post-5548805287056227472018-10-02T07:00:00.000-07:002018-10-02T07:12:52.664-07:00Ballot recommendations, Nov. 2018: Statewide<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I usually write up my recommendations for California ballot measures assuming intelligence but little context on the part of my audience. When measures increase taxes to fund government programs, I lay out, step by step, the case that these are important social priorities that need more public investment.<br />
<br />
The events of the last two years have brought our political situation in much tighter focus, so I am going to go lighter on that side of the argument. I think most of my readers would now accept that we are in the long-term grip of a loose cabal of plutocrats who care about nothing but their own power and wealth, and have let everything else go to pot. So I will take it as my starting point that more public spending on these key priorities is a good thing and does not need an elaborate fact-based defense. If a measure is not as clearly or adequately spending on those priorities, though, I will note that.<br />
<br />
There are no measures this year that I would recommend a "no" for those who want to do more to block trivial matters, or ones the Legislature can handle on its own - what I called the "anticlutter" recommendation in prior years. However, there is one where I will have a dual recommendation: it is probably a net good that it passes, but those in charge shouldn't have let it come to the ballot in such a messy, questionable state.<br />
<br />
Thanks for reading. Within a week I hope to have recommendations out for Oakland city/area measures. To be notified of these more reliably by email, <a href="https://mailchi.mp/84728bac1671/receive-email-updates-for-ballot-recs-other">sign up for my newsletter</a>.<br />
<br />
<i>Quick-reference table:</i><br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 346.25pt;" valign="top" width="462"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Proposition
Number and Title<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 121.25pt;" valign="top" width="162"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Recommendation<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 346.25pt;" valign="top" width="462"><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">
Prop 1, Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 121.25pt;" valign="top" width="162"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Yes<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 346.25pt;" valign="top" width="462"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Prop 2, No Place Like Home Act</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 121.25pt;" valign="top" width="162"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Yes<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 346.25pt;" valign="top" width="462"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Prop 3, Water Supply and Water Quality Act </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 121.25pt;" valign="top" width="162"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Dual
– Yes on impact; No on governance<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 346.25pt;" valign="top" width="462"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Prop 4, Children's Hospital Bonds</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 121.25pt;" valign="top" width="162"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Yes<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 346.25pt;" valign="top" width="462"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Prop 5, "Wealthy Aren't Wealthy Enough" Act</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 121.25pt;" valign="top" width="162"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">No<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 346.25pt;" valign="top" width="462"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Prop 6, "Let Our Roads Crumble" Act</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 121.25pt;" valign="top" width="162"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">No<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 346.25pt;" valign="top" width="462"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Prop 7, Daylight Saving Time Repeal Act</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 121.25pt;" valign="top" width="162"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Yes<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 346.25pt;" valign="top" width="462"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Prop 8, Fair Pricing for Dialysis Act</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 121.25pt;" valign="top" width="162"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Yes<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 346.25pt;" valign="top" width="462"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Prop 10, Affordable Housing Act</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 121.25pt;" valign="top" width="162"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Yes<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 346.25pt;" valign="top" width="462"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Prop 11, Emergency Ambulance Employee Safety and Preparedness Act<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 121.25pt;" valign="top" width="162"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">No<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 346.25pt;" valign="top" width="462"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Prop 12, Prevention of Cruelty to Farm Animals Act<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 121.25pt;" valign="top" width="162"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Yes<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
(Prop 9? There is no Prop 9; that was the deeply embarrassing Three California Act, which was thankfully removed from the ballot by the courts, which determined it too large a change to legally take place without a constitutional convention or legislative referral.)<br />
<br />
<b><u>A. Housing: Yes on 1, 2, and 10; No on 5</u></b><br />
<br />
Housing is a good example of how communities become unlivable when we neglect public goods and public solutions. Right now, in one of the wealthiest states in the country, in those same cities where so much new wealth is being generated, housing has become one of the biggest sources of financial and personal insecurity. Half of Californians spend more than 35% of their income on housing, and one-third spend more than 50%. Housing is not technically complicated: we have the land, we have the raw materials, we have the skills, we have the technology to put up however much housing is needed. So why haven't we?<br />
<br />
"The free market" is not an answer to the housing shortage. As Economics 101 should, but does not, teach everyone, an unfettered market will reach its own internal equilibrium, but there is no guarantee that that equilibrium will meet everyone's needs. With housing construction and maintenance being largely a private matter, the government must monitor the housing landscape and, if the outcomes are not good enough or cheap enough housing for everyone, intervene to make it available, by some combination of public investment and private-sector regulation.<br />
<br />
There was a time we did this. Starting in the New Deal, there was major public investment in housing, both state and federal. It was the federal government that invented the standard 30-year mortgage and still makes it possible to this day. The government also subsidized or directly built a great deal of apartment buildings and other multifamily housing. While of course this investment was deeply unjust racially, the investment on all fronts helped keep housing plentiful and fairly cheap, while also a huge step up in living conditions from before.<br />
<br />
Then with the "tax revolt", better described as the wealthy striking back, under Prop 13, Ronald Reagan, and the following generation, we stopped investing nearly as much in housing. And <a href="https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2015/finance/housing-costs/housing-costs.pdf">look what happened</a>:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcwdLYlp2zdTYJmV8inbELxag-iRO1_soRnK6jjaB5qM-37z8h-2-2hNnFXlNHe-lI-KnJp3zzRU95nSIu1E9EOLGJpzCWua32WVKyBR-7StbKmhgI7Akw1ZtlKVEf_6ojV4uo4BHwAIA/s1600/laofig7.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="652" data-original-width="1057" height="246" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcwdLYlp2zdTYJmV8inbELxag-iRO1_soRnK6jjaB5qM-37z8h-2-2hNnFXlNHe-lI-KnJp3zzRU95nSIu1E9EOLGJpzCWua32WVKyBR-7StbKmhgI7Akw1ZtlKVEf_6ojV4uo4BHwAIA/s400/laofig7.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
This shortfall in construction has continued since that graphic: from 2010 to 2015, we built an average of 50,000 new housing units a year; from 2016 to 2018, when the recession was over and the demand was obviously there, still just 80,000; and <a href="http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/plans-reports/docs/California's-Housing-Future-Main-Document-Draft.pdf">the state estimates that 180,000/year are needed</a> just to keep pace with increasing population.<br />
<br />
There are three propositions this year that would help this situation, and one that would hurt.<br />
<br />
<a name="prop1"></a><u>Proposition 1, the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act: Yes</u><br />
<br />
Prop 1 would pour some much-needed resources into making and retaining affordable housing. It would sell $3 billion in bonds to build or renovate affordable housing, as spent by the state housing department. It would enable many times that dollar figure to be spent on new housing by bridging projects that also use private, local, or federal funds.<br />
<br />
Prop 1 has support from housing advocates of all camps; they all agree such investment is desperately needed. I also appreciate it because it focuses primarily <u>not</u> on building more single-family housing, but on building up multi-unit apartment developments in the denser building patterns we need - not huge tower blocks, most of the time, but rather the "missing middle" of 3-5-story buildings, as well as denser development around public transit. (You can achieve a surprising amount of density by letting this kind of development expand over a sizable area - the city of Los Angeles is far denser than Oakland, and that is one reason why.) It also has small but significant portions dedicated to farmworker housing and group-organized self-help projects like Habitat for Humanity. Portions may also go to making roads more pedestrian and bike-friendly, and enhancing parks, water, and sewers, as long as these improvements are part of denser development projects that need this infrastructure.<br />
<br />
Prop 1 totals $4 billion, not $3 billion because the Legislature combined it with another proposal that spends $1 billion in veteran's housing. This veteran's bond is one like many that have been issued before: more traditionally, it just offers low-interest subsidized mortgages so veterans can buy their own homes (or farms) on better terms.<br />
<br />
Not on the ballot, but a huge hindrance to building the housing we need is land use rules preventing virtually any increase in density in the areas where most people live. We have heavy rail stations almost entirely surrounded with single-family housing, an insane waste of resources. Due to a combination of bureaucracy and status-quo-loving residents, we have allowed a byzantine structure of barely accountable city-level restrictions to take hold. Many of the apartment complexes in the Bay Area would not be legal if proposed today.<br />
<br />
As we seek to increase housing investment with Prop 1 and other efforts, we need to make the connection that aggressively supporting new housing supply is in fact a progressive principle. More housing is not the same as gentrification: more density lets both new migrants and existing communities persist side by side, in fact, without it, gentrification gets worse as everyone competes for the same limited supply. <u>If you think of yourself as progressive or liberal, you should promote housing for all as a key principle, and accept that, as a tradeoff, the look of many cozy, well-off neighborhoods will change.</u> If your first mental reaction to new development is your neighborhood is "Ugh, that's ugly" or "Damn corporate developers" or "What about parking", and especially if that's how you're inclined to speak out at the local level, please do some self-reflection about how that intersects with your other values. How can we drive emissions down if most of us still have to drive everywhere? And, are we in fact being welcoming to immigrants and refugees if none of them can afford to live here?<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="prop10"></a><u>Proposition 10, the Affordable Housing Act: Yes</u><br />
<br />
Rent control is another piece in the puzzle of solving the housing crisis. Right now, a state law, the Costa-Hawkins Act of 1995, bans cities from instituting rent control outside certain tight boundaries. There was a major push at the beginning of this year to repeal it in the Legislature, but this failed: Prop 10 is the same repeal measure that would restore cities' freedom to impose rent control.<br />
<br />
"Wait," you might be saying, "don't we have rent control in cities like Oakland and San Francisco? I've heard of it / I benefit from it myself; why are you saying it's banned?" Yes, there are now 15 cities with a form of rent control that's not banned, but they're prevented from (a) controlling any buildings built after a certain date, mostly in the 70s-80s, (b) controlling rents on single-family homes or condos, and (c) controlling any unit's rent when the tenant vacates it. The most immediate way many cities would take advantage of Prop 10 would be to make rent control kick in at a rolling date following construction: developers could charge whatever they want for the first 10, 15, or 20 years after construction, but thereafter rent increases are limited to inflation for continuing tenants.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
This cause is puzzling to some people I know who pay attention to the economic arguments on the subject. Econ 101 supply and demand curves would predict that controls on prices would decrease construction; there are also semi-controlled <a href="https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/DMQ.pdf">studies</a> finding such an effect in practice in San Francisco.<br />
<br />
But the supply effect, if it exists, is not persuasive. We also have vast undersupply in the parts of the state where there is no rent control - that is, is most of it. Also, undersupply is so massive any negative impact from rent control would be a drop in the bucket - the study I linked suggested a 15% reduction, but that appears to have been a cumulative impact over two decades. So even taking the study at face value, it would independently reduce supply by less than 1% a year; but we build than half of what we should <u>annually</u>!<br />
<br />
Direct action to increase supply by means such as public investment and legalizing density will increase supply by leagues more than rent control could decrease it. And our experience since ending most rent control in 1995 was that, to the extent it increased any supply, it was in the least socially effective way imaginable. Studies also show that rent control helps existing communities avoid being displaced, which makes perfect intuitive sense given current income inequality. In the short run, rent control will fill in some of the housing shortage gap, keeping the housing stock we have more affordable without public subsidy, and rolling dates will add more affordability over time.<br />
<br />
In the long run, we need less reliance on markets and more use of social solidarity to make housing stable and fair. Lots of countries have huge percentages of housing provided publicly or by various kinds of social trusts. Housing can be plentiful and cheap, but only if we stop thinking of it primarily as a vehicle for making money, and treat it as the social infrastructure it is - a human right. Prop 10 takes us a bit further in that direction.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="prop2"></a><u>Proposition 2, the No Place Like Home Act: Yes</u><br />
<br />
Proposition 2 addresses those most severely victimized by the housing crisis: people suffering homelessness. The best way to stop homelessness is to give people housing, no strings attached, regardless of substance issues or anything else. Without homes, people have none of the resources or mental space that give most people at least some chance to turn around their problems. Many of the people now homeless in California were brought there by high rents, which turned what might otherwise just have been job-searching intervals into downward personal spirals. Permanent supportive housing is a different kind of enterprise from the affordable housing funded by Prop 1, and needs its own programs and funding.<br />
<br />
Prop 2 dedicates $2 billion to this cause, funding local projects that create permanent supportive housing units combined with mental health services, for people currently suffering or at risk of homelessness. The state will make grants to cities or counties based on competitive demonstrations of how effective their projects will be; cities will often need to add more funding to the projects. The LAO estimates it will add about 20,000 supportive housing units over ten years, which is nowhere near the full capacity needed (we have over 100,000 people suffering homelessness) but makes a big dent.<br />
<br />
Prop 2 money already being collected, rededicating a portion of the millionaire's tax passed in 2004 to fund mental health services. Many counties have left much of this funding unspent. In fact, the Legislature already tried to start this program using these funds in 2016, but someone sued the state on grounds that it contravened the 2004 initiative text which required the money be spent purely on new mental health services (one of the many operational hazards of ballot-box budgeting). Prop 2 was designed as a workaround: if passed, it will effectively be the people of California saying "No, we're fine with this change, end the lawsuit and start the program right away."<br />
<br />
One principled argument out there against Prop 2 is that the state is not providing enough mental health services to begin with, and redirecting the money will perpetuate this. I'm sympathetic, and agree that it is likely not a lack of need but an excess of bureaucracy that keeps the money from being spent. At the same time, our resources are currently far skewed toward acute and critical care, and we need to put more focus on housing, social supports, and other preventive measures. This seems a highly reasonable step.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="prop5"></a><u>Proposition 5, the "Wealthy Aren't Wealthy Enough" Act: No</u><br />
<br />
I mention Prop 13 a lot partly because it's symbolic of so much wrong with California, and created the harmful requirement of a supermajority for all taxes; but Prop 13 also broke the property tax system specifically. We theoretically charge a flat percentage of property value, but in fact, it's effectively a percentage of value <i>at the time of purchase</i>, that assessed value growing at no more than 2% a year, no matter how much the house's value might rise. That means if you bought a home 30 years ago, it will be taxed as, at most, 81% more, even if its value triples. But if someone else buys your house, their tax bill will reflect the true value - again, in the first year. The 2% growth has not even kept up with inflation.<br />
<br />
Prop 13 was sold as helping low-income homeowners and retirees who might see tax bills rise when incomes did not, but in truth, it mostly helps wealthy homeowners who would otherwise pay the most tax - over 50% of the benefit to households making over $120,000/year (<a href="https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2016/3497/common-claims-prop13-091916.pdf">LAO</a>). That is just on the residential side; corporations also get this treatment for their own property, however large.<br />
<br />
In 2020, look for a measure to finally start reassessing values regularly for commercial properties - "split-roll". Later, we also need to reform the residential side, because that too is deeply inequitable.<br />
<br />
But right this year, Prop 5 is attempting not to reform Prop 13 but to supercharge it, make it benefit more wealthy people by an even greater margin. Since you get more benefit from Prop 13 the longer you keep a home, it creates extra incentive for people not to move. But more ballot measures in the 1980s, by the same anti-taxers, made the benefits "portable" to new homes in limited circumstances. Right now, once in your life, if you are at least 55, you can move a home of lower value, in the same county, and your tax bill will not grow. (Counties can individually choose to allow over-55s moving from another county this value-transfer; <a href="https://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/prop60-90_55over.htm">only 11 do so</a>.)<br />
<br />
Prop 5 says: let's tear down those limitations and allow people to carry these low tax bills around forever. It keeps the 55-year minimum, but lets the transfer go to any county, for any home value, any number of times. So instead of Prop 13 tax limitations acting as a security measure in case people have trouble paying them, it becomes purely a reward for being old and well-off - meaning most often, white. It will also build up dynastic wealth, as other 1980's measures allow low tax assessments to be passed down to one's children and grandchildren.<br />
<br />
The LAO estimates Prop 5 would cut revenues by a few billion dollars a year, much of that loss hitting schools. It was sponsored by realtors, because they thought it would help make the case against split-roll, which was expected to be on the same ballot, but ended up delayed. I suspect it was the realtors specifically because they know it would goose home sales and therefore their fees.<br />
<br />
Prop 5 is utterly deplorable. It takes our existing travesty of a tax system more in the same direction, impoverishing our public resources for no benefit except an elite's. Vote no.<br />
<br />
<b><u>B. Health care measures: Yes on 4 and 8; No on 11</u></b><br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="prop4"></a><b><br /></b><u>Proposition 4, Children's Hospital Bonds: Yes</u><br />
<br />
Prop 4 would sell $1.5 billion to rebuild, refurbish, and equip California's children's hospitals. 90% would go to various named hospitals, while a small portion would be distributed among a larger group of hospitals that care for children with particular serious conditions under a specific subprogram of Medi-Cal.<br />
<br />
In my opinion, children's hospitals due to their constituency get perhaps an overly sweet deal compared to other hospitals and other areas of health care; however, it's undeniable that they provide critical services, especially for some of the sickest children in the state. The seven main children's hospitals treat about 62% of their patients via Medi-Cal, and that program is perpetually under strain. There have been bond packages similar to this one twice before in this century, but that money is now mostly spent, and there are plenty of further good causes to put it to: we're on track to have virtually all hospitals seismically safe by 2020, but then by 2030 we're supposed to have them all functional immediately after a quake. And the measure, although dedicated to specific hospitals, does not just gift them the money: a state authority has to approve the funded projects as reasonable.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="prop8"></a><u>Proposition 8, Fair Pricing for Dialysis Act: Yes</u><br />
<br />
Prop 8 would impose price caps on dialysis providers based on costs. The market for dialysis treatment (for people with end-stage kidney disease) has been gobbled up in California by two behemoths, Fresenius and DaVita, both making billions in profits annually, paying out tens of millions in executive compensation, skimping on staffing and safety, and likely <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-dialysis-20180720-story.html">steering patients to better-paying insurance programs</a> even when that meant worse benefits for the patient.<br />
<br />
Monopoly or oligopoly is a failure state of the "free" market. Without policing, competition can lead to lack of competition, and at that point, all you have is unaccountable private power. The solutions are old but reliable: either split them up until there is real competition, or regulate their prices, practices, and profits until they resemble public utilities. Prop 8 is the latter. It would require dialysis providers to charge no more than 115% of their direct costs of care, meaning they would have to find room within the 15% extra for any administration and profit. (It's very similar to the Medical Loss Ratio imposed on insurance companies by the Affordable Care Act, which made it difficult for them to profit by denying care.)<br />
<br />
The companies being regulated are bad actors with bad track records, and their claims that the law will force clinic closures are not credible. They even have an escape route if parts of the law are overly aggressive: if they can prove in court the law does not allow them a "reasonable rate of return", the courts can relax its limits as necessary.<br />
<br />
It may indeed be the case that this measure was circulated by unions after the dialysis companies rebuffed their organizing attempts, but unionizing these companies would have been socially valuable, and so will this policy be. It is all part of making the state's corporate class realize they are not in the Wild West. They can make money, but it will have to be with a modicum of social responsibility.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="prop11"></a><u>Proposition 11, the Emergency Ambulance Employee Safety and Preparedness Act: No</u><br />
<br />
One rule of thumb from my experience with ballot measures is, Do not approve anything sponsored by a major corporation affecting its own industry. Prop 11 is written and pushed by the private ambulance industry and is dedicated to the proposition that they should be allowed to treat their workers more shittily.<br />
<br />
Under labor laws, all employers have to give their non-exempt employees rest and meal breaks, but historically, ambulance companies would reserve the right to call out their paramedics or EMTs during those breaks, in which case their break would end immediately, they would be paid, and would get another break later to make up for it.<br />
<br />
In 2016, the California Supreme Court ruled that this practice did not follow California labor laws as written. A break means a break, and you are not to be called out of it during that time. If the employer needs more staff to meet demand, let them hire them. After they ran out of appeals, American Medical Response wrote and paid for this proposition to come on the ballot, amending the law to allow this practice that is currently banned. (It also says the practice was always legal, canceling out any back pay the courts may otherwise demand of them.)<br />
<br />
There is also a portion of the bill that requires new employer-paid training in responding to natural disasters, active shooters, and violence prevention for EMTs, as well as mental health services for the EMTs themselves. Ignore this - it is crafted to make the bill look like less of a handout to private interests.<br />
<br />
AMR has now donated or loaned this measure $21.9 million, giving you an idea of how much they think they can make out of bad employment practices. If the "new" requirement were an intolerable burden on the state's finances, they could have persuaded the Legislature to change the labor laws in this way, unions or no unions, but obviously they couldn't. This is easy: vote no.<br />
<br />
<b><u>C. All other measures: transportation, environment, animals, and time itself</u></b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="prop6"></a><u>Proposition 6, the "Let Our Roads Crumble" Act: No</u><br />
<b><br /></b>
This measure revolves around the new gas tax, just as Prop 69 <a href="https://seyanen.blogspot.com/2018/05/ballot-measure-recommendations.html">earlier this year</a> did. To recap, finally recognizing we were chronically underfunding roads, transit, and other transportation infrastructure, the legislature finally passed by a bipartisan two-thirds vote a real increase in the state taxes on gas and diesel, as well as car license fees. The extra tax is 12 cents per gallon of gasoline; the extra fee ranges from $25 to $175 per year depending on your car's fanciness.<br />
<br />
The money is already going to work the way it's supposed to: almost $2 billion <u>each</u> for local streets and state highways, and almost a billion for transit. <a href="http://rebuildingca.ca.gov/">Here's a state website disclosing how it's being used in each community.</a><br />
<br />
But while this hike had bipartisan support, it was only a minority of Republicans who supported it, and so predictably this opportunistic conspiracy of grifters decided this year to seize on it as their signature issue. Screw having roads and bridges, or seniors being able to walk on sidewalks. All I can possibly be expected to care about is what I pay at the pump! (And Republicans are openly saying they hope this will motivate their otherwise-depressed voters to come out for Congressional elections.)<br />
<br />
In addition to vetoing the SB1 revenue, Prop 6 would also change the state constitution to make it even more anti-tax: every increase in gas taxes or vehicle fees would have to go to the ballot, and the Legislature would be barred from passing such measures even when it can muster a two-thirds majority.<br />
<br />
Props 5 and 6 in conjunction are our state equivalent of the Trump tax cuts: I've got mine, everything else can go to hell. Let's take these two initiatives, put them in a box, run a bulldozer over the box, take the box's remains, and set them on fire.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="prop3"></a><u>Proposition 3, the Water Supply and Water Quality Act: Dual recommendation - Yes for impact; No for governance</u><br />
<br />
I went back and forth on this for a long time. In the end I had to craft a new kind of dual recommendation.<br />
<br />
This is another bond measure, raising $8.9 billion. It raises money to fix and improve our infrastructure for collecting, channeling, cleaning, and reprocessing water for drinking, agriculture, and other uses, as well as for cleaning the natural environment, especially where it affects water flow and safety, but also where it affects wildlife habitats.<br />
<br />
It divides its money across several specific agencies for several specific, named projects: restoring SF Bay wetlands; repairing the Oroville dam; funding water systems in disadvantaged communities; restoring Sierra forests; and so forth. It is not really disputed that most of these are worthy causes, but there are problems.<br />
<br />
The first problem is the "who pays" question. Overall, even this amount is small compared to the $30 billion <u>per year </u>we spend collectively on water. But a number of these investments - dams and levees, reservoirs, etc. - directly benefit rich agricultural interests that turn the system's water into cash crops. In an ideal system, a lot more would be asked of them in user fees.<br />
<br />
The second problem is that the proposition is so full of sweetheart measures it resembles Tinder. Its proponent, Jerry Meral, used to work for the state but now acts as a policy entrepreneur. He wrangled many established interests to make a bond that would provide something for everybody's pet project, regardless of merit. One of its worst boondoggles is $750 million to repair the Friant-Kern canal, whose current damage comes from agricultural mismanagement; a smaller-dollar but more offensive section makes sure that some particular water agencies would no longer have to pay into the state greenhouse gas cap-and-trade fund. Possibly related to the coalition making choices like this, key environmental groups like the Sierra Club were completely cut out of the process, and are now in loud opposition.<br />
<br />
As part of this problem, it raises real concerns that its spending is unaccountable. Usually, measures like this leave some limited authority for the Legislature to reallocate money depending on what is proving effective or ineffective, commonly requiring a two-thirds majority and always requiring consistency with the stated intent of the statute. I searched all its 25,000 words for references to the Legislature or amendments, and found nothing that would indicate the legislature has any such authority. The money just goes out and year after year, making the recipients - most often state departments, sometimes local water agencies or other independent authorities - practically tin gods that nothing but a new ballot measure can wrest the money from. The Legislature does have the ability to audit the spending, and elected officials have other avenues of control over these agencies, but regardless, this is just a shoddy way to govern!<br />
<br />
Still, accepting all these critiques, I'm not sure if the many worthy projects in this list are realistically going to happen other ways. Maybe wealthy interests ought to pay more, but I don't see a political movement in the medium term sparking such a major realignment of power in water policy. Which I know is kicking the can down the road, but we have a lot of other cans in front of us right now, so to speak. Given the many infrastructure deficits obvious right now, I worry that a principled "no" vote, saying to the proponents “Try again and do better", while justified, might look later like making the perfect the enemy of the good.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="prop12"></a><u>Proposition 12, the Prevention of Cruelty to Farm Animals Act: Yes</u><br />
<u><br /></u>
This measure would significantly extend humane protections for three farm animals: egg-laying chickens, breeding pigs, and veal calves. By 2022, it would require that eggs sold in the state come from cage-free chickens; that pork be birthed by sows with at least 24 square feet of space; and that veal come from calves with at least 43 square feet of space.<br />
<br />
There was already a successful proposition in 2008 that imposed the basic standard that these animals must have enough space to turn around, sit down, stand up, and extend their limbs; however, as it turned out, the combination of vague writing plus only empowering local law enforcement agencies made it difficult to enforce. Also, it only banned practices in-state, not food from out-of-state made using the same practices, forcing the Legislature to pass a companion law for eggs to put producers on a level playing field. In addition to making the space standards more objective, Prop 12 would empower state agencies to enforce them.<br />
<br />
The motivation for targeting these three animals seems to be that they are the ones with the most disturbingly tight confinement practices. I agree it is not necessarily wrong to eat animals, but given their dependence on us, treating them humanely is the least we can do. It is well within our financial means: the space standards for egg-laying chickens came into full effect in 2015, and while that did slightly increase the price of eggs, we barely felt it.<br />
<br />
Also, practically, concentrated animal feeding operations, it turns out, are not just inhumane, they are also bad agricultural business, part of a flawed market that pushes inevitable consequences such as disease off to the side . So even from a business perspective, these standards likely would have come sooner or later, either voluntarily or by force of law.<br />
<br />
Technically, this measure could have been passed by the Legislature. However, in practice, passage would have been unlikely given the sway of agricultural interests there, so it does not trip my "anticlutter" alarm.<br />
<u><br /></u>
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="prop7"></a><u>Proposition 7, the Daylight Saving Time Repeal Act: Yes</u><br />
<b><br /></b>
This is the least controversial measure going through this year, with no spending expected on either side.<br />
<br />
The name is confusing: it does not repeal Daylight Saving Time. Rather, it takes away an oversevere part of California law preventing any experimentation with DST. For short, think of it as a measure to keep you from having to consider and vote on other measures on the same subject later.<br />
<br />
The longer story is that California came early to DST, as a peacetime measure at least. The voters passed the Daylight Saving Time Act in 1949, making the time change more or less as it does now. <i>Because it's an initiative statute, it cannot be changed without another popular vote </i>- it contained no ability for the Legislature to amend it, even by two-thirds.<br />
<br />
Then, the federal government stepped in. The Uniform Time Act of 1966 gives states two choices only: DST or no DST. It also sets the dates of DST if there is any, which Congress extended to eight months of the year starting 2009.<br />
<br />
Recently, we have been reevaluating DST and wondering if it's all it's cracked up to be. The energy-saving arguments may have been mistaken, and the time change itself causes some harm through disruption. But there's a better case for just extending it year-round: lighter evenings mean more social activity, more economic activity, and possibly even less crime.<br />
<br />
Maybe this is a good idea, maybe it isn't, but if we want to consider any kind of change, we're in a double straitjacket right now. First, Congress would need to vote to give the states more flexibility; and second, California could not take advantage of any such flexibility without changing the DST Act at the ballot box. (Indeed, right now we couldn't even take advantage of our one federally-granted option, eliminating DST as Arizona has.) Prop 7, therefore, would repeal the DST Act as it exists now, and give the Legislature authority to set our time, but only with a two-thirds majority.<br />
<br />
Under Prop 7, if enough debate led to enough consensus, the Legislature could take us off DST, and if federal law also changed, the Legislature could extend it year-round or do something else. This ability is a good thing: we should loosen the straitjacket and let our elected policymakers make policy.<br />
<br />
There are two potential reasons you might vote no: (1) if you think DST is perfect as is, and want to keep it as hard as possible to undo it; or (2) if you don't care for DST but also fear a cycle of experimentation, where the Legislature tries one thing, finds problems, then tries another thing, and another, adding complications to your life you don't need. I myself doubt that would happen, and feel the risk is minor compared to the positive potential of opening up this calcified policy domain.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-318338830925023522.post-82368568724429819632018-05-27T09:20:00.000-07:002018-05-27T09:20:00.284-07:00Ballot recommendations: Oakland/Alameda County, June 2018<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Here are my recommendations on the ballot measures this June 5 that people in Oakland and Alameda County will be voting on - including the Bay Area-wide Regional Measure 3. Please vote, and find the official voter guide <a href="https://www.acvote.org/acvote-assets/02_election_information/PDFs/20180605/en/Voter%20Information%20Guide/Voter%20Information%20Guide%20Composite.pdf">here</a>.<br />
<br />
A summary of my local and statewide recommendations (which were in the <a href="https://seyanen.blogspot.com/2018/05/ballot-measure-recommendations.html">last post</a>):<br />
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoNormalTable" style="background: white; border-collapse: collapse; border: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-insideh: .5pt solid windowtext; mso-border-insidev: .5pt solid windowtext; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 0in 0in; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 191.75pt;" valign="top" width="256">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Measure
number/description</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 0in; width: 71.9pt;" valign="top" width="96">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Jurisdiction<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 105.35pt;" valign="top" width="140">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Utilitarian recommendation</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 98.0pt;" valign="top" width="131">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Anticlutter recommendation</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 191.75pt;" valign="top" width="256">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Measure A:
Childcare/Early Ed Sales Tax <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 0in; width: 71.9pt;" valign="top" width="96">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Alameda County<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 105.35pt;" valign="top" width="140">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Yes<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 98.0pt;" valign="top" width="131">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Yes<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 191.75pt;" valign="top" width="256">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Measure D: Library
Parcel Tax<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 0in; width: 71.9pt;" valign="top" width="96">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Oakland<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 105.35pt;" valign="top" width="140">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Yes<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 98.0pt;" valign="top" width="131">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Yes<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 191.75pt;" valign="top" width="256">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Regional Measure 3:
Transportation Infrastructure Bridges Toll<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 0in; width: 71.9pt;" valign="top" width="96">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Bay Area<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 105.35pt;" valign="top" width="140">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Yes<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 98.0pt;" valign="top" width="131">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Yes<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 191.75pt;" valign="top" width="256">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Prop 68: Bond for
Water, Parks, Environment</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 0in; width: 71.9pt;" valign="top" width="96">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">State<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 105.35pt;" valign="top" width="140">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Yes</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 98.0pt;" valign="top" width="131">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Yes</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 191.75pt;" valign="top" width="256">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Prop 69: Gas Tax
Lockbox</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 0in; width: 71.9pt;" valign="top" width="96">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">State<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 105.35pt;" valign="top" width="140">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">No</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 98.0pt;" valign="top" width="131">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">No</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 191.75pt;" valign="top" width="256">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Prop 70:
Cap-and-Trade Midpoint Redo</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 0in; width: 71.9pt;" valign="top" width="96">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">State<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 105.35pt;" valign="top" width="140">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">No</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 98.0pt;" valign="top" width="131">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">No</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 191.75pt;" valign="top" width="256">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Prop 71: Preventing
Headaches with Effective Date of Ballot Measures</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 0in; width: 71.9pt;" valign="top" width="96">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">State<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 105.35pt;" valign="top" width="140">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Yes</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 98.0pt;" valign="top" width="131">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Yes</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 191.75pt;" valign="top" width="256">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Prop 72: Tax Break
for Rainwater Capture / Storage</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 0in; width: 71.9pt;" valign="top" width="96">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">State<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 105.35pt;" valign="top" width="140">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Yes</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 98.0pt;" valign="top" width="131">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">No</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Thank you for reading.<br />
<br />
I'm hearing from people who are never seeing this when I post it - social media throttles unpaid links down, I think - so <b>if you'd like to be sure not to miss these recommendations when they come, <a href="https://mailchi.mp/84728bac1671/receive-email-updates-for-ballot-recs-other">sign up for email updates here</a></b>.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Measure A, Alameda County: Childcare/Early Ed Sales Tax</b><br />
<br />
Childcare is a basic need for people to have the freedom to participate in the workforce and earn their own living if possible - as fundamental a need as health care. But, with lagging average incomes and rising cost of living, the cost and availability of childcare is completely out of keeping with the level of need for it. $2,000 <i>per month per child</i> is about the norm in my part of the East Bay - it's tantamount to paying rent on another apartment. Many couples find it works out better in the short term for one of them to stay home; but that harms them in other ways, such as by cutting into their career. A situation where one parent is kept out of the labor force can perpetuate abusive relationships; alternatively, being highly dependent on any given job makes employer exploitation easier.<br />
<br />
I tried to put some hard numbers on this. According to the American Community Survey, Alameda County has about 59,000 children ages 0-2. Of those, 8,000 live in households under the federal poverty level - that means, for example, a household of three living on less than $21,000 per year. Of course, that is a restrictive idea of of poverty given the local cost of living; it represents barely even subsistence. If we expand our range a bit, to look at households under 200% of the poverty line, that shows 17,000 babies and toddlers living in poverty or near-poverty households. And the vast majority of these kids are in households with working adults.<br />
<br />
I don't have statistics on the actual childcare situation of these kids, but it's a mathematical certainty that market-rate childcare is out of reach for their families. Relatives, friends, and neighbors can take up some of the slack, but many lack that help; expecting anyone to do so full-time for free is unfair to them; and coordinating a dozen well-wishers is not viable or reliable. Subsidized programs exist, but with long waitlists.<br />
<br />
Preschool and kindergarten have more subsidies applicable available and are not as expensive as childcare, but despite their demonstrated benefit, we still have not closed the gap. There are 60,000 children ages 3-5 in Alameda County. Of those, 19,000 or 31% are <u>not</u> enrolled in any nursery school or preschool; of those, 41% are in poverty or near-poverty, compared to 32% of all kids of this age. (Also, 42% are Hispanic compared to 35% of all kids.)<br />
<br />
Some people I've called on this measure say to the affordability crisis, "shouldn't they have thought about that when they had kids?" That kind of callousness may help them cope personally, but our society needs to let people have and raise children whatever their situation, and that is a basic value, not an economic finding.<br />
<br />
It would be extremely cheap, compared to other social programs, for the federal government to guarantee childcare and early education: it would cost perhaps <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-the-federal-government-should-subsidize-childcare-and-how-to-pay-for-it/">another $16 billion a year</a>, on top of the $26 billion we already spend. But with the federal government in its current state, we in California need to help ourselves for the time being.<br />
<br />
Measure A raises the sales tax countywide by another one-half cent, raising $140 million annually for 30 years. So in Oakland the sales tax would go from its current 9.25% to 9.75%. The elected Board of Supervisors is mandated to use the money to ensure it goes to childcare and early education, with a citizen oversight committee. This would add some thousands of subsidized childcare slots, going a long way toward closing the gap.<br />
<br />
Measure A also addresses childcare and early education as a worker's rights issue. Despite the importance we place on children, we implicitly place low value on those who oversee them: wages are low, and exploitation is frequent. So the measure also empowers the county to target $15/hour as the minimum wage for all childcare providers and early educators (currently it is about $13 in some cities but $11 in most), and to improve the quality of services provided.<br />
<br />
As I have said in past guides, I reluctantly accept ballot-box budgeting when it is part of a measure that simultaneously raises significant revenue for key priorities, and this is just one such measure.<br />
<b><br /></b>
And to repeat myself once more, while the sales tax is somewhat regressive, the benefits this measure provides are highly progressive, targeting people in the most need.<br />
<b><br /></b>
Utilitarian recommendation: <b>Yes</b><br />
Anticlutter recommendation: <b>Yes</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Measure D, Oakland: Library Parcel Tax</b><br />
<br />
This is another measure to keep and to some extent enhance local services. It would assess another $75 per year per single-family house (no matter the value), $51 per apartment unit, and similar amounts on commercial property, with the money going entirely to expanded library services. This is on top of an existing library parcel tax, Measure Q, that expires in 2024, so if I read it correctly, there would be six years of $150/year, then back down to $75 until 2038.<br />
<br />
While I wish we didn't have to spend time thinking about piecemeal measures like this, these two things are both true: (a) libraries are vital public infrastructure and (b) the city government has priorities it understandably assigns more priority, like police, fire, and public works. In the last recession, library services were cut to the bone, but would have gone much lower if not for Measure Q. Since then, its budget has only received minimal increases: the main library on 14th Street closes at 5:30 five days a week. Measure D should help restore the libraries' health as we get back to a saner tax structure statewide, or, depending how things go, possibly keep them from being a casualty in the next recession.<br />
<br />
Parcel taxes are a strange, semi-regressive collection mechanism, but my understanding is cities are limited in the types of taxes they can assess. It is difficult (impossible?) to make it a per valorem property tax - scaling up with property value - unless the measure is to finance bonds. Since the purpose in this case is operations, not infrastructure, bonds would be inappropriate. And there are exemptions on this tax for low-income homeowners.<br />
<b><br /></b>
Utilitarian recommendation: <b>Yes</b><br />
Anticlutter recommendation: <b>Yes</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Regional Measure 3: Transportation Infrastructure Bridges Toll </b><br />
<br />
Vital transportation infrastructure around the Bay Area, both public transit and roads, continue to suffer from chronic underfunding and need urgent investment. RM3 is another piece in this puzzle, but uses bridge tolls to collect some of the revenue, as opposed to a new tax.<br />
<br />
Ideally, the federal government would be kicking in the majority of this funding - backed by a combination of gas taxes and income taxes. Right now, we're in "help ourselves" territory.<br />
<br />
RM3 would increase tolls in all the Bay Area bridges by $1 in 2019, another $1 in 2022, and a further $1 in 2025. This means the Bay Bridge would go from its current $6 (rush-hour price) to $7 and eventually $9. The Carquinez, Dumbarton, San Mateo-Hayward, Richmond-San Rafael, Antioch, and Benicia-Martinez Bridges would go to $6 and eventually $8. There would be no change to the Golden Gate Bridge, which a different agency runs.<br />
<br />
The money raised would come to about $125 million a year for each dollar of toll, so $375 million/year after the last hike. Some would support public transit operations, but most would become payments on a large bond package, letting us spend about $4.5 billion upfront on infrastructure.<br />
<br />
According to their plan, about 60% of that $4.5 billion is planned to go to improvements to public transit: more and better BART cars, ferries, buses, transit stations, etc. Most impressively, it would help fund the completion of BART to San Jose, a critical gap at the moment, and on the other end, finally connect Caltrain to BART in downtown San Francisco. The other 40% would go to road projects to improve congestion and reduce bottlenecks, like adding carpool lanes, improving interchanges, and reducing truck traffic.<br />
<br />
The projects are worthy. Is the means of raising the money worthy? I have friends who are deeply concerned about the regressivity, the people who will actually have to pay that $3 a day. And they have a point: unlike sales taxes, which are broadly spread across everybody, this impact is concentrated onto a smaller group of people. At the moment, there is no toll relief program for low-income commuters (there hopefully will be, but I can't be sure). Critics also point out that concentrated wealth like Silicon Valley will benefit as much as commuters, and a better transit measure would reflect that benefit in how it raises money.<br />
<br />
I agree the measure could be better crafted - they should have nailed down the low-income assistance beforehand - but think in the end it does much more good than harm. Looking at the data, I see that (a) relatively few low-income people will in fact paying these tolls, (b) many more are helped by expanding and improving public transit, and (c) there are many methods for affected individuals to reduce the tolls' impact, and these methods tend to be win-win for them, their lives, and the environment.<br />
<br />
Looking at the public microdata release from the US Census that allows random people like me to do this kind of analysis, in the 2012-16 period, out of 3.8 million workers in the Bay Area, about 346,000 make the crossings that - if they drive - require these bridges.* Of those, 224,000 use cars, and of those, 27,000 are below 200% of the federal poverty level. So there is a material number of people for whom this amount could be a real bite.<br />
<br />
But I think they will be fewer than this 27,000. More expensive bridge tolls are similar to a congestion charge, in that they make people's use of a scarce resource (the crowded bridge and SF's crowded streets) more limited, when they need it, as opposed to out of habit. It also incentivizes carpooling via the 50% toll discount. Surprisingly, despite this discount, only 21% of bridge-commuting drivers carpooled in 2012-2016 according to my data, and only 28% of the low-income group did. The price jump could well tip the scales so that many more people figure out carpooling, more consciously limit their bridge crossings, or switch to public transit, blunting the financial impact.<br />
<br />
I am <u>not</u> saying that it's low-income people's own fault if they choose not to carpool: their experience is not mine, and I know poverty batters people down with daily emergencies and stressors, often leaving little ability to make regular arrangements or advance planning. But still, a good share of those 27,000 low-income car commuters will likely adjust over a few years, and that adjustment could improve their lives in many other ways (cars themselves are expensive and stressful).<br />
<br />
The number of low-income people who will benefit from RM3 is far greater. 74,000 low-income workers currently commute by bus, rail, or ferry. There are 213,000 low-income people who don't have a fixed place of work, and who also don't have a car - this includes people with disabilities, the unemployed or irregularly employed, students, retirees - and this group has a great and pressing need for public transit. And 420,000 low-income workers drive to work without going over one of these bridges; a large chunk of them may be able to switch to transit due to the RM3 projects, or see less congestion when they do drive.<br />
<br />
And in the grand scheme, working toward less driving and more efficient driving is critical to limiting carbon emissions and pointing the way toward a future world with as little global warming damage as possible.<br />
<br />
Finally, I want to counter one distributional objection: that San Jose and Santa Clara County are getting transit projects out of proportion to the tolls their residents pay. The fact is, the biggest such projects, BART to San Jose and expansion of Diridon Station, also help residents of other counties who commute there. I think the resource allocation properly reflects full-region thinking, knitting everyone closer together. We can and should also increase taxes on the higher-income to continue to fill the gap, but alongside, not instead of, a toll increase.<br />
<br />
Utilitarian recommendation: <b>Yes</b><br />
Anticlutter recommendation: <b>Yes</b><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">* I defined bridge crossings as the following combinations of residence county / workplace county, in either direction:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Bay Bridge: Alameda, Contra Costa, San Joaquin, and Solano / San Francisco</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">San Mateo or Dumbarton Bridge: Alameda, Contra Costa, San Joaquin, and Solano / San Mateo</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Richmond/San Rafael Bridge: Marin and Sonoma / Contra Costa, Alameda, and Solano</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Carquinez, Benicia-Martinez, or Antioch Bridge: Solano and Napa / Alameda and Contra Costa</span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-318338830925023522.post-90874045156613442452018-05-08T08:10:00.004-07:002018-05-08T11:33:36.569-07:00Ballot measure recommendations: Statewide, June 2018<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The statewide ballot measures up in June 2018 are sedate and understated by comparison with November 2016, but there are some stinkers </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">hidden</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">among them.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />As usual, I offer dual recommendations for you to consider - one recommending a “yes” for anything with objective benefit (“utilitarian”), the second also weighing whether it needed to be a ballot measure to come to fruition (“anticlutter”). The second is meant for people willing to vote “no” to punish backers for wasting the public’s time on something only slightly good.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Statewide voter guide here.</a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> If you read it, prioritize reading the Legislative Analyst’s explanations over the pro and con arguments.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Summary of what you will find below:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 257.4pt;" valign="top" width="343">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Measure number/description<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 117.0pt;" valign="top" width="156">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Utilitarian
recommendation<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.45in;" valign="top" width="139">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Anticlutter
recommendation<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 257.4pt;" valign="top" width="343">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Prop 68: Bond for Water,
Parks, Environment<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 117.0pt;" valign="top" width="156">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Yes<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.45in;" valign="top" width="139">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Yes<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 257.4pt;" valign="top" width="343">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Prop 69: Gas Tax Lockbox<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 117.0pt;" valign="top" width="156">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">No<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.45in;" valign="top" width="139">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">No<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 257.4pt;" valign="top" width="343">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Prop 70: Cap-and-Trade
Midpoint Redo<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 117.0pt;" valign="top" width="156">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">No<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.45in;" valign="top" width="139">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">No<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 257.4pt;" valign="top" width="343">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Prop 71: Preventing Headaches
with Effective Date of Ballot Measures<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 117.0pt;" valign="top" width="156">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Yes<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.45in;" valign="top" width="139">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Yes<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 257.4pt;" valign="top" width="343">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Prop 72: Tax Break for
Rainwater Capture / Storage<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 117.0pt;" valign="top" width="156">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Yes<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.45in;" valign="top" width="139">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">No<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Coming up in a week or two: Alameda County Measure A, Oakland Measure D, and Regional Measure 3 (Bay toll).</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /><b>Proposition 68: Bond for Parks, Water, Environment</b><br /><br />Under this proposition, California would borrow $4 billion to spend on various causes regarding the natural world - in ways to help humans specifically, the state’s environment generally, and to make the interaction between the two healthier. Of the money, about 38% would go to wildlife, habitat, and waterway preservation and improvements; 31% to state and local parks and trails; and the remaining 31% to water resilience - flood protection, groundwater protection and cleanup, and drinking water improvements.<br /><br />These are all good causes that have labored under generations of underfunding. And there is value in paying for them by borrowing, as opposed to merely taxing: getting the money up front lets us fill in the infrastructure gaps and lay the groundwork for a better future economy.<br /><br />There’s also a level of urgency to this spending: how well situated will we be if <a href="http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-leslie-californias-contaminated-water-20170504-story.html">more Flints start popping up</a> across the state? Or if <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article170234577.html">floods overwhelm Sacramento</a>? Borrowing costs rose a bit in 2017, but they are still historically low (about 3%): investors are happy to park money with us while we use it.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">From the perspective of whether this is clutter, this kind of bond does unfortunately require voter approval under the state constitution, so it did need to go on the ballot to happen. (Hey, wacky idea: how about we let the Legislature approve new bonds on its own authority as long as they are not projected to increase total state debt-to-GDP ratio? Bond packages have a lifespan, after all; these bonds we vote on are often just replacing old packages that were paid off; and we know some level of debt is part of a healthy government’s functioning.)<br /><br /><span style="color: black; font-size: 11pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Utilitarian recommendation: </span><span style="color: black; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Yes</span><br /><span style="color: black; font-size: 11pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Anticlutter recommendation: </span><span style="color: black; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Yes</span><br /><br /><b>Proposition 69: Gas Tax Lockbox</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />Last year, California’s policymakers did something they rarely do: came together with a two-thirds vote to approve new tax revenue for transportation under Senate Bill 1 - that is, approved a significant new tax without consulting voters directly. A good piece of this revenue came from diesel fuel (trucks) and the fossil fuel industry (storage fees), but yes, a big chunk of it is from taking about 12 cents more tax per gallon of gas, as well as some car registration fee hikes, scaled up the more expensive your car is. The money from SB1 is already being used to fix local streets and roads as well as state highways, repair bridges and culverts, improve public transit and ports, and more.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />Is it the right way? Yes, it is entirely appropriate to partially fund road infrastructure with user fees, just as we partially fund public transit with fares. Current gas taxes are historically low as inflation has eaten them away; SB1 indexes taxes to inflation going forward. And it’s fair. I’m now a car owner, but I still see that car owners have been getting a sweet deal from the government for a long time, expecting the existence of streets, parking, and highways without having to pay for them. In fact to maintain this “deal,” we have allowed our roads and entire transportation system to slowly deteriorate over a generation. The new taxes and fees redress that balance somewhat; more is likely required in the future.<br /><br />Under the constitution, to pass all this without going to the voters (thanks, Prop 13), the Legislature had to find a two-thirds majority, which meant going to Republicans. Enough Republicans did eventually come around because even they see the desperate need for road funding. But somewhere it was decided, either as part of the deal or as part of the plans to defend the tax going forward, that this constitutional amendment needed to be added afterward, and that’s how we got Prop 69.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Prop 69 is <b>not </b>a vote that would confirm or repeal the tax itself. (That may be coming in November as a GOP-sponsored referendum.) It merely makes the state constitution guarantee that the money must continue to go to transportation purposes, just as the law currently states, but preventing the Legislature from changing its mind in the future.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Sounds reasonable? No, not really. Let me recite from the hymnal. Ballot-box budgeting doesn’t work. Every little constraint attached to every new source of funding adds to a huge quicksand of restrictions the Legislature and Governor - the people we supposedly elect to manage the system as a whole - must wade through at frequent intervals, especially in recessions. Besides the practical problems, it comes from an inherently Republican, reactionary ideology: the idea that government inherently mismanages money and that we must hold it at arm’s length, cram it in a box, forbid it from doing whatever irks us at the moment. </span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It’s true that government can curdle and go bureaucratic and ineffective; but while you can pass laws against corruption, you can’t ban inefficiency or mismanagement. Instead, we need to stridently and inconveniently demand the provision of vital services and hold account the people we elect to find sustainable ways to pay for them.<br /><br />For full disclosure, while I oppose Prop 69, a wide range of left-leaning organizations do support it, and there is an argument that passing it might hurt the case for Republicans’ SB1 repeal measure in November.<br /><br /><span style="color: black; font-size: 11pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Utilitarian recommendation:</span><span style="color: black; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"> No</span><br /><span style="color: black; font-size: 11pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Anticlutter recommendation: </span><span style="color: black; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">No</span><br /><br /><b>Prop 70: Cap-and-Trade Midpoint Redo</b><br /><br />This is another “restrain how revenue can be used” measure, but more convoluted than 69.<br /><br />California has led the country with a cap-and-trade program to make corporations pay for their carbon generation. It needs to be stepped up to make carbon appropriately expensive and reduce loopholes, but it points the way forward. In 2017, Democrats successfully prevented it from sunsetting, extending it in more or less its current form through 2030. Again, they needed two-thirds support, and so again they had to enlist a lot of centrists and Republicans.<br /><br />Prop 70 would not dedicate cap-and-trade revenue to particular purposes. Instead, it would trigger a new vote in the Legislature in 2024 to confirm how the revenues are being used, with two-thirds support that one time only. (Normally a mere majority can pass a budget allocating funds.) The idea is that if the Democratic majority has been allocating money in objectionable non-consensus ways, they only have six years, and a minority can force the allocation to become more reasonable in 2024.<br /><br />This was specifically an Assembly Republican leader’s condition on supporting cap-and-trade renewal, his goal being to torpedo high-speed rail funding at that later date. However, the Republicans thought they had gotten the Democratic Party’s agreement to support the proposition, and in fact while Democrats did vote to put it on the ballot, only Jerry Brown has come out in support since then.<br /><br />It has no carrots, only built-in sticks directed against both left and right to help guarantee some compromise be reached. If no agreement passes with two-thirds support in 2024, the funds keep being collected but pile up in the Treasury, unspendable (bad for Democrats). At the same time, it also triggers a change in tax law that would jack up sales taxes on manufacturers (bad for business interests and Republicans).<br /><br />This is ballot-box budgeting, but it’s also downright strange with its too-clever-by-half machinations. If passed, I assess a 75% chance it has no effect and a 25% chance it backfires horribly. I recommend a no vote as much out of pity as anything else.<br /><br /><span style="color: black; font-size: 11pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Utilitarian recommendation: </span><span style="color: black; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">No</span><br /><span style="color: black; font-size: 11pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Anticlutter recommendation: </span><span style="color: black; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">No</span><br /><br /><b>Prop 71: Preventing Headaches with the Effective Date of Ballot Measures</b><br /><br />This is one of those rarities, a constitutional amendment that really is a minor technical tweak with little to no political implications, just helping the machinery of government work a little better.<br /><br />Right now, if the voters pass a new law in an election, and if the law doesn’t say otherwise, its effective date is right after the vote - the day after Election Day. So for example, when Prop 64 won in 2016, holding, sharing, and growing small amounts of marijuana was legal under state law on Wednesday, November 9. But what if Prop 64 had been a squeaker instead of winning decisively? With more vote-by-mail ballots every year, the vote taking longer and longer after Election Day to count, it could have meant weeks of legal limbo. People could have been arrested under one law and have it later turn out the law was not in effect. And all these headaches are entirely preventable. Prop 71 very simply waits to put any ballot measure into effect until the Secretary of State officially certifies the vote, a maximum of a 38-day wait.<br /><br />I will note that sometimes these technical changes help us more than we can predict. In June 2016, the electorate gave the Legislature power to expel its members for misconduct. At the time, we were thinking of corruption cases. But this year, three state legislators have resigned due to sexual harassment charges, and for one of them, the threat of imminent expulsion was a motivator. So let’s do our future selves a favor and pass this fix.<br /><br /><span style="color: black; font-size: 11pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Utilitarian recommendation: </span><span style="color: black; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Yes</span><br /><span style="color: black; font-size: 11pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Anticlutter recommendation: </span><span style="color: black; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Yes</span><br /><br /><b>Prop 72: Tax Break for Rainwater Capture and Storage</b><br /><br />Despite the drought being technically over, we know water supply will be a problem in California for the foreseeable future. One way to adapt to a warmer climate with less snow and more rain is to install rainwater catchment systems (RCS) that generate nonpotable water for uses like irrigation: tanks or cisterns set up to collect all the runoff from a roof or other areas. So there’s certainly environmental value in adding subsidies to lower the price of RCS.<br /><br />Promoting RCS is the idea behind Prop 72, but it goes about it entirely the wrong way, by writing into the constitution that the Legislature may exempt the value of RCS from property tax. The pricetag? Only a few million dollars a year, in the LAO’s estimate. The Legislature and Governor find that level of budget room for little programs like this all the time, and could have done the same in this case. This minuscule amount of spending in no way, shape, or form needed to take up our attention on the ballot.<br /><br />Putting it in the Constitution also ignores the need to test and tweak. What is the best way to encourage RCS? Should it be dollar amounts, or a flat percentage? Should it be paid up front when someone buys the system as with solar panels, or slowly over years? Should we spend more on subsidizing it on private property, or on directly building larger, public RCS? This is exactly the kind of question voters should not be asked, a big reason we have representative government, because this kind of work is boring and tedious and needs specialists and the ability to course-correct.<br /><br />I suspect this proposition was written for the benefit of one person, State Senator Steve Glazer, who got his name in big letters backing this bit of feelgoodism in the voter guide.<br /><br />It is true that taken on its own it would probably be a benefit to the environment, technically, and on a tiny scale, making RCS pencil out a bit better for homeowners. So it’s a textbook example of how an anticlutter recommendation can clash with a utilitarian one.<br /><br /><span style="color: black; font-size: 11pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Utilitarian recommendation: </span><span style="color: black; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Yes</span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Anticlutter recommendation: </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">No</span></div>
</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-318338830925023522.post-80112801585962296352018-05-01T09:42:00.003-07:002018-05-01T09:42:31.897-07:00What's the Deal with Ranked-Choice Voting in the Bay<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
The cities of Oakland, San Francisco, Berkeley, and
San Leandro all use the new method of Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV) to elect most
of their city officials. But in my experience, even if you live in one of those
places, you likely have only a rough handle of how that specific system works.
Which is a shame, because it’s a distinct improvement over most existing United
States methods and could be a key part of an improved future structure. In this
blog post I’m going to relate in simple terms how it works, what it looks like
in practice, and how to make your vote count the most in these elections -
especially the upcoming one for San Francisco Mayor. I’ll wrap up with some
thoughts about how it might be improved.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<br />
<b>1. How it works</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
Put in words, RCV in California works like this:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">Everyone can vote for up to three candidates in
their order of preference: first choice, second choice, third choice. (I’m
going to abbreviate these votes as #1, #2, and #3.</li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">We start by counting up the #1s. If one candidate
gets a majority (50% plus one), they win and there’s no need to go any
further.</li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">If nobody has 50%, you look to the candidate with
the fewest #1s and eliminate that candidate. Take all the people who
picked that candidate #1 and change their votes to count for their #2s.</li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">If one of the candidates now has a majority after
reallocating, stop: they’ve won.</li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">If not: repeat. Keep eliminating candidates, from
lowest vote total to highest, until you have someone with more than 50% of
the vote (diving into the #3s if necessary). </li>
</ul>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
Or to put it in pictures, here’s a simple
illustrative video:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_5SLQXNpzsk/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_5SLQXNpzsk?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
Where do we use this system now? In all the four
cities I listed, for Mayor and City Council (or SF’s Board of Supervisors
equivalent); and, in Oakland only, for School Board.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
Other races in California use different systems.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
For State Legislature, US Congress, and statewide
races like Governor, it’s the <span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration-line: none;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Top-two_primary">top-two, or“jungle” primary</a></span>; for county races like District Attorney and
Supervisor, it’s yet another system; and then there are judgeships and a wide
variety of miscellaneous offices. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
For those in San Francisco, the special mayoral
election on June 5th will use the RCV system; but all the four cities will have
many more races under that system this November.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
You see in theory how the system would combine
everyone’s preferences more reasonably. If candidate A got 40% of the vote, B
got 35%, and C got 25%, but all of the C supporters preferred B over A, it
would be the right result to elect B over A.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
(I personally think this is a major hidden contributor
to US dysfunctionality, that in most of the country the top vote-winner, like candidate A,
wins outright. It’s a system that elevates the loudest voice in the room. Did
Trump really “win” states where he got 48% of their vote? But that’s a rant for
another time.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b>2. What we see</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
So that’s the theory. What about the practice? To
hear some describe it, RCV has meant disaster, or at least disastrous
confusion.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
I’ve dived into the data and found that, first of
all, in most local elections, it doesn’t make a big difference either way - or
rather, can’t. Over seven years, 2010-17, out of 99 races, 64 either were
unopposed, had only two candidates running, or had more candidates but one
received 50%. In 28 of the remaining 35, the initial #1 vote-winner still won
after reallocating all the votes. After all, usually, the most popular pick
really is most popular, because the rest of the public isn’t mad at them. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
But the exceptions are important.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
Many people were surprised at Jean Quan’s squeaker
victory for Mayor of Oakland in 2010, which would not have happened in another
system. She, of course, had a lackluster one-term mayoralty but that’s pure
hindsight. Based on what the electorate knew at the time, she was a
reasonable choice, especially compared to Don Perata, the frontrunner and #1
winner, who very much represented politics as usual. Here is a rough animation
I made of how she accumulated the votes:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikg2US3B4w73T6v5gJ1Vehf-G4UiuWDzyesfHT4RckOuUvhb2wix8N4SwyZ9IiAiQGP9C3ou_4MNoA5XzGwXbXqRc5o16TPnkcr42J3dQVEqJWXmKPjgwigFcHOa2FzcXCkRv_C-FOeLQ/s1600/2010oakmayoranimation.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikg2US3B4w73T6v5gJ1Vehf-G4UiuWDzyesfHT4RckOuUvhb2wix8N4SwyZ9IiAiQGP9C3ou_4MNoA5XzGwXbXqRc5o16TPnkcr42J3dQVEqJWXmKPjgwigFcHOa2FzcXCkRv_C-FOeLQ/s1600/2010oakmayoranimation.gif" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<o:p><br /></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
The “margin” tracker at the bottom of this
animation shows how Quan started well behind Perata, but the gap shrunk almost
every time votes were reallocated, indicating she kept getting more #2 or #3
support. Importantly, the Tuman #1 voters preferred Quan over Perata by a 39%
to 22% margin; among Kaplan #1 voters, it was a wider and decisive margin of
62% to 20%. We saw this in how the campaign was run: Quan, Tuman, and Kaplan
spoke well of each other, suggesting supporters rank the others after them -
implicitly against Perata as a common rival, elevating the similarities in
coalition rather than the divisions in their majority.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
As I see it, whatever else happened in the
election, the voice of the people was heard like never before. Without RCV, the
clashing cacophony of voices would have left the status quo the strongest of
them all. With RCV, it turned into a new kind of harmony.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
To be fair, there have also been RCV elections with
less clear results, especially when the number of candidates gets bewildering.
In SF District 10, in 2010, there were a whopping 22 candidates, and the top
three got literally 12% each. In the end, Malia Cohen, who had originally
placed third, won, but a large number of ballots couldn’t count at all because
so many people voted for three candidates none of whom were in the top three.
(In this case their ballots were “exhausted”.) <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
There are technical solutions to the problem of
exhausting ballots, but they come at the expense of people voting, of their time and energy.
Theoretically, if everyone ranked every candidate running, no matter how many
there were, no ballot would ever get exhausted. But even if the balloting
system allowed this, who would bother filling in so many choices? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
But having as many candidates as 2010 D10 is is
rare, and even then it doesn’t assure confusion. In 2014, there were 16 running
for Oakland Mayor, but frontrunner Libby Schaaf’s victory was much more obvious
and well-determined. For the more minor cases, it should go a long way to expand the space from three to six ranks.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
I also see, looking at the history of RCV, that
being unpopular doesn’t eliminate the advantage of having the most
#1 votes. You have to be pretty broadly unpopular to lose despite that initial
advantage. Desley Brooks in Oakland D6 was a fairly weak incumbent in her reelection race in 2014, and all three challengers had cross-support,
the kind of voting behavior that can make it easier for RCV to turn out
incumbents. But Brooks’s initial edge was still too strong to overcome: she
started with 42% of the initial vote to her competitor Nosakhare’s 30%, and
while she lost margin with every reallocation, she still won in the end, in
another squeaker, 52% to 48%. The initial advantage also meant she needed less help
to make it over the top.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
When I look at the full range of outcomes RCV has
had, I think on balance it most often works the way it was designed. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
How does RCV compare to the top-two system the rest
of the state is trying this decade? To be fair, top-two can let multiple
candidates with majority support to defeat another candidate with plurality
support. In my example 40-35-25 race between A, B, and C, top-two would send
just A and B to a runoff election in which C supporters could switch their
support to B, and win 60-40. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
But RCV has big advantages over top-two. First, it eliminates the need for that initial primary election that selects two candidates. A single election requires less fundraising,
giving more space to insurgent or grassroots candidates. Under top-two, after
knocking out C, A might have ground down B in a long, expensive campaign; in RCV, this is harder. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
Second, RCV results are more logical in how they
combine voter preferences, while top-two more often has perverse outcomes in
multi-candidate races. If you have 4 candidates each getting almost exactly 25%
of the vote, it can be practically random which two make the top cut; you can
get two from the same party even when the parties are relatively evenly
matched. <a href="http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-top-two-primary-changes-analysis-20180319-story.html">This is a risk congressional Democrats are extra-worried about this year.</a> It was the same kind of perversity in France in 2002 where, using
the same system for president, only 17% of the first-round vote was enough to
send the racist Le Pen to the second round because the left ran too many
candidates. That kind of outcome is not rare at all in top-two. Why keep
subjecting ourselves to that?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<b>3. How to make your vote count the most</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
Now, some practical tips. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
If you want to have the most possible say over who
wins, your best bet is to rank all three choices with different people. That
gives you the greatest chance at helping someone you want to win - or helping
avoid someone you don’t want.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
Don’t “bullet-vote”, or mark the same person three
times. It doesn’t give super-support to the candidate. It works out just as if
you marked that person one time and no more. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
Mark the ballot correctly: the same list of
candidates will appear three times, once for each choice you have. You need to
mark one choice on each list, not three choices each on the same list.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
If you have a wider field with five or more
candidates, do some research and try to find which candidates are more
prominent and likely to win. Try to find at least one acceptable person who is
likely to make it to the final rounds. If you find three longshots - which is
not uncommon around here! - voting for all three of them will likely get your
ballot nowhere. Two longshots? Sure, if you like, but maybe save your #3 slot for someone
with a chance. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<b>4. What can be improved</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
Although I think RCV is much better than
alternatives currently in political conversation, it’s clear there’s room for
improvement. Right now it’s normal for only 60-70% of voters to rank two or
three distinct choices: some spoil their ballots, and some vote for just one
candidate. I have wondered if this might effectively disenfranchise more
disadvantaged voters, because they have less time and leisure to figure
everything out; I have data analysis in the works on this subject, but so far,
the evidence is far from clear-cut.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
But even if it doesn’t harm disadvantaged voters
disproportionately, the currently low level of effective voting is a problem.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
Certainly, voter education is important. Public
organs and candidates need to explain better how to make your vote count
(amazingly, some candidates reputedly spread the word to rank them and only
them); ballot machines could also check for errors and let people confirm that
what they’ve put in is how they want to vote. But there’s a limit to how far
education can go. How many people have the time or, frankly, the interest to
figure out how they feel about every single candidate? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
We might consider more active measures to prevent a
bewildering number of candidates from running; for example, signature requirements
could rise selectively, such as, only if the number of candidates exceeded six. But this kind of countermeasure also shuts newcomers out.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<u>My big crazy reform idea is <i>delegated choices</i>.</u>
Imagine if candidate X could certify before the election: “If I’m eliminated, I
want my support to go first to Y, then to Z.” Then voters can still rank-order
any three candidates like always, but if all they’ve decided is they like X,
they can check a box saying “distribute the rest of my votes the way X wants“.
Similar to the old straight-party-ticket option, but more granular. Other
organizations, like parties or coalitions, could also put their slates as
options on the ballot.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
In June, San Francisco will have an open mayoral
race for the first time since it started RCV. Hopefully, coalitions will form
in productive and instructive ways, and we will further build on the potential
for RCV to bring people together.</div>
</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-318338830925023522.post-72011407231749630062017-03-12T22:44:00.000-07:002017-03-13T08:56:04.797-07:00Knowing and Fighting the American Health Care Act<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I’m writing this for people who want to know with the ACA (Obamacare) repeal: What on earth is going on? How much trouble are we really in? And is there anything I can do about it?</span></div>
<b id="docs-internal-guid-5008e596-c62e-b02f-b038-98615a44c6d2" style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Fundamentally, of course, nobody really knows what’s going on - it’s all a blur of </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zippy_the_Pinhead" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Republicans and meat</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. And even then, don’t take my word as that of an insider’s; I’m working mostly from media informed by policy knowledge.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The short story is that:</span></div>
<ul style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: disc; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Republicans are putting in all their chips in a plan that would throw millions off health insurance and suck dry the income and savings of those who manage to keep it - that last even if they avoid tanking the whole insurance market.</span></div>
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: disc; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Because their policies are an incoherent mishmash of resentment and rapacity, they do not actually have a coherent master plan, or a way to bridge the gap between what different members of their caucus want, but the associated tax cuts on the rich are powerfully attractive to them.</span></div>
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: disc; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">They know their plan is risky, which is why they’re speeding it through the process and bulldozing their own dissenters. Sunshine and debate are their enemies.</span></div>
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: disc; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Pressure on congressional Republicans is still worth the effort. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Please continue to go to townhalls (including “empty-chair” pseudo-townhalls), make phone calls, go to rallies, and write letters if you are the constituent of a congressional Republican </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- they may act like they’re not listening, but it’s still part of the calculus they have to work within. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Success may not feel like it as they will not acknowledge your pressure even if they bow to it in the end. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This work is not going to be easy. </span></div>
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: disc; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If you are only represented by Democrats, share your story, talk to friends and relatives who might be moved to contact their own Republicans, and be part of the groups pushing the Republican administration in other ways. </span></div>
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: disc; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.fightforhealthcare.org/#action" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Links for taking action here.</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Here is a new compendium of </span><a href="https://townhallproject.com/" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">town hall events</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. If you have money you want to spend, help </span><a href="https://electjon.com/" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Jon Ossoff</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> take Tom Price’s vacated district in Georgia, which would be a powerful symbol.</span></div>
</li>
</ul>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Those are the highlights. Below are the details of the big picture we’re facing, what the GOP bill does and what else the GOP has in store, and their internal politics we unfortunately have to push within.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Ryan’s “American Health Care Act”, or AHCA, does many things; they all boil down to “them as has, gets, them as hasn’t, doesn’t”, and an overt hostility to the idea that health care is a right.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Of the three biggest changes it makes, the first two are to Medicaid, which is run at the state level and is not at its core private insurance. The last is to the subsidized private insurance system for those at relatively higher income levels, which the media focuses on more. I give Medicaid pride of place because it serves the most low-income and vulnerable nationwide. Under the AHCA:</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<ol style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Working people whom the Medicaid </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">expansion</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> under the ACA brought into coverage are pushed out from 2020 onward. They are not directly kicked off, but the 90% federal matching funds that were part of the 2010 deal are ratcheted way down. (Imagine your landlord saying “No, I’m not evicting you, you’re perfectly free to stay as long as you can afford a 150% rent increase.”) Very few states - even California! - are prepared to come up with the huge amounts of money this would take.</span></div>
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The rest of Medicaid, which covers low-income families with children, seniors, and people with disabilities, is slashed slowly but relentlessly from 2020 in the form of a “per capita cap”. The basic concept of this cap is “If medical costs grow faster than we’d like, we lop off the excess, and the vulnerable can just fend for themselves”. This is likely going to be coupled with future bills giving states the “flexibility” to throw more of these groups out of coverage, and to institute arbitrary and humiliating bars to enrollment like drug tests, work requirements, or monthly premiums. It’s a recipe to cripple Medicaid as a whole, which is as much a core of the safety net as Medicare.</span></div>
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">For people with relatively more income who now get subsidized private insurance, this slashes their subsidies to the bone and takes away any linkage to income and local prices; subsidies are still there, but at an extremely inadequate level, and varying only lightly by age (</span><a href="http://kff.org/interactive/tax-credits-under-the-affordable-care-act-vs-replacement-proposal-interactive-map/" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">impact maps</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">). Instead of the individual mandate as a tool to keep healthier and younger people in the risk pool, it adds a 30% surcharge to premiums for those who have a break in coverage, no matter the reason. It begins the project, which future laws would build on, of dismantling the entire regulatory structure that makes private health insurance anything a like good deal at the moment - so insurers could stop covering maternity, stop covering mental health, and impose half a hundred new roadblocks before they pay any claims, all with the GOP’s blessing. </span></div>
</li>
</ol>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4VGLqfy4_EnGJu7Vn4Y7V72x7f-IeIdQYGeAYq7ELU92X55BOCVpATFHpyWpDrvT1RKnvXE3E59WGTtz9JZ4NSGzT8qS11fAk9VpXwZCvPbV1-xQ1Sx5hIsOl7apjih5TQaEvy49jP2s/s1600/percent+mchip.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="441" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4VGLqfy4_EnGJu7Vn4Y7V72x7f-IeIdQYGeAYq7ELU92X55BOCVpATFHpyWpDrvT1RKnvXE3E59WGTtz9JZ4NSGzT8qS11fAk9VpXwZCvPbV1-xQ1Sx5hIsOl7apjih5TQaEvy49jP2s/s640/percent+mchip.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><img height="468" src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/ZOF5v5MThKOPS1OiomxLmbMHidzzdH5Vmy64Psfpakaz7-U2NXk6v3Pe0_w0t8RIhmC9-ESA15X9ZceK5MVILkqFX3c_lqEhw_YBWLIfSnjUeKszAiSIzzrtQ1SPDg4lq46PQ9OI" style="-webkit-transform: rotate(0.00rad); border: none; transform: rotate(0.00rad);" width="624" /></span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">As has been heavily discussed elsewhere, what the Republicans clearly see as the crux, it repeals all the tax increases on the very high-income individuals the ACA levied to pay for it all - so it was best described, by the former head of Medicare/Medicaid, as as </span><a href="https://twitter.com/ASlavitt/status/838944463682686976" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">“a tax cut funded by gutting Medicaid”</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Medicaid cuts are not about disputes of how insurance should work or whether there should be mandates: they are cuts on the people least able to afford it, those who if you examined their personal situation and asked what the reasonable monthly premium for them to pay for health care would be, you would say “$0”. And for the people who could perhaps afford something for their health care, the AHCA doles out a small amount and then washes its hands of the matter.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The overriding theme of the AHCA is: if you can’t afford insurance, it’s your fault for being poor. If the insurance you have isn’t helping you, it’s your fault for buying it. It is pure deprivation and callousness; they are fighting the entire concept that people should ever help each other when in need. Paul Ryan was just on the Sunday shows pushing this ideologically: rejecting the question of how many people would be left without insurance, saying the issue of coverage is “up to people”, and “you get it if you want it; that’s freedom.” The law, in its majestic equality, allows rich and poor alike to make the choice to forgo either health care or food. </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">(By contrast, Secretary Price is not peddling ideology but merely lying his ass off, more in the style of his new boss, flatly saying coverage will not drop. I do not mention the boss’s own campaign promises - barely worth the mention.)</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Precisely because they do not take policymaking seriously - aid the rich, let God sort out the rest - the Republican leadership is shutting its eyes to the likelihood that the new policies would create a classic death spiral in the private markets, as the young and healthy pull out, and those most motivated to pay into the system are the sick people the rest of the system is supposed to be supporting. (Some of these people, it envisions moving into state “high-risk pools”, but those were always inferior, and the bill provides nowhere near the needed funding levels for such pools.)</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So, the next logical question: how on earth do they expect this to withstand even the bare minimum of scrutiny, to pass even a Republican-controlled Congress? The answer seems to be, they are not sure, but they have decided to take the chance. They have painted themselves into a corner, promising their base full repeal, promising their wealthy contributors tax relief, blaming everything bad about the health care system on Obamacare, including (especially!) aspects Obamacare improved; if they admit now that the ACA was a fairly centrist middle ground, congressmembers get primaried, plus Ryan probably gets ousted as Speaker. </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The trouble is that when push comes to shove, the Republicans of this moment are organized as an insular, self-propelled, highly loyal movement, not around principles and voters. If the leadership tells them jump, the vast majority will say not “How high?” but “May I come down now, sir?” And this goes double for the White House, whose potential opprobrium terrifies them. So the leadership are choosing to lean on this loyalty in a pinch, and ramming the bill through, trying to get through as much of the process as possible before the Congressional Budget Office weighs in on how many millions of people it will leave high and dry. In fact, the biggest hindrance at the moment for Ryan may be the House Freedom Caucus, which despite being a small group of 40 or so is using its internal unity to push the bill even further to the right - for example, pushing the Medicaid expansion phaseout up from 2020 to 2018. </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">With the House such a mass of groupthink, a better hope may be the Senate. They can’t gerrymander states, are somewhat more independent, have a greater motivation to consider the long-term effects, and realize they will be blamed for causing massive gratuitous suffering. A good margin of them are from states that have expanded Medicaid - even if, like Kentucky, they obscured the fact that this was in fact Obamacare coverage - and that makes the consequences even more potentially severe for them. So there is a good chance that the Senate finds a lack of votes and quietly kills the legislation.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But we cannot rely on this to save us. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">With virtually no exceptions, all the senators we’re talking about would gladly vote for the bill if they knew they could not be held responsible for the consequences. They, too, are subject to groupthink, or primary threats, or armtwisting from the White House. They are not good at policy details and could be placated by meaningless sophistry. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It could still go either way. </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">At the end of the day, we have to rely on old-fashioned politics. All those in Congress - either house - are political animals, and derive most of their social standing from their elected position. And this means reality still impinges on their world, however much they might prefer otherwise. They know it doesn’t take a lot of honestly outraged locals to make them look bad and turf them out. Many are likely desperate at this point for a way to persuasively tell their base that doing nothing was the best option, but it’s not clear such a way exists.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Town halls, calls, and letters are still ways they gauge their communities. They might put up a good front about how the people pestering or shouting at them are not their real constituency, but they have to consider them perforce. (And if they lose the Republican seat just vacated by the man now in charge of the Department of Health and Human Services </span><a href="https://electjon.com/" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">to a progressive</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, that’s a major temperature check for them). But for the record, even if our attempts scare them off gutting the ACA, the last thing in the world they will want to do is admit it, so success will be somewhat unsatisfactory for us as advocates.</span></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">And plan C for them (we’re already on plan B) will likely be to just repeal the ACA taxes without paying for it, which avoids penurizing or killing people but greatly worsens economic inequality and the underlying problems that brought us here in the first place. Still, that’s something we can live to fight another day on.</span></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-318338830925023522.post-87729561054874792242016-10-26T08:00:00.003-07:002018-03-12T08:20:31.942-07:00Local ballot initiatives for Oaklanders, analyses<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I am concluding my election writing with analyses and recommendations on local measures on the ballot for Oaklanders. In this case, our measures are those being voted on in the city itself, Oakland Unified School District, Alameda County, the AC Transit District (buses), and the BART District. I am going from biggest areas (BART) to smallest (the city).</div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">None of these will be yes on substance and no for anticlutter: the vast majority are revenue measures, which need voter approval by law; the remainder amend either the city charter or prior ballot measures.<br>
<br>
<b>Discussion: Tax levels</b><br>
<b><br></b>
There are a number of measures on our ballot this year that would bring in tax money - sometimes to pay off bonds over time for infrastructure investments, other times simply to help fund annual operations. Except for the soda tax, this year they all happen to target property taxes, either as additional rates charged as a percentage of assessed value (only apparently allowed in the case of bonds) or as parcel taxes, which are a flat amount on each parcel of land, no matter its value.<br>
<br>
I mostly examine in my analyses whether they are worthwhile investments, but there is the charge, "Aren't they just piling new taxes on us bit by bit, each one defensible individually, but excessive in total?" So let's take a look at how much they actually add up to. The median <i>assessed</i> (taxable) home value in Oakland is $434,000; this is far lower than the median actual value as it includes the Prop 13 assessment growth cap and various exemptions. Cross-referencing Zillow and the county assessor website, I found a home whose assessed value was slightly below that, $375,000. What would the combined impact be on them? Right now, their tax rate is 1.35%, which comes to $5,065, or when adding plus various charges and assessments (including those parcel taxes), a total of $6,035, so the overall effective tax rate is 1.61%. All five of the relevant measures, if passed, would bring the bill to $6,537 or 1.74% - a very small overall increase, even if you consider other taxes may be added from time to time. The vast majority of the increase is Oakland's KK; the county, transit, and school measures are small by comparison.</div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br>Our tax level in California generally is about middle-of-the-pack compared to other states, despite our higher cost of living, higher level of service provision, and large percentage of population in poverty, again, largely because of the heavy restrictions put in place by Prop 13. I would say to the charge above that that the truer picture is one of local communities continually straining to keep revenues adequate to services, and special taxes are one way they keep things functional around the margin, but still only with difficulty.</div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">That is California as a whole. I won't pretend Oakland isn't a relatively high-tax city: it is, from my look at the data, on the high end of taxes per capita across our large cities. I want to understand that data better; there's probably inefficiency in how we go about services, and it's not impossible the openness of the public to newer taxes is related. But I suspect a great deal of the gap is the comparative tax base (more value out there to tax), cost of living, level of services the city collectively wants to provide, and the proportion of the population that needs those services. I would like to have it be more transparent that we get value for money; at the same time, starving the system and hoping things get better is not a recipe for success. When they are good investments to be made, I am inclined to make them, and simultaneously push for efficient government.<br>
<br>
I do think it's problematic that some of the proposed measures are parcel taxes, given their regressiveness, but it appears to be one of the few options legally open: or rather, given the state of East Bay politics, I'm sure that if <i>ad valorem </i>(value-scaled) taxes were an option under the Constitution for any purpose other than bonds, they would be used all the time. It's also worth keeping in mind that the more we target taxes on the especially high income, the more volatile that revenue will be; and parcel taxes do typically have means to exempt certain low-income homeowners.<br>
<br>
<b>Measure RR: Infrastructure bond (BART)</b><br>
<b><br></b>
Measure RR is about the adequacy of BART infrastructure - cars, rails, electrical and control systems, stations, etc. BART is critical to getting everyone around the Bay (26% of downtown SF workers and 24% of downtown Oakland workers get there by BART), but underfunding hits them like the rest of our critical services, and it's been aging over time, as witnessed by the increasing delays and other incidents like fires. Some big projects, like a new Transbay Tube, are needed, but the stars are not yet aligned for that: in the meantime, BART badly needs an infusion of capital.<br>
<br>
RR would raise bonds of $3.5 billion, and pay for them with increased <i>ad valorem</i> taxes across San Francisco, Alameda, and Contra Costa Counties, of a maximum of 0.0001749% of value ($17.49 per $100,000 assessed value) - usually lower since the bonds will not be issued all at once, and most of the time they will be either ramping up or ramping down. This is an excellent time to borrow for this kind of spending, as BART has a triple-A Moody's rating and can likely now get some of the money at as little as 2.5% interest. A new control system will let them safely space trains closer together and increase throughput; a bigger maintenance facility will let them shuffle cars in and out of service more efficiently; tracks and cars need to be replaced, and tunnels repaired; in short, the whole system needs this infusion to best meet the high demands it's being put to without breaking down.<br>
<br>
Note that even if you exclusively drive, BART likely helps you by cutting congestion in the most-trafficked corridors, <a href="http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/04/public-transportation-does-relieve-traffic-congestion-just-not-everywhere/5149/">according to compelling research</a>. Not that your sole criterion for social investment should be whether it helps you directly, but for what that's worth.<br>
<br>
Finally, it allows a small amount of its money to be used for studying expansions including a second Transbay Tube. This is increasingly being talked about because the current Tube is a bottleneck (almost literally): with only two tracks running under the Bay, all-night service is impossible and increased capacity is challenging. A new Tube would be quite expensive, and you might see that in a future measure, but it would be worth it.<br>
<br>
Taxation: The maximum tax rate this is estimated to require is $17.49 per $100,000 of assessed value, but that is in 2036 once the last bond has been issued; in most years they will be either ramping up to or ramping down from that point. The best estimate of the weighted average annual tax over the entire life of the measure is actually $8.98 per 100,000, so for the hypothetical slightly-below-median Oakland homeowner described above, that would be an additional $33.67 paid annually.<br>
<b><br></b>
Utilitarian recommendation: <b>Yes</b><br>
Anti-clutter recommendation: <b>Yes</b><br>
<b><br></b>
<b>Measure A1: Affordable Housing Bond (Alameda County)</b><br>
<b><br></b>We all know housing is unacceptably expensive in the Bay; it's the market's invisible blood-encrusted two-by-four. The high cost of housing is draining incomes, increasing commutes, preventing savings and asset-building, promoting homelessness, and letting owners make windfall profits. Protections for renters can be helpful depending how they work, but in the end it largely comes down to supply; we need a big infusion of housing stock.<br>
<br>
There are those who say more market-rate housing will naturally bring prices down, but that is too much classical hand-wavy "trust the market" logic for me. If new construction is slow enough, and there are enough wealthy newcomers, speculators, and tourists to keep buying, it's quite possible, even likely, that the the wealthy will monopolize new units long enough for everyone else to go broke - or put in more economic terms, the market will take far too long to reach equilibrium. In other words, I believe the surest way to make sure new housing is affordable to those with low incomes, is to reserve more of it directly for such people.<br>
<br>
In this light, Measure A1 is a much needed investment, if not itself sufficient either, of course. It's a bond of $580 million, of which the plan is to spend about 80% ($460m) developing rental housing, and $120m on owned housing.<br>
<br>
Allocation details: the smaller portion for owned housing will assist people make down payments, focusing on middle-income residents and those likely to otherwise be displaced, assist new construction by nonprofit developers for the low-income to purchase affordably, and will make accessibility and rehabilitation improvements so that seniors, persons with disabilities, and other low-income people can stay safely in their homes. Of the larger portion for rental housing, the vast majority will be just what it says on the label, development largely for low-income households, focusing on those under 60% of average median income, which for a family of four is under $56,000; some space will also be carved out for higher- or lower-income groups, including homeless and disability recipients. Another $35m will be a special pool for pouncing quickly when opportunities emerge unexpectedly, like when a building comes on the market that could be purchased to become long-term affordable housing. (You will not find this detail on the ballot, because the measure text wisely goes easy on setting hard constraints, but it's from <a href="http://www.acgov.org/board/bos_calendar/documents/DocsAgendaReg_06_28_16/GENERAL%20ADMINISTRATION/Set%20Matter%20Calendar/CDA_236358.pdf">the county's public planning</a>.)<br>
<br>
This is also the right kind of thing to spend with borrowing - critical infrastructure - and would likely come at a very favorable interest rate since Alameda County is currently rated triple-A from Moody's, much higher than the state of California. Another strong yes.<br>
<br>
Taxation: Because they intend to issue all the bonds by 2022, faster than RR, the maximum rate is probably close to the weighted-average rate. That makes it around $13.90 per $100,000, or $52.12 for our sample Oakland homeowner.<br>
<b><br></b>
Utilitarian recommendation: <b>Yes</b><br>
Anti-clutter recommendation: <b>Yes</b><br>
<b><br></b>
<b>Measure C1: Parcel tax extension (AC Transit)</b><br>
<br>
This is a parcel tax of $96 per property per year to keep AC Transit funded - it was passed in 2008 for 10 years, and would otherwise expire in 2018; this would continue it through 2036 with no increase.<br>
<br>
Buses are arguably a more important form of public transportation than the admittedly sexier heavy rail; hundreds of thousands are dependent on it - 168,000 rides per weekday in 2014-15, including 13,500 transbay commuters. It's more flexible than heavy rail, covering more areas with less upfront investment. With more work over time, like the Bus Rapid Transit now in progress on International, it is possible to make it more reliable and attractive to middle-income people, opening up more affordable opportunities for everyone while keeping carbon emissions down. This revenue will help the system keep going without cuts, especially in the likely recession sometime in the next 5 years. Easy yes.<br>
<br>
Utilitarian recommendation: <b>Yes</b><br>
Anti-clutter recommendation: <b>Yes</b><br>
<b><br></b>
<b>Measure HH: Soda tax (City of Oakland)</b><br>
<b><br></b>
I wrote about the soda tax <a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2014/10/minimum-wages-and-other-local-measures.html">two years ago</a> (scrolled), when it passed in Berkeley and failed in San Francisco. It is much the same measure - a one cent per ounce tax on sugary soft drinks, so 12 cents more for a can, or $0.68 added for a two-liter bottle. It is another sin tax, so to speak - not so much for the purposes of revenue, although that's a bonus, as it is to change behavior, reduce sugar consumption.<br>
<br>
Nutrition panics over specific foods are often overblown - I call it the nutrition-media-industrial complex, where researchers churn out low-quality studies, with small numbers of participants and designed so that by chance they are likely to find clickbaity, scientifically weak results, like that everything you can eat simultaneously <a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/3/23/8264355/research-study-hype">causes and prevents cancer</a>. But <a href="https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-drinks/soft-drinks-and-disease/">the evidence for the harmfulness of soda is much better-quality</a>, comprising many long-term studies following tens of thousands of people for years or decades. These studies found substantial links to weight gain, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19211821">diabetes</a>, and other major health issues, even controlling for other factors like overall calorie consumption. I don't know what it is; perhaps the dopamine hit of all the added sugar hitting the body in a way more traditional calorie sources don't. But there is something about soda in particular.<br>
<br>
So why a tax? Because we should have learned at this point that when you want to really achieve change, <b>transparency or awareness is weaksauce; incentives and spending work</b>. We need not voluntary guilt-driven carbon-reduction, but carbon taxes or cap-and-trade. Not just tobacco education and health warnings, but tobacco taxes. Not just mandated maternity leave, but socialized insurance for pay during parents leave. People are busy, bombarded with information; giving them more information and expecting them to work things out tends to do very little, but money makes things happen.<br>
<br>
Of course we need to address the intersection of food and health more broadly - overhaul agricultural subsidies and the distribution system so that healthy foods are cheaper and more available, other problematic foods less so, and so forth - but this tax would be a proof of concept showing that pricing is a feasible policy lever. The soda industry is well aware of that and <a href="https://oaklandnorth.net/2016/09/14/campaigns-on-oaklands-measure-hh-spar-over-soda-vs-grocery-tax/">pouring money into this campaign</a>, knowing that what starts in the Bay could be replicated at a higher level.<br>
<br>
Is it a "grocery tax"? No; that term blanketing our airwaves was invented by the soda industry, misinforming a few locals to enlist them for ad spots and posters. Theoretically, there is nothing preventing grocers from spreading the cost across all their products, but that would not make economic sense for them and is <a href="http://news.berkeley.edu/2015/10/07/soda-tax-boosts-sugary-drink-prices/">not in fact what they are doing in Berkeley</a>.<br>
<br>
Will it be counteracted by people going to other places to buy their soda? Probably a bit, but not hugely; how much do people actually shop around looking for a 12-cent-per-can price difference? A lot of the consumption being deterred will likely be on the fly in people's neighborhoods. And extending the tax zone to all of Oakland will make shopping around require much more travel than currently where it only applies in Berkeley. (Still, hopefully it will be extended to more jurisdictions, or statewide, at some point.)<br>
<br>
Is it regressive on the low-income? Technically, yes, but like the tobacco tax, in a positive way. Given what we know about diabetes and other health impacts, the health benefit to the low-income will likely be disproportionate to them. Also, all the non-sugary drinks will be unaffected by the tax, so low-income households will be perfectly able to substitute to untaxed drinks and see no financial impact - or a financial gain from switching to water. (Milk products, pure fruit juice, baby formula, medical food, plant milks like soy, etc. are exempt from the tax.)<br>
<br>
A bonus is that the revenue from the tax can be flexibly used - no ballot-box budgeting. One of Prop 13's many antitax provisions was that if you want to dedicate a local tax to a special purpose, something easily advertisable like health or education, you have to reach a higher two-thirds threshold; but you can pass an unearmarked tax with a simple majority. In 2014, SF's attempted soda tax got 56% yes votes, but failed because it was dedicated to health, nutrition, and activity programs and needed 67%. Berkeley's was a general tax, but this feature did not keep it from getting passed with 76%. So Measure HH is a general tax, requiring only 50%. There is a commission to recommend how to spend the money, but nonbindingly. This is better for chances of passage and better for governance.<br>
<br>
All of the above also applies to this year's Proposition V in San Francisco and Measure O1 in Albany, both very similar. Let's try something new and meaningful for once and strike a blow to amoral big business.<br>
<b><br></b>
Utilitarian recommendation: <b>Yes</b><br>
Anti-clutter recommendation: <b>Yes</b><br>
<b><br></b>
<b>Measure LL: Civilian police commission (City)</b><br>
<b><br></b>
Oakland, like much of the country, has major problems with its police. Assaults on protesters [Occupy], baffling shootings [Hogg], shameful abuses of power [Guap], and an insular, defensive culture add up to a police service with little confidence from the community. It is partially symptomatic of our deep racial inequities - when certain people are seen as valueless by the rest of society, those society entrusts with weapons will piggyback on those judgments - but I believe a great deal of it is amenable to managerial change: we do not need to wait for racism to end, we can actively reform an institution that does many things for no better reason than that it always has and its insiders are invested in denying this was ever wrong. However, whether out of political calculation or because they truly believe, the mayor and much of the Council tend to acquiesce or participate in OPD's resistance to change. </div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">We have an independent civilian review board, but like many other cities' similar boards, it's been more and more painfully apparent over time that it has very few teeth in practice; it can investigate complaints and recommend discipline and other measures, but has no power to force OPD to adopt them. The local police accountability advocates, together with allies on the Council, seized on recent scandals to push through reforms in Measure LL.<br><br>
Measure LL would eliminate the existing Police Review Board and replace it with a Police Commission as well as a Police Review Agency staffing it. It would continue to review complaints, investigate, issue findings, etc., but the new powers given them would be:<br>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>The ability to add or change OPD policy, or reject OPD-initiated policy changes, relating to four areas: use of force, profiling, and First Amendment assemblies, and anything in the current federal settlement agreement. That last covers a lot of ground, but the Commission's special authority over such policy would only last as long as the settlement agreement does.</li>
<li>The ability, after investigation, to directly discipline police officers. There is a rigamarole of a process to go through: if the police chief disagrees, the chief has to compile their own findings and alternative proposed discipline, and the Agency can either allow that alternative action to be taken, or bring the dispute to a subcommittee of the Commission, which makes the final decision. Appeals processes like employee arbitration that could later overturn such action remain in force. But currently the police and city administrator have final say, and that would be completely eliminated, in my reading.</li>
<li>The ability to subpoena all OPD files and records, except that <u>personnel</u> records access is limited to the Agency director, not the rest of the Agency investigators or staff.</li>
<li>The ability to fire the police chief with a supermajority vote (five of seven commissioners).</li>
<li>The responsibility to identify candidates for police chief, and produce a list of at least four candidates for the mayor to pick from. The mayor must either choose one they recommend or reject them all and ask for a new list. (Note it's currently vacant, so the commission could end up immediately choosing the next chief.)</li>
</ul>
Obviously, giving the commission formal power to override the police and the city administrator only goes part of the way: the subsequent issue is, given that power, will they use it? Who are the commissioners - who are they appointed by, friendly with? So who appoints how many commissioners matters a great deal, and was a major point of contention when this measure was making its way through the City Council. The final negotiated result was to give the mayor three seats to appoint directly, while the other four are effectively appointed by the Council through an intermediate "Selection Panel". With that balance of power, even if the mayor has only one other ally on the commission, the administration will effectively still be in control; also, due to the supermajority requirement, the decision to fire the police chief must have at least one mayoral supporter.<br><br>The other common objection heard is that arbitration over police discipline and termination is left unchanged, unlike in earlier drafts of the measure. I am not so deeply concerned with that fact: although arbitration has created <a href="http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/04/17/suspended-fired-oakland-police-officers-reinstated-because-flaws-arbitration-system/">strange, barely-supportable outcomes</a> in the case of the OPD, it makes sense as a generic labor protection. It appears that the real problem with arbitration is that city and police administration do not press their side with any vigor, which is not something any commission would have fine-grained control over.<br>
<br>How problematic is it that the entire deal was negotiated downward (as with areas like personnel records access) until the police dropped their objections and allowed it to go onto the ballot with no opposing arguments? In the end, it highlights the tension between trying to make change by tinkering with institutional structures and trying to make change by pressing directly for the right things to be done, no matter the structure. No matter how formally strong the commission and agency are made, true reform cannot be imposed if the day-to-day leaders ar kicking and screaming against it. It comes down to what values all the relevant actors have, including mayor, council, and police leadership - or alternatively, what values noisy citizens and the press, plus voters, force them to live up to. Everyone in City Hall and OPD HQ needs to continually get the clear message that the privilege of using force comes with a huge burden of justification, and police must be part of the community rather than an occupying force. Neither institutional tinkering nor system-agnostic advocacy can do this all on its own; both methods must coexist. In this particular case, a decent civilian oversight structure can help facilitate the needed change, as well as send a message on its own.</div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br>The fact remains that Measure LL is a major step forward, a more powerful oversight body than almost any US city has now. Check out <a href="http://www.joincampaignzero.org/#vision">Campaign Zero</a> for constructive, thoughtful proposals on what is needed in full, at multiple levels of government, to bring police shootings to zero. And as a partial measure, vote yes on LL.<br>
<b><br></b>
Utilitarian recommendation: <b>Yes</b><br>
Anti-clutter recommendation: <b>Yes</b><br>
<div>
<br></div>
<div>
<b>Measure II: Lease terms (City)</b><br>
<b><br></b>
There is very little to say about this one-paragraph measure with no pro or anti arguments even in the voter information guide. It allows the city to lease properties for 99 years, up from the current limit of 66 in the city charter. This could apparently make it easier to put together some affordable housing projects. Worth a shot.</div>
<br>
Utilitarian recommendation: <b>Yes</b><br>
Anti-clutter recommendation: <b>Yes</b><br>
<div>
<br></div>
<b>Measure JJ: Rental protections (City)</b><br>
<br>Back to housing and the great affordability gap. </div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Economists assail rent control as a means of ensuring affordability, but I see it as a helpful, if inferior, step in the absence of a sufficient housing stock. It certainly helps people of higher incomes who may not strictly need the help (including myself, for full discloure); but that is a tradeoff for helping a wide swath of the community across the board, rather than the handful of people targeted by means-tested programs, or who luck into the small number of affordable housing set-asides. I would be open to loosening rent control on market-based grounds if we had a clear way forward to building the entirety of the supply gap [LAO link]; I'm not sure how that will happen, although Measures A1 and KK are important to pass. I see landlords making windfall profits only because of the heated economy they had little to do with - Oakland rents increased __% in the past 3 years - and think it is reasonable to put a lid on this. </div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Measure JJ does not extend rent control per se, but tightens up some of its provisions and awards more rights to non-rent-controlled tenants. The Costa Hawkins Act of 1995 greatly limited how much California cities could control rent: most importantly, it forestalls <i>any</i> rent control on buildings constructed after 1983. Oakland can do nothing about that except advocate for Costa Hawkins reform. An additional protection Oakland has imposed is requiring just cause for evictions, but only for buildings constructed before 1980: Measure JJ would push that to 1995. People's livelihoods depend heavily on reliable housing, without landlords looking to clean up through finding the next, richer, tenant; eviction is a move potentially harmful enough to not be worth leaving to the market. </div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Existing rent control in Oakland limits increases to the rate of inflation, but allows increases beyond that if it is to pay for improvements made. (Landlords must absorb part of that cost, but can pass 50% on in rent.) The other important change in JJ is that it requires <u>prior approval</u> for such additional increases over CPI. This makes sense to me. I have a surprisingly good landlord; he made small reasonable improvements a couple of years ago and provided a letter walking through how they were reflected in my rent. But even though I think those are likely reasonable given what I know of the landlord, I don't have full knowledge that those costs were true and correct as stated, or if there were underlying shenanigans; if I wanted to find out, I would have to complain and launch a lengthy and possibly risky process through the rent board. It makes sense for the city to act as a clearinghouse for these changes, as it has the ability to categorize and compare and identify which might be unreasonable. I could imagine some inefficiency in the process; everything is imperfect, but in this case let the risks of inefficiency fall on landlords rather than tenants! They are much better equipped to press their cases and lobby for, for example, more funding for the rent board to do its job more efficiently, if needed.</div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Details: JJ continues to exempt owner occupied housing with up to 3 units (duplexes/triplexes). It does not pose anticlutter concerns because it is amending a prior ballot measure (Measure EE, 2002, which imposed just cause for evictions) and therefore unfortunately must take up ballot space.</div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br>We need to build a prodigious amount of housing, which will likely tread on many people's toes, and also reform Costa Hawkins. In the meantime, yes on JJ to forestall displacement and keep Oakland from becoming even less livable.</div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">A final thought: given how utterly private development has failed to keep in touch with the low- to middle-income market, I think we should give serious thought to reviving public housing. Hong Kong and Singapore, which both have high-performing economies and extremely limited space, have ensured affordability by having the majority of their population housed publicly, and letting the private market cater to the rich only.<br>
<br>
Utilitarian recommendation: <b>Yes</b><br>
Anti-clutter recommendation: <b>Yes</b><br>
<div>
<br></div>
<b>Measure KK: Infrastructure bonds (City)</b><br>
<br>Measure KK lets the city borrow $600 million for critical infrastructure improvements - mostly streets and sidewalks, but also facilities and affordable housing.</div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">We all know viscerally that the quality of Oakland's streets and other infrastructure is subpar; again, the product of longterm disinvestment. This is exactly the kind of infrastructure where, if you're going to do anything more than tread water, you need a lot of money up front via borrowing. Everyone is also aware of a level of inefficiency in Oakland city government specifically; this needs change, but again, is not a reason to continue to starve the city - which is to say, ourselves - of desperately needed work.</div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Details of spending: $350 million, the largest part, is to be used for streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, etc. There is no specific allocation between improvements for drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians; this flexibility makes sense. $150 million for facilities, of which half is to police and fire stations, the remainder to libraries, parks, water, etc. $100m for affordable housing, focusing on immediate displacement prevention, whether by newly constructing, renovating, or otherwise preserving affordable projects. </div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">The $100m for affordable housing will likely go even farther than it sounds, because the larger pool of money raised by the county measure A1 often requires a local (city) match, which this could help provide. Unfortunately, there is no mention in KK specifically of <i>supportive </i>housing for the homeless - "affordable" typically means for people with low to middle incomes, and may require more rent than is reasonable to get homeless people properly housed. This contrasts with A1 which does make some supportive housing. But there is probably still flexibility in the language for the city to interpret "affordable" in that way if it so chooses. <br><br>This is the largest of the property tax increases on the Oakland ballot: at a maximum of $79 per $100,000 assessed value, which would be reached within several years, our median homeowner would see an increase of around $400 per year. This seems worth it to me as it is part of the needed investment to actually make living in Oakland worthwhile. (Think of how much wear and tear cars sustain from our level of potholes, for example; or the amount of money people will be able to save by making bicycling more of a safe commuting option.)</div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">One bit of misinformation I wanted to combat is that the official opposition argument says that the funding buckets are meaningless as after 10 years the council can reallocate unused funds elsewhere. I'm surprised the supporters didn't get a judge to change this language on the ballot, because it's quite clearly wrong: the legislative text says that <i>no more than 10% </i>of any funding pool may be reallocated to another funding pool, and not to non-designated purposes. So for example, of the $350m for streets, no more than $35m could actually end up going to facilities or housing. This is eminently reasonable, just flexibility at the margin as needs and available projects may change for one reason or another.<br><br>
Utilitarian recommendation: <b>Yes</b><br>
Anti-clutter recommendation: <b>Yes</b> <br>
<div>
<br></div>
<b>Measure G1: School parcel tax (OUSD)</b><br>
<br>Measure G1 raises another $120 per parcel of land per year to further support the Oakland schools. The majority goes to an across-the-board salary increase, reflecting that despite the additional revenue currently coming in due to the economic boom, salaries are still far behind what is reasonable given local cost of living (starting at __ for new teachers). The remainder goes to middle schools in particular, both public and charter: I am not sure why they merit singling out and suspect some kind of behind-the-scenes deal.</div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Regardless, G1 is worth supporting. [Expenditures per student]</div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Again, as a parcel tax, it is mildly regressive, but it is a benefit that accrues to everyone in the community, and the district's legal ability to raise money in more progressive ways is limited, so that is worth it. Also, it will stay a relatively stable source of revenue even if we fall into a recession in coming years. There are means to exempt low-income homeowners from the tax.<br><br>
Utilitarian recommendation:<br>
Anti-clutter recommendation:<br>
<div>
<br></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-318338830925023522.post-91104965271362167162016-10-13T21:32:00.002-07:002016-11-03T19:17:40.355-07:00Cheat sheet: Statewide and local proposition recommendations<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Since I know I took up a lot of space with all my Important Thoughts™ on the statewide ballot measures (<a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/10/ballot-analyses-california-statewide.html">part 1</a>, <a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/10/ballot-initiatives-california-statewide.html">part 2)</a>, here are all my recommendations in handy tabulated form - with internal links, even, so you can jump to specific ones.<br />
<br />
Again, the "utilitarian" recommendation is trying to answer whether the initiative is good or bad in isolation; the "anti-clutter" recommendation is for people who want to send a message to legislators and activists to work out their disagreements through non-ballot avenues wherever possible, and are willing to vote against slightly good initiatives to get this across.<br />
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" dir="ltr" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid #ccc; font-family: arial,sans,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; table-layout: fixed;"><colgroup><col width="100"></col><col width="197"></col><col width="111"></col><col width="118"></col></colgroup><tbody>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Proposition number"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;"><b>Proposition number</b></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Brief description"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;"><b>Brief description</b></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Utilitarian recommendation"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;"><b>Utilitarian recommendation</b></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Anti-clutter recommendation"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;"><b>Anti-clutter recommendation</b></td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":51}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">51</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"School bonds"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/10/ballot-analyses-california-statewide.html#Prop51">School bonds</a></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":52}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">52</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Hospital fee"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/10/ballot-analyses-california-statewide.html#Prop52">Hospital fee</a></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"No"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">No</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":53}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">53</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Public vote, $2b+ revenue bonds"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/10/ballot-analyses-california-statewide.html#Prop53">Public vote, $2b+ revenue bonds</a></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"No"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">No</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"No"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">No</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":54}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">54</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Legislative transparency"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/10/ballot-analyses-california-statewide.html#Prop54"><span id="goog_1661245733"></span>Legislative transparency<span id="goog_1661245734"></span></a></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"No"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">No</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":55}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">55</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Income tax extension"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/10/ballot-analyses-california-statewide.html#Prop55">Income tax extension</a></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":56}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">56</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Tobacco tax increase"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/10/ballot-analyses-california-statewide.html#Prop56">Tobacco tax increase</a></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":57}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">57</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Parole and juvenile justice"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/10/ballot-analyses-california-statewide.html#Prop57">Parole and juvenile justice</a></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":58}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">58</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Bilingual education"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/10/ballot-initiatives-california-statewide.html#Prop58">Bilingual education</a></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":59}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">59</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Citizens United"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/10/ballot-initiatives-california-statewide.html#Prop59">Citizens United</a></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"No"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">No</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":60}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">60</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Condoms in adult film"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/10/ballot-initiatives-california-statewide.html#Prop60">Condoms in adult films</a></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"No"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">No</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"No"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">No</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":61}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">61</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Prescription drug pricing"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/10/ballot-initiatives-california-statewide.html#Prop61">Prescription drug pricing</a></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"No"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">No</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"No"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">No</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":62}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">62</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Death penalty abolition"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/10/ballot-initiatives-california-statewide.html#Props6266">Death penalty abolition</a></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":63}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">63</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Gun and ammunition control"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/10/ballot-initiatives-california-statewide.html#Prop63">Gun and ammunition control</a></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"No"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">No</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":64}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">64</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Marijuana legalization"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/10/ballot-initiatives-california-statewide.html#Prop64">Marijuana legalization</a></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":65}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">65</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Bag fees"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/10/ballot-initiatives-california-statewide.html#Props6567">Bag fees</a></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"No"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">No</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"No"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">No</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":66}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">66</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Death penalty procedures"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/10/ballot-initiatives-california-statewide.html#Props6266">Death penalty procedures</a></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"No"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">No</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"No"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">No</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":67}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">67</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Plastic bags: affirm existing ban"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/10/ballot-initiatives-california-statewide.html#Props6567">Plastic bags: affirm existing ban</a></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div>
Thank you for reading. Next: Oakland and Alameda County.<br />
<br />
<b>Update: </b>those local measure writeups, linked!<br />
<br />
<style type="text/css"><!--td {border: 1px solid #ccc;}br {mso-data-placement:same-cell;}--></style><br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" dir="ltr" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); font-family: arial, sans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; table-layout: fixed; text-align: center;"><colgroup><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col></colgroup><tbody>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Measure number"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;"><b>Measure number</b></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Jurisdiction"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;"><b>Jurisdiction</b></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Brief description"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;"><b>Brief description</b></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Utilitarian recommendation"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;"><b>Utilitarian recommendation</b></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Anticlutter recommendation"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;"><b>Anticlutter recommendation</b></td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"RR"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">RR</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"BART District"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">BART District</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Infrastructure bond"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/10/local-ballot-initiatives-for-oaklanders.html#RR">Infrastructure bond</a></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"A1"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">A1</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Alameda County"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Alameda County</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Affordable housing bond"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/10/local-ballot-initiatives-for-oaklanders.html#A1">Affordable housing bond</a></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"C1"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">C1</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"AC Transit District"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">AC Transit District</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Bus services, tax extension"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/10/local-ballot-initiatives-for-oaklanders.html#C1">Bus services, tax extension</a></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"HH"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">HH</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Oakland"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Oakland</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Soda tax"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/10/local-ballot-initiatives-for-oaklanders.html#HH">Soda tax</a></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"II"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">II</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Oakland"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Oakland</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"City lease maximum temr"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/10/local-ballot-initiatives-for-oaklanders.html#II">City lease terms</a></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"JJ"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">JJ</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Oakland"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Oakland</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Renter's protections"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/10/local-ballot-initiatives-for-oaklanders.html#JJ">Renter's protections</a></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"KK"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">KK</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Oakland"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Oakland</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Infrastructure bond"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/10/local-ballot-initiatives-for-oaklanders.html#KK">Infrastructure bond</a></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"LL"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">LL</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Oakland"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Oakland</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Civilian police commission"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/10/local-ballot-initiatives-for-oaklanders.html#LL">Civilian police commission</a></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"G1"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">G1</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Oakland Unified School District"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Oakland Unified School District</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"School parcel tax"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/10/local-ballot-initiatives-for-oaklanders.html#G1">School parcel tax</a></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Yes"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Yes</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-318338830925023522.post-33115529145703828862016-10-13T21:26:00.000-07:002017-12-03T19:15:22.784-08:00Ballot initiatives, California statewide, 2016, part 2<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr">
Thank you for reading my analyses and recommendations on the California statewide. <a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/10/ballot-analyses-california-statewide.html">Read Part 1 (51 through 57, bonds and constitutional amendments) here.</a></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
In this Part 2, I am moving on to 58 through 67, which are all initiative statutes, items that become part of law, but not the Constitution, and could be amended later by the Legislature - though usually with limitations like higher voting thresholds.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Continue to keep your eyes peeled for local Oakland and Alameda County measures, as well as a handy cheat sheet with all my statewide recommendations condensed to a less bloviatory size. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<h4 id="Prop58">
<b>Proposition 58: Bilingual education</b></h4>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Prop 58 is a story of California's past 30 years in microcosm, the story of how our Trump-lites of the 1980's and 90's traded on racism, how it backfired on them, and <span style="font-family: "times new roman";">how, after a period of stasis, we are now moving into a new, racially and ethnically inclusive polity - but still shakily.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
Prop 58 does away with the worst aspects of Prop 227, whose tagline was "ban bilingual education". English instruction is a huge practical issue for California schools, with 1.4 million English learners enrolled in 2016, 1.1 million of those Spanish speakers. Technically, Prop 227 doesn't ban bilingual education, but it requires instruction to be in English by default, with a one-year crash course for students who can't manage that, and anything more must fall into certain categories and have parents sign waivers regularly (opt-in) - they must even physically visit the school to sign such waivers, according to the law. Prop 58 eliminates the waiver requirements, and allows school districts to choose for themselves - with community input - what kind of programs make the most sense to offer children, as part of the local control funding system being developed.</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
The ballot arguments and much of the discussion I've seen acts as if this were a factual matter of which education methods work best. But in fact, the key issue is race. In the 1990's, Californians saw the state was growing more Latinx, and a common reaction was anxiety (not to say racism, unless you count <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophasis">apophasis</a>). Prop 187 in 1994 sought to deny all state and public benefits to undocumented immigrants; it passed with 59% of the vote, although much of it turned out to be unconstitutional. Prop 227 was another response of the day. At the time, the most-cited reason in an <a href="http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/CMMR/227/Times227exitpoll.pdf">exit poll</a> was not effectiveness, but "If you live in America, you should speak English". We're all familiar with the litany of resentment: the whipping up of those who bristled at seeing or hearing Spanish in new contexts like automated phone lines, the painting of demographic change as takeover or loss of national character - that is, whiteness.</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
To belabor a point that should be obvious, but somehow is not: no such takeover is happening or will happen in the foreseeable long term. In the United States, immigrants come and their children assimilate; we used to have daily newspapers in many parts of the country in German, Italian, Russian, even Yiddish. It may seem otherwise to some in the case of Spanish, but only because new immigrants continue to arrive; plenty of Latinxs speak shaky Spanish or none at all. (And let's not forget either that this state was once part of a Spanish-speaking country; English entered at the point of a gun.)</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
At the same time, I'm sure there were some who voted for 227 thinking it would be better for students. Some of the Latinxs in support (37% were, according to the same exit poll) seem to have been dissatisfied with how long it was taking their children to learn English, and were open to a sink-or-swim approach more like that of their childhood, although <a href="https://griid.org/2013/03/03/this-day-in-resistance-history-1968-chicano-students-walk-out-in-protest-of-racist-policies/">many (more?) had hated those days, too</a>. But I strongly suspect the environment they were reacting to was one of starved education spending; if children were being ill served in bilingual classes, it was because the schools were struggling in general. There is good evidence that bilingual education <a href="http://www.ascd.org/publications/researchbrief/v2n05/toc.aspx">is likely at least as effective</a> for English-learning, when taught well, and has the advantage of fostering fluency in the birth language, also good for children, both in their mental development and for the sake of overall cultural richness. </div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
The norm for education is that we try different things over time and try to evaluate them and do the best by children. Teachers, administrators, and parents are partners and ultimately are trying to serve common goals. They need to be adequately funded so they can do the best job they can, and given flexibility to work together. The only reason to try to choke off one particular type of education via the ballot box is prejudice. Finally, California's politics may have transformed enough that it is no longer a hot-button issue to try to undo this relic. In 1998, Latinxs were 12% of the electorate; in 2014, 18%, and our political consensus is worlds more inclusive - for example, we lead the way in humane treatment of immigrants, including government benefits. </div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
Some more details. Prop 58 does not mandate bilingual education: it preserves as a core goal of our school system ensuring rapid English proficiency. English immersion programs, such as Prop 227 called for, remain the basic program to be offered at a minimum. Dual-immersion programs (the hot new thing, often sought after by parents) or transitional programs that use both languages (closer to bilingual education) are also options, to be determined with public input. Although parents do not need to sign waivers to bring their children into bilingual education, schools are required to accommodate parents' requests for specific language acquisition programs if there are more than 20 requests in a given grade. </div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
There is another advantage of Prop 58, from the point of view of those opposed to ballot clutter. Its backers may prefer this point be kept quiet, but there should be no need to misinform people to get them to support a good cause, and in fact I laud the backers for the decision they made here. Initiative statutes typically bar the Legislature from amending them except to further serve their purposes, and usually also require a two-thirds majority. This was true of 227, but 58 makes it easier for the Legislature to amend its provisions going forward by simple majority vote. In other words, Prop 58 gives our Legislature its proper regulatory role back and makes it less likely that this issue will have to be decided at the ballot again.</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<i><br /></i></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<i>Utilitarian recommendation: </i><b>Yes</b></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<i>Anti-clutter recommendation: </i><b>Yes</b><i> </i></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<i><br /></i></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
</div>
<h4 id="Prop59">
<b>Proposition 59: </b></h4>
<i><b>Citizens United</b></i><b> statement</b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
At last, one I can knock out quickly. This is a purely advisory proposition, with no force of law. It would express the will of the people of California to overturn the <i>Citizens United</i> Supreme Court decision that effectively allowed unlimited money in politics, and more generally to empower Congress to make reasonable regulations limiting campaign spending.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
This statement is clearly a good thing, and thankfully, it does not make the mistake of pretending that <i>Citizens United</i> is the only part of campaign finance that needs fixing. We have had bad campaign finance jurisprudence for some time, elevating the "money is speech" theory over the reasonable interest of the public to keep the political process open and fair; Citizens United merely took it from very bad to catastrophic. The statement does include as a core principle the ability of individuals to express themselves, which is good because the slogan-y declaration that "money is not speech", if made into a legal principle, could be twisted against free speech. Taking money entirely out of campaigns with public financing would be ideal, but I'll settle, at this point, for Congress's ability to comprehensively regulate.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
It is good to keep up the drumbeat for campaign finance reform, and Prop 59, despite its nonbinding nature, is part of that. If it gets something lopsided like 80% of the vote, it could conceivably make people sit up and think about the constitutional amendment route.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
The anti-clutter version of the recommendation will, of course, reject Prop 59, because it self-admittedly does nothing concrete. I am not sure I'm going to follow that recommendation personally, because of how strongly I feel about this particular issue.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<i><br /></i><i>Utilitarian recommendation: </i><b>Yes</b></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<i>Anti-clutter recommendation: </i><b>No</b></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<b><br /></b></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<b>Prefatory observation: Props 60 and 61</b></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<b><br /></b>Propositions 60 and 61 are on different subjects but have the same initiator and primary funder, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, and share some traits: they address a knotty issue where action is needed, and take aggressive action in what could well be a positive direction. They both have well-funded No campaigns from the industries they would impact, and those campaigns have filled the air with a lot of negative talking points, mostly spurious.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<h4 id="Prop60">
<b>Proposition 60: Condoms in adult films</b></h4>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<i><br /></i>Proposition 60, from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its head Michael Weinstein, sets as its goal to make condom use universal in pornography, and does not take no for an answer.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
Its argument is strangely watered down from what it could be. It describes itself as about worker safety - that the current status quo without condom use puts performers at unacceptable risk of AIDS and other STIs. In fact, I think the best argument for condom use in porn is spreading this practice as the norm in the general public. There is a pretty wide awareness that people's (especially men's) sexual expectations are heavily influenced by what they watch; it gets into the culture. (As I recently heard a stand-up comedian say, "I don't watch porn, but I feel like I know it pretty well from the shit guys try to pull on me.") If it were a norm in film, it would go a long way toward reducing STIs, including the over 4,000 annual HIV infections in California.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
Making it a norm in film is not as simple as requiring it in California. The industry could pick up stakes and go. But this is harder than they make it out to be: the state is large, and it's not just history but also networks, infrastructure, and support services that all come together and make an industry sticky in place, especially with so much of the non-adult film industry here. (I have also found it said, though contradicted elsewhere, that laws in most other states put the industry more at risk.) And if California, the largest state in the country, takes this kind of decisive action, many other states could more confidently take the same step; even, conceivably, the federal government. It could catch on quickly.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
So how would Prop 60 go about requiring condoms in California? Technically, they already are required, under CalOSHA regulations, but that is not really enforced. Prop 60 would write the rule fully into law, add fines ranging from $1,000 for negligent first offenses to $70,000 for repeated offenses after warnings, and, crucially, would introduce a <u>private right of action</u>: anyone with some reason to believe there's been a violation has to first make a complaint to CalOSHA, but if it does not act within a prescribed time, they can sue the producer directly, and keep 25% of any fines if they win, plus legal fees and expenses.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
The private right of action is an ambitious step. It allows for a glut of lawsuits unless the state quickly and comprehensively enforces the strengthened law. Allowing non-injured parties to sue is cumbersome and not usually how the legal system works, but there is the False Claims Act, which allows anyone with knowledge of someone bilking the federal government to sue and claim a share of the recovered money; similarly, many environmental laws, like the Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and California Environmental Quality Act, give a wide range of people, or anyone, the right to sue in the public interest. So this mechanism is far from unprecedented.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
Other provisions of 60:</div>
<ul data-blogger-escaped-style="text-align: left;">
<li>Adds strict penalties for coercing someone into performing in violation.</li>
<li>Extends liability to not just producers but also in some cases distributors and talent agents, if they are knowingly involved.</li>
<li>Requires film production to be licensed before the fact; potential suspension of licensure for violating the condom rule. </li>
<li>Requires producers, not performers, pay for all STI testing and related medical work.</li>
<li>Signage on sets in 48-point font disclosing the requirement.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
Some other objections addressed:</div>
</div>
<ul data-blogger-escaped-style="text-align: left;">
<li>"It is intrusive / promotes everyone spying on each other." It's extremely typical for anyone opposing a new law to say it will lead to everyone spying on each other to find violations. They said that about the Fair Housing Act in the 1960s; AirBnB is saying it about regulations on renting private apartments today. In this case, it's rather rich to call it intrusive when the behavior in question is filmed for sale. </li>
<li>"There are emerging new means of prophylaxis that might end up more effective." There's PreP, but that's only for HIV; it's disingenuous to oppose a regulation because unspecified future technology <i>might </i>make it unnecessary, like saying we don't need emissions controls because cold fusion is on the way.</li>
<li>"It appoints Michael Weinstein as a perpetual government employee." Not strictly wrong, but makes sense in context. It's a defense against <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/06/supreme-court-prop-8-ruling-problem">what happened with Prop 8</a>, which went through judicial appeals at a disadvantage because the Governor and Attorney General declined to defend it; the original Prop 8 supporters tried to step up instead, but ultimately couldn't. Although the outcome was good in that one case, it is odd and somewhat unfair that a law duly passed by the people would fare worse in court because of elected officials' opposition. So Prop 60 specifically says that <i>if and only if</i> the state declines to defend it when called on, its proponent (Weinstein) is deputized for that one purpose instead. The Legislature can still remove him from that role for cause by majority vote. Language allowing others to step in was also written into 8 of the other statewide propositions on the ballot, though not always specifying the proponent as directly, but that is the intention.</li>
<ul>
<li>As a small gesture of good faith, the measure would also fine Weinstein $10,000 for wasting everyone's time if the courts strike down the measure in whole or in part for some reason.</li>
</ul>
<li>"It would expose all performers to lawsuits." Only those who also have a financial interest enough to also be called producers, which is how you need to do it if you mean to put the disincentives on those with money at stake; the industry has tried many times to blur the distinction by saying "many" performers. But see below for more on other consequences.</li>
<li>"It's their choice." No more, typically, than it's people's choice to work at a sub-living wage; they do so for pretty much the same reason, because employers have more power than they do, which is why we have wage and work safety laws in the first place.</li>
<li>"There is tremendous market demand for condomless porn, and it will be satisfied somehow." Condom use became the norm in gay porn long ago due to pressure; most consumers will take what is generally available, without being too particular. Producers may prefer to do it this way because they see marginally more profit in it, but well-enforced regulations are precisely what forestall this race-to-the-bottom problem endemic in market competition. </li>
<li>"Michael Weinstein is a shady character who shouldn't be trusted." He's certainly a divisive figure in his community - litigious and idiosyncratic, has rubbed many the wrong way. But even though he's filed lawsuits I've found personally infuriating, objectively I don't see any good evidence he's more than an extremely passionate advocate for what he feels is right. And really, isn't that exactly the combativeness one wants in an AIDS activist, even while disagreeing on details? </li>
</ul>
<div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
However, I think there are reasons Prop 60 falls short in the end.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
First, it appears the AHF is not actually pursuing Prop 60 for the reasons I see as most pressing, to promote condom use among the general public, because of how it is written. It does not specifically require condoms to be <i>visible</i> in the final product, merely says that if condoms are not visible, it creates the legal presumption there was a violation, which the producer can rebut with evidence. This seems to open up the possibility of films routinely <i>simulating</i> condomlessness, while keeping video evidence of their use for legal protection. If that became the norm, it would not have nearly the public health impact. That may not actually be the consequence, but it speaks to the core goals which could show themselves in other ways.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
What does that leave as the core goal of Prop 60? Performer health, especially preventing HIV/AIDS infection. On that score, there is fairly aggressive STI testing as an industry standard: performers are tested every two weeks and must show up to every performance with clean results. This is not airtight: HIV can stay latent and transmissible but undetected for several months. I would never argue that the industry must do everything it can because infections are "not in their interest"; that's a libertarian argument that's trotted out for pretty much every bad thing companies can and do engage in. But in this case, it is a lot more than the general sexually active public does, and it seems likely that the actual rate of HIV transmission is at least no worse than in the general population. I have found six documented infections of performers since 2004, so assuming about 3,000 performers in any given year, that works out to about 17 infections per 100,000 people per year (6/12/3000), compared to 14 per 100,000 in California at large. And of course it is a very small number of infections in absolute terms, so it's an odd place to devote so many resources (public or private) if you're trying to stamp out AIDS. There are high rates of other STIs like gonorrhea among adult film performers, but those are not as dangerous.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
There is one large objection raised that I don't trust highly, because it emerges from the well-funded industry opposition, but on research I haven't been able to dismiss it to my satisfaction either. It is said that people looking to harass small-scale individual performers could sue them to identify their real name, home address, or other personal details through the court process. First, of course, this would only be performers who have a financial interest, which is probably more limited a range than the industry asserts. There are probably many reasons such lawsuits would not be a practical or reliable way of exposing personal information: legal costs could be prohibitive; if CalOSHA followed up on their initial complaints, no lawsuit would be possible; many or most performers, even those small ones who operate on their own, likely have corporations or other intermediaries that separate their personal lives from their business even for judicial purposes; there are potential penalties for frivolous suits, including recovery of court costs; but without close direct knowledge of the court system, these are all surmises on my part on how it would work out in practice.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
It is <i>not</i> true that harassment is part of the goal of Prop 60 (heavily implied by the No campaign, whose website is dontharassca.com); at worst, it would be an unintended consequence. It is certainly true that adult performers are often vulnerable in many dimensions, especially LGBT ones, and deliberately inviting a raft of lawsuits could provoke a wide range of other unintended consequences that would hurt them disproportionately. </div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
In general, if there's anything we've found over decades of hands-off government, it's that looking to enforcement by private action is clumsy and unreliable, even though it may be better than a completely do-nothing government. The existence of private rights of action under the various environmental were better than the alternative during the Reagan years, but they're no substitute for an engaged and right-thinking executive branch. Another example of unintended consequences through this particular means of implementation: CEQA, while a good thing overall, allows for NIMBYs and those who benefit economically from less development to tie up new projects in the courts. I could absolutely imagine larger adult film companies using Prop 60 in the same opportunistic way - getting into compliance themselves and then driving smaller competitors out of business with lawsuits. That, then, could drive some production further underground, threatening even the current testing regime.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
I understand why AHF has gone to this length and wants a private right of action in alternative to a regular political structure that can seem ossified. When CalOSHA tried to strengthen its condom requirements in 2014, the same adult film industry now out in force deluged it with complaints and likely with other political pressure. Although the vote ended up three-two in favor, two on the board didn't vote; the move failed for lack of a majority. AHF also tried to get a strict requirement through the Legislature (without private right of action), but it was bottled up in a committee. So it is not obviously wrong for AHF to feel the existing process is ineffective and needs a kick. But they have a good argument to make: their setbacks are not eternal, and they should keep trying. The civil court system, due to the resources it requires, tends to lock in socioeconomic inequality; we should be hesitant to use it as our primary tool. </div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
Finally, we should all give some deference to the "no" positions of advocacy organizations like Equality California, the Courage Campaign, and the Transgender Law Center. These organizations know more on the ground than I do, and their stances should be taken seriously. AIDS advocates are not lined up either: the LA AIDS Project and the SF AIDS Foundation are in opposition.</div>
</div>
<ul data-blogger-escaped-style="text-align: left;"><ul></ul>
</ul>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<i>Utilitarian recommendation: </i><b>No</b></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<b><br /></b><b></b></div>
<h4 id="Prop61">
<b>Proposition 61: Prescription drug price control</b></h4>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<i><br /></i></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
Prop 61 may be the biggest-impact issue on the ballot, with the greatest amount of money being spent. Like 60, it is the brainchild of AHF and Weinstein. The pharmaceutical industry has raised over $80 million, and TV advertisements are becoming ubiquitous.</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
Getting a handle on prescription drug spending is a critical part of keeping health care affordable and sustainable, especially now that we see the light at the end of the tunnel toward universal coverage. We spent $457 <i>billion</i> on prescription drugs in 2015, about 17% of all our health care dollars, and about $1,420 for every woman, man, and child. In the past 10 years, our spending has grown by 4.4% per year. It makes sense: drug companies have a tremendous amount of economic power, especially for patented drugs that enjoy monopolies; that is supposed to be in exchange for important medical advances, but too often they have been able to gain exclusivity based on minor changes that do not help people, and there is a lot of concern that they are gaming the system in other ways, such as by changing study parameters or burying negative findings to exaggerate the case for their products. They also claim that the prices are necessary to pay for R&D, but they have never satisfactorily shown those costs are actually commensurate (see Marcia Angell, <i>The Truth About the Drug Companies</i>, and many similar works), and we know since they are generally public companies that they are making a great deal of profit, not to mention passing on huge amounts in executive salaries. So let's take as an assumption that drug prices are excessive due largely to market power and gaming of the system. Where, then, do we go from here? </div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span data-blogger-escaped-style="font-family: sans-serif;" style="font-family: sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span data-blogger-escaped-style="font-family: sans-serif;" style="font-family: sans-serif;">It's generally agreed that a big part of the solution is using the power of all patients as a collective - represented by the government, which is to say, all of us - to counteract the pharmaceutical industry's market power, and enforce the social contract whereby they enjoy the benefit of government-funded basic research that leads to developable, patentable products with reliable profits, in exchange for keeping prices reasonable and products high-quality. Virtually all developed countries do this, negotiating collectively to set prices. (Pharma argue that the US, by paying much more, is subsidizing their necessary R&D, but again, this is a self-serving argument they have never properly backed up.) The health care payer in the US that probably is the worst offender in overpayment is Medicare, which is prohibited by law from negotiating prices, and must provide everything "reasonable and necessary" a doctor might prescribe, without regard to price. Since Medicare and the seniors it covers makes up such a large part of health spending, its standard pushes up what commercial insurance must put up to satisfy pharma. </span><i><br /></i></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span data-blogger-escaped-style="font-family: sans-serif;" style="font-family: sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span data-blogger-escaped-style="font-family: sans-serif;" style="font-family: sans-serif;">Note that a tradeoff we face is choice. With often multiple products covering the same conditions, a payer that wants to negotiate needs the power to pick and choose from possible products, and patients do not necessarily like that. (It often means formularies, where special administrative approval is needed to pick a drug not on the basic list.) But some kind of judicious selection mechanism is inevitable; we cannot go on saying "yes" to everything as the cost becomes increasingly out of reach.</span></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span data-blogger-escaped-style="font-family: sans-serif;" style="font-family: sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span data-blogger-escaped-style="font-family: sans-serif;" style="font-family: sans-serif;">Prop 61 attempts to do as much as possible at the state level - not by negotiation, but by an extremely demanding and flat mandate. The state pays for drugs via Medi-Cal, for the low-income, children, and the disabled, via CalPERS, for state employees and retirees, and via the prison system and other miscellaneous programs. Prop 61 is just one page of legislation, saying that the state may not pay for any individual drug at a price higher than the US Veterans Administration pays.</span></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span data-blogger-escaped-style="font-family: sans-serif;" style="font-family: sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span data-blogger-escaped-style="font-family: sans-serif;" style="font-family: sans-serif;">The VA is an odd duck, much more centrally and rationally managed than almost any other part of the US health system, and enjoying significant power to negotiate prices. It has often been offered up as a model for Medicare and the rest of the health system, although it is not without its own problems. The VA gets both a legal maximum price, set by the federal government based on private payer prices, and other federal payers like DoD share in this price; then, the VA can further negotiate prices down. Its purchasing power allows it to get low prices, but these often are kept secret per contracts as a tradeoff.</span></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span data-blogger-escaped-style="font-family: sans-serif;" style="font-family: sans-serif;">Prop 61 requires that the state - so, again, Medi-Cal, CalPERS, etc. - pay VA rates. With tens of millions covered, the drug companies might have difficulty going against this. But how is the state to know the VA rate if it's confidential by contract? The VA being federal, the state appears to have no ability to pry open that information. Would we then pay simply the legal federal ceiling? According to a <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/64xx/doc6481/06-16-prescriptdrug.pdf">2005 CBO report</a> on the net impact of all the different federal price programs, for brand-name drugs, the public federal ceiling the VA, DOD, etc. enjoy is about 49% of list price; prices paid by state Medicaid programs, including negotiations and legally required rebates, are about 51%; the confidentially negotiated VA rates are the lowest, at 42%. By contrast, commercial health plans pay something in the 60-80% range, and Medicare is likely similar. So the federal ceiling would be less savings, but still some. Even moving down two percentage points of list would mean huge savings, and could be more when calculated individually, drug-by-drug.</span></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: sans-serif;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
⇨ One important takeaway for future policy: the ability to keep negotiated prices confidential, whether for drugs or for other services like doctor and hospital rates, is detrimental to the entire system's ability to manage and benchmark. Transparency of information, the ability to compare, is a prerequisite for market processes to work at all, even under classical economic models. <b> Support all-payer claims databases and a federal ban on such confidentiality provisions in health care contracts. </b>(Single-payer would also sweep away many of these problems, though not all.) </div>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span data-blogger-escaped-style="font-family: sans-serif;" style="font-family: sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
One odd omission of Prop 61 is that it applies to Medi-Cal as a whole but exempts Medi-Cal health plans, which the state pays monthly rates to in exchange for taking responsibility for the care of about three-quarters of all Medi-Cal beneficiaries. That leaves only the Medi-Cal "fee-for-service" patients that Prop 61 really applies to, the people kept out of managed care for one reason or another, often because they are just in the process of getting onto the rolls, or have partial coverage, or have simultaneous Medicare coverage (low-income seniors). So this would not affect prices for the vast majority of the people helped by Medi-Cal.</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span data-blogger-escaped-style="font-family: sans-serif;" style="font-family: sans-serif;">Critically, the LAO offers a number of ways drug companies could procedurally resist the mandate, which is why LAO is unable to project clear savings. If California could learn the negotiated rates, but pharma saw them as too much to bear, they could raise prices for the VA as a whole, scotching negotiations and falling back on the legal ceiling; in addition, they could increase what they charge non-governmental payers, which will push up the ceiling too. To be clear, <b>this resistance would be deplorable on the part of the drug companies </b>because they would be saying, effectively, that raising prices on veterans or on everyone is better than any slight reduction to profits. It is pretty revolting that they themselves are funding so many ads implying such price increases are natural and automatic, as opposed to morally culpable, and that they are coopting veterans to echo their arguments. If they did react by raising prices, it would probably provoke backlash and maybe more consensus around tighter price control in the future. But in the meantime, it could come down to a high-stakes game of chicken, with patients in the middle, because it is not clear that the state has any good option if the drug companies refuse to back down; AHF would be happy to sue them for it.</span></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span data-blogger-escaped-style="font-family: sans-serif;" style="font-family: sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span data-blogger-escaped-style="font-family: sans-serif;" style="font-family: sans-serif;">One conclusion I've come to from my research is that while Medicare's payment mechanism is clearly unjustifiable and an easy target for reform, the price-control mechanisms other federal payers have built up over the years are horrendously complicated, a combination of many laws over the years guaranteeing certain discounts, rebates on top of that, some payers piggybacking off others, some going the negotiation route, too, and so on and so forth, without rhyme or reason in aggregate. Look at Table 1 of the CBO report I cited: you have to contend with Average Manufacturer Price, Nonfederal Average Manufacturer Price, Federal Supply Schedule Price, Federal Ceiling Price, FSS Big 4 Price - it's a complete mess. Prop 61 could have decreed statewide <u>all-payer negotiation</u> that almost everyone in the state would have benefited from, breaking out of these knots; instead, it engages in more of the same piggybacking, ties us in further knots, with highly uncertain outcomes.</span></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
If anyone thinks they might support 61 for all its imperfections because they want struggling families and individuals to get personal relief from high drug copays and cost-sharing: that is not really a benefit of Prop 61, even if it succeeds. All the people with high-deductible health plans through Covered California or from their employers? Prop 61 leaves those plans alone. Same for people with high Medicare copays. Of the programs implicated, CalPERS currently has pretty low cost-sharing, similar to large-employer plans. Medi-Cal has no cost-sharing at all for the vast majority of patients, under federal law. Lower prices for Medi-Cal and CalPERS would relieve the state budget as a whole, helping everyone in the long run, but few people, maybe nobody, would get immediate pocketbook relief.</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
Overall, I oppose Prop 61 in the same reluctant way I do 60. It takes decisive action in an area where policy is disappointingly static, due to industry power over the normal levers of change. I am tempted to say, screw it, change is needed, let's shake things up and roll the dice, give the industries a scare and make them realize the weight of public opinion; certainly the anti arguments are overblown. But I can't in good conscience recommend that decision, because of the huge uncertainties involved, and the problematic inflexibility in how both initiatives are written. In the end, for all the faults of the regular legislative and executive policy processes, they are still better suited than the initiative process to address these problems, since policies can be tested, evaluated, and modified over time without spending millions of dollars on new ballot measures or lawsuits or both. There is no silver bullet; I wish there were.</div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<i>Utilitarian recommendation: </i><b>No</b></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<h4 id="Props6266">
<b>Propositions 62 and 66: Death penalty</b></h4>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<i><br /></i>At this point I barely feel I need to provide links: there have been so many miscarriages of justice exposed far after the fact that whether or not you believe in the death penalty as an abstractly good idea (which I do not), it should be obvious that our judicial system has no ability to apply it with the accuracy that is morally needed.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
Propositions 62 and 66 are both about the death penalty, but in two different directions. 62 eliminates it; 66 says that the real problem is that the people on death row are not being executed with any promptness.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
There are currently 748 inmates on death row, but nobody has been executed since 2006. There are a number of simultaneous high-level, tricky lawsuits under way, about the humaneness of execution methods as well as the various appeals looking into the adequacy of the court cases and potential exculpatory evidence like DNA discovered later. (The man executed in 2006 had been convicted in 1980.) They are kept in a special, extra-costly setting in San Quentin.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
Proposition 62 converts all prior and future death sentences to life sentence without possibility of parole. In the future, the kind of circumstances that currently allow for a death sentence for a murder conviction in the Penal Code - second conviction of murder, killing law enforcement officers, using bombs, killing witnesses, etc. - would instead merely trigger life without parole. Due to all the legal, court, and prison costs that would become unnecessary, it would save a whopping $150 million a year.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
Other than tough-on-crime, fearmongering arguments, the only significant anti-66 argument I've heard was against a similar initiative that failed in 2012: that capital prisoners currently receive a fairly high level of public legal defense, which they would lose if their sentences are commuted. That is mildly unfortunate, but the higher level of public defense is awarded precisely because they were sentenced to death. We need more and better public defense for everyone, not just the narrow segment of people who may or may not be sentenced to death; and ending the death penalty is a good thing in itself.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
This is a strong yes for 66, and by both rubrics: by anti-clutter, a ballot measure is needed because the Legislature is unlikely to take the leap without explicit public support.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
By contrast, Proposition 66 is a large laundry list of changes to the death penalty process, trying to "tighten it up". The most noteworthy aspect is a time limit, that all appeals must take no longer than 5 years put together; crime victims are allowed to sue if that is not met. But I count 11 other provisions regarding the legal process: a clock on filing certain types of appeals from when counsel is assigned; allowing a wider range of attorneys, including those with less defense experience, to be appointed as counsel (even potentially on an involuntary basis); letting trial courts handle more of the case work; waiving the Administrative Procedures Act for executions; allowing the state to acquire and administer lethal injection drugs without a doctor's prescription; and requiring the State Supreme Court to generally be "expeditious" in coordinating the death penalty appeal process.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
There are a couple of provisions not about law but merely about the treatment of death row prisoners: most notably, allowing them to be housed in locations other than San Quentin.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
Finally, it takes the Habeas Corpus Resource Center, which works these cases but is intended to operate semi-independently from the court system, and attempts to cut down on its independence by eliminating its Board of Directors. And most vindictively, it requires the Center's staff salaries be no greater than those at the regular state public defender's office, even though the required skills and experience are likely higher.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
This is not only movement in the wrong fundamental direction - we need to end the death penalty, mending it is a fool's errand - but there are also some problems with the structure of Prop 66 that could backfire. Time limits may raise federal constitutional issues that will require their own appeals. The provisions leave it unclear how the process is supposed to work if a time limit runs out. Appointing a wider range of counsel, some of whom might not even want to do the work, and paying existing counsel lower salaries could result in even more appeals down the road for inadequate counsel or various mistakes made.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
Prop 66 is a measure very hostile to the judicial system as a whole, taking as its premise that if appeals are taking a long time, it must be bad faith on the part of the courts, as opposed to their conscientious effort to take their responsibilities seriously when the matter is as weighty as a person's life.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
Prop 66 would save a small if meaningful amount of money - much less than abolition in Prop 62, because it would keep our expensive machine in place, and arguably add more gears. The savings are from moving inmates out of San Quentin, and only in the few tens of millions' range.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
Finally, Prop 66 would entrench itself into the law codes even more firmly than most initiative statutes because it requires amendment by a <i>three-quarters </i>vote of the Legislature, rather than the more normal two-thirds. Perhaps a desire to make sure Republicans, just barely holding on to one third now, always retain a voice in the process? Who knows. The point is that even if any of its many, many discrete ideas turn out to be impractical or impossible, it would require a very high level of consensus from the Legislature merely to fix, if it gets the slightest bit politicized. Ill-conceived in theory and practice, it should get no one's vote.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<i>Utilitarian recommendation: </i><b>62 </b><b>y</b><b>es, 66 no</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<i>Anti-clutter recommendation: </i><b>62 yes, 66 no</b></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<b><br /></b></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
If you're worried you might not remember which of the death penalty measures is which, here's some awful doggerel of my own to use as a mnemonic:</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<i>Sixty-two, death penalty's through;</i></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<i>Sixty-six, makes it stick </i>[...maybe]<i>.</i></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<h4 id="Prop63">
<b>Proposition 63: Gun and ammunition control</b></h4>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
Better gun control is desperately needed; let's leave the principle at that, I can only work out so many things from first principles in one sitting. Proposition 63 is gun control, or rather a handful of elaborations on the theme. There is already some fair basic gun control in California, so most of what lawmakers are finding is out on the edges:</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<ul data-blogger-escaped-style="text-align: left;">
<li>Ammunition sale regulation: licenses for sellers, background checks for buyers, import control.</li>
<li>Measures for those convicted of crimes to disclose and give up any firearms upon conviction.</li>
<li>Mandated for dealers to promptly report loss (or theft) of ammunition.</li>
<li>Mandated for anyone who loses a gun to report this within 5 days. It's just an infraction to start, fine of $100 first time, $1,000 the second time, misdemeanor with the same fine and up to 6 months in county jail for third and later offenses.</li>
<li>Tightening who can own large-capacity magazines.</li>
<li>Making all firearm theft a felony rather than a misdemeanor. This is actually fixing what some in law enforcement called an unintended side effect of Prop 47 two years ago, which reduced to misdemeanor status most simple theft of anything worth less than $950, which could have included some guns. I said at the time that this was not a significant flaw of Prop 47, but that seems like an instance where it makes sense to keep the penalties up, and fix it if there is a chance.</li>
<li>Obligation for the state Department of Justice to participate in the national criminal background check system, whereas now it does but is not required to.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
The additional court, law enforcement, and probation workload would cost a small amount, tens of millions a year. It allows future amendments toward its purposes with a 55% vote (funny number; everyone wants to be original). The trouble is, most of this could have been simply passed by the Legislature; in fact, some of it was this summer, and as a result, some of its provisions are already in law, with minor differences in detail; others, like the penalty for not reporting theft, Jerry Brown vetoed earlier this year. My understanding is that the ballot measure route is at least in part to pad the resume of Gavin Newsom for when he runs for governor in 2018. </div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
I'd say the measures are likely to have only a small positive beneficial effect. For many it's easy to cross state lines and get what they want; so as long as the federal laws stay where they are, the state controls are semi-symbolic, although not nothing (laws do change some kinds of behavior). So Prop 63 is a good target for opponents of clutter.</div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<i><br /></i><i>Utilitarian recommendation: </i><b>Yes</b></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<i>Anti-clutter recommendation: </i><b>No</b><i> </i></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<i><br /></i></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
</div>
<h4 id="Prop64">
<b>Proposition 64: Marijuana legalization</b></h4>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
I have written a great deal on the details and policy facets of Prop 64, which would legalize marijuana for recreational use in the state, in this space earlier this year. You can find <a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/01/how-we-legalize-marijuana-introduction.html">my whole six-part series linked here</a>, with a <a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/07/penalties-under-auma-prop-64-full.html">supplemental note on penalties</a> made later. In short, it's legalization the good way, similar to the Washington and Colorado models. Some high points:</div>
<ul data-blogger-escaped-style="text-align: left;">
<li>It eliminates or reduces penalties for marijuana offenses going forward: also, releases many previously convicted, or lets them clear their records if they are already out - an aid to thousands.</li>
<li>Significant taxation on legal marijuana, making lots of projected revenues, over $1 billion a year once up and running, mostly to go to youth substance use prevention and treatment, other parts to environmental protection, law enforcement, research and evaluation, and grants to communities disadvantaged by the drug war.</li>
<li>Allows concurrent local and state regulation of marijuana business, so that cities or counties don't have to allow stores or farms if they don't want, which is essentially how it stands today with medical marijuana dispensaries. Regardless of what city they lived in, everyone 21 and up would be able to hold 1 ounce and grow up to 6 indoor plants for recreational use.</li>
<li>Requires strong quality testing and content labeling standards for the legal market; truth in advertising, no marketing to minors allowed, brownies notched in 10g-THC chunks, all that.</li>
<li>Gives some leeway for people of color to not get locked out of profit-making in the legal system, by making sure simple drug offenses do not disqualify anyone from being licensed.</li>
<li>Employers can still drug-test freely.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
Various contra arguments addressed briefly:</div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<ul data-blogger-escaped-style="text-align: left;">
<li>No, it does not limit medical rights under the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (Prop 215).</li>
<li>Yes, it may affect small businesses due to more competition; but that is an acceptable side effect of bringing it into the light and establishing standards for wages, safety, labor rights, etc.; it does in fact have several provisions hoping to keep the market competitive and not behemoth-dominated, but not as strongly as it could have.</li>
<li>"It's being funded by people who want to take over the market" - it's mostly funded by Sean Parker, who is a tech billionaire twice over and has made no moves to invest in the industry; there is some funding from the marijuana industry, but it's nothing remotely resembling a takeover like what Ohio rejected recently.</li>
<li>Does not establish standards for driving under the influence of cannabis, simply because those standards would be unscientific if established (urine and blood tests are unreliable). Does allocate a bit of money for the Highway Patrol to work on the problem. </li>
<li>Would technically allow advertising to be broadcast in media markets/timeslots with some small proportion of children watching, although the Legislature could probably tighten that, and federal rules apparently prohibit all broadcast marijuana advertising for now regardless. </li>
<li>"Taxes will make prices rise and hurt medical patients" - prices are likely to fall steeply after a few years even with the tax incorporated. </li>
<li>"Gummy candies" getting into children's hands: this is one of the greatest canards of the anti arguments because the initiative explicitly bans packaging, labeling, or designing any products in such a way as to be appealing to children or confused with candy.</li>
<li>"It's so long, it has to be sinister" - its length simply makes it clear that it is putting in a solid regulatory structure.</li>
</ul>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
So yes, high time to join the bandwagon, take this step which constitutes maybe a quarter of the way toward ending the drug war. Up next, we'll need to find the right structure for other drugs, too, one that avoids incarceration and centers on medical treatment.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
Also, we'll need to remember that this is not something that will automatically end disparate racial arrests and convictions. There is disparate policing and justice throughout the system for drug crimes and non-drug crimes alike, so that issue will still need to be addressed on its own terms. Prop 64 will, however, greatly reduce the absolute number of arrests, infractions, and other criminal punishments, so it will be a step forward.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
Anti-clutter: As Prop 64 is a bold measure, it is one the Legislature unfortunately needs a mandate from the masses on; also, a two-thirds vote would have been required to incorporate the taxes. So it is reasonable for it to be on the ballot. It would likely not generate clutter into the future, as it gives the state wide latitude to test and develop appropriate regulations; also, to the extent we want to further reduce the remaining criminal penalties going forward, the Legislature can do that with a simple majority vote.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<b><br /></b></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<i>Utilitarian recommendation: </i><b>Yes</b></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<i>Anti-clutter recommendation: </i><b>Yes</b></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<b><br /></b></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
</div>
<h4 id="Props6567">
<b>Propositions 65 and 67: Plastic bags</b></h4>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
As before, with the car insurance initiatives, you should very rarely trust an initiative that is funded by a single industry or financially involved individual. 65 and 67 fit the bill, being <i>both</i> by the same industry group, throwing its oar in; the confusing part is that they each require different votes if they are to be thwarted.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
There's been a ban in California now for a little while on stores handing out plastic bags, and requiring a ten-cent fee for bags of any kind. My county adopted it early; we got used to it quickly, and ecological damage and resource waste is down as a result. A simple and good measure. Unfortunately, tediously, predictably, the plastic companies don't like this and want things the way they were.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
They put both of these on the ballot, but the tricky part is, the rules are different for Prop 67, because when you are specifically overturning a law the Legislature recently passed, it's called a "referendum" instead, where a vote of Yes means affirm the original law passed (do ban plastic bags), while No means reject the law (allow plastic bags).</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
Prop 65 is different: it would take the fees that stores collect for reusable bags (10 cents each) and put them into a special state fund for environmental purposes. This would be a feel-good, do-nothing measure even if it were meant to stand on its own terms; in fact, it seems meant to confuse voters in one of a few different ways. If they vote yes on both 65 and 67, 65 could interfere with 67. Or if voters go one level deeper and get disgusted with all the trivial-seeming, industry-funded items on the ballot, and vote no on both, then plastic is back.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
If you want to do what big money doesn't want, and make big money less likely to put these things up in the long run, vote yes on 67, but no on 65.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<i><br /></i><i>Utilitarian recommendation: </i><b>65 no, 67 yes</b></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<i>Anti-clutter recommendation: </i><b>65 no, 67 </b><b>yes</b></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
And with the doggerel once more:</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<i>When to the weary end you leaven,</i></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<i>Remember yes on sixty-seven. </i></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-318338830925023522.post-29029954028134614062016-10-02T14:06:00.000-07:002016-10-13T21:22:38.723-07:00Ballot analyses, California statewide, 2016 - part 1<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Once again, I'm attempting to digest and communicate the substance of what propositions are up on the California November ballot, with the detail and contextual perspective I and others would want to see. I explicitly do not impose a neutral or "moderate" viewpoint, but do try to be intellectually honest about pros and cons and help people make up their own minds.<br />
<br />
With a full 17 measures on the statewide ballot alone, this year I am doing something new. Some people may feel there should be a strong presumption that Legislature should mediate disputes, come to compromises, do its job of representing us, and not annoy and burden voters by punting complicated issues onto the ballot. (They might think that; I couldn't possibly comment.) At the same time, there are many reasons that in practice, an issue cannot move forward without voters' weigh-in, either legally or practically due to politics.<br />
<br />
To accommodate people with this viewpoint, I am making a dual set of recommendations per measure. The <b>utilitarian recommendation</b> only asks whether the measure would have a positive or negative impact on its own terms. The <b>anti-clutter recommendation </b>will mostly look at impact, but will be prepared to say "no" to measures that have only a minor benefit and that we could expect the Legislature to handle on its own. Of course, a utilitarian "no" is automatically a "no" on both sides.<br />
<br />
I plan to make these analyses and recommendations for all the statewide measures as well as for the local propositions before Oakland voters. Possibly also San Francisco, but they have an especially horrid glut this year (over 20!) so I may have to pick and choose.<br />
<br />
<b>Part 1: Bonds, taxes, and constitutional amendments</b><br />
<br />
Propositions 51-57 come first on the ballot because they more inherently require a public vote to move forward, for one reason or another. For most, it's because they are changes to the state constitution. There must also be votes on general obligation bonds. Tax measures in particular tend to come in the form of constitutional amendments, although they could technically be passed by the Legislature, but only with a two-thirds vote ("thank" Prop 13), which is very difficult to assemble; instead, a simple majority of the popular vote is also sufficient.<br />
<h4 id="Prop51"><b>Proposition 51: School bonds</b></h4>
This measure is a kind we have seen fairly routinely seen in the past. The state takes out a bunch of loans, lets districts spend it on school construction and modernization, it gets paid back in interest over about 35 years. With Proposition 51, we would borrow about $9 billion and pay it back with about $500 million payments a year. For context, this repayment amount would be about 0.3% of the state General Fund yearly resources, compared to about 5% of GF in debt service for all of our borrowing every year for the past several years. Since many earlier bond issues are running out, debt service is <a href="http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2016/overview-state-bond-debt-110816.pdf">projected to drop to about 3% of GF</a> in ten years if nothing else changes.<br />
<br />
Of the $9 billion, $7b would go to K-12 schools and the remaining $2b to the community college system. Of the $7b to K-12, $3b each would go to new construction and to modernization, with the final portions to career technical education and charter schools. Allocation to K-12 would require "local match," meaning the district has to find up to 50% of the total project cost on its own, such as through additional local bonds or developer fees.<br />
<br />
Of course these are good spending choices in the abstract, but there remain two big issues surrounding Prop 51. First, is debt the right means for financing this spending? Second, since this measure also makes decisions about how to distribute the spending, are they good decisions, or (possibly) fatally flawed?<br />
<br />
<i>Appropriateness of debt. </i>It is true that California is paying down a great deal of debt and has other non-debt obligations that will grow over time; there are those, including the Governor, who talk about paying down old debt and not taking on new debt where possible. At the same time, the lasting impact of Prop 13 makes state funds perennially scarce, and bonds can play a crucial role in smoothing out resources: construction inherently requires a lot of money up front for infrastructure that will be useful for decades, and bonds make that money available. Given the low interest rates available to the <i>federal</i> government, we know <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/opinion/paul-krugman-debt-is-good-for-the-economy.html">it benefits the economy in the short and long run to use borrowing for this purpose</a>, especially when the infrastructure in question is so vital to the economy at large. So yes, this is a good kind of debt to undertake - in the abstract. At the same time, California's long-term interest rates are over double what the federal government can manage, so borrowing is more expensive, and the stimulus effect may not be as much of a slam-dunk, macroeconomically.<br />
<br />
<i>Flaws with system. </i>The main other reason offered to reject Prop 51 is that the system used to distribute funds is outdated and inequitable. The US system of local control of schools has traditionally meant richer districts have access to more funding. California's school financing has significantly less inequity than nationally: here, most education spending comes from the state on a per-student basis, and under a <a href="http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcffoverview.asp">new formula in effect since 2013</a>, the per-student amount is higher for low-income, English-learning, or foster children. But wealthier districts can still muster resources over and above what the state allots, such as through additional local bond measures, which are more frequently undertaken and more likely to succeed in the wealthier or more progressive districts that can afford it or that are more receptive to it. In some cases districts pursue developer fees as a funding source instead, but that is also bound to work better in wealthier districts. From 2007 to 2011, <a href="http://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu/uploads/2015_Guided_by_Princples.pdf">annual capital spending was $1,355 per student</a> in the districts with the fewest low-income students, but only $1,010 per student in the districts with the most low-income students.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, the existing system to distribute school bond money perpetuates the current inequities by awarding largely on a first-come, first-served basis - better for those well-funded and larger districts that will have proposals polished and ready to go, but not prioritizing the neediest systems with the most disadvantaged student populations.<br />
<br />
So there is some consensus among policy thinkers, including the governor and the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office, that the system is badly in need of reform. Prop 51 does not contain reform; in fact, it freezes a good deal of the existing system in place. Besides continuing the first-come first-served structure, it would also prevent the Legislature from increasing fees on developers, a reasonable alternative funding source, until 2020. This reflects cozy relationships between public education and those who profit from having bond money flowing freely: construction companies, architects, planners, consultants, financial firms, etc., who are the major donors to Prop 51. There are often even more questionable arrangements out there, like <a href="https://calconstructionlawblog.com/2014/09/29/yes-indeedy-competitive-bidding-not-required-for-school-district-lease-leasebacks/">"lease-leaseback" arrangements evading competitive bidding procedures</a>, or <a href="https://priceonomics.com/how-investment-banks-cash-in-on-school/">districts hiring the same consulting firms to manage local bond campaigns and then issue the bonds</a>. Governor Brown is in opposition to Prop 51, saying the system should be overhauled before a new bond measure is made, but there are no major groups getting this message out, probably because the status quo does not hurt any specific interest.<br />
<br />
Despite all of the above serious problems with the system in place, I still support the measure, because of the practical and moral urgency. Public education funding is an imperative to the next generation and to the healing and maintenance of society. Californians are still suffering from the long-term debilitations of disinvestment in public education. Over 70% of school buildings are over 25 years old, and we continue to have tens of thousands of mobile units used as classrooms. With the last bond money from the most recent 2006 measure now spent, many vital projects are sitting in limbo having been approved by the state. Voting "no" on policy grounds <i>might </i>force a better measure in the future, but that is far from guaranteed. At the moment, with the state of the economy, education spending is doing very well (see Prop 55 below for more reasons), but virtually all of the new tax revenues have to go to operations, not infrastructure. If Prop 51 fails, the decay will inevitably continue and be harder to catch up with in the future, especially if a recession hits and revenues shrink again. It would also ill-serve the community college system and the millions of people it educates.<br />
<br />
It is a close thing, and I have gone back and forth as I put this analysis together, but in the final analysis, voting no on Prop 51 would be making the perfect the enemy of the good, and leaving students and communities in the lurch. <br />
<br />
<i>Utilitarian recommendation: </i><b>Yes</b><br />
<div>
<i>Anti-clutter recommendation: </i><b>Yes</b></div>
<br />
(In this case, there is no reason for the anti-clutter recommendation to differ from the utilitarian recommendation, as any bond measure must go before the voters, and non-bond funding does not seem feasible at this point.)<br />
<h4 id="Prop52"><b>Proposition 52: Medi-Cal funding</b></h4>
Proposition 52 is arcane and connected to a great deal of squabbling out of the public eye. I will try to keep it as simple as I can.<br />
<br />
Medi-Cal is our state's main program providing health care to the low-income and disabled. It's a joint state-federal program, with 50% of the costs for most patients being paid by the federal government and the remainder from state and local sources. Most Californians newly insured through the ACA have Medi-Cal. The topic of Prop 52 is a part of Medi-Cal called the "hospital fee" program, where hospitals contribute some of their own money to it, to be matched with federal dollars and converted into higher rates to hospitals for serving Medi-Cal patients. The rates are typically very low due to the state's chintziness, and the hospital fee makes them more bearable for hospitals.<br />
<br />
However, the fee has been a source of conflict since it was enacted in 2010. The state always skims some off the top, and in crisis years it has sometimes unilaterally decided to take more to help balance the budget, which hospitals hate. Prop 52 would embed the hospital fee into the Constitution: the program has to continue, and the state can continue taking its current cut, but no more.<br />
<br />
My feelings here are mixed. It's good for the hospital fee money to go to services, and bad for the state to dip into it for its convenience. (Technically they call it spending on other state health programs, but the state would have been putting its own money there otherwise.) But this measure boils down to squabbling among institutions and interest groups that they really ought to be able to solve these issues on their own, without spending tens of millions of dollars campaigning and taking up an unquantifiable amount of the public's time and attention. It's also a little manipulative that the hospital industry put it on the ballot hoping the public would imprecisely see it as more funding for health care. It also makes the Constitution even more complicated, tying the hands of future legislatures.<br />
<br />
The official arguments against Prop 52 are pretty poor quality, coming from a union often at odds with the hospital industry. Technically, no, there's nothing preventing hospitals from spending the fee money on executive salaries as it suggests, but that's because the money is <i>payments for services</i>: treat more Medi-Cal patients, you get more money, but almost never actual profits, which hospitals get elsewhere, like from commercial insurance. The hospital fee is not a sweetheart deal, just a kludge.<br />
<br />
(The biggest real threat Medi-Cal faces is if the Republicans gain more power at the federal level and engage in "reforms" like block-granting or a per-capita cap which defund and eviscerate it - or if Democrats acquiesce to such destruction as a "grand bargain". Just to talk about the real issues for a second.)<br />
<br />
I support the measure in the most abstract terms, but if you prefer to punish measures that do not really belong on the ballot, this is exactly the sort of measure that philosophy should reject.<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Utilitarian recommendation: </i><b>Yes</b><br />
<i>Anti-clutter recommendation: </i><b>No</b><br />
<h4 id="Prop53"><b>Proposition 53: Revenue bonds</b></h4>
Bonds again! This measure, unlike Prop 51 is not about general obligation bonds, where repayments just come out of state funds every year, but revenue bonds, which are matched to a prospective source of revenue, like fees or tolls, that will pay back the bonds once the project is completed.<br />
<br />
General obligation bonds need voter approval, hence Prop 51, but revenue bonds don't, since in principle they don't draw on state tax money. Prop 53 would instead newly require voter approval before issuing revenue bonds above $2 billion. If it sounds strangely specific, it is because it is a vanity project, wholly funded by a wealthy Stockton agribusinessman and friend of the Kochs, Dean Cortopassi. He seeks to block a single project, the large tunnel project intended to get water through the Sacramento River Delta more efficiently and with less environmental impact, presumably because he profits from cheap water and doesn't want to pay more in fees. He may also dislike the (worthy) high-speed rail project, which this would also endanger. I do not know if the Delta tunnel is the best idea, but it is a good rule of thumb not to tie the Constitution into knots to change the outcome of a specific issue, or so that a rich man can get his way.<br />
<br />
On pure policy grounds, this is a bad idea too. As I argued above in Prop 51, taking out debt to build infrastructure is a vital function of government. When you can put together revenue bonds, that means you can make it work without spending more tax dollars, making the project even more of a good deal, that should not need a vote. (I am inclined to agree it is sketchy that the state apparently structures some prison construction as revenue bonds by having one entity make lease payments to another, but that needs reform separately.)<br />
<br />
Prop 53 reveals its vindictiveness through its internal contradictions: if it made sense to impose this new obstacle on bonds for statewide projects, it would also make sense to do so for city, county, and school projects, but instead it specifically exempts them. Prop 53 is opposed by everyone in the state from unions to the Chamber of Commerce. This is an easy "no".<br />
<b><br /></b>
<i>Utilitarian recommendation: </i><b>No</b><br />
<h4 id="Prop54"><b>Proposition 54: Legislative transparency</b></h4>This proposition is procedural, changing details of how the Legislature conducts business in an effort to make the outcomes better.<br />
<br />
Prop 54 does two things:<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Requires the text of any legislation to be made public for 3 days before final passage - no more of the "gut-and-amend" practice completely changing bills at the last minute. (This is the biggest piece.)</li>
<li>Requires that all open legislative sessions and committee hearings be recorded and made available online (right now it's just most of them).</li>
</ul>
<div>
The idea, of course, being that the sunlight will shine in and the legislators, knowing they are being thoroughly watched at every stage, will make decisions that are more in the public interest.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I've spoken skeptically of such tinkering in the past. In 2012, for Proposition 31, <a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2012/10/no-on-prop-31-analysis.html">I wrote</a>:</div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue Light", HelveticaNeue-Light, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px; outline: none; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Everyone has ideas about how to improve government by tinkering with the Constitution, congressional procedures, or whatever's handy. Term limits! End the filibuster! Don't pay legislators if they don't pass a budget! Make them send their kids to public school! We seem to have inherited the notion of checks and balances so thoroughly that we keep assuming one more check or balance will put everything right again. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
This is very arm's-length for me. I prefer, in my efforts, to push more directly for what I want done. When you get enough of society and elites on your side substantively, procedural issues don't matter so much. But the same goes for bad policy and bad governance: they have a way of skirting or making irrelevant procedures meant to contain them. (Term limits didn't make politicians impartial citizens, it transferred power to lobbyists and staffers.)</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
However, Prop 54's exact provisions are pretty unobjectionable, unlike with Prop 31. There are many steps laid out in the Constitution that bills must go through, so that they are public for a long period before passage; "gut-and-amend" often skirts these rules, by deleting all of a bill's text and inserting new text after many or all of those steps. If done at the end of session, the Legislature can sometimes vote on bills based on last-minute deals before observers can vet in full. That is really not what anyone intended historically, or what anyone thinks is ideal currently.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, much of what the Legislature does in these deals is very technical anyway, so 72 hours' full notice will not necessarily help the average observer. In a few cases, it may hurt deals if the effect of the last-minute amendments was to shut them out of the process. However, special interests can also make use of closed doors to push through embarrassing deals themselves. In the end, on balance, this change likely does at least some good; it also accords with our basic principles of transparency.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I have little sympathy for the counterargument that some important recent budget deals would not have been made under these provisions. If deals must be published 72 hours before final passage, the main result will be that everyone will move up their working deadline 72 hours. To a lesser extent they may further work to make sure the deal is something that 72 hours of scrutiny will not undo, which, so much the better. But even with transparency, there will be a great deal of institutional and peer pressure to keep from going back on big deals at the last minute, some slight embarrassment of a news cycle or two notwithstanding. Earlier this year, a very similar measure passed the State Senate 27-8, nearly entirely on party lines, Democrats in favor. It passed two Assembly committees by the same wide margins before being bottled up. So actual legislators certainly do not think it is unworkable.<br />
<br />
On the other piece of the bill, legislators should regard what they say in open sessions as public, so I see no harm - only annoyance - in making their full video accessible, and also opening it up for use in broadcasting. The added cost of making all video available is real but minor.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Since Prop 54 is being bankrolled by right-wing heir Charles Munger, Jr., I was concerned there was some kind of poison pill, but there is none: it is a good measure on its own terms, with Common Cause and other trustworthy organizations in support, so the recommendation is yes. At the same time, viewed through an anticlutter lens, its positive benefit is quite small, so the recommendation there has to be no.</div>
<br />
(Perhaps Munger's goal is to fill up the ballot and make voters sour and less receptive to the many other progressive measures this year? In which case, press on, reader, we have some critical ones next.)<br />
<br />
<i>Utilitarian recommendation: </i><b>Yes</b><br />
<i>Anti-clutter recommendation: </i><b>No</b><br />
<h4 id="Prop55"><b>Proposition 55: Upper-income tax </b></h4>
In 2012, California was in a long-running budget crisis, cutting more services every year and still coming up short. <a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2012/10/yes-on-30-analysis.html">You can read my blog post at the time in support of Prop 30 here</a>; the short version is that the public services Californians fund with taxes are vital - education, health care, to some extent criminal justice - and we by and large recognize that, but we also dislike paying taxes in the abstract, and for too long we have let these services languish, prioritizing the hatred of taxes, helped by a constitutional structure crafted by right-wingers that is designed to prioritize in this way. The Recession put the mismatch in especially stark terms.<br />
<br />
Prop 30 turned things around, increasing the state income tax on high earners only (the top 3%) and increasing the sales tax, which everyone pays, by a quarter-cent. It prevented massive cuts at the time, and now that the economy is rebounding, helped us reinvest in our key services, pay down some debts, and even build up a small reserve (<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_2,_Rainy_Day_Budget_Stabilization_Fund_Act_(2014)">Prop 2</a>).<br />
<br />
If we do nothing, the Prop 30 income tax increase will expire in 2018, and the sales tax increase will expire at the end of this year, 2016. Prop 55 would keep the income tax increase in place for another 12 years, but <span style="font-family: sans-serif;">let the sales tax expire as planned, benefiting people with low incomes especially, since they spend more of their income on goods. </span><a href="http://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/what-has-proposition-30-meant-for-california/">The top 1% of earners in the state pay 99% of Prop 30's income tax revenues.</a><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
The great improvement in the California budget is partly due to Prop 30 but also partly due to the recovery. Here are tax revenues from these two large sources during the recession and since:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img src="" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Sources: State Controller's Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports through 14-15, enacted state budget thereafter.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
So income tax revenues have risen by over $25 billion since 2011-12; by contrast, if the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office has it right, Prop 30 will account for for no more than $9b in income taxes during a strong economic year. Our revenue is more volatile than it ideally should be, due to longstanding tradeoffs that no single reform can change. So if we have a recession, we will be facing steep budget cuts either way, but they will be even steeper unless we extend the income taxes, which would bring in about $4b even in lean years.<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
Critics say Prop 30 was "supposed to be temporary", but voters are allowed to change their minds. I hope the experience with Prop 30 and the rapid growth that followed has shown the public that higher taxes on the wealthy are not a sad necessity for crises only. In fact, they promote growth and enable the essential services that allow everyone to prosper.<br />
<br />
Progressive taxation is also part of the moral economy: part of how we make the economy work for everyone, countering its natural tendencies to redistribute upwards. We are now seeing growth as unequal as any we have seen before, if not more so; we are number 7 out of the 50 states in inequality, with <a href="http://www.epi.org/multimedia/unequal-states-of-america/#/California">the top 1% earning 22% of all income</a>. We need to do more to make growth equitable before taxes, such as through the minimum wage increases now underway, but progressive income taxes will remain a key part of the equation into the future.<br />
<br />
Prop 55 would devote about half of its revenue to education, and most of the remainder to health care, reducing debt, and building reserves. Is this ballot-box budgeting? Technically, yes, as it ties the Legislature's hands in how the money can be used; but that's more or less how the Legislature would spend the money anyway, on the vital services where our efforts are pledged. We should vote yes.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<i>Utilitarian recommendation: </i><b>Yes</b><br />
<i>Anti-clutter recommendation: </i><b>Yes</b><br />
<h4 id="Prop56"><b>Proposition 56: Tobacco tax</b></h4>
Prop 56 increases the state tax on cigarettes by a significant $2 a pack, and higher on other tobacco products. This will raise funds for a number of good causes and greatly promote health in the process - a win-win.<br />
<br />
There's a folk belief that smokers smoke and will continue to do so regardless of what any government nanny may attempt; but this is not borne out by the data. Haranguing does little, true; but money talks. A smoker may not be able to recalculate their finances in light of a new tax and say "Okay, I'm out," but higher taxes make smoking more of an ongoing financial strain, make quit attempts more frequent and more likely to succeed, and most crucially, make it harder for young people to start. In five years, smoking will have dropped as a direct result of Prop 56.<br />
<br />
I can go a step further than the LAO in analysis: there is enough research on this subject to do some rough, back-of-the-envelope analysis of just how much Prop 56 could reduce smoking. A large body of research has found demand price elasticity - how much people change their consumption based on price - <a href="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/21/2/172.full">averages to about 40%</a> in high-income countries. $2 is about 36% of the current average price of about $5.50. To be safe, call that 25% since the tax might not be fully passed down to retail. So very conservatively, smoking could decline by 0.25 * 0.4 = ten percent!<br />
<br />
There were about 3.4 million smokers in the state in 2014; so we get about 300,000 fewer smokers, in the long term, as a result of Prop 56 alone, with all the health benefits that go along with that. That's a simplification, since technically, the prediction is that total <i>consumption </i>of cigarettes - packs bought per year - would drop 10%, and not everyone smokes the same amount; but 300,000 people still gives you a good rough idea of the health benefit. (For example, maybe it's actually 200,000 people, but 100,000 of them smoked twice as much as average; or 600,000 people all cut their consumption by one-half; those are both still very good things.)<br />
<br />
Some other common myths about tobacco taxes in general, answered:<br />
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>"It might reduce smoking, but because of that, the tax money will dwindle fast and not actually be useful." Yes, the tax revenue will go down as people reduce and quit, but based on experience, it will take a long time for reduced smoking to offset the new tax revenue, and even then, we will still be left with the health benefits, which the tax will preserve.</li>
<li>"People will just buy on the black market and not pay the tax." A few will, sure, but law enforcement is a thing that exists, and that can keep the black market reasonably in check. There will still be plenty of new tax money raised, with evasion a minor bleed. It is a major problem in New York City, but there, state and local taxes add up to $5.85, making the black market much more attractive to most; and with so many nearby jurisdictions, smuggling is also much more practical there.</li>
<li>"It's regressive, hurting the low-income disproportionately, because they have less money to spend on cigarette taxes." Actually, that is part of why it <i>benefits </i>the low-income disproportionately - research has found that the low-income have a higher price elasticity of demand for tobacco, meaning they are more likely to reduce consumption due to taxes, and thereby get more of the health benefits. </li>
</ol>
<div>
Prop 56 would raise over $1 billion a year, and devotes about 4/5 of the new funds to Medi-Cal -- health care for the low-income, children, and the disabled. Some also goes to providing dental care and training new physicians. The remainder goes to various subsets of tobacco policy: tobacco law enforcement (keeping the black market down!), tobacco control programs from public health, and tobacco disease research. In 2012 there was an failed attempt to raise the tobacco tax but to spend almost all the funding on cancer research; I think this version is better, as it chooses to help the needy and impacted by tobacco as a more urgent matter.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There is a critique that the measure does not decree precisely how Medi-Cal uses the majority of funds - does not require it to go to doctors or hospitals or clinics - but that too is a plus, because it gives the Legislature the authority to adapt to changing circumstances, and declines to tie the lawbooks in yet further knots just to better market an already good measure.<br />
<br />
Also, yes, it is technically ballot-box budgeting, but to vital enough services that I can easily look past that, and the generality of implementation helps. (The way politics works, if it did not specify some of the money would be spent, all the tobacco industry's ads would lay on with a trowel "they're going to blow all the money on administrative bloat".)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Prop 56 makes e-cigarettes newly subject to the tobacco tax, which is new. In fact, it taxes them at a higher effective rate, as for all non-cigarette tobacco products like cigars and chewing tobacco. I think this is a little premature: we have no good data at this point whether whether e-cigarettes are as or less dangerous than cigarettes. There is sometimes a censorious vibe from antismoking activists on this subject, the notion that e-cigarettes are necessarily bad merely because they are <i>like </i>smoking, or encourage smoking, and data is not necessary. A faint resemblance to sex-ed politics... Anyway, it would be nice if Prop 56 at least allowed the Legislature discretion to reduce the e-cigarette tax if favorable research were to come in. But that is a small consideration, and the measure is well worth supporting otherwise.<br />
<br />
Another gripe on a similarly low level: Prop 56 does not index the tax for inflation, which would be a simple improvement to help preserve its impact over time. </div>
<br />
<i>Utilitarian recommendation: </i><b>Yes</b><br />
<i>Anti-clutter recommendation: </i><b>Yes</b><br />
<h4 id="Prop57"><b>Proposition 57: Parole and juvenile justice</b></h4>
Peaking in the 1980s and 1990s, California imposed a number of different "tough-on-crime" laws over the years, taking the position that the only effective response to rampant crime was to lock up as many people as possible, for as long as possible. We were following a national trend, but in some ways exceeded it, like our three-strikes law that once gave a man 25 years to life for possessing a stolen cell phone. Crime is now way down, but there is strong evidence that <a href="https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/what-caused-crime-decline">the long sentences are not the cause</a>: for example, many other countries saw the same crime drop despite very different policy responses. What we know for sure is that the criminal justice system as we rebuilt it is arbitrarily cruel, has a <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/v8_THP_10CrimeFacts.pdf">catastrophically disparate racial impact</a>, deprives judges of discretion and low-income defendants of options, and of course is extremely expensive.<br />
<br />
Today, we are finally starting to turn around: even Hillary Clinton has said we need to end the era of mass incarceration, and some solid red states like Texas are quietly coming to the same realization. And it is working: as states find ways to cut how many people they imprison, crime <a href="http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/multimedia/data-visualizations/2014/imprisonment-and-crime">continues to decrease</a>.<br />
<br />
California, for example, has now eliminated the most irrational part of Three Strikes, the fact that a nonviolent crime could count as a "third strike" (Prop 36, 2012). We more recently changed many low-level felonies to misdemeanors with much lower sentences (Prop 47, 2014). Both actions were retroactive, resulting in the release of thousands, and the fairer treatment going forward of many more. And crime has remained at its historically low levels.<br />
<br />
Prop 57 is another modest step in the same direction, being pushed by Governor Brown in particular. It tries to revitalize parole for nonviolent offenders as a tool for rehabilitation. One challenge in sentencing reform has been the various "enhancement" laws that have been added over the years. On top of the basic sentences, enhancements automatically add years to a sentence if certain conditions are met, like prior convictions, or being armed during the crime, or the crime being "gang-related". This has created <a href="http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Thousands-of-California-Inmates-Face-Extraordinarily-Long-Sentences-Because-of-Enhancements-370335951.html">some ridiculous outcomes</a>: you might first get seven years for manslaughter, but then have 25 years to life added because it was also shooting into an occupied dwelling. The penal system often has no power to parole inmates before the enhanced sentence is up, so many people languish for far too long compared to their underlying offenses, even when they are aging and could easily be rehabilitated. The lack of parole even as a prospect is also likely damaging to their rehabilitation.<br />
<br />
Prop 57 would create the prospect of somewhat reduced sentences by enabling parole boards to grant parole after the <i>basic</i> sentence is served, but before the enhanced sentence is complete. This change would be relatively small in scope, because it would only apply to non-violent criminals with shorter sentences on average: a reasonable, cautious step forward. It bears a similarity to what the state is already doing under a federal court order to alleviate overcrowding.<br />
<br />
I am not sure why the opposition argues that it would define various specific crimes as nonviolent; the text leaves the Legislature free to define "nonviolent". Finally, as I read it, the opposition is right that if someone is serving prison time for a nonviolent crime, but they have a violent prior offense, this could give them earlier parole; I don't see that as a problem, because they have already served their time for that earlier offense, and should not be re-punished.<br />
<br />
At some point we are going to have to take bolder steps if we want to truly end the era of mass incarceration. <a href="http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=702">As of 2013, 90% of the 112,300 state inmates</a> had current or prior violent or serious felony convictions, and 21% were at least 50 years old - this is because those given long sentences pile up behind bars over time, while those with short sentences cycle out. As a result, we are starting to run into the limits of how much you can cut down on incarceration if all the sentences you are willing to change are for nonviolent or drug crimes. Obviously if we look to further reform of the incarceration state that addresses violent-offense sentences, that must go together with better policing, protecting all communities, and better opportunities for people leaving prison to establish themselves.<br />
<br />
The other major piece of Prop 57 is that it would cut back on the practice of trying teenagers as adults. Currently, in many cases, prosecutors may divert 14 to 17-year-olds to be tried as adults with virtually no oversight, on their own authority. This is almost entirely the result of a past panic over young Black men (as seen in the old term "superpredators") and a desire to be able to view them as adults, the same instinct that once led Donald Trump to take out a full-page ad <a href="http://www.mtv.com/news/2922644/the-central-park-five-ad-told-us-who-donald-trump-really-is/">roaring for violent retribution against children</a>. Prop 57 would revert to the previous practice of requiring the prosecutor to make a motion to the judge, who evaluates the minor for suitability for adult treatment. This is unlikely to affect very many teenagers, but those it does will be greatly helped, and it makes perfect sense procedurally and morally.<br />
<b><br /></b>
Could the proposition's goals have been achieved without a ballot measure? I don't think so, because of the old initiatives it has to amend, and because the Legislature is very wary of doing this sort of thing without a public seal of approval. Therefore, although it's a relatively small issue, my anticlutter recommendation is also yes.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<i>Utilitarian recommendation: </i><b>Yes</b><br />
<i>Anti-clutter recommendation: </i><b>Yes</b><br />
<b><br />Coming next week: initiative statutes, 58 through 67.</b></div>
</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-318338830925023522.post-52442191897972575092016-07-25T08:00:00.000-07:002016-07-25T08:00:23.778-07:00Penalties under AUMA / Prop 64: the full rundown<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
With the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) now qualified for the November 2016 ballot in California and renamed to Proposition 64, I see a lot of confusion out there on how, exactly, it would change legal penalties for marijuana. I touched on the the subject in my <a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/01/how-we-legalize-marijuana-introduction.html">6-post blog series</a>, but not in depth. I am writing now to try to provide a comprehensive resource on exactly how it changes criminal law in California. I also have some observations to make on what it implies for racial and socioeconomic equity in the justice system.<br />
<br />
The main part of this work is tables summarizing what penalties apply for various marijuana crimes currently, compared to what penalties would apply under Prop 64, so that everything is clearly stated, with legal citations you can follow. (The <a href="http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes.xhtml">current law code database is here</a>, and a <a href="http://www.yeson64.org/pdfs/AUMA.Amended.12.7.15.Final.pdf">clean, searchable PDF text of </a>Prop 64 from its campaign website.)<br />
<br />
My major caveat is that I am not a lawyer; I am a policy analyst with what I like to think is a decent lay ability to read, research, and interpret statute. I am open to corrections (<a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/01/how-we-legalize-marijuana-introduction.html">email me here</a>).<br />
<br />
Some other cautionary notes on the below analysis:<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Current California law has higher penalties some of the time for more than 28.5 grams, or one ounce, of <i>dried </i>marijuana; the higher penalties also apply to <i>any </i>amount of concentrated cannabis (hash, oil, etc.). Prop 64 continues to keep a dividing line for many purposes at one ounce, but it also sets a new dividing line allowing smaller amounts of concentrated cannabis, calling it analogous to a dried ounce. However, there was a drafting error, drawing the line at 4 grams in most places but 8 grams in one important place; the Legislature will have to fix this. For brevity, I will refer to "1oz" as the dividing line and not address concentrated.</li>
<li>I do not have data to say how often the penalties specified in law are actually applied, or how often they are plea-bargained to lesser charges, or how much discretion judges have to apply lower sentences; however, those official penalties are still the biggest quantifiable factor a reasonable person might consider in judging risk, so they are my main focus.</li>
<li>Drug laws often do not set out separate sentences for minors, making it appear as if a child could be sentenced to years in state prison for, say, selling marijuana; in fact, the juvenile justice system is a good deal more lenient, with many opportunities to apply remedies short of incarceration (counseling, diversion, informal probation, etc.). But detention is still possible and it is still not a good process for a minor to go through. Occasionally, it might be possible for a repeat-drug-offending minor to be tried as an adult (if 16 or older and if gangs are involved). Prop 64, by contrast, establishes much lower penalties for minors for most marijuana crimes. Due to the complexity, I will refer to current sentences for minors using the all-ages sentences as they are written in law.</li>
<li>California cannot prevent federal law enforcement from enforcing the Controlled Substances Act, but it is not obliged to copy or enforce those laws itself. So far, the federal government has opted not to crack down on possession or commerce in legalizing states like Colorado and Washington. <b>Federal penalties are not discussed in this post.</b></li>
<li>HSC = Health and Safety Code; VEH = Vehicle Code, BPC = Business and Professions Code. Legal code numbers are sections of HSC unless otherwise specified (either as in current law or as amended by Prop 64).</li>
<li>A fine described in law as $100 may in practice be as much as several hundred dollars after surcharges and fees have been added.</li>
</ul>
1. Possession and use<br />
<br />
The only type of marijuana possession made absolutely legal and without penalty under Prop 64 is simple possession of one ounce or less by adults 21 and up (lower cutoff for concentrated cannabis). Currently, that offense is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor, but an infraction (basically a ticket) with a fine of $100.<br />
<br />
<i>Adults aged 21 and up:</i><br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" dir="ltr" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid #ccc; font-family: arial,sans,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; table-layout: fixed;"><colgroup><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col></colgroup><tbody>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"></td><td colspan="2" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Simple possession without complicating factors"}" rowspan="1" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Simple possession without complicating factors</td><td colspan="1" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"<=1oz, but on K12 school grounds during school/program hours"}" rowspan="2" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;"><div style="max-height: 222px;">
&lt;=1oz, but on K12 school grounds during school/program hours</div>
</td><td colspan="1" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Smoking or ingesting marijuana in a public place, except as locally licensed"}" rowspan="2" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;"><div style="max-height: 222px;">
Smoking <i>or ingesting</i> marijuana in a public place, except as locally licensed</div>
</td><td colspan="1" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Smoking marijuana in places where tobacco is prohibited*, or within 1,000 feet of a school or day care/youth center**"}" rowspan="2" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;"><div style="max-height: 222px;">
Smoking marijuana in places where tobacco is prohibited*, or within 1,000 feet of a school or day care/youth center**</div>
</td><td colspan="1" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Having open container of marijuana in vehicle while operating it"}" rowspan="2" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;"><div style="max-height: 222px;">
Having open container of marijuana in vehicle while operating it</div>
</td><td colspan="1" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"DUI"}" rowspan="2" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;"><div style="max-height: 222px;">
DUI</div>
</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 186px;"><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"<=1oz"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">&lt;=1oz</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":">1oz"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">>1oz</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Current law"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Current law</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Infraction, $100 fine\n11357(b)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Infraction, $100 fine<br />
11357(b)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Misdemeanor, $500 and/or 6 mos. jail\n11357(c)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Misdemeanor, $500 and/or 6 mos. jail<br />
11357(c)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Misdemeanor, $500 / 6 mos. jail\n11357(d)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Misdemeanor, $500 / 6 mos. jail<br />
11357(d)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"No separate penalty from simple possession - for <=1oz, $100 infraction"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">No separate penalty from simple possession - for &lt;=1oz, $100 infraction</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"No separate penalty from simple possession - for <=1oz, $100 infraction"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">No separate penalty from simple possession - for &lt;=1oz, $100 infraction</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"No separate penalty from simple possession - for <=1oz, $100 infraction"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">No separate penalty from simple possession - for &lt;=1oz, $100 infraction</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Misdemeanor to start, compoundable - same system for alcohol as for drugs\r\nVEH 23152\r\n"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Misdemeanor to start, compoundable - same system for alcohol as for drugs
<br />
VEH 23152
</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"AUMA"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Prop 64</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Fully legal\n11362.1(a)(1)\n"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;"><b>Fully legal</b><br />
<b>11362.1(a)(1)</b></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Misdemeanor, $500 / 6 mos. jail\n11357(b)(2)\nUnless excess is product of one's own legal plants\n11362.1(a)(3)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Misdemeanor, $500 / 6 mos. jail<br />
11357(b)(2)<br />
<i>Unless </i>excess is product of one's own legal plants<br />
11362.1(a)(3)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Misdemeanor\nFirst offense: $250\nFurther offenses: $500 / 10 days jail\n11357(c)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Misdemeanor<br />
First offense: $250<br />
Further offenses: $500 / 10 days jail<br />
11357(c)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Infraction, $100\n11362.4(a)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Infraction, $100<br />
11362.4(a)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Infraction, $250\n11362.4(a)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Infraction, $250<br />
11362.4(a)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Infraction, $250\n11362.4(a)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Infraction, $250<br />
11362.4(a)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"No change"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">No change</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
* Places where tobacco is prohibited in California include restaurants, bars, workplaces, theaters, public meeting areas, etc.</div>
</div>
**Except in private residences or as locally licensed, but even in those cases, smoking must still be detectable on school/center grounds.<br />
<br />
Note that Prop 64 creates some new crimes, such as smoking in a public place, but these were previously punishable as simple possession. In the case of smoking where tobacco is prohibited, near a school, or having an open container, the applicable fine actually increases from $100 to $250; however, the crime remains an infraction.<br />
<br />
Smoking does include vaping, as defined in 11362.3(c).<br />
<br />
Obviously, possession, sale, etc. in larger quantities by businesses licensed under Prop 64's new commercial regulatory structure is not illegal; BPC 26037.<br />
<br />
Since Prop 64 establishes 21 as the legal age for marijuana use, simple possession remains illegal for all those under 21, but with different penalties for true minors (under 18) versus those 18 to 20 years old, who I will call "quasi-adults" from now on in this post. For the quasi-adults, most of the penalties are the same as for full adults, except that simple possession of &lt;1oz remains a fineable infraction.<br />
<br />
<i>Quasi-adults (18-20):</i><br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" dir="ltr" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid #ccc; font-family: arial,sans,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; table-layout: fixed;"><colgroup><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col></colgroup><tbody>
<tr style="height: 180px;"><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"></td><td colspan="2" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Simple possession without complicating factors"}" rowspan="1" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Simple possession without complicating factors</td><td colspan="1" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"<=1oz, but on K12 school grounds during school/program hours"}" rowspan="2" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;"><div style="max-height: 200px;">
&lt;=1oz, but on K12 school grounds during school/program hours</div>
</td><td colspan="1" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Smoking or ingesting marijuana in a public place, except as locally licensed"}" rowspan="2" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;"><div style="max-height: 200px;">
Smoking or ingesting marijuana in a public place, except as locally licensed</div>
</td><td colspan="1" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Smoking marijuana in places where tobacco is prohibited*, or within 1,000 feet of a school or day care/youth center**"}" rowspan="2" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;"><div style="max-height: 200px;">
Smoking marijuana in places where tobacco is prohibited, or within 1,000 feet of a school or day care/youth center</div>
</td><td colspan="1" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Having open container of marijuana in vehicle while operating it"}" rowspan="2" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;"><div style="max-height: 200px;">
Having open container of marijuana in vehicle while operating it</div>
</td><td colspan="1" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"DUI"}" rowspan="2" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;"><div style="max-height: 200px;">
DUI</div>
</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"<=1oz"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">&lt;=1oz</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":">1oz"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">>1oz</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Current law"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Current law</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Infraction, $100 fine\n11357(b)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Infraction, $100 fine<br />
11357(b)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Misdemeanor, $500 and/or 6 mos. jail\n11357(c)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Misdemeanor, $500 and/or 6 mos. jail<br />
11357(c)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Misdemeanor, $500 / 6 mos. jail\n11357(d)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Misdemeanor, $500 / 6 mos. jail<br />
11357(d)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"No separate penalty from simple possession - for <=1oz, $100 infraction"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">No separate penalty from simple possession - for &lt;=1oz, $100 infraction</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"No separate penalty from simple possession - for <=1oz, $100 infraction"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">No separate penalty from simple possession - for &lt;=1oz, $100 infraction</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"No separate penalty from simple possession - for <=1oz, $100 infraction"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">No separate penalty from simple possession - for &lt;=1oz, $100 infraction</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Misdemeanor to start, compoundable - same system for alcohol as for drugs\r\nVEH 23152\r\n"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Misdemeanor to start, compoundable - same system for alcohol as for drugs
<br />
VEH 23152
</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"AUMA"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Prop 64</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"No change: infraction, $100 fine\n11357(a)(2)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">No change<br />
11357(a)(2)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Misdemeanor, $500 / 6 mos. jail\n11357(b)(2)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Misdemeanor, $500 / 6 mos. jail<br />
11357(b)(2)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Misdemeanor\nFirst offense: $250\nFurther offenses: $500 / 10 days\n11357(c)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Misdemeanor<br />
First offense: $250<br />
Further offenses: $500 / 10 days<br />
11357(c)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Infraction, $100\n11362.4(a)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Infraction, $100<br />
11362.4(a)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Infraction, $250\n11362.4(a)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Infraction, $250<br />
11362.4(a)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Infraction, $250\n11362.4(a)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Infraction, $250<br />
11362.4(a)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"No change"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">No change</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<b>For minors under 18 years old, Prop 64 sweeps away existing penalties for almost all offenses </b>in favor of drug education or counseling as appropriate, combined with community service. The number of hours varies by offense, but Prop 64 essentially does not contemplate incarceration for these offenses, even if repeated, although the amount of education or community service may increase.<br />
<br />
In the below tables, for minors, "D" is my abbreviation for hours of drug education or counseling, while "S" stands for hours of community service.<br />
<br />
<i>Minors (under 18):</i><br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" dir="ltr" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid #ccc; font-family: arial,sans,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; table-layout: fixed;"><colgroup><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col></colgroup><tbody>
<tr style="height: 100px;"><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"></td><td colspan="2" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Simple possession without complicating factors"}" rowspan="1" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Simple possession without complicating factors</td><td colspan="1" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"<=1oz, but on K12 school grounds during school/program hours"}" rowspan="2" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;"><div style="max-height: 196px;">
&lt;=1oz, but on K12 school grounds during school/program hours</div>
</td><td colspan="1" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Smoking or ingesting marijuana in a public place, except as locally licensed"}" rowspan="2" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;"><div style="max-height: 196px;">
Smoking or ingesting marijuana in a public place, except as locally licensed</div>
</td><td colspan="1" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Smoking marijuana in places where tobacco is prohibited*, or within 1,000 feet of a school or day care/youth center**"}" rowspan="2" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;"><div style="max-height: 196px;">
Smoking marijuana in places where tobacco is prohibited, or within 1,000 feet of a school or day care/youth center</div>
</td><td colspan="1" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Having open container of marijuana in vehicle while operating it"}" rowspan="2" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;"><div style="max-height: 196px;">
Having open container of marijuana in vehicle while operating it</div>
</td><td colspan="1" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"DUI"}" rowspan="2" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;"><div style="max-height: 196px;">
DUI</div>
</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 97px;"><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"<=1oz"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">&lt;=1oz</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":">1oz"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">>1oz</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Current law"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Current law</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Infraction, $100 fine\nHSC 11357(b)"}" style="font-family: arial; padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Infraction, $100 fine<br />
HSC 11357(b)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Misdemeanor, $500 and/or 6 mos. jail\n11357(c)"}" style="font-family: arial; padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Misdemeanor, $500 and/or 6 mos. jail<br />
11357(c)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Misdemeanor\nFirst offense: $250\nFurther offenses: $500 / 10 days detention\n11357(e)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Misdemeanor<br />
First offense: $250<br />
Further offenses: $500 / 10 days detention<br />
11357(e)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"No separate penalty from simple possession - for <=1oz, $100 infraction"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">No separate penalty from simple possession - for &lt;=1oz, $100 infraction</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"No separate penalty from simple possession - for <=1oz, $100 infraction"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">No separate penalty from simple possession - for &lt;=1oz, $100 infraction</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"No separate penalty from simple possession - for <=1oz, $100 infraction"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">No separate penalty from simple possession - for &lt;=1oz, $100 infraction</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Misdemeanor to start, compoundable - same system for alcohol as for drugs\r\nVEH 23152"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Misdemeanor to start, compoundable - same system for alcohol as for drugs
<br />
VEH 23152</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"AUMA"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Prop 64</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Infraction\nFirst offense: 4D/10S\nFurther offenses: 6D/20S\n11357(a)(1)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Infraction<br />
First offense: 4D/10S<br />
Further offenses: 6D/20S<br />
11357(a)(1)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Infraction\nFirst offense: 8D/40S\nFurther offenses: 10D/60S\n11357(b)(1)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Infraction<br />
First offense: 8D/40S<br />
Further offenses: 10D/60S<br />
11357(b)(1)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Infraction\nFirst offense: 8D/40S\nFurther offenses: 10D/60S\n11357(d)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Infraction<br />
First offense: 8D/40S<br />
Further offenses: 10D/60S<br />
11357(d)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Infraction, 4D/10S\n11362.4(a)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Infraction, 4D/10S<br />
11362.4(a)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Infraction, 4D/20C\n11362.4(b)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Infraction, 4D/20S<br />
11362.4(b)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Infraction, 4D/20C\n11362.4(b)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Infraction, 4D/20S<br />
11362.4(b)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"No change"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">No change</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
2. Cultivation, manufacturing, and processing<br />
<br />
Cultivation is harshly punishable under current law in California, no matter how small the amount; there is the medical exception under Proposition 215, which I will get into below, but by default it is a felony, with state prison time. Prop 64 allows home gardens of 6 plants for those 21 and up, but with certain restrictions.<br />
<br />
<i>Adults: </i><br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" dir="ltr" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid #ccc; font-family: arial,sans,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; table-layout: fixed;"><colgroup><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col></colgroup><tbody>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"></td><td colspan="2" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Simple cultivation, processing, manufacturing"}" rowspan="1" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Simple cultivation, processing, manufacturing</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Not kept sufficiently private (visible to outside, or not locked up)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">&lt;=6 plants but not kept sufficiently private (visible to outside, or not locked up)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Manufacture of concentrated cannabis with volatile solvents"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Manufacture of concentrated cannabis with volatile solvents</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"<=6 plants"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">&lt;=6 plants</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":">6 plants"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">>6 plants</td><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"></td><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"></td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Current law"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Current law</td><td colspan="3" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Felony, 16-36 mos. prison\n11358"}" rowspan="1" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Felony, 16-36 mos. prison<br />
11358</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Felony, 3-7 years and $50,000\n11379.6(a)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Felony, 3-7 years and $50,000<br />
11379.6(a)</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"AUMA"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Prop 64</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Fully legal\n11362.1(a)(3)\n[Additional local restrictions possible]"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;"><div style="font-weight: bold;">
Fully legal</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold;">
11362.1(a)(3)</div>
[Additional local restrictions possible]</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Misdemeanor, $500 / 6 mos. jail\n11358(c)\nFelony with 16-36 mos. prison possible based on prior convictions or environmental harm \n11358(d)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Misdemeanor, $500 / 6 mos. jail<br />
11358(c)<br />
Felony with 16-36 mos. prison possible based on prior convictions or environmental harm <br />
11358(d)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Infraction, $250\n11362.4(e)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Infraction, $250<br />
11362.4(e)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Unchanged (as noted in 11362.4(d)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Unchanged (as noted in 11362.4(d))</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
By default, non-medical home gardens will be required to be kept in a locked space "not visible with normal unaided vision from a public place," whether indoor or outdoor, and the same restriction applies to any harvest of those plants over 1 ounce. The 6-plant limit is per residence, not per person.<br />
<br />
Prop 64 explicitly gives localities - cities or counties - the power to make additional "reasonable" local regulations on home grows. For example, a city could impose electrical safety standards for indoor grows. A city could also completely ban outdoor grows; however, Prop 64 explicitly <i>prevents </i>localities from banning indoor grows that meet the privacy, security, and number-of-plant requirements above (11362.2(b)(2)). (This is more protection from local bans than exists for medical patients now, as I will discuss below.)<br />
<br />
Note that the penalty for oversize grows can be a misdemeanor taking you to county jail, <i>or </i>a felony for state prison in more serious cases; from the word "may", that decision appears to be partially up to the prosecutor, but not entirely. In the case of cultivation over the limit, the conditions that can make the crime a felony include: having a previous conviction for murder, attempted murder, sexual violence, or sex with minors under 14; being a registered sex offender; having two or more prior convictions for illegal cultivation; or if the cultivation creates significant environmental harm, such as illegal water diversion, water pollution, dumping hazardous waste, or taking endangered species. We will see other felonies converted to such variable misdemeanor-or-felony status elsewhere in Prop 64.<br />
<br />
For quasi-adults, home gardens within the same plant-number and privacy limits will be punished leniently, with the same $100 infraction as for low-level possession.<br />
<br />
<i>Quasi-adults:</i><br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" dir="ltr" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid #ccc; font-family: arial,sans,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; table-layout: fixed;"><colgroup><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col></colgroup><tbody>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"></td><td colspan="2" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Simple cultivation, processing, manufacturing"}" rowspan="1" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Simple cultivation, processing, manufacturing</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Not kept sufficiently private (visible to outside, or not locked up)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">&lt;=6 plants but not kept sufficiently private (visible to outside, or not locked up)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Manufacture concentrated cannabis with volatile solvents"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Manufacture concentrated cannabis with volatile solvents</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"<=6 plants"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">&lt;=6 plants</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":">6 plants"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">>6 plants</td><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"></td><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"></td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Current law"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Current law</td><td colspan="3" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Felony, 16-36 mos.\n11358"}" rowspan="1" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Felony, 16-36 mos.<br />
11358</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Felony, 3-7 years and $50,000\n11379.6(a)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Felony, 3-7 years and $50,000<br />
11379.6(a)</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"AUMA"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Prop 64</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Infraction, $100\n11358(b)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Infraction, $100<br />
11358(b)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Misdemeanor, $500 / 6 mos. jail\n11358(c)\nFelony with 16-36 mos. possible based on prior convictions or environmental harm \n11358(d)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Misdemeanor, $500 / 6 mos. jail<br />
11358(c)<br />
Felony with 16-36 mos. possible based on prior convictions or environmental harm <br />
11358(d)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Infraction, $250\n11362.4(e)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Infraction, $250<br />
11362.4(e)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Unchanged (as noted in 11362.4(d)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Unchanged<br />
11362.4(d)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
For minors, again, Prop 64 provides for non-incarceration penalties only.<br />
<br />
<i>Minors:</i><br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" dir="ltr" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid #ccc; font-family: arial,sans,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; table-layout: fixed;"><colgroup><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col></colgroup><tbody>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"></td><td colspan="2" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Simple cultivation, processing, manufacturing"}" rowspan="1" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Simple cultivation, processing, manufacturing</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Not kept sufficiently private (visible to outside, or not locked up)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">&lt;=6 plants but not kept sufficiently private (visible to outside, or not locked up)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Manufacture concentrated cannabis with volatile solvents"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Manufacture concentrated cannabis with volatile solvents</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"<=6 plants"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">&lt;=6 plants</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":">6 plants"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">>6 plants</td><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"></td><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"></td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Current law"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Current law</td><td colspan="3" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Felony, 16-36 mos.\n11358"}" rowspan="1" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Felony, 16-36 mos.<br />
11358</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Felony, 3-7 years and $50,000\n11379.6(a)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Felony, 3-7 years and $50,000<br />
11379.6(a)</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"AUMA"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Prop 64</td><td colspan="3" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Infraction\nFirst offense: 8D/40S\nFurther offenses: 10D/60S\n11358(a)"}" rowspan="1" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Infraction<br />
First offense: 8D/40S<br />
Further offenses: 10D/60S<br />
11358(a)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Unchanged (as noted in 11362.4(d)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Unchanged<br />
11362.4(d)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
3. Commerce<br />
<br />
Under current law, "possession for sale" of any amount, however small, is still a full felony, not subject to the $100 infraction penalty, and my reading suggests that relatively innocent factors, such as having product in multiple small bags, may often be taken as evidence of intent to sell, which seems like a recipe for disparate racial treatment. Actual sale of any amount is also a full felony. Prop 64 cuts all these penalties back significantly, while keeping in place protections against involving minors, and adding one about involving quasi-adults. Most of the revised penalties are identical for adults and quasi-adults.<br />
<br />
<i>Adults and quasi-adults:</i><br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" dir="ltr" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid #ccc; font-family: arial,sans,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; table-layout: fixed;"><colgroup><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col></colgroup><tbody>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Possession for sale "}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Possession for sale </td><td colspan="2" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Sale"}" rowspan="1" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Sale</td><td colspan="2" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Transportation for sale"}" rowspan="1" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Transportation for sale</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Simple (unlicensed)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Simple (unlicensed)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"In general (unlicensed)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">In general (unlicensed)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Involving in sale, or selling to, minor <14"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Involving in sale, or selling to, minor &lt;14</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"<=1oz"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">&lt;=1oz</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":">1oz"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">>1oz</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Current law"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Current law</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Felony, 16-36 mos.\n11359"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Felony, 16-36 mos.<br />
11359</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Felony, 2-4 yrs.\n11360"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Felony, 2-4 yrs.<br />
11360</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Felony, 3-7 years\n11361(a)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Felony, 3-7 years<br />
11361(a)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Misdemeanor, $100\n11360(b)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Misdemeanor, $100<br />
11360(b)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Felony, 2-4 yrs.\n11360"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Felony, 2-4 yrs.<br />
11360</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"AUMA"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Prop 64</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Misdemeanor, $500 / 6 mos.\n11359(b)\nFelony with 16-36 mos. possible with prior convictions, selling to minors <18, or hiring/using minors <21 in the sale\n11359(c) and (d)*"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Misdemeanor, $500 / 6 mos.<br />
11359(b)<br />
Felony with 16-36 mos. possible with prior convictions, selling to minors &lt;18, or hiring/using minors &lt;21 in the sale<br />
11359(c) and (d)*</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Misdemeanor, $500 / 6 mos.\n11360(a)(2)\nFelony with 2-4 yrs possible with prior convictions, selling to minors <18\n11360(a)(3)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Misdemeanor, $500 / 6 mos.<br />
11360(a)(2)<br />
Felony with 2-4 yrs possible with prior convictions, selling to minors &lt;18<br />
11360(a)(3)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Unchanged"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Unchanged</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Infraction, $100\n11360(b)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Infraction, $100<br />
11360(b)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Misdemeanor, $500 / 6 mos.\n11360(a)(2)\nFelony with 2-4 yrs possible with prior convictions or crossing state lines\n11360(a)(3)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Misdemeanor, $500 / 6 mos.<br />
11360(a)(2)<br />
Felony with 2-4 yrs possible with prior convictions or crossing state lines<br />
11360(a)(3)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
*To be charged with a felony for involving someone less than 21 in the sale of marijuana, an offender must be at least 21.<br />
<br />
<i>Minors:</i><br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" dir="ltr" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid #ccc; font-family: arial,sans,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; table-layout: fixed;"><colgroup><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col></colgroup><tbody>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Possession for sale "}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Possession for sale </td><td colspan="2" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Sale"}" rowspan="1" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Sale</td><td colspan="2" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Transportation for sale"}" rowspan="1" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Transportation for sale</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Simple (unlicensed)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Simple (unlicensed)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"In general (unlicensed)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">In general (unlicensed)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Involving in sale, or selling to, minor <14"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Involving in sale, or selling to, minor &lt;14</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"<=1oz"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">&lt;=1oz</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":">1oz"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">>1oz</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Current law"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Current law</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Felony, 16-36 mos.\n11359"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Felony, 16-36 mos.<br />
11359</td><td colspan="2" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Felony, 2-4 yrs.\n11360"}" rowspan="1" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Felony, 2-4 yrs.<br />
11360</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Misdemeanor, $100\n11360(b)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Misdemeanor, $100<br />
11360(b)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Felony, 2-4 yrs.\n11360"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Felony, 2-4 yrs.<br />
11360</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"AUMA"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Prop 64</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Infraction\nFirst offense: 8D/40S\nFurther offenses: 10D/60S\n11359(a)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Infraction<br />
First offense: 8D/40S<br />
Further offenses: 10D/60S<br />
11359(a)</td><td colspan="2" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Infraction\nFirst offense: 8D/40S\nFurther offenses: 10D/60S\n11360(a)(1)"}" rowspan="1" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Infraction<br />
First offense: 8D/40S<br />
Further offenses: 10D/60S<br />
11360(a)(1)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Infraction, $100\n11360(b)*"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Infraction, probably 8D/40S (or $100 fine?)<br />
11360(b)*</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Infraction\nFirst offense: 8D/40S\nFurther offenses: 10D/60S\n11360(a)(1)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Infraction<br />
First offense: 8D/40S<br />
Further offenses: 10D/60S<br />
11360(a)(1)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
* Prop 64's section 11360 is confusing in its application to minors. 11360(a)(1) says that minors are given drug counseling/education and community service for sale, giving away, or transport for sale; following that, 11360(b) says that transport-for-sale of &lt;1oz is is an infraction with a $100 fine, and makes no distinction by age. Which of these two takes precedence? One is more specific about the offender's age, while the other is more specific about the amount of marijuana involved. I suspect it is the lower no-fine penalty that should prevail, because otherwise you would have the absurd result that transport for sale has a fine if the amount is smaller, and no fine if larger. But this may be something the Legislature will need to clarify. In any case, both penalties are lighter than the status quo.<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br /></div>
4. Giving away<br />
<br />
<i>Adults</i><br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" dir="ltr" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid #ccc; font-family: arial,sans,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; table-layout: fixed;"><colgroup><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col></colgroup><tbody>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"<=1oz to adult"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">&lt;=1oz to adult</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":">1oz to adult or quasi-adult"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">>1oz to adult or quasi-adult</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"<=1oz to quasi-adult"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">&lt;=1oz to quasi-adult</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Any amount to minor 14-17"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Any amount to minor 14-17</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Any amount to minor <14"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Any amount to minor &lt;14</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Current law"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Current law</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Misdemeanor, $100\n11360(b)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Misdemeanor, $100<br />
11360(b)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Felony, 2-4 yrs.\n11360"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Felony, 2-4 yrs.<br />
11360</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Misdemeanor, $100\n11360(b)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Misdemeanor, $100<br />
11360(b)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Felony, 3-5 years\n11361(b)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Felony, 3-5 years<br />
11361(b)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Felony, 3-7 years\n11361(a)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Felony, 3-7 years<br />
11361(a)</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"AUMA"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Prop 64</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Fully legal\n11362.1(a)(1)"}" style="font-weight: bold; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Fully legal<br />
11362.1(a)(1)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Misdemeanor, $500 / 6 mos.\n11360(a)(2)\nFelony with 2-4 yrs possible with prior convictions or crossing state lines\n11360(a)(3)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Misdemeanor, $500 / 6 mos.<br />
11360(a)(2)<br />
Felony with 2-4 yrs possible with prior convictions or crossing state lines<br />
11360(a)(3)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Infraction, $100\n11360(b)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Infraction, $100<br />
11360(b)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Unchanged"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Unchanged</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Unchanged"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Unchanged</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Note that <b>giving marijuana away is not banned</b> as some scaremongers are saying; 11362.1(a)(1) specifically allows it within the above framework. There is language in other sections of Prop 64 that some bloggers and tweeters are overreading, prohibiting licensed retail and other businesses from selling at less than cost, or giving away, when "for the purpose of injuring competitors or destroying
competition" (BPC 26052(a)(6)). If certain dispensaries like to give some of their product away to the needy as charity, such programs may need restructuring to make clear they are not a loss-leader ploy to drive others out business; but private individuals would be free to give away as they see fit, as long as they keep each gift under one ounce, and recipients at least 21.<br />
<br />
Another note is that 11362.1(a)(1), which legalizes adults giving small amounts to each other, specifies "with no compensation whatsoever" - so theoretically if one adult legally buys on another's behalf and is reimbursed at cost, that does not fall under "giving", and could be prosecuted.<br />
<br />
<i>Quasi-adults:</i><br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" dir="ltr" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid #ccc; font-family: arial,sans,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; table-layout: fixed;"><colgroup><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col></colgroup><tbody>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"<=1oz to adult or quasi-adult"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">&lt;=1oz to adult or quasi-adult</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":">1oz to adult or quasi-adult"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">>1oz to adult or quasi-adult</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Any amount to minor 14-17"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Any amount to minor 14-17</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Any amount to minor <14"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Any amount to minor &lt;14</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Current law"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Current law</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Misdemeanor, $100\n11360(b)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Misdemeanor, $100<br />
11360(b)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Felony, 2-4 yrs.\n11360"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Felony, 2-4 yrs.<br />
11360</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Felony, 3-5 years\n11361(b)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Felony, 3-5 years<br />
11361(b)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Felony, 3-7 years\n11361(a)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Felony, 3-7 years<br />
11361(a)</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"AUMA"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Prop 64</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Infraction, $100\n11360(b)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Infraction, $100<br />
11360(b)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Misdemeanor, $500 / 6 mos.\n11360(a)(2)\nFelony with 2-4 yrs possible with prior convictions or crossing state lines\n11360(a)(3)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Misdemeanor, $500 / 6 mos.<br />
11360(a)(2)<br />
Felony with 2-4 yrs possible with prior convictions or crossing state lines<br />
11360(a)(3)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Unchanged"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Unchanged</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Unchanged"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Unchanged</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<i><br /></i>
<i>Minors:</i><br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" dir="ltr" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid #ccc; font-family: arial,sans,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; table-layout: fixed;"><colgroup><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col></colgroup><tbody>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;"></td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"<=1oz to adult"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">&lt;=1oz to adult or quasi-adult</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":">1oz to adult"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">>1oz to adult or quasi-adult</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Any amount to minor 14-17"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Any amount to minor 14-17</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Any amount to minor <14"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Any amount to minor &lt;14</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Current law"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Current law</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Misdemeanor, $100\n11360(b)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Misdemeanor, $100<br />
11360(b)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Felony, 2-4 yrs.\n11360"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Felony, 2-4 yrs.<br />
11360</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Misdemeanor, $100\n11360(b)"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Misdemeanor, $100<br />
11360(b)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Felony, 2-4 yrs.\n11360"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Felony, 2-4 yrs.<br />
11360</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"AUMA"}" style="padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; word-wrap: break-word;">Prop 64</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Infraction\nFirst offense: 8D/40S\nFurther offenses: 10D/60S\n11360(a)(1)*"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Infraction<br />
First offense: 8D/40S<br />
Further offenses: 10D/60S<br />
11360(a)(1)*</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Infraction\nFirst offense: 8D/40S\nFurther offenses: 10D/60S\n11360(a)(1)*"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Infraction<br />
First offense: 8D/40S<br />
Further offenses: 10D/60S<br />
11360(a)(1)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Infraction\nFirst offense: 8D/40S\nFurther offenses: 10D/60S\n11360(a)(1)*"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Infraction<br />
First offense: 8D/40S<br />
Further offenses: 10D/60S<br />
11360(a)(1)*</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Infraction\nFirst offense: 8D/40S\nFurther offenses: 10D/60S\n11360(a)(1)*"}" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; vertical-align: middle;">Infraction<br />
First offense: 8D/40S<br />
Further offenses: 10D/60S<br />
11360(a)(1)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
*The confusing sections on transport for sale of less than one ounce described above also apply to gifting of less than one ounce. Again, I am assuming that (a)(1) supersedes (b), meaning the penalty is drug education/counseling and community service instead of a $100 fine.<br />
<i><br /></i>
5. Policing and racial impacts<br />
<br />
Legalizing marijuana has often been trumpeted as close to ending the drug war, at least where marijuana is concerned, and as a huge step forward making the criminal justice less racially disparate. In my last post series, I spoke somewhat loosely in that way, calling Prop 64 a great step for racial justice. After more research, I still think Prop 64 will be a positive force, but I am more cautious and qualified in saying this.<br />
<br />
Workers for racial justice are <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/21/pot-legalization-hasnt-done-anything-to-shrink-the-racial-gap-in-drug-arrests/">noticing that in Colorado</a>, marijuana arrests, while significantly down post-legalization, are still made at quite different rates for Black versus white people. For minors of color, <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/amandachicagolewis/marijuana-arrests-down-in-colorado-for-white-teens-up-for-bl?bftwnews&utm_term=.su5ZWkRwk#.peY8zePke">arrest rates have actually increased since legalization</a>, presumably as resources have been focused on the places where they are. Minors are being fined large amounts and then made to pay for their required drug education. This is consistent with the <a href="https://www.aclunc.org/docs/20160531-ca_marijuana_infractions.pdf">ACLU and Drug Policy Alliance recently finding</a> that even with the $100 infraction penalty in California for simple possession, Blacks and Hispanics are being ticketed at much higher rates than whites.<br />
<br />
It is easy to see how people of color will still be more at risk of the remaining penalties under Prop 64, because privilege is relevant in a thousand different ways. Prop 64 does not affect the ability of landlords to ban marijuana use in apartments, just as it does not force employers to stop drug-testing. Which makes sense, on its own, because it's about ending the law-enforcement war on marijuana, not about creating social equality for marijuana users. It continues to penalize various kinds of inappropriate use - use in public, driving impaired, sharing with children. Which also makes sense, on its own, because the public does not want to see that behavior rise. (It is telling that the only penalty it <i>increases </i>is for smoking where prohibited, which goes up from $100 to $250.) But all these aspects, each making sense on their own, combine to perpetuate systematic disparity. People who rent rather than own are likely to lack places to safely consume marijuana, and in communities of color there will be more police eyes ready to flag small violations. Prop 64, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor, white people as well as people of color, to smoke outdoors!<br />
<br />
Also, a large percentage of tickets are today being handed out to people under 21 (more than 40% to 16-to-21-year-olds in LA in the ACLU/DPA data), so those offenders will still be targets of police activity - potentially more than today, if policing is further targeted at the schools and communities where these minors and quasi-adults are.<br />
<br />
So Prop 64 is not without risks, as seen in the case of Colorado. The drug war may have been <a href="http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/2016/03/top-adviser-richard-nixon-admitted-war-drugs-was-policy-tool-go-after-anti-war-proteste">spawned as a racial-political tool</a>, but disparate policing does not begin and end at the drug war: systemic racism extends to most people's actions and reactions, including those of the police and the courts, and so there is disparity in treatment with drug offenses but also with traffic offenses, public order offenses, and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/27/stanford-sexual-assault-trial-judge-persky">violent offenses</a>. There is a limit to how much Prop 64 alone can do, as long as it is conceived of purely as legalization of private marijuana use, and as long as it is aiming for majority public support. Prop 64 is trying to clearly demonstrate to the median voter that it continues to penalize "quality of life" violations like public smoking or possession on school grounds, no matter how problematic the <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2014/12/edward_banfield_the_racist_classist_origins_of_broken_windows_policing.html">broken-windows policing strategy</a> associated with those offenses is.<br />
<br />
Despite all this, I still think Prop 64 is a significant step forward on balance for racial justice, for the following reasons:<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Even if enforcement remains disparate, eliminating or lessening penalties at this scale is still meaningful improvement, because it means many thousands fewer arrests, fines, or convictions for people of color a year. In Colorado, the marijuana possession arrest rate for Black people of all ages went from 398 per 100,000 in 2012 to 305 per 100,000 in 2014; that's still unacceptably higher than the new white arrest rate of 105, but it's still a major drop, and it means many more lives and livelihoods no longer disrupted or threatened for minor violations.</li>
<li>For minors in particular, the improvements from legalization should be more substantial in California than they were in Colorado, because Prop 64, as my tables show above, explicitly <i>stops</i> fining minors for possession or for other marijuana crimes (possibly because groups like NAACP were at the table developing it). Also, the education or counseling it mandates is <i>required</i> to be free of charge, which avoids piling up more and more fines and fees on people of color, preventing these families from building wealth over time, a problem not limited to places like Ferguson <a href="http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/04/08/california-poor-subject-to-fines-fees-like-in-ferguson-says-report">salient in California and nationwide</a>.</li>
<li>Prop 64 not only reduces penalties for most marijuana offenses, it will let hundreds or thousands or people out of jail or prison by retroactively applying the reduced penalties, and it will erase felony records for thousands more who have been convicted and released over the years.</li>
<li>By legalizing basic marijuana possession, it will be harder for police to use the commonness of marijuana as a lever to intrude in people's lives; opening a front door and smelling or seeing marijuana, for example, should not normally give probable cause to enter and search. (Specified in 11362.1(c). Traffic stops will probably not be very different, though.) It will also further limit the scope for the major injustice that is asset forfeiture.</li>
<li><b>Prop 64 is very hospitable to further reducing legal penalties over time</b>. I will go into this more below.</li>
<li>Even if Prop 64 somehow established a structure that lent itself to perfect equity in enforcement, that would only extend to the small part of the criminal justice system dealing with marijuana. Tactically, it makes more sense to me to pursue justice reform in an across-the-board way, so that steps forward also encompass violent crime, property crime, public order offenses, and other areas.</li>
<li>By pointing us toward a more rational structure for handling marijuana, Prop 64 will also make it easier for society to move over time to handle other drugs medically rather than criminally; these laws, too, have a heavily disparate impact.</li>
</ul>
<div>
I fear that a measure that inherently avoided all potential for disparate treatment in marijuana would basically have to get rid of all criminal disposition of marijuana, which would have a much harder time at the ballot box - who is going to vote for something that antis can tar as letting people toke on the streets, let pot take over the schools, let pushers operate with impunity? And if Prop 64 fails, it will <i>not </i>be replaced with something better: it may, in fact, lead to a backlash, with the media newly focusing on the downsides of legalization, and the federal government (even under a Democrat) changing its mind about allowing experimentation.<b> Full legalization is not inevitable - </b>people thought it was in the 1970's, when California first decriminalized small amounts of marijuana, and then there was a reversal. Racial equity needs to be fought for on multiple fronts, and Prop 64 would be a moderate victory building momentum, but it cannot be a self-contained solution: the perfect is definitely the enemy of the good when it comes to California's arcane political structure.</div>
<div>
<br />
I also recognize that I am sound a bit like the white liberals MLK wrote about from Birmingham jail - forever advising activists to "wait for a more convenient season". I do understand if, on the basis of the likely limited effect of Prop 64, racial-justice advocates like those in the Black Lives Matter constellation prefer to focus their energies elsewhere. But I do hope they will still acknowledge the measure is definite progress, vote yes, and recommend "yes" votes to others if it comes up.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
6. Medical exceptions</div>
<br />
There is misinformation going around that Prop 64 assaults the rights of medical marijuana patients under the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (CUA), or Proposition 215, the first-ever medical marijuana initiative. This seems to be rooted in the popular misconception that the CUA is a get-out-of-jail-free card for anything a medical patient may do, tantamount to full legalization for them. (<a href="http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/news-marijuana-cannabis-sean-parker-auma-dennis-peron-prop-215-medical-marijuana-adult-use-of-marijuana-act/Content?oid=4434974">Actual quote</a> from an SF dispensary guy: "Prop 215 is beautiful. It's all we need.") Specifically, there is a belief that Prop 64 takes away patients' rights under CUA to possess than one ounce or cultivate more than six plants. (For example, <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/articles/marijuana-722680-medical-patients.html">this OC Register article</a>, which reports on this fear among activists but leaves readers with uncertainty over whether the fear is grounded, despite quoting Americans for Safe Access stating clearly that it is not.) There is also the idea that it gives cities and counties - those in the less liberal parts of California that have always chafed under CUA - more avenues to restrict medical marijuana activity. On closer examination, these complaints are highly misleading, because CUA is actually remarkably narrow in what it does on its own.<br />
<br />
CUA did not legalize or even really decriminalize marijuana; it remains a criminal offense under state law, but the CUA established a legal defense on the basis of having a doctor's recommendation. For years after it was passed, people could still be hauled into court and have to pay a lawyer to prove their use was medical (at a full trial or, after 2002, at a pretrial hearing). Now, largely thanks to Senate Bill 420 of 2004 (yes, ha-ha, we get it), we have the medical card system, where counties issue cards that confirm physician recommendations and can protect medical users from arrest. And under the extremely flimsy legal fiction that they are acting as patients' primary caregivers, marijuana dispensaries have sprung up around the state, some locally licensed and regulated, usually as nonprofits based on additional provisions under SB420. 2015's Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA) went further, starting movement toward a full statewide regulation system allowing for-profits, much as Prop 64 does for recreational marijuana.<br />
<br />
But that is not the full story on local bans. In 2011, the city council of Live Oak, a city north of Sacramento, voted to ban all cultivation of marijuana, regardless of medical patient status. In 2013, in <i>Maral v. City of Live Oak</i>, an appeals court ruled that the CUA made marijuana possession and cultivation legal only under state law, and did not prevent localities from banning it on their own authority. The State Supreme Court let that decision stand. Right after that decision, the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, feeling its oats, banned cultivation just as broadly, and what's more, made violation of the ban a criminal misdemeanor. The ACLU sued, and just last December, in <i>Kirby v. Fresno</i>, an appeals court let the ban stand, deciding that adding a new criminal misdemeanor was a step too far, but that Fresno was still free to ban all cultivation as a "public nuisance". Again, the Supreme Court has declined to intervene. (Even their striking down of the misdemeanor offense was based on a provision in SB420, not the CUA.) Many other localities are eager to exercise this power.<br />
<br />
Cities and counties are also completely free to ban dispensaries under existing legislation and precedent. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court in <i>Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients
Health & Wellness Center </i>in 2013, and even codified by the Legislature in the recent MMRSA. The CUA provides no safeguards for dispensaries against hostile local governments; if advocates want such safeguards, they will need to fight for additional state laws. But under Prop 64, advocates will be free to continue this fight, since its provisions explicitly do not supersede the CUA or medical-use laws (as specified in 11362.3(f) and 11362.45(i)) - that is, <b>it does not make six plants the limit for medical growers</b>, just recreational growers.<br />
<br />
In short: the CUA does not prevent local bans of either cultivation or dispensaries. It may be common to encounter dispensaries, or cultivation at a scale above the personal, but that is mostly due to a combination of local tolerance, which is variable, and legislative victories by advocates over and above CUA. In a hypothetical world where all politicians had remained as hostile to marijuana as the Fresno County Board of Supervisors is today, and the CUA were still the only law at all friendly to medical marijuana (if there had been no SB420 or follow-ons), cultivation of more than a few plants would be a major legal risk despite CUA, and there would be no dispensaries anywhere. All because of how narrow the CUA really is. For any marijuana advocates to act like reliance on CUA is an acceptable alternative to legalization is baffling.<br />
<br />
The "enclosed home garden" right to cultivation under Prop 64 is also resistant to local bans in a way CUA is not. Prop 64's text says its authorized levels of recreational possession and cultivation "shall not be a violation of state or local law", and explicitly prevents places like Fresno from banning indoor home gardens. The content and severity of reasonable additional regulations localities may impose will no doubt be a new source of contention. But bottom-line, even for medical patients, Prop 64 will be an expansion of rights, not a contraction.<br />
<br />
(And that's not to speak of how much it might benefit medical patients to be able to buy on the recreational market, since prices in that system will likely fall much lower than today's over time.)<br />
<br />
7. The ratchet effect<br />
<br />
I have mentioned this in my previous posts, but it deserves reiteration. When the people of California pass a law at the ballot box, it is usually specified that the Legislature cannot change that law except in limited ways, such as to improve it working toward its stated goals. That means that when an initiative passes, its basic principles are there to stay, unless another initiative changes it later.<br />
<br />
This is the case for Prop 64, which mostly allows revisions only by a two-thirds majority of the Legislature "to further the purposes and intent of the Act". It does allow revision by a simple majority - less of a hurdle - for some of its more operational portions, such as how marijuana business is regulated. It also has this critical text on penalties:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Legislature may by majority vote amend, add, or repeal any provisions to <b>further reduce </b>the
penalties for any of the offenses addressed by this Act. (Section 10, emph. added)</blockquote>
That means that if the Legislature wants to move to, say, legalize 100-plant personal gardens, or increase the possession limit to two pounds, it is completely free to do so. It is <i>not</i> free, by contrast, to recriminalize or increase penalties. For example, if it wanted to increase penalties on possession by minors, it would have to amass a two-thirds majority in both houses, and could perhaps still be sued over whether such increased penalties were consistent with purposes and intent.<br />
<br />
So as the politics ebb and flow, at times when advocates swing the Legislature toward the side of further legalization, they can change the law in that direction; but if the Legislature later swings back toward drug-war sentiment, it will not be able to change back, unless the swing is strong enough to command a supermajority and survive judicial scrutiny. This acts like a ratchet, making it more likely penalties will decrease over time, perhaps to a level closer to what now applies to illicit alcohol activity. As a matter of principle, I normally dislike tying the Legislature's hands so much (Prop 13 ratchets taxes down in the same way), but in this particular case, it seems likely it will lead to better outcomes, limiting the fallout from the crime panics legislators sometimes fall into.<br />
<br />
(As an interesting technical side note, I suspect that this provision may end up forcing the Legislature to resolve the concentrated-cannabis drafting error in Prop 64 in the more lenient direction, choosing 8 grams, not 4, as the dividing line. After all, if they changed text from 8 grams to 4 grams anywhere, that might county as increasing the penalty.)<br />
<br />
8. Summary<br />
<br />
If you only take away a few things from this post, let it be these:<br />
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>With one exception, Prop 64 does not increase penalties for any marijuana conduct: some is fully legalized, some has penalties significantly reduced, some stays where it is. The exception is smoking in prohibited places, where the applicable fine increases. The Legislature will have a free hand to further reduce penalties as it sees fit in the future.</li>
<li>Prop 64 does not restrict or hamper medical users in what they may cultivate or possess, or increase the potential scope of local bans; it carves out an unbannable cultivation level for all adults in the state.</li>
<li>There will still be racial disparity in enforcement of the offenses that remain, which has to be the subject of further activism, but Prop 64 is still a positive step for racial equity: fewer arrests, fines, incarceration, plus retroactive amnesty. Waiting for better means at least two and more likely four to eight years of zero progress.</li>
</ul>
<div>
I hope this is useful to those looking more closely at Prop 64. Please comment or email me if you have questions or corrections.</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-318338830925023522.post-88226089916517503462016-01-23T12:00:00.000-08:002016-01-23T12:12:18.078-08:00How we legalize marijuana, Part 6: Final observations<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
This is the 6th and final part of my series on the proposed Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijua<span style="background-color: white;">na Act ("the Act") that will likely reach the California ballot in November 2016. The series started </span><b style="background-color: white; color: red;"><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/01/how-we-legalize-marijuana-introduction.html">here</a></b><span style="background-color: white;">. Thank you for reading.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<b>Final observations: the world the Act brings us closer to.</b><br />
<br />
At the bottom of it all, whatever else it does, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act would prevent a great deal of needless suffering: fewer people in jail or hampered by past convictions and able to do more with their lives; more resources to pay for social priorities; more ability for law enforcement to focus on crimes with victims.<br />
<br />
What about culturally? Governor Brown associates marijuana with idleness: "How many people can get stoned and still have a great state or a great nation?" (direct quote). But non-septuagenarians tend to realize that while marijuana may have that pitfall, it's compatible with a wide range of lifestyles, its effects more about the person than the plant: just look at <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/11/americas-most-stoned-suburbs.html#">the suburban Colorado stoned Bible study group</a> to see what can evolve when a drug starts to lose its ties to counterculture.<br />
<br />
Brown's offhand comments are much like David Brooks's column when he openly recollected how his own youthful use had no particular long-term harm but still agonized about the unseemliness of declining to lock people up for it - in principle for people like him, in practice for people of different race, ethnicity, or class. In both cases, a vague disapproval or sneer is enough to shut off critical thinking; effectively, for many in power it is still about taboo, or respectability, rather than public policy. It will be a great step forward if we get over this muddled way of thinking and start weighing options thoughtfully and empathetically, trying new approaches, accepting not everything will be perfect, and modifying them over time based on what happens. Yes - marijuana could become more part of the culture at large as a result of the Act, more part of the mainstream. But fear of that outcome is not a sufficient reason to prop up the unjust status quo. And there are plenty of much more effective, less destructive ways to tamp down on marijuana use if it does rise as a social problem post-legalization.<br />
<br />
This vote will have consequences far beyond California. We would be the biggest state to date to legalize, likely creating a bandwagon effect for other states and even other countries, as Canada and Mexico are also considering legalization now. (In just a few years, there could be legalization from Acapulco all the way up the coast to Nome.) And with a tentative federal truce with states going the full legalization route recently struck, the federal government following suit no longer seems as ridiculous or far-off as it once did.<br />
<br />
What would this change mean for policies on other drugs? Opiates, methamphetamines, and so on tend to pose more health and abuse risks, so policy there is not automatically going to follow suit - I could even imagine criminalization remaining static as marijuana joins the list of legal substances. But it is still the case that criminalization is a failed policy across the board, and hopefully marijuana legalization will slowly pave the way for a framework for other drugs that focuses on easy availability of comprehensive treatment - assistance without jailing - though without necessarily having a full-on commercial market. (Also, read about <a href="http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comics_en/rat-park/">Rat Park</a>; substance use problems are about much more than the inherent qualities of the substances themselves.)<br />
<br />
You may hear rather shrill criticism of the Act from some. There are elements of the legalization movement that seem to regard anything short of complete libertarian freedom to grow, indoors and outdoors, as worse than nothing, and see a regulated commercial system as an utter dystopia. I hope I've cleared up in these posts some of the misconceptions floating around, and why the Act is worth supporting despite its big-business leanings. If there were major dissension among the legalization movement, especially a potential competing measure, that would hurt the chances of the Act, but from what I can tell most big players seem to be flocking to this one, which is good.<br />
<span style="background-color: white;"></span><br />
So: sign the petition if you can (I'm looking out for when it becomes available), vote yes in November, and then be ready to demand more and better policy to complete the goals the Act sets out on. </div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-318338830925023522.post-7464788165593961712016-01-22T12:00:00.000-08:002016-01-22T12:00:02.693-08:00How we legalize marijuana, Part 5: What the Act does not do<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
This is part 5 of my series on the proposed Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijua<span style="background-color: white;">na Act ("the Act") that will likely reach the California ballot in November 2016. The series started </span><b style="background-color: white; color: red;"><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/01/how-we-legalize-marijuana-introduction.html">here</a></b><span style="background-color: white;">. </span><span style="background-color: white;">Thank you for reading.</span><br />
<br />
<b>What the Act does not do:</b><br />
<u><i>Change DUI rules.</i></u> Drugged driving will be just as illegal, and there are issues that will have to be addressed there - urine tests for cannabis are oversensitive. One small earmark the Act makes is to the Highway Patrol to improve enforcement protocols, including possibly developing better technology to determine if someone is really impaired.<br />
<br />
<u><i>Restrict what employers can do.</i></u> Pot will be legal, but you can still lose your job for it, and the Act will do nothing about that. Under legalization, we will eventually have to tackle the issue of people being fired or excluded from jobs for positive urine results when they are not actually impaired on the job, and whether this is a reasonable power for employers to have. But tactically, legalization, not employment discrimination, is the issue to be resolved right now; 2010's Prop 19 tried to include a kind of nondiscrimination clause and was pilloried for it.<br />
<br />
<u style="font-style: italic;">Restrict what local governments can regulate.</u> Local governments - cities and counties - will have a free hand to regulate marijuana businesses in their own preferred way, up to and including completely banning any businesses in their jurisdiction. If they issue their own business licenses, the state will honor them and not override their denials. This is not ideal because large swathes of California could end up with no retail at all, forestalling the growth of the legal market, but I do strongly believe it is a necessary measure for the bill to pass: a lot of people are skeptical of the drug war but still see dispensaries as shady and don't want them forced into their community. The earlier version of this bill said local governments could not completely ban businesses without putting it to a popular vote. I wrote a comment letter that among other things strongly advocated against that provision, and I'm glad to see it has since been removed (although I chalk that up more to the reported involvement of the League of Cities than to my letter).<br />
<br />
Local governments will of course <u>not</u> be able to criminalize personal possession or use on their own, just commercial business. As for personal cultivation, people will be able to grow up to six plants <i>indoors </i>in any jurisdiction, but local government will have the authority to ban outdoor growth. Again, not ideal, but certainly part of preserving local choice.<br />
<br />
Local governments will also not be able to prevent commercial deliveries passing through their jurisdictions, assuming they're properly licensed. This seems to mean that people in places that ban retail will be free to order from out of town, although for some places the distances involved may make delivery impractical.<br />
<br />
(Here, by the way, is an example of why a bona fide individual user might reasonably have more than one ounce at a time: if it's a two-hour drive to the nearest retailer.)<br />
<br />
<u style="font-style: italic;">Harm medical users.</u> The Compassionate Use Act passed by the voters in 1996 remains in place, and this new Act explicitly leaves the CUA and its implementing legislation in place, so as I read the Act, medical users will still have whatever rights they have today, which may include forming collectives, growing over the six-plant limit, or possessing more than an ounce. I've found a lot of paranoid talk online about the Act being designed to eradicate the existing rights of medical users and their caregivers, to make everyone have to buy from businesses, but that is not borne out by the text.<br />
<br />
A decision in the Act I don't fully understand is that medical marijuana will bear the new excise tax just like recreational marijuana, but will be exempted from sales tax in particular.<br />
<br />
The medical system is changing anyway, though, under current law without help from the Act. The Legislature just passed a bill cracking down on the current laxness of the medical recommendation system, if only mildly. It calls on the Medical Board to develop guidelines for when medical marijuana is appropriate, and defines it as unprofessional conduct for a doctor to recommend it to a person without an actual examination or a medical indication; it's also unprofessional conduct for them to have financial ties to dispensaries. This may cut down on the recommendation mills that advertise in the weeklies and slowly push more business from the medical system to the new recreational system. It does not, however, mean any significant new constraints on bona fide medical users, or for that matter on debatable edge cases - just the "I don't feel great" / "Fine, here's your medical cannabis recommendation" transactions.<br />
<br />
It is possible that due to the incentive of tax revenues, future new legislation could crack down on collectives if they're using CUA as a shield to participate covertly in the recreational market. <a href="http://mashable.com/2015/05/06/medical-marijuana-washington/">Something similar may be happening in Washington</a>. I don't see that as a significant concern; medical laws are for medical use.<br />
<br />
<u style="font-style: italic;">Replicate flawed Ohio measure.</u> Despite the relative friendliness of the Act to market consolidation and existing players, which I described above, it is nothing like the Ohio measure that recently failed that would have given a set of entities a formal, legal lock on the market.<br />
<br />
Tomorrow, part 6: final observations and thoughts on where the Act leads us.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-318338830925023522.post-87403553476888677362016-01-21T12:00:00.000-08:002016-01-21T12:00:41.141-08:00How we legalize marijuana, Part 4: The bad<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
This is part 4 of my series on the proposed Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijua<span style="background-color: white;">na Act ("the Act") that will likely reach the California ballot in November 2016. The series started </span><b style="background-color: white; color: red;"><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/01/how-we-legalize-marijuana-introduction.html">here</a></b><span style="background-color: white;">. </span><span style="background-color: white;">Thank you for reading.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><b>The bad: pitfalls of creating big business and market concentration.</b></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><br /></b></span>
The biggest problem I see with the Act is its friendliness to big business. Although the Act regulates marijuana in half a hundred ways, mostly beneficial or at least benign, it has very little to say about market concentration. If the outcome of legalization is that a few major firms get bigger and bigger and come to dominate the field, that is not a good thing, even if they comply with all the laws. Who knows what exactly Big Cannabis might end up doing - covertly enable sale to minors? engineer strains for greater dependency? prevent discovery of unsafe agricultural practices? - but there's bound to be <i>something </i>not effectively prevented up front, and they would over time gain the resources and power to pursue whatever makes the most money, including blocking new regulations or blunting existing ones (cozy relationships with regulators). As we know from the economy at large, bigness also blunts competition and hurts consumers and small businesses. We would be well advised, therefore, to prevent bigness as a rule, and the Act does not really do that.<br />
<br />
The recent statewide medical marijuana laws made some moves in this direction: they limited large-scale cultivation, and prevented vertical integration, trying to keep cultivation, distribution, and retail separate, except for small-scale businesses. This Act does not do this, except that as recently amended, it prevents large-scale cultivation sites (more than 1 acre outdoor or 1/2 acre indoor) from being licensed until 2023, and those licensees when they exist cannot vertically integrate with distribution or retail. But I'm not sure how far this works, since a business could hold any number of license types if they maintain multiple smaller premises. The state can also deny licenses that would aid monopoly power, but it is unlikely to exercise this authority.<br />
<b><br /></b>
The Act does offer special small business licenses, including microbusinesses where one license would cover a small amount of cultivation, distribution, manufacturing, and retail all together. It also contemplates another possible category, nonprofits that focus on "providing whole-plant marijuana and marijuana products and a diversity of marijuana strains and seed stock to low-income persons", which could get taxes and license fees reduced or even waived, but only if the state finds it feasible. These are decent and make sense on their own but are largely token gestures.<br />
<br />
Possibly our state will add on enough other rules in time to build a healthy, competitive market from the ground up, rather than the stagnant, concentrated kind we see so often. But if so, the public will have to fight for such measures independently after the Act is passed, and success is far from guaranteed.<br />
<br />
Tomorrow, part 5: what the Act does not do.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-318338830925023522.post-48779946689063542162016-01-20T12:00:00.000-08:002016-01-20T13:30:08.171-08:00How we legalize marijuana, Part 3: The mixed, the indulgent, and misc.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
This is part 3 of my series on the proposed Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijua<span style="background-color: white;">na Act ("the Act") that will likely reach the California ballot in November 2016. The series started </span><span style="background-color: white; color: red;"><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/01/how-we-legalize-marijuana-introduction.html">here</a></span><span style="background-color: white;">. </span><span style="background-color: white;">Thank you for reading.</span><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>The mixed - racial equity issues</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<u style="font-style: italic;">Good: no licensing shutout.</u> As the fledgling legal marijuana industry has developed, it's been obvious that the people flowing in are overwhelmingly white - not a characteristic of the preexisting industry. Looking at the <a href="http://www.cannabisbusinessexecutive.com/cbe100-2014/">Cannabis Business Executive's top 100 influential people</a> from 2014, every single one of the first 30 actual businesspeople on the list was white, and only five were even white women. This makes sense since it's much riskier for a person of color to have their name out in the open as flagrantly violating federal law. If these processes continue unchecked, as the industry becomes more legal, safe, and profitable, it will be under whiter and whiter control, reinforcing inequality and structural racism.<br />
<br />
One positive thing the Act does for racial equity is that it avoids shutting out anyone from the legal industry on the ground of past participation in the illegal industry. It's normal for state licensure systems to exclude people with "substantially related" criminal records from licenses. For example, if you've committed fraud, you can never be an accountant. Does that mean people with any drug conviction history at all are shut out from getting marijuana business licenses, which would whiten the industry even more? No, says the Act - that would be wrong, since those old laws were themselves unjust. So the Act specifically says that a drug conviction on its own is <i>not</i> "substantially related" to licensed marijuana business activities and cannot be the sole ground for license denial. Of course it also doesn't give a blanket pass to people convicted of anything drug-related; legitimate denial grounds include drug crimes involving violence, fraud or deceit, minors, growth on public lands, or dealing in very large amounts (over 1 pound) of harder drugs like cocaine, heroin, or meth. This is not a panacea for the problem, but it shuts off one obvious way structural racism could assert itself, and that is laudable.<br />
<br />
<u style="font-style: italic;">Bad: criminalization cliff.</u> Even with the significant reductions in penalties for non-possession marijuana offenses, there is still room for injustice. Both simple possession of over one ounce, and possession for sale of any amount, would be misdemeanors still earning up to 6 months in jail. It is a rather odd situation where possessing 0.99oz is perfectly legal, but 1.01oz is lock-you-up. Wouldn't a fine for small amounts over the limit be more appropriate? (Yes, one ounce is a lot for personal use, but there's still plenty of innocent reasons it could happen.) And possession for sale, as I mentioned in Part 1, has no minimum, and is likely to be applied disproportionately to people of color based on its loose definition. So that's not great. But there will need to be some penalties, as another tool to limit the black market, however this works. And on the bright side, the Act doesn't lock us in - it specifically gives the Legislature the authority to further reduce marijuana penalties by majority vote. So I think as we learn what legalization is like, we will tinker and build something that makes more sense.<br />
<br />
<u><i>Bad: priority to existing licensees.</i></u> The Act specifically calls for the state to give licensing preference to applicants who have already been operating legally under state and, if any, local law (the medical use system). The preference goes away after 2019. This makes sense in theory - track record - but again a great whitening force in likely practice. The provision would be better gone.<br />
<br />
<b>The indulgent and the miscellaneous in the Act:</b><br />
<u><i>Organic designation.</i></u> The Act doesn't just allow but requires the Department of Food and Agriculture to allow marijuana to be certified organic just as with regular food. This is a marketing tool - not a bad thing, of course, but a sop to the industry.<br />
<br />
<i><u>Appellation of origin.</u></i> The Act also requires the state to set up a naming control system, so that you can only put, say, "Humboldt" on your product if it's actually from Humboldt County. Even more naked marketing, and decidedly silly.<br />
<br />
Both organic and appellation standards will come out of license fee money, and it would be better for the Legislature to decide whether they makes sense to pay for, rather than lock in the obligation at the ballot.<br />
<br />
<u><i>Some spending choices.</i></u> Most of the ways the Act requires its money be spent make sense, but they get rather penny-ante: for example, it gives $2m annually to the <a href="http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/">UCSD Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research</a> to do, well, the name says it - and this earmark is prioritized ahead of spending on substance use treatment! I also find it a little odd that the greatest single category of spending is for <i>youth </i>substance use issues, explicitly saying adult substance use is not a priority unless there's anything left over. But overall the spending choices make sense, such as paying to have public universities comprehensively study the impact of the Act over ten years and recommend changes to the regulatory structure.<br />
<br />
<u style="font-style: italic;">Lounges.</u> Not indulgent but merely interesting: whereas most legalization to date has banned public consumption, the Act allows cities at their option to license Amsterdam-style lounges where people can purchase and smoke socially. This opens up tourism opportunities, and one wonders which cities might take advantage of it. San Francisco? Oakland? Santa Cruz? (These lounges will not, however, be able to sell alcohol or tobacco alongside - no retailer can, in fact.)<br />
<br />
<u style="font-style: italic;">Swipe at DARE.</u> The text of the Act makes drug education or counseling the main penalty for minors under 18 convicted of marijuana offenses, but says these programs must be "based on science and evidence-based principles and practices specific to the use and abuse of marijuana and other controlled substances." This confused me until I remembered the many, many studies on the Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program (DARE) over the years that showed it <a href="http://priceonomics.com/dare-the-anti-drug-program-that-never-actually/">promoted myths and had no impact</a> on teen drug use, or even led to more. So this new court-mandated service is not intended to inject money into programs like DARE unless they get better. (They may have started already; all those studies did have an impact over time, from what I've read.) So this part of the Act is a bit parochial, but sound.<br />
<br />
Tomorrow, part 4: the bad.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-318338830925023522.post-78540467853165378882016-01-19T12:00:00.000-08:002016-01-19T12:00:11.752-08:00How we legalize marijuana, Part 2: The good<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
This is part 2 of my series on the proposed Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijua<span style="background-color: white;">na Act ("the Act") that will likely reach the California ballot in November 2016. The series started </span><b style="background-color: white; color: red;"><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/01/how-we-legalize-marijuana-introduction.html">here</a></b><span style="background-color: white;">. </span><span style="background-color: white;">Thank you for reading.</span><br />
<br />
<b>The good: remove and reduce criminal penalties, clear criminal records, regulate and tax.</b><br />
<u style="font-style: italic;"><br /></u>
<u style="font-style: italic;">Penalties demolished.</u> This is where any legalization initiative has the most impact on people's everyday lives - changes to the criminal code itself. Today, simple possession of up to one ounce of marijuana without a medical card is an infraction offense, with a fine of $100, but many other acts relating to marijuana are felonies that can lead to years in state prison. The Act makes personal possession of under one ounce, as well as the personal cultivation of up to six plants, completely legal for those 21 and over. Minors get community service and drug education for possession; 18-to-20-year-olds merely get fined. Most types of commerce (sale, transport/possession for sale, cultivation over the limit) are downgraded from felony to misdemeanor status, with much less jail time or fines. None of these penalties apply, of course, to businesses that are duly licensed.<br />
<br />
There would still be many constraints around personal use. No smoking or ingesting in public places, unless locally permitted. No smoking within 1,000 feet of schools or daycares except in private homes. All the existing laws about where you can't smoke tobacco would carry over for smoking marijuana - that means most workplaces, restaurants and bars, schools, apartment common areas, foster homes, etc. And no open containers in vehicles, much less driving under the influence.<br />
<br />
<i style="text-decoration: underline;">Release and record-clearing.</i> Not many people are lengthily imprisoned for simple, nonviolent marijuana offenses in California these days, although any is too many. But many more have been convicted over the decades, which ruins their future lives even if they didn't get jail time. The Act recognizes this is absurd and disparate considering our culture has tacitly accepted marijuana as harmless (for its privileged people) for decades now. So the Act allows people who previously committed marijuana crimes to be resentenced or released as appropriate under the new laws. If they are out of jail by now, their convictions can be dismissed and records sealed. A judge can keep people serving their sentence if they find, based on their record or other factors, that releasing them would be an unreasonable risk to public safety, but not otherwise. This is a huge slate-cleaning policy, likely restoring the records of tens or hundreds of thousands of people, disproportionately people of color. It is a critical counterpart to prospective legalization, and one of the most important aspects of this Act.<br />
<br />
<u style="font-style: italic;">Statewide commercial regulations.</u> The Act would erect a huge edifice of statewide commercial marijuana regulations, bringing the whole process out from underground, from seed to spliff. There would be license categories for cultivators, distributors, manufacturers, testers, and retailers, all of which would have to apply to the state and be held to an array of standards (more on this below). Some will complain that the structure means significant barriers to entry for small businesses, and that is true, but these barriers are fairly warranted: they will cover environmental protection, product testing and labeling, worker protection, security, and so on, just as other businesses are held to standards appropriate to what they do. Localities (cities or counties) will have the option to set up their own standards and license systems, and the state will have to respect those decisions.<br />
<br />
<u><i>Taxation and investment priorities.</i></u> There will be special taxes on recreational marijuana at two main points: a tax on cultivation of $9.25 per dry ounce of flowers, and a 15% tax at retail. This can collect a lot of money to be put to good use, but beware overpromising: it will not be enough money to shore up the state's budget in any major way. Once the system gets up and running, the Legislative Analyst's Office has predicted, it might generate as much as $1 billion a year, but that's against a state budget of over a hundred times that.<br />
<br />
The Act goes on to predetermine how the money will be spent, as most initiatives involving taxes do. The biggest beneficiary would be youth substance use education, prevention, and treatment, which cause would take 60% of the revenues after a range of initial smaller items are paid for. Significant amounts would also go to the environment, law enforcement, and grants for communities disproportionately affected by the drug war (job training and placement, legal services, mental health and substance use services). The ordinary sales tax revenue would not be spoken for, going to education, health, criminal justice, and local governments just as it does today.<br />
<br />
Significant extra taxes make sense not only because the resulting revenue can be put to good use, but because marijuana is not something like clothing, entertainment, or food where our starting assumption is that low prices and high availability are good things. Marijuana is far from being as unhealthy as tobacco or alcohol, but it is unhealthy - excessive use can lead to bronchitis, emphysema, cardiovascular problems, even possibly some types of cancer or schizophrenia, and while it has low potential for actual addiction, people can still abuse it and get caught up in vicious cycles. You sometimes hear "it's so widely available already, things won't change a bit with legalization," but expert consensus is no, it probably would be at least somewhat more used - not only will it be easier to get, but the prices will drop. This has health and economic effects we should try to curtail, and a tax is one of the most efficient ways to do this; it keeps the price from bottoming out and raises money to combat the negative effects. Too high and you get a black market for the sake of tax evasion, but this level in the Act is reasonable. (It also helps that this tax is spread out across both cultivation and retail, reducing the payoff from tax evasion at either stage.)<br />
<br />
<u style="font-style: italic;">Testing and labeling.</u> One disadvantage of marijuana production and distribution mostly being illegal is that it can be difficult to be sure of the contents or safety or what they are buying. The Act would mandate all marijuana batches receive independent testing for concentration, mold, pesticides, contaminants, etc., by independent testers with no financial interest in the results. It would require labeling potency in terms of THC and other cannabinoid content; edibles would have to be clearly marked out into servings with a standard THC content of 10 grams each; edible packages must be resealable and not attractive to children. So no more <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/25/politics/frates-pot-pies/">dowding</a>; people will know what they're ingesting, and have some level of confidence that there is a similar level of safety as in regular food. Also, the ability to reliably tell apart the different active ingredients (THC, cannabidiol, cannabigerol, there are many) could take the industry in innovative directions, where they can better identify which products may have more antinausea effects, which may have more effect on appetite, etc.<br />
<br />
<i><u>Truth in advertising and targets of advertising.</u></i> Advertising will have to be truthful and in particular avoid both directly untrue and merely misleading statements on products' health effects - a good idea considering the coterie out there that sees cannabis as the solution to all humanity's ills. There are also many safeguards against advertising reaching minors directly or indirectly: no Joe Camel-style techniques, for example. No advertising at all might be better, but the restrictions here make sense.<br />
<br />
So all I've written about above a great step forward, the bulk of why I support the Act. But there is a fair amount about the Act that's not as great. Tomorrow, Part 3: the mixed (racial equity) and the indulgent and miscellaneous.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-318338830925023522.post-33749332651378749852016-01-18T12:02:00.000-08:002016-01-23T12:29:45.663-08:00How we legalize marijuana: Introduction<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Everyone says recreational legalization of marijuana is on the horizon for California in 2016 - by the ballot, of course, since legislators don't have the guts. The Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act, submitted last November, with an Internet billionaire and multiple advocacy organizations behind it, is the most likely of any of those submitted to actually make it to the California ballot in 2016 and win. If the Act wins, we're stuck with it in a number of ways (the Legislature can amend it but only within limits), so it's good to look at it carefully.<br />
<br />
(Links to: <a href="https://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0103%20%28Marijuana%29_1.pdf?">full text</a>, <a href="https://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/Title%20and%20Summary%20%2815-0103%29.pdf?">official title and summary</a>, <a href="https://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/fiscal-impact-estimate-report%2815-0103%29.pdf?">fiscal estimate</a>, and <a href="https://www.regulatecalifornia.com/">campaign website</a>.)<br />
<br />
<b>The short version: If this law reaches the ballot as is, I would vote for it and urge you to as well. </b>Legalization is a moral urgency, a hump we need to get over. But hopefully more provisions will be added, either before it reaches the ballot or by other means after it wins, to help shape the industry in a more equitable way less vulnerable to the risks of commercialization.<br />
<br />
I write wanting to spread information and analysis, but I of course come to this work with a particular viewpoint: the prohibition of marijuana is unconscionable and needs to be brought to an end as quickly as possible. It is not simply irrational but also deeply oppressive, destroying lives wholesale, not only through the traumatic and disruptive experience of prison itself, but also through the huge limitation of work options after even minor convictions, and more broadly breaking down the communities most targeted by the drug war, which is to say people of color. California's present system of legalized medical use is better than the alternative, but it is a poor in-between hodgepodge. We have very light penalties for simple possession, a fine of $100 which is removed from your record, not life-destroying on its own, but possession for sale of any amount is still a full felony, and the vagueness of what constitutes "for sale" is a great recipe for disparate racial treatment by law enforcement. Then too, most actual production and distribution, even that supplying legal dispensaries, is officially illegal and still puts non-privileged participants at risk. Make no mistake, the current system is not an effective legalization: there were 13,300 felony arrests relating to marijuana in the state in 2014, and 6,411 misdemeanor arrests<br />
<br />
With experts agreeing marijuana is much less harmful than alcohol, and society at large agreeing marijuana is not a significant social problem, the next logical step is to bring the entire industry into legal status where it can be more effectively and equitably regulated. The biggest state in the county taking the legalization route would be also a major signal that it can work nationwide, with an overhaul of federal laws.<br />
<br />
But at the same time, legalization has its perils. I do not follow the libertarian take that people should be left completely free to self-harm: regulation to guide and assist people away from bad decisions they may make on their own is perfectly sensible in abstract. Also, a legal industry can go on to use campaign finance and cozy relationships to profit at the expense of the public good. This is a real concern, and we can't ignore it.<br />
<br />
Because the Act is so voluminous, and raises so many issues, I have broken my writeup into a series of posts, as follows. I will be posting one section each day through Saturday and adding links retroactively.<br />
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/01/how-we-legalize-marijuana-part-2-good.html">Part 2. The good: remove and reduce criminal penalties, clear criminal records, regulate and tax.</a></li>
<li><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/01/how-we-legalize-marijuana-part-3-mixed.html">Part 3. The mixed (racial equity aspects), as well as the indulgent and miscellaneous provisions.</a></li>
<li><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/01/how-we-legalize-marijuana-part-4-bad.html">Part 4. The bad: big business and market concentration.</a></li>
<li><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/01/how-we-legalize-marijuana-part-5-what.html">Part 5. What the Act does not do.</a></li>
<li><a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2016/01/how-we-legalize-marijuana-part-6-final.html">Part 6. Final observations: where the Act leads us.</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-318338830925023522.post-39047911814534224962014-10-20T08:19:00.000-07:002014-10-20T08:19:17.241-07:00Minimum wages, and other local measures<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I'm going to conclude my spree of ballot-initiative opinions with those in the parts of California I and my friends live in most predominantly - Oakland and San Francisco. Most of these can be dealt with quickly, but the biggest issue, the minimum wage, is on the ballot in both cities, so I'll bring those two together.<br />
<br />
<b>Measure FF, Oakland, and Proposition J, San Francisco: Yes. </b>FF in Oakland would raise the minimum wage in the city from the current statewide $9 to $12.25 as of March 2015, and index it to inflation thereafter. J would bring SF's wage to the same level in May 2015, but also raise it a dollar every year until it reaches $15 in 2018, and then inflation.<br />
<br />
Even among people who support the minimum wage, there's not always a proper appreciation of its full benefit. We sometimes fall to thinking of a high minimum wage as a luxury of a wealthy country, something that might have negative economic impacts but worth it for the moral stand of wanting people to not fall below a minimum standard of living. And that's a perfectly valid moral stand: minimum wage is not a living wage, and as the price of housing goes up, conditions are becoming more and more immiserating and untenable for the lower-income, especially in the Bay Area. But I want to get across that a higher minimum wage is not even a sacrifice - it's a benefit.<br />
<br />
There's an oversimplified economic logic people have internalized from decades of propaganda, that minimum wage is a price floor, and if that you increase prices over the market equilibrium, you necessarily decrease demand, which in this case means reducing the number of jobs available. That logic, though, relies on a whole raft of assumptions, and <a href="http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf">the most rigorous research has found over and over</a> that higher minimum wages, all else being equal, have just about zero effect on employment*. There are many theorized factors behind these results, but I'd note a few in particular. Employers have an inherent social and institutional upper hand over employees - except perhaps for a subsection of highly-skilled people, it's not a market relationship on equal terms - and so have the ability to collectively drive wages well below how much employees are worth to them. This helps them extract surplus from the business in the form of extra profits and upper-managerial salaries. (And all the evidence points to soaring executive salaries being unrelated to productivity or merit - another choice made for social and institutional reasons, not pure economics.) When the minimum wage rises, owners and executives can end up taking a haircut themselves, or making operations more efficient, or training workers so they're more valuable, or passing a bit of the cost on in the form of prices. Also, employee turnover may go down, which is a benefit. Some combination of these factors is probably the story; in the end, there is little tradeoff to the benefits to low-wage workers.<br />
<br />
There's also an economic benefit to everyone from the minimum wage, not just more people being able to make a living. It's the collective-action effect: if one company chose out of sheer benevolence to raise wages while all others didn't, it would be putting itself at a disadvantage. But if all companies do it together under law, that puts money in the pockets of the working classes, which they spend through the same businesses. And therefore the economy grows more than otherwise. FDR put it eloquently in one of his addresses:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Throughout industry, the change from starvation wages and starvation employment to living wages and sustained employment can, in large part, be made by an industrial covenant to which all employers shall subscribe. It is greatly to their interest to do this because decent living, widely spread among our 125,000,000 people, eventually means the opening up to industry of the richest market which the world has known. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
.... No employer and no group of less than all employers in a single trade could do this alone and continue to live in business competition. But if all employers in each trade now band themselves faithfully in these modern guilds--without exception--and agree to act together and at once, none will be hurt and millions of workers, so long deprived of the right to earn their bread in the sweat of their labor, can raise their heads again. The challenge of this law is whether we can sink selfish interest and present a solid front against a common peril.</blockquote>
Let's brush aside some other common objections:<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Does a higher minimum wage disproportionately benefit teenagers who aren't supporting a family? Nope - of those who would be affected by a raise from $7.25 to $10.10 nationwide, <a href="http://www.epi.org/publication/bp357-federal-minimum-wage-increase/">88% would be 20 or older</a>.</li>
<li>Should we increase the earned income tax credit (subsidies through the tax system that make wages worth more) in preference to the minimum wage, as some centrist Democrats like <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/business/the-minimum-wage-employment-and-income-distribution.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0">Christina Romer suggest</a>? No - the minimum wage and the EITC work best together. If you just hike the EITC on its own, <a href="http://www.nextnewdeal.net/rortybomb/interview-dube-eitc-and-minimum-wage-complements">research suggests</a> employers can end up capturing a good portion of the benefit. </li>
</ul>
Finally, a high minimum wage was part and parcel of the American postwar boom. Accounting for inflation, through most of the sixties the federal minimum wage was between $8 and $10. and productivity has grown a great deal since then, so arguably something as high as $18 would be justifiable. A decent minimum wage didn't grind the economy to a halt then, and it won't now.<br />
<br />
Measure FF also makes some compensation changes other than minimum wage: it adds a requirement for employers to provide sick leave. The City Attorney's analysis in the guide is not being as informative as it could when it says "existing law does not require employers to provide paid sick leave to their employees"; actually, a state law passed this year does make sick leave a universal benefit for the first time, starting 2015, at the effective rate of about 3 days a year. FF would, however, raise the basic number of sick days above the statewide level, to 5 for small businesses and 9 for all others.<br />
<br />
(I don't need to defend sick leave, right? It's a matter of basic dignity, it reduces the spread of disease, and it improves productivity by cutting down on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presenteeism">presenteeism</a>.)<br />
<br />
California has already raised the minimum wage over the federal level, to $9 this year and to $10 in 2016. $10 might be near enough for Bakersfield, but it's not enough for Oaklanders or San Franciscans - so vote yes on FF or J.<br />
<br />
* That's not to say that a minimum wage of <i>any </i>value would have no impact on jobs. This data is from our experience to date; if we made the wage extremely high like $25 or $30, it could start to be a net negative.<br />
<br />
<b>Measure BB, Alameda County: Yes. </b>This raises the special transportation sales tax add-on in Alameda County from half a cent to one cent, and devotes the revenues to a diverse mix of important transportation repair and improvement: $2.7 billion over thirty years to buses, BART, and commuter rail; $3 billion for streets and highways; $964 million subsidizing transit for seniors, people with disabilities, and students; $651 million to bike and pedestrian projects; and $300 million to transit-oriented development and other projects to improve transit access. BB keeps our transportation system functional while steadily moving us in the direction of more mass transit and non-car modes, which we will be very grateful for over time. It builds two new suburban BART stations. The managing entity is the county transportation commission, which has representatives of various governments across the county, and can keep everything coordinated.<br />
<br />
The main objection is that it's a sales tax and therefore regressive (since the low-income spend more of their income on goods than the higher-income), but counties aren't allowed to collect income tax, so they're left with this. The benefits it provides are certainly quite progressive.<br />
<br />
A very similar measure, B1, failed in 2012, because it needed 66.67% of the vote to pass, and it got 66.53%. Fortunately, the half-cent sales tax we already have doesn't expire until 2022. Let's get it right this time.<br />
<br />
<b>Measure N, Oakland: Yes. </b>Parcel tax on real estate that would fund high schools in preparing and helping connect kids to college and jobs. Parcel taxes aren't a great type of revenue source - same value no matter how much the real estate is worth - but there are exemptions for the low-income and seniors. And if ever any schools needed this kind of effort, it's Oakland's.<br />
<br />
<b>Measure Z, Oakland: Yes. </b>Renewal of an existing parcel tax going to police, specifically antiviolence work and keeping up the number of officers. It also renews an 8.5% surcharge on parking rates.<br />
<br />
(If you're thinking "isn't Measure Z about marijuana?" - that was Measure Z passed in 2004 and still in effect, such that one still hears about it. This is the renewal of Measure Y, which also passed in 2004; by coincidence the renewal got assigned the letter Z.)<br />
<br />
Z supposedly requires a minimum staffing level for OPD, although I'm not sure how toothsome it really is: staffing dropped below the minimum level in Measure Y during its lifetime. It also ties the hands of the city financially in case of a crisis by prohibiting layoffs that would leave fewer than 800. OPD needs to be run much better - it's still not even out from federal supervision from a court case more than 10 years ago - both in terms of being an effective organization and in acting like part of the city rather than an occupying force. But public safety is still a critical public good, staffing is far below any recommendation, and reducing existing funding is the opposite of what we need. We should pass Z and simultaneously press for more substantive improvement.<br />
<br />
<b>Measure CC, Oakland: Yes. </b>This beefs up the staffing and power of the Public Ethics Commission, removing the $1,000 limit on fines it can impose, allowing commissioners to serve for six years instead of three, and guaranteeing a sufficient staff. It also reduces the number of commissioners appointed by the mayor, and gives the commission the power to fire the executive director. (The actual appointment of the executive director is the responsibility of the city administrator, which can create some appearance of impropriety, and that wouldn't change under CC, but the ability to fire is an improvement.) It would make the commission have actual teeth, which is a basic good-government component. I am lukewarm about the ballot-box budgeting of requiring a staff of 6, but that's a pretty small requirement compared to the city budget, and arguably having a reasonable staff is part of having an effective commission.<br />
<br />
<b>Measure DD, Oakland: Yes. </b>Traditionally City Council boundaries have been drawn by the City Council itself, but it's becoming more and more obvious today that redistricting is too gameable for politicians to be treated with it. For both state and federal legislative boundaries, California now uses an independent commission of non-politicians chosen from the general public, and it worked quite well. DD would create a similar commission to draw the city and school district's boundaries for the next redistricting after the 2020 Census. Good idea, let's do it.<br />
<br />
(DD would not affect the boundaries determining which schools students attend.)<br />
<br />
<b>Measure EE, Oakland: Yes. </b>There's a legacy civil service retirement system, OMERS, which stopped taking new members in 1970. There are 22 people left alive drawing retirement under it, average age 91. EE would use some of its remaining money to buy annuities from an insurance company so that the beneficiaries keep getting their payments without any effort on the city's part. OMERS is not in financial trouble; this just saves administrative costs. It's also not a way to try to duck responsibilities: if the insurance company defaulted on its obligations, which is unlikely, the city would still be responsible for paying. I wish the city were able to make this kind of decision without having to go to the voters, but this is how things are.<br />
<br />
<b>Measure FF, Oakland: Yes </b>- minimum wage, see above.<br />
<br />
<b>Proposition A, SF: Yes. </b>$500 million in bonds for transportation projects: deferred maintenance on Muni, improvement to transit stations, more separated bike lanes, and other non-car-oriented street improvements. Worthwhile improvements, a lot of the infrastructure is nearing decrepitude, and it's a good time to be investing in general.<br />
<br />
<b>Proposition B, SF: No. </b>I am a big booster of public transit. I think car-oriented development is a trap that has worsened quality of life in a number of ways, and would not be very much put out if natural resource constraints forced us to mostly abandon freemoving motor vehicles (as is likely in my lifetime). I'd like spending on public transit to be treated not as a subsidy but as a necessity, the way road spending is currently treated. Even from this personal perspective, Prop B is a bad idea.<br />
<br />
Currently, the SF Municipal Transportation Agency gets guaranteed funding from the city starting from a base amount and increasing over time along with the city's discretionary revenues. B would require that the funding also go up in proportion to population, and would start by increasing the funding for the last 10 years of population growth. <b>It does not secure any new revenue to fulfill this obligation. </b>This is ballot-box budgeting of the worst kind. No matter how much revenue there actually is, no matter what SFMTA actually needs to maintain or improve service (new technologies?), no matter what other priorities transportation might need to be balanced against, it guarantees SFMTA this funding. And we cannot even reasonably expect revenue to consistently grow in step with population. This is a denial of the possibility of rational governance.<br />
<br />
B appears to be a fallback measure from a failed attempt to actually raise the vehicle license fee for this purpose, which is going to be pursued once more in 2016; it could be turned off if such a fee raise is accomplished. But that's not a decent excuse: there are many reasons that might not pass, and SF could then be stuck with this bad constitutional amendment indefinitely. We should be generous in spending on transit (voting in Prop A is one way to do it), but we must not create new unfunded obligations that are certain to make everything more complex and hard to handle down the road.<br />
<br />
<b>Proposition C, SF: No. </b>This renews and marginally increases a complicated existing system of funding set-asides for education and various child/youth-related services, It doesn't raise its own revenue, just requires portions of property tax and discretionary revenues to go to these programs, a little more than before. The effect is not quite as bad as B's because it's a mandatory allocation of money to the extent that it actually exists. It also slightly expands the range of policy purposes the money can be put to, and dedicates part of the city's rainy-day fund as a school-specific rainy-day fund,<br />
<br />
This is an extreme snooze, smelling strongly of interbureaucratic politics and feelgoodism. I think San Francisco is likely to be pretty progressive in how and where it dedicates education funding regardless of Rube Goldberg mechanisms like this tying its hands. Also, the amounts at stake are fairly small: currently, about $125 million compared to over $4 billion in total annual revenues (see the <a href="http://www.sfcontroller.org/index.aspx?page=537">CAFR</a>). It would not affect much if you vote yes, but voting no would send a signal about how compelling to the public ballot measures need to be, seeing how paltry and goofy the opposition is. (Bless your heart, libertarians.)<br />
<br />
<b>Proposition D, SF: Yes. </b>This is a fairness issue - about 50 city employees had their agency unexpectedly shuttered due to a state budget decision, and have now been or will soon be rehired with other funds, but because of the way the decision works, they won't get retiree health benefits counting their full term of service in the way that other city employees do. It will cost about $75,000 per employee, or $3.75 million, over some decades, which is minimal. Even if you aren't sure the city should be paying for retiree health, and maybe prefer to kick it to Medicare, any change to the current system should treat city employees the same, not exploiting a glitch.<br />
<br />
However, I'd observe that if the city didn't have this habit of sticking everything they think is important in the Charter, making it untouchable by the Board of Supervisors, we wouldn't have to put a simple fix like this on the ballot.<br />
<br />
<b>Proposition E, SF: Yes. </b>A two-cent-per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, meaning $0.24 a can, or $0.68 a liter. A small change that reflects an important realization we're collectively coming to: taxes work better than "awareness". Taken as a mass, people tend to do more or less what they feel like and can afford doing, unless you apply constraints, and taxes are a relatively efficient way to tamp down on activities in proportion to how much harm they cause, without going overboard with prohibitions. Cigarette taxes <a href="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/21/2/172.full">are the primary reason</a> smoking has diminished so much; fining water overuse <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/drought/ci_26501731/california-drought-statewide-water-use-drops">reduces it sharply</a>; a carbon tax will do leagues more than voluntary efforts. A tax on sugar-sweetened drinks is the next logical step. Yes, there are a lot of other unhealthy things to eat and drink, but sugary beverages are a soft target, with little nutrition other than sugar, and seem to be <a href="http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/sugary-drinks-fact-sheet/">related to a good chunk of the problem at least</a>. Also, the extent people want to drink them is boosted by ubiquitous advertising and packaging strategies. Start out with this, and some good will be done, some revenues will come in to fund health and exercise programs, and most importantly, information on the efficacy of this measure can be collected, which could lead to better-designed price-based programs, or other helpful measures like eliminating sugar/corn subsidies nationwide.<br />
<br />
Despite it being regressive on paper, it should not have a significant impact on the low-income as they can switch to untaxed beverages; this is a tax to modify behavior, not primarily to raise revenue. The overall impact would also be small on any individual; according to the <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db71.pdf">National Health and Nutrition and Examination Survey</a>, 2005-2008, the average man had 178 calories from sugar drinks per day, and the average woman 103. For ballpark figures, if we average this to 140, then double it to 280 since only 50% of the population actually drinks sugar drinks, that's twice the calories in a twelve-ounce can of Coke, so the tax would average about 50 cents a day and $15 a month for the average drinker. And assuming that average is pulled up by heavy drinkers, a lot less for the median drinker. About enough to start modifying behavior somewhat, but definitely not punishing. The beverage companies are pouring money into opposing E because they know it's the beginning of the end of their free ride.<br />
<br />
<b>Proposition F, SF: Yes. </b>The city needs more density and more housing units to be affordable, pure and simple; height limits lock in benefits for lucky property owners, who can then clean up without spending a buck. Height limits don't even make sense aesthetically; people know SF is a dense city. Voters shortsightedly imposed yet another height limit in June; now there's what appears to be a more acceptable-to-everyone project, but it still needs a vote to raise height limits to 90 feet in the area. Do it already.<br />
<br />
<b>Proposition G, SF: Yes. </b>This would impose an extra transfer tax on real estate for people who resell it within 5 years of purchase, with the tax starting at 24% of total value for flipping in under one year, and graduating down to 14% for between 4 and 5 years. We know that the housing market is not rational: in bubbles, frenzies of buying and selling work in a vicious cycle, as people get excited, bid high, then the rising prices excite more people... until it all collapses into misery. A tax on flippers makes sense as an attempt to counteract irrational exuberance and make it a better business proposition to invest in a property and think about the long term. One valid concern is that it does not exempt people who need to raise money quickly for medical emergencies or other exigent circumstances, but people in that position are likely to be owner-occupiers, who are exempted, and such an exemption would probably be abusable anyway. It's also a bit odd that 30-unit-plus buildings are exempted (influence of big business?), but otherwise, it makes reasonable exemptions, like for people selling property they inherited.<br />
<br />
Of course it will not make housing affordable by itself; we still have the fundamentals of not enough housing and lots of rich people (many of them not speculators) here to buy. It might do more to smooth out the boom-and-bust cycle than it does for actual affordability. We need to do more and build more, but G can be part of a solution, and is worth a shot.<br />
<br />
<b>Propositions H and I, SF: No and no.</b> Turf and lighting? San Francisco, be ashamed of yourself. Work this kind of shit out through public input and Board votes and don't clutter up the ballot with it.<br />
<br />
(If you're wondering the likely impact of rejecting both these measures, it's that a few soccer fields at the far western end of Golden Gate Park will get artificial turf and be lit until 10 to allow for more use. Oh, the horror. But don't vote for Prop I if you want to specifically support that plan either; it's a bad counter to H that would tie yet more knots in the city planning process.)<br />
<br />
<b>Proposition J, SF: Yes </b>- minimum wage, see above.<br />
<br />
<b>Proposition K, SF: Yes. </b>No actual impact, but a general policy statement that more housing, including affordable housing, should be built or rehabilitated.<br />
<br />
<b>Proposition L, SF: No. </b>Also no actual impact, just a policy statement, but a very bad one, basically saying that motorists should be favored above all other SF residents. Freeze in parking rates, free weekend and evening parking, no demand-responsive pricing, and more publicly funded parking garages. Cars have a lot of externalities; SF is slowly promoting other coequal transportation options as part of becoming a more functional, affordable, and clean city, so fixing in place the subsidies motorists have historically gotten (especially providing, far below market rates, large amounts of otherwise-valuable city space for parking) is exactly the wrong way to go.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-318338830925023522.post-71592624103983198592014-10-16T06:44:00.000-07:002014-10-16T06:45:22.145-07:00Yes on Props 1 and 2<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Moving on to Propositions 1 and 2.<br />
<br />
<b>Prop 1: Yes</b>. I can't claim as much detailed knowledge of water infrastructure as of health policy, so I'll keep this briefer. Prop 1 would give the state authority to borrow up to $7.1 billion, by selling bonds, to fund a large number of water capital projects. $2.7 billion would go to water storage, especially dams, although localities and regions would have to put up some matching money themselves. $1.4 billion to clean up polluted groundwater and wastewater so it can become drinkable or usable again (including in certain disadvantaged communities - more on that below). $1.5 billion to clean up watersheds, especially in support of endangered wildlife. $725 million for recycling wastewater and desalinating. $395 million for flood management, mostly working on the Delta levees. $810 million for a potpourri of improvement projects to be developed at the local level, some of which could be in the same categories as above, but also stretching to reuse/recycling, conservation, stormwater management, and other efforts.<br />
<br />
One of the great embarrassments for California, and what really moves me on Prop 1, is that we do not effectively provide safe drinking water for all residents, There are a lot of ad hoc farmworker communities, heavily Hispanic and low-income, that literally don't have drinkable public water. They're often unincorporated, no city wanting to take responsibility for them. Compounding the lack of infrastructure most Californians take for granted, agricultural runoff often pollutes their groundwater, making even private wells unsafe. Really, <a href="http://america.aljazeera.com/features/2014/10/california-watersanlucas.html">read this Al Jazeera article</a>: showers that make your skin itch, kids in school waiting for drinking water to be trucked in, babies turning blue from exposure. It's a crying shame that a single person would have to live like this, but in fact up to two million don't have public water in California alone. I don't know if it's enough to completely solve the problem, but Prop 1 would help these communities by preferentially allocating $520 million of the water-cleanup portion of the bill to them.<br />
<br />
Overall, Prop 1 continues the California tradition of trying to solve resource problems by throwing concrete at them. Very few of the projects work toward conservation by agriculture, households, or industry. Little will keep farmers from continuing to invest in <a href="http://onthepublicrecord.org/2014/04/29/i-drove-up-the-5-on-sunday/">thirsty cash crops like almonds</a> and then run crying to Sacramento when some predictably fail. And ideally we'd fund more of this not with bonds but with user fees, making major users bear more of the cost. But our water infrastructure is in big trouble: the EPA estimates that California actually needs $44.5 billion, not $7 billion, through 2030, to keep drinking water safe and secure. Borrowing rates are fairly low, so investments are a good deal for the next generation. While some of the projects like dams may be dubious, others, like cleaning up and replenishing the water we drink, especially for people we've left behind, are critical. Some wetlands might be saved or restored thanks to this. And there's always a bit of Keynesian boost from the projects themselves. We need a change, but in the meantime, let's vote yes.<br />
<br />
<b>Prop 2: Yes. </b>This proposition is a reaction to what the last boom-and-bust cycle did to California, an attempt to keep it from happening next time. State tax revenues - especially income and capital gains - are fairly volatile, rising and falling much more than the economy at large does. I put together the following chart from <a href="http://www.sco.ca.gov/state_finances_101_state_taxes.html">State Controller data</a>:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5_Fxv0bgX8fNbft9cohLaAh3v3hfDPq7q_VZ-RjgHP6iP8eA_2SHo1CJmIPU6A7QixjR91aZtxP2vvNXl9ErVJ-S33XHGnMalTGpMQ9bvxqRYqGFCSXhaa7_1rjjn0ZmcpbvsmxVQTD8/s1600/volatility.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5_Fxv0bgX8fNbft9cohLaAh3v3hfDPq7q_VZ-RjgHP6iP8eA_2SHo1CJmIPU6A7QixjR91aZtxP2vvNXl9ErVJ-S33XHGnMalTGpMQ9bvxqRYqGFCSXhaa7_1rjjn0ZmcpbvsmxVQTD8/s1600/volatility.png" height="376" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
In the last decade, the Legislature responded to increased tax revenues by expanding government services and cutting taxes (Schwarzenegger's campaign promise). When that growth turned negative, the state scrambled to make reductions, which nobody enjoyed. Although analogies between a government and a household are often flawed and dangerous (especially "live within your means") the concept of a rainy-day fund is an applicable and useful one: putting away money in good times helps you keep level in bad times. The idea is so old <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Revised_Standard_Version">it shows up in Genesis</a>.<br />
<br />
The details: Prop 2 would in normal years require 0.75% of total revenue to go into the Budget Stabilization Account every year, until it reaches 10% of revenue. If a budget emergency is declared, the amount contributed can be reduced or eliminated, and some money can be withdrawn. In the second year of a budget emergency, all of the money can be withdrawn. By contrast, in the status quo, the state can stop contributing into the BSA anytime it wants, and also take all the money out at any time. Prop 2 would also smooth out the ultra-volatile capital gains tax revenue by requiring above-average collections to go into the BSA too.<br />
<br />
In addition to the rainy day fund, Prop 2 would smooth out spending another way: by requiring another 0.75% of total revenue and some of the excess capital gains tax revenue go to pay down debts. Not just debts in the form of money previously borrowed, but also "budgetary debts" - future obligations to retirees, money still unpaid to local governments, etc. Also makes sense. (Note that where the explainers say the state would save about 1.5% of revenues each year, that's adding together the reserve obligation and the debt spend-down obligation.)<br />
<br />
Now, I have a dislike for ballot-box budgeting in general. Government needs flexibility, and trying to tie legislators in knots so that they "do the right thing" tends to make outcomes worse. But I think Prop 2 strikes the right balance of setting new prudential standards while still allowing a decent amount of flexibility. A budget emergency is defined as either some kind of disaster (natural or otherwise) or a year when revenues are less than the highest level of the past three years, adjusting for population and inflation. This second scenario will probably kick in a lot of the time, not just in recessions - after all, reworded, it means that an emergency can be declared in any year when revenue is <u>not</u> the highest it's ever been in four years. Another flexibility is that the debt repayment requirement expires after 15 years, and then the state can choose to keep spending down debt with that money or add it to the regular BSA contribution.<br />
<br />
In this policy area that affects legislative affairs so intimately, I think it's also a testimony to the value of Prop 2 that after a great deal of negotiation, this proposition passed both houses of the Legislature unanimously. (I put less stock in Prop 1 being nearly unanimous; there, entrenched interests and reflexive habits are more involved.)<br />
<br />
There is no funded campaign against Prop 2 at all. But the argument you'll see in the voter guide is about its effect on school districts, saying that it keeps them from holding adequate reserves. This has to do with the part of the measure that establishes another reserve fund specifically for education. State-level education funding is complicated - very much tied in knots by other measures - and I'm going to avoid going into any detail on this fund, but this reserve is meant to get some especially high tax revenues. Once it starts to be funded, another state law kicks in that requires districts to keep no more than two or three times their mandatory minimum reserve, i.e., spend down any surplus over that level they may already have. This idea seems to stem from a dissatisfaction in some parts of the state, particularly from teachers, with some school districts that are sitting on quite enormous reserves, some more than 100% of annual budgets, and not spending the money on education. It's important to note that <b>you are not voting on this law</b>, which has already been passed by the Legislature (as SB858); the law will just not go into effect until Prop 2 does. It seems a little clumsy a measure - perhaps higher reserves than it specifies would be more prudent - but the Legislative Analyst says due to the conditions that have to be met to fund the new state-level school reserve, the limitations wouldn't kick in for at least a few years. Most importantly, since it's just a law, not part of the constitution, if it has perverse consequences down the road, the Legislature will be completely free to repeal it, so I don't think it's much of any worry. The crucial fact is that the rainy-day fund would help schools by stabilizing education funding at a higher level.<br />
<br />
Finally, a note on campaign finance. Propositions 1 and 2 are intimately connected - the Governor seems to consider them part of his legacy. The vast majority of funding for them has been through two committees supporting both at once; the committees supporting or opposing 1 or 2, singly, have raised less than half a million dollars, whereas the "for 1 and 2" committees have $4.6 million. It's an interesting mix of labor, agriculture, a few billionaires (Reed Hastings of Netflix, the Fisher family of the Gap, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_Resnick">Stewart Resnick</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Benioff">Marc Benioff</a>), and miscellaneous other bigguns (the hospital industry, a health insurer. even Disney). Seems to be a combination of wanting projects built and perhaps wanting to get in good with the Governor. In this case at least, nothing that rings my alarm bells.<br />
<br />
So again, that's yes and yes. Stay tuned for some local initiatives (especially you East Bayers).</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-318338830925023522.post-41292595154743460532014-10-15T12:52:00.001-07:002014-10-15T12:52:25.808-07:00State propositions 45, 46, 47, and 48<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Once more I'm writing summaries and recommendations on the propositions on the California ballot for people wanting more than warring assertions. Point of view not checked at the door.<br />
<br />
Although they come first on the ballot, I'm going to put Props 1 and 2 in a later installment, because they're trickier. Hopefully tomorrow. After that will be ballot measures in Oakland and maybe San Francisco.<br />
<br />
<b>Prop 45: Yes. </b>Although the federal government is deeply involved now as well, the state has a major traditional role in regulating insurance. A good consumer-friendly law we already have with car insurance (which insurance keeps <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/08/business/la-fi-mo-joseph-dumps-8-million-into-prop33-20121008">spending boatloads</a> trying to roll back!) allows the elected Insurance Commissioner to reject premium rates that are unreasonable. Prop 45 would extend this law to health insurance.<br />
<br />
The justification is pretty simple. For markets to work well, you need transparency and competition. Most insurance is complicated and hard to make transparent to the consumer even in ideal circumstances. It also tends toward oligopoly, dominance by a small number of firms - in California, <a href="http://www.chcf.org/publications/2013/03/data-viz-health-plans">the top four companies had 83% of the insurance market in 2011</a>, and seven had 97%. In the absence of transparency or competition, the government has a role coming in to keep firms relatively honest, since the consumer doesn't have either the spare time or the market clout to do so.<br />
<br />
Right now, the IC <i>reviews</i> health insurance rates to see if they are needed to cover increased costs, and uses the bully pulpit to shame insurers whose increases are unreasonable, but doesn't <i>approve </i>them in any effective sense - no power to keep them from selling a given product. There have been premium reductions even under this structure, but authority to reject would put real teeth in the consumer protection.<br />
<br />
There are charges that Prop 45 interferes with health reform, <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2014/09/19/despite-concerns-about-prop-45-covered-california.html?page=all">from the general direction of</a> Covered California, California's health insurance exchange, which arranges affordable health insurance for people (thanks to the new federal subsidies) with <a href="https://www.coveredca.com/">their website<span id="goog_283678178"></span></a> and other infrastructure. CovCA has done a great job overall of making sure that it doesn't become a site for junk insurance, actively negotiating with plans so that the products are affordably priced, even without subsidies, and have decent benefits, networks, and quality. There's a lot more work to do, but they're on the right road. However, regarding this measure, they need to be adults*. First, they do not have authority over all insurance in the state - there's still plenty of individual and group plans they have no control over. Are those consumers chopped liver? Also, their roles are inherently different. CovCA acts like a purchaser, whereas the IC is purely a regulator, and they are both smart (groups of) people with largely shared goals who can figure out how not to step on each other's toes. In fact, the IC's new power might make CovCA's job easier by establishing a better baseline of reasonableness they can further negotiate down from.<br />
<br />
The Affordable Care Act recognizes in many ways that oligopoly power on the part of the insurers needs checking, and rate review is an expression of that recognition. Another is Medical Loss Ratios - insurers now may spend no more than 15% or 20% of their premiums on administration and profit, removing one of the ways they used to be able to make money, denying claims regardless of justification. The ACA also calls for states to increase their effectiveness at reviewing the reasonableness of rates, offering $250 million in grants to this end. In short, Prop 45 doesn't interfere with the ACA, it enhances it.<br />
<br />
Will Prop 45 solve the high and rising cost of health care? Certainly not. Insurers only take up about 6% of all health spending. At the root, we as a country spend too much on health services, both in volume of services and in price per service. However, without regulation, insurers can and do get in on that action, and they need to be policed.<br />
<br />
A final thing to be aware of: if you have health insurance through a big employer, Prop 45 probably doesn't relate to your plan, because most big employers self-insure, meaning they keep reserves to pay for health care themselves and just use the insurance companies to process claims, manage networks, etc. The federal government has near-exclusive jurisdiction over this kind of plan.<br />
<br />
* Since writing this I've learned that the backers of Prop 45 <a href="http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-proposition-45-battle-over-covered-california-20141013-story.html">seem to be lashing out</a> at CovCA in retaliation, flagging some no-bid contracts and accusing them, with weak analyses, of not keeping rates down enough. So they need to be adults too.<br />
<br />
<b>Prop 46: Yes. </b>Since 1975, there's been a law in California, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Injury_Compensation_Reform_Act">MICRA</a>, that limits the damages that can be awarded in medical malpractice cases. Specifically, it limits noneconomic damages - basically, "pain and suffering" damages - to $250,000. That amount has never been adjusted for inflation in 40 years. Prop 46 would retroactively adjust for inflation, bringing it to $1.1 million, and adjust going into the future as well. It would also impose some new rules on doctors relating to drug use and prescriptions.<br />
<br />
First, the MICRA side of things. "Pain and suffering" is almost a punchline these days, since in isolation it sounds nebulous and exploitable. But this arbitrary cap ends up diminishing real loss. The cap applies even when someone dies! The effect of inflation on the cap over time has reduced even basic access to justice, because it makes it not just difficult but often impossible for lawyers to pursue cases on contingency. And because <i>economic</i> - quantifiable - damages are untouched, it turns into a class-graded system where a CEO can get huge damages for lost future income, whereas a dishwasher gets little even in the best case.<br />
<br />
Medical malpractice is a real thing - the Institute of Medicine estimated in 1999 that 98,000 people a year died due to mistakes in hospitals, and it's not clear that number has gone down significantly since then. In 2013, the Indiana Department of Health logged 18 surgeries on wrong body parts and 27 foreign objects accidentally left in bodies; these are known as "never events", things that shouldn't happen even by accident. But they still happen. And when the harm is serious enough and someone is clearly at fault for it, the victims should have the opportunity to seek restitution.<br />
<br />
The court system isn't the only way restitution can work. Arguably it's not a great method, because of all the hassle and costs of trials: <a href="http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/how-malpractice-reform-is-blown-way-out-of-proportion/">according to one study</a>, only about 2% of patients who actually suffered substandard care brought any kind of claim, and of those claims, only about half ended up getting paid out. so the benefits to victims are very unevenly distributed. New Zealand has a completely different system, removing courts altogether in favor of a no-fault compensation board. The US has a similar system for vaccine-related injuries. I wouldn't mind pursuing such a system. But what we have under MICRA is a half-system that denies any shot at justice for many, and it has to go, unequivocally.<br />
<br />
Now, you may be thinking "But what about health costs? Won't this make us all pay more?" And the answer is maybe, a little. There will be somewhat more lawsuits with somewhat more payouts. In most cases, because of the barriers to bringing a successful case, these payouts will be just ones, so I'm not that concerned in general. They should be pretty minor compared to health spending overall: in 2008, medical liability costs <a href="http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/29/9/1569.full">were estimated at</a> about $10 billion nationwide, about half a percent of total spending.<br />
<br />
There's also the idea of defensive medicine, that, fearing lawsuits, doctors order extra tests and procedures and generally drive up health costs. But that too is distinctly overblown. The same study attempted a very rough estimate the cost of defensive medicine itself, and they came up with only another $46 billion, or about two percent of spending. Doctors may tell you they are affected by this, but they aren't necessarily reliable sources: there are lots of reasons for overuse besides lawsuit-prevention.<br />
<br />
We also have some real-life experiments. Texas implemented the same $250,000 cap more recently, from 2003, and if tort reform had positive spillover effects, then that sharp discontinuity should have made them obvious. <a href="http://www.citizen.org/documents/Texas_Liability_Limits.pdf">It didn't</a>: health insurance premiums and Medicare spending kept growing as before, physician supply stayed level, and on the defensive medicine front, there was not even any perceptible change in how often doctors ordered labs, X-rays, etc. Case closed.<br />
<br />
Another interesting observation from Texas is that while malpractice payments on behalf of doctors dropped by about two-thirds after the law, the malpractice premiums that doctors paid dropped by only one-quarter, implying the insurance companies pocketed the majority of the savings. This implies that the reverse - liability insurers absorbing a lot of the hit from Prop 46 by taking a haircut on profits - is possible. <a href="http://www.naic.org/documents/research_stats_medical_malpractice.pdf">The National Association of Insurance Commissioners' data </a>says that California's medical liability insurers only pay out about 65% of premiums. If Prop 46 passes, consumers and doctors could conceivably team up against liability insurers to bring that up to more like 85%.<br />
<br />
Even if you like that MICRA was passed, Prop 46 brings it more into line with reality, specifically the fact that cost of living changes over time. In 1975, $250,000 was 25 years of median household income. Today? Five years. If we don't change it, inflation will keep eating and eating away at people's chance of a day in court until "pain and suffering" is good for a 20-year-old car.<br />
<br />
Second, the drug provisions. I am somewhat conflicted about this. The backers basically put these in with the MICRA reform in hopes to grab extra votes. Prop 46 would address prescription drug overuse by requiring physicians and pharmacists to check a state database of higher-risk drug prescriptions (especially opioids) before prescribing, to see if there is already a prescription. Overprescription is a problem, and this would perhaps be an improvement, but a rather slight and formulaic one.<br />
<br />
More saliently, Prop 46 would require <u>random alcohol and drug testing</u> of doctors in hospitals, It is true that there is enough social deference to doctors that they aren't always called out on impairment, like in <a href="http://www.texasobserver.org/anatomy-tragedy/">this horrible case in Texas</a>. But random testing is demeaning for anyone and a drug-war holdover. I would not vote for it in isolation.<br />
<br />
Looking at the details, though, there are a lot of mitigating factors to this provision that make it less burdensome.<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Random testing is required of all physicians who are employed or contracted with a hospital or have admitting privileges, but it puts no floor under how frequent "random" testing must be. It could be very infrequent indeed.</li>
<li>The more stringent testing requirement is on physicians who were responsible for a patient when they experienced an adverse event. This makes sense as an area of focus. (And adverse events are defined as those that hospitals already have to report to the state, so there is an existing identification mechanism.)</li>
<li>It acknowledges and accounts for false positives: for a positive result to be reported for investigation, it has to be "verified positive", meaning the test is repeated, the physician can offer an explanation (poppyseeds!), the concentration has to pass a threshold, and a medical review officer goes over the case.</li>
<li>It is only supposed to test for use of drugs or alcohol "while on duty that may impair... the physician's ability to practice medicine," so it excludes tests that identify drug use weeks in the past, such as the private sector often uses today.</li>
<li>To the extent there are more niggling problems that the opponents have identified, like the requirement to test within 24 hours of an adverse event when it might not be known until later that an adverse event happened, I'm pretty confident that implementing regulations will interpret in physicians' favor, since it's the Medical Board that will be writing those regulations.</li>
</ul>
<div>
So on the whole, I can hold my nose and recommend yes on 46 despite this provision, because MICRA reform is that important.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And here, too, business knows very well what it has to lose: of the $157m contributed so far on the various propositions, $92m is against 46, of which $45m is from malpractice insurers (the rest is hospitals, doctors, etc.).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Prop 47: Yes. </b>We need to move away from quick incarceration as a social strategy. It's broken communities and stigmatized hundreds of thousands of people, for no better reason than to protect the delicate sensibilities of scared suburbanites. Three Strikes will still be with us for some time - people like the metaphor, I guess? - so this proposition comes at it from a different angle, reducing a wide range of low-dollar-value and nonviolent felonies to misdemeanors. It also lets people out of jail who were convicted on such felony charges, if they're otherwise nonviolent. The felony threshold goes up to $950, where currently it's $450 for most of these crimes.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The least bad arguments law enforcement has come up with are that Prop 47 extends misdemeanor status to possession of date-rape drugs and theft of most guns. The date-rape drugs thing seems fairly panicky; I doubt many people get arrested for simple possession as things stand now, and enough actual rapes go unprosecuted that I'd be happy to shift any emphasis there might have been on GHB/flunitrazepam possession to going after crimes of commission. On gun-theft, it appears the critics are oversimplifying: prosecutors will still be able to pursue felony charges for possession of a stolen gun. (Their concern for the poor heroin or cocaine possessors who will no longer have an "incentive" to seek treatment is beneath notice.)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As a happy side effect, Prop 47 would significantly reduce costs to the counties that have been saddled with the responsibility of holding a lot of these people since 2011 - by several hundred million, annual, says the Legislative Analyst, plus a couple hundred million in state savings that will go to mental health, drug treatment, truancy reduction, and victim services.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Prop 48: No. </b>This would allow two Indian tribes to build a new casino in Madera County. So far California's casinos have been on reservation land, limiting their potential locations; the difference with this one is it's on land that was acquired specifically for this purpose.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Gambling is basically exploitation of a cognitive defect inherent to humans - we're overloaded with pattern recognition ability at the expense of statistical insight. As long as it's kept as a recreational activity there's nothing wrong with it, but when it turns into an industry bent on feeding habits and driving people into overindulgence, it's a bad thing. (I'm also against state lotteries. Of course I know prohibiting gambling would be unworkable and oppressive - perhaps ideally some kind of annual spending limitation could exist.)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In this case the "no" campaign is being funded by other casino operators hoping to maintain their business, but I don't see that as very significant: keeping the number of casinos down is still a net good. A "no" vote may also keep off-reservation casinos from development in the future, which would be beneficial, although apparently <a href="http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2014/10/09/proposition-48-north-fork-rancheria-casino-madera-county">Interior Department permission is still a major hurdle</a>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So not nearly as important as any of the measures, but I say no.</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-318338830925023522.post-50539995097313640272014-09-08T21:52:00.001-07:002014-09-08T21:57:13.040-07:00Clothilda, do not feed the parrots tonight.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
State Controller John Chiang just made available sortable and exportable fiscal data from all of California's cities and counties for the past 10 years, at <a href="http://bythenumbers.sco.ca.gov/">bythenumbers.sco.ca.gov</a>. Playing around just a little yielded intriguing results.<br />
<br />
I had read of how <a href="http://www.npr.org/2014/08/25/343143937/in-ferguson-court-fines-and-fees-fuel-anger">Ferguson, MO makes a buck</a>, so "total revenues - fines and forfeitures" caught my eye. I took the data for city fine/forfeiture revenue for 2013, calculated it per capita, and immediately saw some pretty big outliers.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGCPU8w-Izfr9zIgR4hgSocwz8JywISkkNPniWelXiejWKt9vgSEXIozy-_qMdcp2cO3E159xX2fk17-bkssM4kYRSzasX3SRDR-BUuwJ3XC2Nzx4BHE1kuohFcMkJAqb6TpZcFMaCLmo/s1600/chart+1.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGCPU8w-Izfr9zIgR4hgSocwz8JywISkkNPniWelXiejWKt9vgSEXIozy-_qMdcp2cO3E159xX2fk17-bkssM4kYRSzasX3SRDR-BUuwJ3XC2Nzx4BHE1kuohFcMkJAqb6TpZcFMaCLmo/s1600/chart+1.png" height="173" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Six thousand dollars per capita? Even two thousand is a lot, considering the next highest is 500.<br />
<br />
Vernon and City of Industry are both very low-population towns, with a disproportionate amount of land with businesses on them, but that could also be said of Irwindale. Are they speed-traps, or otherwise deliberately funding themselves with excessive fines? Easy to believe of Vernon, since it had that big court case over misappropriation of public funds.<br />
<br />
Not that it's in itself illegitimate to have a higher figure per capita here. I note that bigger cities in general have higher fines per capita, which makes sense with more crime and traffic. For all the California cities as a whole, the weighted-average rate of fines per capita is $22, and around the top we also have Berkeley ($76), Oakland ($66), San Francisco ($65), Pasadena ($62), and Los Angeles ($47). The only really big cities below the state average are San Jose ($15) and Fresno ($12), and the lowest-fining city over 100,000 is Antioch at $1.72.<br />
<br />
But back to these top-finers. Let's look at whether this is a 2013 anomaly by means of time series. More discontinuity is in store. But first, to show a point of comparison, here are the other top finers shown above, Irwindale through Manhattan, from 2003 to 2013. Instead of 2010 census from the SCO dataset, I'm now standardizing using Department of Finance population figures, interpolating to get annual population figures between 2000 and 2010 and then between 2010 and 2013.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFp_T1aP0DiLhYKnPRZpJjKDvf9_4rCpGpuTksw7QuboS1Zhmvwu2c29wJkp06qxeSQ68UiI1NNtsWpymCIn2gUWRdNd_4Qi_mTCga6Rdxzv-3ZbF94Tf6LhIgKl7BZItk3g628rEcKTE/s1600/chart+2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFp_T1aP0DiLhYKnPRZpJjKDvf9_4rCpGpuTksw7QuboS1Zhmvwu2c29wJkp06qxeSQ68UiI1NNtsWpymCIn2gUWRdNd_4Qi_mTCga6Rdxzv-3ZbF94Tf6LhIgKl7BZItk3g628rEcKTE/s1600/chart+2.png" height="428" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Some have been inching up - Irwindale especially - but in general we see some decent stability. Some of the growth is probably due to inflation, too.<br />
<br />
Now let's contrast this to City of Industry, which needs a different visual scale:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmZBeLWh2bN4O5LpN7_5pp6RRy8ND0dChZ81xttIxcz_bObo27MShadezwgzGSpC1mLj4b5YztN1K3csVMJRsIjA8v_qYS-tQnR4xFQXtUIc1nHRvnxLX0KE9gik8v5UOlZO2BLIm9nLE/s1600/chart+3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmZBeLWh2bN4O5LpN7_5pp6RRy8ND0dChZ81xttIxcz_bObo27MShadezwgzGSpC1mLj4b5YztN1K3csVMJRsIjA8v_qYS-tQnR4xFQXtUIc1nHRvnxLX0KE9gik8v5UOlZO2BLIm9nLE/s1600/chart+3.png" height="422" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
This is big growth, on an already-high baseline, but it tracks the economic slump pretty closely. I can imagine police pursuing fines more vigilantly to fill budget shortfalls - not a good thing, but at least understandable, and now it's gone back down to almost 2003 levels.<br />
<br />
And finally, Vernon:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxsUPmzvqm3AFIlgD6nHUGqXM1zKHE2B_LlTBul5exffNxbnH0gwA_gjRibN_JpBqXHPBSUPslqxPC7h2IPnuj9aJ4oZBAQ5c5slvAaQR-752mWwH0GqsHckRUxurtRnSR8U1-uRJ-aWI/s1600/chart+4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxsUPmzvqm3AFIlgD6nHUGqXM1zKHE2B_LlTBul5exffNxbnH0gwA_gjRibN_JpBqXHPBSUPslqxPC7h2IPnuj9aJ4oZBAQ5c5slvAaQR-752mWwH0GqsHckRUxurtRnSR8U1-uRJ-aWI/s1600/chart+4.png" height="470" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
What.<br />
<br />
Not only are they higher than anyone else, but they went up by 150% between 2007 and 2010, and they haven't inched down even a little with the improving economy.<br />
<br />
Considering Vernon's track record, it doesn't look great.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-318338830925023522.post-42187054772603511262014-05-20T22:00:00.003-07:002014-05-20T22:00:59.868-07:00California June Ballot: Statewide<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
We Californians have a pretty thin primary ballot this go-round, but here are my summaries and recommendations on the two propositions:<br />
<br />
<b>41: Yes. </b>Prop 41 is a $600 million bond initiative for housing low-income and homeless veterans, but in a certain light it's not even new spending. In 2008 the voters approved $900 million in bonds for a similar purpose, but that money remains unborrowed. Under that measure, Prop 12, the Department of Veterans Affairs (CalVet) was to use the money to make low-interest loans to veterans buying houses and farms. But right after that the economy collapsed, and CalVet never drew on any of the Prop 12 money, because not only were people not buying houses, but the interest rate that had previously been below market became above market. Now, the Legislature has voted unanimously to rededicate 2/3 of that unused bond authority to affordable, transitional, or sustainable housing for veterans, prioritizing extremely low-income veterans (under about $14,000/year income).<br />
<br />
Note the difference: before, the idea was to help veterans <i>buy</i> houses; now, it's going to <i>build</i> housing (by distributing the money to local government, nonprofits, or private developers) and then rent it out to veterans at whatever they can afford (which might be nothing). Multifamily rather than single-family housing is targeted. I'm pleased that the minds behind this proposition seem to have taken as a guiding principle that you address homelessness foremost by simply getting homes for people, after which helping them becomes a lot easier. The focus has shifted from the Platonic ideal of a person with a job in the suburbs to a realistic assessment of people's situations and what is likely to be most effective for people in the most need.<br />
<br />
$600 million is a lot; is it too much? No, not really. According to HUD's <a href="https://www.onecpd.info/resources/documents/ahar-2013-part1.pdf">Annual Homeless Assessment</a>, in January 2013 there were 15,179 homeless veterans in California (see page 40 of the link). Divided out, that's less than $40,000 per person, which at a quickly-Googled national average construction cost of $125/square foot could theoretically build a 320-square-foot apartment for each homeless veteran. But that doesn't take into account housed but extremely low-income veterans (perhaps with unaffordable or irregular housing) who would also be among the beneficiaries, or veterans' families. Also, in practice, zoning and land-use issues, as well as the difficulty of finding enough localities and organizations to take on the work, may well leave some money on the table. So $600 million is arguably insufficient for solving the entire problem - but it could go quite a long way.<br />
<br />
I'll admit I'm not exactly thrilled about the focus on veterans. They have a high, and valid, moral demand on public empathy and the public purse, but I don't see that as significantly higher than that of other homeless and low-income people, whom society has seriously neglected in other ways. Generally dividing the poor into worthy and unworthy is an illegitimate enterprise, and focusing on veterans is arguably a version of that. But even if this measure provided housing for veterans and nobody else (which is impractical), it would benefit everyone by easing demand for rental and supportive housing overall. In practice, it's only required that 50% of the funds end up housing veterans with extremely low incomes (though all programs must be targeted to them), so a good portion of the benefit will spill over to other homeless and low-income.<br />
<br />
Finally, the actual impact on the state budget would be the need to pay off the bonds at $50 million a year for 15 years - very affordable considering the rest of the budget, and that the legislature is determined to find room for it.<br />
<br />
<b>42: Yes. </b>Last year there was a fracas where the Governor almost signed a bill that declared it "optional" for local governments to comply with certain aspects of the Public Records Act: responding to requests in some way within 10 days, actively assisting people find the information they are looking for, making electronic data available in any requested format it exists in (i.e., searchable formats!). They weren't trying to end these practices as such, they were just being rather reckless about them - the state constitution requires the state to reimburse local governments when it requires them do things, and this was one of those things, and I presume (I haven't found any inside scoop) they thought those reimbursements were something that could usefully be cut, because local governments would follow the rules anyway. As a bandage, the bill would have required local governments to declare publicly if they were choosing to abandon those rules.<br />
<br />
Of course there was an outcry, although only after the bill was passed as budget trailer language - a bill printing out as 57 pages full of dull provisions implementing the budget decisions for the year, usually passed in some haste. The Governor held back after the outcry, and this proposition came into being. It says that as a constitutional matter, local governments must follow the public records and public meetings laws, whether or not the state pays them for their expenses.<br />
<br />
This is mostly a no-brainer - so much so as for it to be unclear why it needed to be on the ballot in the first place. The amount of money at stake is tiny; the state could have backed down, or negotiated something with the localities. But it's still a decent proposition in isolation. (Nobody came forward to oppose in the voter guide, so one Gary Wesley wrote some halfhearted paragraphs, but evidently the task was so boring he used some of the space to write about highway tolls.)<br />
<br />
My only tiny reservation is that the Brown Act on public meetings, one of the laws that would be written into the constitution, may overreach a bit - in my limited access to city government, it imposed so many restrictions on public meetings that it made it hard for councilmembers to even maintain contact with each other. But my experience is limited, and the Act enshrines basic public access to meetings in a dozen different ways.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-318338830925023522.post-14019838840306605782012-11-04T17:38:00.002-08:002012-11-04T17:38:35.788-08:00The rest of the propositions, in brief<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b>In my series on the major California propositions, I've previously analyzed and made recommendations on <a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2012/10/yes-on-30-analysis.html">Prop 30</a> (yes), <a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2012/10/no-on-prop-31-analysis.html">Prop 31</a> (no), and <a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2012/11/no-on-prop-35-analysis.html">Prop 35</a> (no) in this space. Election Day is nearing, and I felt less need to go into the others in detail, so I've ended the long analyses. Below are the others, both for the state and for my own county.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b><i>State measures</i></b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>32: No. </b>A transparent assault on the ability of unions to conduct political campaigns. Pretends to be about getting money out of politics, but in fact bans paycheck deductions for political purposes purely in order to target unions - the ban doesn't matter to corporate interests because they can use profits; for unions, deductions are all they've got. For all their faults, unions are an indispensable voice of working people in a political structure that now ignores them wherever possible. (And for the record, in case anyone's wondering, the dues paid by non-members in unionized workplaces legally have to be reduced to avoid subsidizing any political activity.)<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>33: No. </b>Says it's about letting the car insurance industry give discounts to people with continuous coverage regardless of who it's with; in fact, the intent is to let them jack up prices on all the others (possibly as much as <a href="http://digital.library.ucla.edu/websites/2010_997_234/www.stopprop17.org/news/critic-mercurys-ballot-measure-lies-about-auto-insurance-rate-increases/index.html">tripling</a>!) and try to poach the less risky, higher-income continuously-covered policyholders from each other. Exempts people laid off or on military service, but does not exempt those with long-term illness, those who shift to public transportation, those unemployed for <i>more </i>than 18 months, even (as I read it) those fired for cause rather than laid off (why should that rate you more expensive insurance?) and any number of other good reasons not to have continuous coverage. Those affected will be disproportionately low-income, and it will make it even more difficult for them to retain car insurance. Finally, regardless of its content, nobody should ever vote for a proposition that's 99% financed by a single billionaire whose business it regulates.<br />
<br />
<b>34: Yes. </b>Anyone who honestly studies the death penalty, even if they don't agree it's immoral in theory, will see clearly at this point that our judicial system is not reliable enough to avoid applying it to the innocent, and that it's ridiculously expensive to implement. Commuting all their sentences to life imprisonment saves at least $100 million a year (going to $130m later on) without harming anyone. <br />
<br />
The only argument against 34 I've seen from the left is that <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Death-Row-inmates-oppose-Prop-34-3891122.php">some death-row prisoners are against it</a> because they'd lose their state-funded appeal and habeas corpus representation, and lose the chance of clearing their name. The way I see it, they get the extra assistance because they've been sentenced to death, and the obligation is less pressing when their sentences are commuted to life. If non-death-row prisoners deserve representation on appeal as well as trial, they should all be so entitled whether or not they were originally sentence to death, and that should be considered as a separate issue. Finally, I don't see how this objection will ever stop being applicable; we need to rip the band-aid off and stop perpetrating more injustice.<br />
<br />
<b>36: Yes. </b>No life sentences for third-strike bread-thieves. More easy money through by being more rational and humane as a society.<br />
<br />
<b>37: Weak yes. </b>GMO labeling is very far down the list of social priorities. Labeling in general seems to do little to spur consumer action, and I doubt genetically-modified organisms pose health threats; however, they represent a big ecological leap we have taken without full scientific evaluation, and it seems to enhance the problems of monoculture, pesticides, and economic dependence by farmers on Monsanto and its like. So I feel a little more attention to the issue might not come amiss. I automatically categorize all industry complaint about the expense of labeling as insubstantial whining: food is subject to a great deal of computerized tracking already. I don't think this will be effective, but don't think it will be harmful either.<br />
<br />
<b>38: No. </b>See my <a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2012/10/yes-on-30-analysis.html">post on Prop 30</a> and why Prop 38 is a weak substitute.<br />
<br />
<b>39: Yes. </b>It raises revenue by closing an exemption in the tax code for multistate corporations - definitely a group that can stand to bear more taxation. A drawback is that it dedicates a lot of the resulting funding to clean energy programs - more ballot-box budgeting that makes the budget more and more difficult every year. Clean energy is good, but I want the Legislature to have the option to allocate the money where it's most needed. I was tempted to vote no, on the same principle by which I voted no on the Prop 29 tobacco tax. However, unlike 29, which specially dedicated all its revenue, this would leave behind a fair amount (in the hundreds of millions) to the general fund. At this crisis point, every little bit helps.<br />
<br />
(For intellectual consistency, since I went after Chris Kelly in my <a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2012/11/no-on-prop-35-analysis.html">post on Prop 35</a>, I should mention that this seems to be a vanity measure as well - 94% of its funding is from hedge fund billionaire Thomas Steyer. However, I can set that aside when it results in a better proposition.)<br />
<br />
<b>40: Yes. </b>The citizen's redistricting commission has done a good job, and a yes vote will keep its work in place.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Alameda County measures</i></b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>A1: No. </b>Funding for the Oakland Zoo is nice in theory, but I don't think it's anywhere near a priority; there's little political space now for new taxes, and I'd like to see what there is going to essential services. I'm also concerned that it's self-dealing: the nonprofit that contracts to the City of Oakland to run the zoo is the writer and campaigner for the measure, and the money would go directly to them. There is an outside oversight committee, as usual, so it wouldn't precisely lock the city into using the contractor as the East Bay Express has implied, but it still seems fishy.<br />
<br />
<b>B1: Yes. </b>1-cent dedicated sales tax for ten years to fund continued and expanded transportation projects. Sort of ballot-box budgeting, but a better type as they go, as the money goes to the AC Transportation Commission, which is a commission of elected city, county, and transit-agency officials - so properly coordinated with other public efforts. Effectively only a half-cent increase, because it would replace a similarly dedicated half-cent tax (Measure B). It is planned to go 48% to public and specialized (elderly/disabled/etc.) transit, 30% to roads, 9% highway efficiency and freight development, 8% to bicycle and pedestrian works, and 5% to sustainable land use and transportation projects. Desperately needed: the state and nation are eating seed corn by underfunding transportation infrastructure, our highways are falling apart, and as the car-dominant era ends one way or another we need public transit to grow into. Of course, the sales tax is regressive; in an ideal world this investment would be funded by a progressive tax. But counties are unable legally to levy income taxes; so if the levels that can won't step up, we'll have to do as much as possible ourselves. Then too, public transit and other car-alternatives primarily benefit the low-income, so like with Prop 30, the benefits will be progressive. </div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-318338830925023522.post-36742548205135133372012-11-03T14:54:00.004-07:002012-11-03T14:55:03.742-07:00No on Prop 35: the analysis<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b class="tr_bq">This is the third in a continuing series of blog posts analyzing the major propositions on the November 2012 California ballot. <a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2012/10/yes-on-30-analysis.html">Prop 30</a>, <a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2012/10/no-on-prop-31-analysis.html">Prop 31</a>.</b><br />
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
As election day nears, I'm skipping through to a proposition people probably need the most education on: number 35.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Proposition 35 is largely about sex trafficking. Its biggest provision is to significantly increase penalties against sex trafficking and sexual exploitation, with longer jail sentences and fines up to the seven digits, with fine money dedicated to law enforcement and victim support. Other provisions are meant to facilitate enforcement and convictions: removing sexual history of the victim or mistaking a minor's age as defenses and requiring traffickers to register as sex offenders.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Obviously sex/human trafficking is indefensible. However, that doesn't mean it needs an initiative combating it. The same ideas could be taken up by the Legislature. To that question Californians Against Slavery's <a href="http://www.caseact.org/case/">website says</a>, for one reason, that they mean to raise awareness, which is a joke: the ballot is an inappropriate forum for "raising awareness," not to mention an inefficient use of their funds. The other cited reason is that the Legislature has failed in the past to pass similar measures.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
To see why the Legislature might have done so, let's turn to the substance of 35. There are a number of reasons to take pause.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Just in principle, we have been trying harsh sentencing for 30 years, and it does not seem to solve social problems - just put more people into prison (spending boatloads of money into the bargain) while the problems fester. But certainly many people think sex exploitation is a different animal from other crimes, so I'll pass this argument by.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Getting instead into details, 35 is a complicated bill which seems to greatly expand the definition of exploitation and trafficking beyond how we commonly understand it. The progression goes like this (h/t to <a href="http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2012/07/i-despise-human-trafficking-but-i-oppose-the-badly-drafted-prop-35/">Greg Diamond</a>):</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
- First, they had the bright idea to make it a felony to force a minor for the purpose of not just prostitution, but a long list of Penal Code section references for various sex-related offenses: procuring, child pornography, stripping, etc. All of this is labeled "human trafficking" and punishable by 8-20 years and a large fine.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
- Second, the following is also human trafficking:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Any person who causes, induces, or persuades, or attempts to cause, induce, or persuade, a person who is a minor at the time of commission of the offense to engage in a commercial sex act, with the intent to effect or maintain a violation of Section 266, 266h, 266i, 266j, 267, 311.1, 311.2, 311.3, 311.4, 311.5, 311.6, or 518.</i></blockquote>
So not necessarily <i>forcing</i> someone into prostitution, but just <i>persuading </i>them, would be punishable with 5-12 years! And that doesn't just mean with the threat of force: a subsection below the quoted text raises the sentence to 15-to-life if the inducement is done with "force, fear, fraud, deceit, coercion, violence, duress, menace, or threat of unlawful injury." Meaning that simple persuasion in its ordinary sense, with no threats or deceit at all, falls under the quoted definition for a 5-12 sentence.<br />
<br />
This means just one person <i>suggesting </i>a minor engage in prostitution, or pornography, or stripping, even if the persuader isn't involved in or profiting from the enterprise in any way, even if they're just a friend - they would become a serious felon, and a designated sex offender with all that entails. The same would go for a man patronizing a prostitute who he doesn't know is 17. (And many of the offenses in the long list are just misdemeanors in themselves.)<br />
<br />
What on earth is the point of this? Why widen the net to people not involved in criminal enterprises at all, to conduct that may be bad but is not coercive or exploitative? This appears to be an especially mindless example of "tough on crime" thinking: with the offense description as broad as possible, that prosecutors can go after whoever they think is the bad apple, and put them in jail practically on the state's say-so.<br />
<br />
It's either that or at least very bad drafting. Or both, because the last Penal Code section in the list, 518, is not sex-related at all, but is the crime of extortion: "the obtaining of property from another, with his consent... induced by a wrongful use of force or fear." So if Prop 35 passes, people recruiting minors into non-sexual extortion plots would be sex offenders as well. (Did they mean that kind of scheme where a minor gets someone into bed so a confederate can "discover" and blackmail them? If so, they should have said so.)<br />
<br />
A problem with initiatives is that if there are drafting errors, the Legislature will have difficulty fixing them as they are discovered in practice. This is at least a statute, not a constitutional amendment, so the Legislature can amend it, but only "in furtherance of its objectives." Again, this is open to a lot of interpretation. We could well expect lawsuits depending on precisely what amendments the Legislature may decide on -- an even greater waste of time.<br />
<br />
I have an idea why the text is so broad and clumsy: because Californians Against Slavery went off on their ego-boosting journey without actually trying to learn about trafficking and what would be useful in combating it. Their head, Daphne Phung, apparently got started in the movement by watching an <a href="http://californiaagainstslavery.org/about/founder/">MSNBC Dateline report</a> in 2008. And <a href="http://jvanek.wordpress.com/2012/10/29/prop-35-the-tragedy-of-what-could-have-been/"><span id="goog_1405298233"></span>John Vanek<span id="goog_1405298234"></span></a>, former head of San Jose PD's human trafficking task force, says that they have gone about their work with little to no interest in what the rest of the community combating trafficking has to say:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
California Against Slavery and Chris Kelly could have invited a broad cross-section of anti-trafficking professionals and asked, as a multidisciplinary group, what changes to current law would be most productive to aid survivors, prosecute offenders, train all elements of the justice system, and raise public awareness. But they chose not to.... If they had done so, Prop 35 might be endorsed by agencies like CAST (Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking), Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach, Polaris Project, ATEST (Alliance to End Slavery and Trafficking), the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault, and the Not For Sale Campaign; all organizations active in providing direct assistance to victims, advocating for legislative change, or both. Community Solutions, a provider of services to survivors in the South Bay Area is publicly opposed to the initiative.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
And if CAS and Chris Kelly had asked for broader and informed input, maybe organizations like the SAGE Project and Chab Dai USA would still be endorsing Prop 35. Instead, both organizations have rescinded their endorsements. The Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Examiner, Sacramento Bee, Fresno Bee, Santa Cruz Sentinel, Riverside Press-Enterprise all oppose Prop 35, a result of their concerns over the way the initiative is written.</blockquote>
<div>
Finally, just surmising, this initiative appears to be on the ballot largely because of one person's political ambitions. Out of its $3.7 million raised, $2.4m of that comes directly from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Kelly_(entrepreneur)">Chris Kelly</a>, former Facebook chief privacy officer and unsuccessful primary opponent of Kamala Harris; Kelly has little distinguishing himself as a politician apart from a brief earlier foray into politics in the 90's and, now, a large fortune. There's a distinguished history of aspiring politicians getting behind uncontroversial initiatives, like Schwarzenegger with after-school programs in 2002. Why should Kelly worry about what those in the field think, if it's just something to pin on his lapel during his next race?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Kelly's vanquisher, AG Harris, has convened a statewide <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_21655248/perla-flores-lynette-parker-and-john-vanek-prop">workgroup on human trafficking</a> which brought in all the experts and stakeholders left out by Kelly's CAS, and apparently is set to recommend a number of changes in criminal and civil law. I say leave it to them, and vote no on 35.</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-318338830925023522.post-19526166508667724532012-10-26T06:04:00.001-07:002012-10-26T06:04:43.792-07:00No on Prop 31 - the analysis<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b>This is the second in a continuing series of blog posts analyzing the major propositions on the November 2012 California ballot. The post on Prop 30 can be found <a href="http://seyanen.blogspot.com/2012/10/yes-on-30-analysis.html">here</a>.</b><br />
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
We Americans: we tend to care about constitutional structures almost as much as we do about the actual issues.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Everyone has ideas about how to improve government by tinkering with the Constitution, congressional procedures, or whatever's handy. Term limits! End the filibuster! Don't pay legislators if they don't pass a budget! Make them send their kids to public school! We seem to have inherited the notion of checks and balances so thoroughly that we keep assuming one more check or balance will put everything right again. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is very arm's-length for me. I prefer, in my efforts, to push more directly for what I want done. When you get enough of society and elites on your side substantively, procedural issues don't matter so much.* But the same goes for bad policy and bad governance: they have a way of skirting or making irrelevant procedures meant to contain them. (Term limits didn't make politicians impartial citizens, it transferred power to lobbyists and staffers.)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A lot of Prop 31 is a grab bag of these policies, tinkering around the edges rather than offering real reforms. It also contains two ill-advised shifts in the locus of power.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The grab bag first:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
1. Pay-as-you-go budgeting, where any new spending over $25 million has to be offset by increased revenue, and vice versa with tax cuts needing decreased spending. This is fairly meaningless since a balanced budget is already required by the Constitution - it just means you have to match up every change one direction with one in another direction, rather than do them all at once.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
2. Require 3 days of publicity for bills and amendments before they're enacted. Nothing wrong with this; nothing big would come of it either. (This is about big bills getting pushed through at the last minute, but I doubt the sunshine of 3 days will do much except at the margin.)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
3. Let the Legislature budget for 2 years at a time. A decent idea; more long-term thinking is always welcome. But with state revenue as volatile as it is, corrections will probably always be urgently needed at the one-year-in point.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
4. Regular objective-setting and performance evaluation for all state programs. Fine in principle; will very likely devolve into an ineffective box-checking ritual. As I read it, for example, the Department of Parks and Recreation could pass the constitutionally-mandated evaluation by scribbling in at the beginning of its budget, "The Department met the objective of achieving a quality environment by continuing to maintain 280 park units," and having the Legislature approve the statement.<br />
<br />
This is what I mean about arm's-length measures. You can't write a constitutional amendment requiring policymakers to be good at their jobs. If you think programs are working badly, instead of devoting millions to writing propositions, it makes more sense to actually work to bring the problems and potential fixes to people's attention.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So all of the above are fairly weak changes. Now here are the two big troubling bits of 31.<br />
<br />
1. In a fiscal emergency, the Governor can call a special legislative session to take immediate action. If the legislature doesn't pass a fix within 45 days, the Governor can unilaterally reduce spending wherever not constitutionally or federally required, up to the projected shortfall amount.<br />
<br />
Our governmental structures generally reflect a belief that overall budgets - like laws - are too big a deal to be decided by one person; it should be a popularly-elected body doing the work, or sometimes, in California's case, the public itself. In this situation, the Governor would suddenly be able to make a budget unilaterally. That's a <i>lot</i> of power.<br />
<br />
It wouldn't be so bad if this power were only to be used in true fiscal emergencies, where the state is literally running out of cash and the Governor vitally needs to take prompt action of some kind. But the existence of the emergency is <i>declared by the Governor</i>. And all the Governor has to do for this declaration is to estimate that revenues will drop substantially below spending, or spending will rise substantially above revenues, in the current fiscal year. What is "substantially"? How reliable does the estimate have to be? The text gives no answers. But reasonable people can disagree about the exact state the budget is in, and this would give the Governor a strong incentive to make estimates erring on the side of disaster in order to claim the new power.<br />
<br />
Do you trust a hypothetical Governor from the party you oppose to wield this power legitimately? If not, it's probably a bad idea to give the power to anyone.<br />
<br />
2. This last provision is even more ambitious. Prop 31 would allow local government entities to get together to form a "Community Strategic Action Plan," in order to provide all their services in a more collaborative, efficient way.<br />
<br />
All well and good. I myself think California has far too many special districts: there are school districts, utilities districts, transportation districts, park districts, hospital districts, even mosquito abatement districts and street lighting districts. It would be nice to bring all these services within a unified, inclusive planning process. And the proposition reallocates some state funding to go preferentially to localities doing this, making it likely that everyone would take part.<br />
<br />
Of course there's a catch. It goes as follows:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>If the parties to an Action Plan... conclude that a state statute or regulation... impedes progress toward the goals of the Action Plan... the local government entities may include provisions in the Action Plan that are functionally equivalent to the objective or objectives of the applicable statute or regulation.</i></blockquote>
In short, these Action Plans allow local governments to rewrite state law. The text goes on to say that unless both houses of the Legislature reject the proposal within 60 days of its submission, the rewriting will go into effect.<br />
<br />
A lot of state programs are run on the ground by local governments in California with state money; I'm sure there are many counterproductive morasses of laws and rules that make it hard for them to actually achieve their goals. But once more, this is a tremendous shift in the locus of power. Normally, for state law to change, there needs to be a lot of support: both houses and the Governor's signature. Under this provision, initiative shifts to the locality, because the change is made automatically <i>unless</i> the Legislature can pull together enough support to stop it. If the two houses disagree, or if someone important blocks the rejection bill in one house, the change goes forward. (Also, the Governor loses any veto power.)<br />
<br />
The big two laws mentioned in the debate over Prop 31 as targets for circumvention are the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Clean Water Act. (That's not always meant critically; CEQA in particular is disliked by many in business for slowing down projects.) But the text is so vague, and the power conferred so broad, it seems to open up infinite possibilities. Here are some further outcomes I can think of:<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Foster care and adoption is a service administered at the county level. Currently, state law requires same-sex couples to be eligible to adopt. Localities could try to reverse this. The <i>overall </i>purpose of adoption programs, they could say, is to do the best for children, and we have determined that only heterosexuals are fit parents.</li>
<li>Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for many state services. San Francisco could make them eligible under an Action Plan; they could even say it would be a more efficient use of funds by forestalling future spending on things like preventable health conditions or poverty-based social problems (and if it doesn't, they might have some of the bonus money given for setting up an Action Plan).</li>
<li>If a locality believes the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy#Full_retraction_and_fraud_allegations">completely spurious</a> link between autism and vaccinations, its public health departments could stop vaccination campaigns and school districts could abandon vaccination requirements. The goal of such requirements, after all, is improved health...</li>
</ul>
Besides the shift in the locus of power, another core problem is that Prop 31 assumes state laws can only be judged on the efficiency they achieve, when in fact quite a lot of them rest on collective value judgments or determinations of fact. And there are enough laws on the books that for every scenario anyone has suggested, there are probably hundreds more possible. Devolving this much power to localities is halfway to splitting the state into pieces, and while California's constituent parts are very diverse, I think the state still works better as a single unit than otherwise.<br />
<br />
There are also a great many short-term practical problems with the idea. It would automatically mean dozens of lawsuits trying to clarify the initiative's intent, draining more money and attention away from pressing issues. There may be a massive loophole: <a href="http://cbp.org/pdfs/2012/120926_Proposition_31_BB.pdf">the California Budget Project points out</a> that there are some periods when the Legislature is in recess for significantly longer than 60 days and therefore would have trouble even considering an Action Plan's law-revision. Finally, policy chaos would be especially rife for laws where the devil is in the details, and the Legislature could fail to notice the true impact of a proposed minor-seeming change.<br />
<br />
For all these reasons, I will vote no on Prop 31 as a misguided exercise in reform almost for its own sake.</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0