Updated January 25, 2010 – Updates “Primary election ballots” posted on January 22, 2010

Land Use and Environmental
Legislative Committee
Taxation and Government Finance

June 8, 2010, Primary Election Ballot

The following is for study only and has NOT been approved by the Land Use and Environmental Committee, Taxation and Governance Committee, Legislative Committee, Executive Committee, or Board of Directors.

Issue:
What position should C.A.R. take on the upcoming ballot propositions?

Action:
Necessary, if C.A.R. wishes to take positions on the 5 additional propositions scheduled to appear on the Primary and General Elections Ballots.

Option:
C.A.R. Ballot Position Options:

1. FOR: This ballot measure is consistent with C.A.R. policy and its passage would be beneficial to the real estate industry.
2. AGAINST: This ballot measure conflicts with C.A.R. policy and its passage could have a harmful effect on the real estate industry.
3. NEUTRAL: This ballot measure may be real estate related, but C.A.R. has chosen not to take a position.
4. NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED: This ballot measure may be significant, but is deemed to not be related to property or real estate transactions.

PROPOSITION NUMBER PENDING: Proposition 13: Property Tax: New Construction Exclusion: Seismic Retrofitting. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

Summary: This measure was placed on the ballot by the California State Legislature in 2008. Originally identified as SCA 4 (Ashburn), this proposition proposes to provide a property tax reassessment exclusion for all seismic retrofitting components made to an existing structure, and deletes the 15-year time limit for exclusions under Proposition 23. Put simply, property owners would use the broader exclusion provided by Proposition 127, which was approved by the voters in 1990, instead of the more limited exclusion provided under Proposition 23, which was approved by the voters in 1984, for any new seismic safety improvements.

Pro: Proponents argue that the proposition will promote equity among taxpayers who reconstruct or improve structures to comply with local ordinances relating to seismic safety. Excluding seismic retrofits from property tax valuation will provide a financial incentive for property owners to upgrade their unreinforced masonry structures for seismic safety and will eliminate the disparate treatment between seismic safety improvements made under Proposition 23 vs. Proposition 127. Additionally, proponents point out that buildings upgraded under Proposition 23 have rarely been reassessed after the 15-year period expires.

Con: Opposition to the measure has yet to register with the Secretary of State.

NOTE: C.A.R.'s Board of Directors, at its January 2009 meetings, adopted a "FOR" position on this proposition.

Position: _X_ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL __NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED

PROPOSITION NUMBER PENDING: Political Reform Act of 1974: California Fair Elections Act of 2008. Legislative Statutory Amendment.

Summary: Placed on the ballot by AB 583 (Hancock) in 2008, this measure proposes to create a pilot project of public financing for candidates for Secretary of State during the 2014 and 2018 elections. The Fair Political Practices Commission would primarily be responsible for the administration of the Fair Elections Fund, which will maintain all public campaign funds. Candidates opting to participate in public campaign financing will not be permitted to collect private contributions, except from the candidate's political party. Eligible candidates for Secretary of State may only obtain public funds if they collect 7,500 five dollar contributions from registered voters during the exploratory period that, after verification by the county recorder, will be deposited into the Fair Elections Fund. Prior to the end of a candidate's qualifying period, which concludes 90 days before the primary elections, candidates for Secretary of State would be permitted to accept "seed money" contributions that may not exceed $100 per donor, with a maximum aggregate total of $75,000. Seed money contributions may only be spent prior to the close of the qualifying, or exploratory, period at which point all remaining funds would be transferred into the Fair Elections Fund. The Fair Elections Fund would receive additional funding from voluntary contributions made through individual tax returns and from a $350 annual fee placed on lobbyists, lobbying firms, and lobbyist employers (adjusted biennially based upon the Consumer Price Index). The fund could also receive funding from the Legislature and any source of revenue associated with the General Fund. Candidates accepting public financing will receive 1 million dollars for the primary election, 1.3 million dollars for the general election, and will be required to participate in one public debate during a primary election and two during a general election.

Pro: Proponents argue that public financing will reduce the perception of special interest influence on candidates, provide greater candidate diversity and permit candidates to focus on policy issues instead of fundraising.

Con: Opposition to the measure has yet to register with the Secretary of State.

NOTE: C.A.R.'s Board of Directors, at its January 2009 meetings, adopted a "NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED" position on this proposition.

Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL _X_NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED

PROPOSITION NUMBER PENDING: Elections: Open Primaries. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

Committee: Legislative Committee

Summary: This measure was placed on the ballot by the California State Legislature in early 2009. Originally identified as SCA 4 (Maldonado), this proposition proposes to establish the “Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act,” which will require all state and congressional candidates, regardless of party registration, to be listed on a single primary election ballot. Under this measure, candidates for elected office would be permitted choose whether or not to identify their party affiliation on the election ballot. Only the two candidates receiving the highest number of votes will appear on the general election ballot. The primary election ballot would be available to all registered votes, including those voters who choose not to disclose their party preference. If approved by the voters, political parties would only be permitted to restrict voting on party officers and presidential nominees.

Pro: Proponents argue that this measure will allow every voter to vote for the best candidate for office, regardless of party, in primary elections thereby making it easier for pragmatic problem-solvers to win public office. The proposed process in this measure is similar to the method Californian’s have used for the past century to elect mayors, council members, county supervisors and district attorney’s.

Con: Opponents argue that this proposition eliminates voter choice in general elections, undercuts opportunities for women and minority candidates and reduces the accountability of the legislature. This measure will effectively exclude California’s five minor parties from general elections and in many districts voters will have two candidates from the same party running in the general election which will stifle political debate.

NOTE: C.A.R.’s Board of Directors, at its January 1996 meetings, voted to take a “NOT REAL ESTATE REALTED POSITION” on Proposition 198 of 1990, which created California’s Blanket Primary that was approved by the voters and later deemed unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. Proposition 198 allowed voters to vote during any election for any candidate, regardless of the candidates political affiliation. C.A.R.’s Board of Directors, at its October 2004 meetings, voted to take a “NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED” position on Proposition’s 60 and 62, which pertained to California’s Primary Election Structure. Proposition 60, which was approved by the voters, placed into the State Constitution a requirement that all political parties participating in a primary election be permitted to advance their top vote-getting candidate to the general election. Proposition 62, which was rejected by the voters, would have established the same primary election structure proposed in this ballot proposition.

Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED

PROPOSITION NUMBER PENDING: New Two-Thirds Requirement for Public Electricity Providers. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Committee: Land Use and Environmental Committee

Summary: Current law permits local governments to aggregate and facilitate the purchase and sale of electrical energy to residents and businesses in their jurisdiction upon the approval of the locally elected officials. This measure, known as the “Taxpayer Right to Vote Act,” would require local governments utilizing various forms of public financing to obtain the approval of two-thirds of the voters before creating a new municipal electric utility, providing electricity to new customers or expanding utility service to new territories. Additionally, the proposition requires the two-third vote requirement be satisfied both in the local government’s jurisdiction and any new territory that will be served by the public utility.

Pro: Proponents argue that California law requires a two-third voter approval to increase taxes and that the use of public funds, borrowing and bonds by local governments to start or expand a public utility should be subject to that same voter approval.

Con: Opponents argue that this measure is nothing but a power play to restrict competition and line the pockets of the ballot sponsors (PG&E) who hope to stop public utilities from undercutting their pricing and taking their customers.

Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED

PROPOSITION NUMBER PENDING: Continuous Coverage Auto Insurance Discount Act. Initiative Statute.

Committee: Legislative Committee

Summary: Current law permits auto insurers to provide a persistency discount for drivers who continue their insurance coverage with the same insurer. Insurance companies are prohibited from offering the discount to new customers, which disqualifies drivers that have maintained insurance coverage from receiving the discount if they have changed auto insurers. This proposition would instead permit auto insurance companies to offer the persistency discount to new applicants (drivers) who have continuously maintained their auto insurance coverage. Additionally, lapses in coverage due to nonpayment of premiums may prevent a driver from qualifying for the discount. The measure does not change current law which requires insurers to base their rates primarily on a driver’s safety record, miles driven annually and driving experience.

Pro: Proponents argue that this measure will simply bring California into line with other states that allow insurers to offer a discount to all drivers who maintain ongoing auto insurance. By extending the persistency discount to drivers who change insurance companies, drivers will have more options and choices in their insurance coverage which will increase competition and drive down rates for all insured drivers.

Con: Opponents argue that this proposition will only result in auto insurance companies charging more, or denying coverage altogether, when an insurance applicant has a gap in coverage.

NOTE: C.A.R.’s Board of Directors, at its October 1988 meetings, voted to take a “NOT REAL ESTATE REALTED POSITION” on Proposition 103 of 1988, which was approved by the voters. Proposition 103, among other things, requires a driver’s insurance rates to be determined using a driver’s safety record, number of miles driven annually, and number of years of driving experience. The measure also permits a “good driver” discount and a persistency discount, which may only be given to those drivers who maintain continuous auto coverage with the same insurer.

Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED

November 2, 2010, General Election Ballot

PROPOSITION NUMBER PENDING: Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010. Bond Measure.

Committee: Land Use and Environmental Committee

Summary: Placed on the ballot in late 2009 by SB 3VXX (Cogdill), this measure proposes to enact the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010 which would authorize $11.14 billion of general obligation bonds to fund water infrastructure. The allocation of the bond funds would be as follows: $3 billion for water storage projects, $2.25 billion for delta sustainability, $1.785 for ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration projects, $1.4 billion for regional water supply reliability, $1.25 billion for water recycling and treatment technologies, $1billion for groundwater protection and water quality, and $455 million for drought relief.

Pro: Proponents argue that there is an urgent need for comprehensive water reform, and this bond puts California on the path toward restoring the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, expanding water supplies and promoting conservation efforts that will ensure a clean, reliable water supply for the state.

Con: Opponents argue the state can't afford another massive bond, especially one that contains so many pet projects unrelated to solving the states water crisis. Opponents further argue that those bond funds that would be used to improve the states water supply may end up financing projects that have been previously discredited. Furthermore, this bond opens the door to the privatization of California’s most precious resource by permitting private companies to own, operate and profit from reservoirs and other water-storage projects built with billions of taxpayer dollars and is tantamount to a giveaway to corporate farmers, and other special interests who will benefit from the water projects.

NOTE: C.A.R.’s Board of Directors, at its June 2006 meeting, voted to take a “FOR” position on Proposition 1E which created the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006. Proposition 1E, which was approved by the voters, authorized $4.09 billion of general obligation bonds to fund infrastructure projects for flood protection and levee repair. C.A.R.’s Board of Directors, at its October 2006 meeting, voted to take a “NEUTRAL” position on Proposition 84, of 2006, known as the Water Quality, Safety and Supply, Flood Control, Natural Resources Protection and Park Improvements Bond Initiative Statute. Proposition 84, which was approved by the voters, supplemented Proposition 1E and authorized $5.4 billion in state general obligation bonds to fund projects relating to water quality, water supply reliability, flood control and coastal protection projects around the state.

Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED