Taxation and Government Finance Committee
Legislative Committee
The following is for study only and has NOT been approved by the Taxation and Government Finance Committee, the Legislative Committee, the Executive Committee, or the 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 8 additional propositions scheduled to appear on the November 2012 ballot and the 1 additional proposition scheduled to appear of the November 2014 ballot.
Option:
C.A.R. Ballot Position Options:
1. FOR: This ballot measure is real estate related and consistent with C.A.R. policy and its passage could be beneficial to the real estate industry.
2. AGAINST: This ballot measure is real estate related and 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
November 6, 2012, General Election Ballot
PROPOSITION 30: Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Committee: Taxation and Government Finance Committee
Summary: See the Issues Briefing Paper included in the Taxation and Government Finance Committee's meeting materials.
Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED
PROPOSITION 31: State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Committee: Taxation and Government Finance Committee
Summary: This measure will change California's budget from an annual budget to a biennial budget beginning in 2015. The biennial budget passed will contain, in addition to information on available revenues, anticipated expenditures, etc., a statement of how the budget will achieve the following goals: increase employment, improve education, decrease poverty, decrease crime, and improve heath. Local governments will also be required to address these goals in their local budgets. In this new two-year budget process, the legislature will be required to reserve part of the second session, beginning in July, for oversight and review of state-funded programs to assess their effectiveness and determine if changes or reductions are needed.
In addition to a biannual budgetary cycle, the measure would create restrictions on the legislature's ability to increase state costs or decrease state revenues. Measures that increase state spending by more than $25 million would have to demonstrate how the cost will be paid for with spending reductions, revenue increases or both. Measures that decrease state revenues by more than $25 million a year would require spending reductions, revenue increases or both to fill that gap. This measure would allow the governor, in cases of a fiscal emergency; to reduce General Fund spending that is not required by the constitution by enough to balance the budget if the legislature fails to do so within 45 days of the fiscal emergency being declared.
This measure also allows local governments to create a Community Strategic Action Plan (Action Plan) to achieve the goals laid out in the local government's budget and to facilitate how the local government will provide services to the public. The local governments participating in these Action Plans may transfer allocated property tax revenues among themselves as they see fit. Finally, this measure creates the Performance and Accountability Trust Fund, which will be funded by a shift from the state's sales tax revenue, and will be used to provide financial assistance to local governments which have instituted an Action Plan.
Pro: Proponents argue that this measure: provides fiscal constraints on new or reduced government spending, requiring a new funding source to fill the budgetary gap; prohibits politicians from passing short-term budget gimmicks as they will be required to pass a longer-term plan; requires government to review and examine all state programs, which will result in more efficient programs; will lead to a focus on achieving results both on the state and local levels; and, shifts some funds back to local governments, increasing their control and allowing them to design programs that meet local needs.
Con: The opposition argues that it: shifts valuable funds away from the state for experimental county programs rather allocating those funds to education or other valuable programs; prohibits the state from increasing funding for any program; including education, even if the funds are available, without raising taxes; prevents the state from cutting taxes, even when there is a budget surplus, without raising a different tax or cutting programs; will raise the cost of government with no guarantee that any problems will be resolved; and, will promote lawsuits.
NOTE: C.A.R.’s Board of Directors, at its January 2004 Meetings, voted to take a “FOR” position on Proposition 58 of 2004, known as the California Balanced Budget Act, which was approved by the voters. Proposition 58 required the state to enact a balanced budget and provided that if the state experienced a revenue shortfall, the governor could declare a fiscal emergency. In a fiscal emergency the governor is required to propose legislation to correct the deficiency and call the legislature into special session to address the crisis. The legislature must send corrective legislation to the governor within 45 days or it will be barred from acting on any non-budget related measure or adjourning in joint-recess until the legislation is passed. This initiative also created a Budget Stabilization Account (BSA) funded by transfers from the General Fund until revenues reach $8 billion. These funds can be transferred to the General Fund through a majority vote of the legislature and governor’s approval to be used for various purposes or to cover budget shortfalls
C.A.R.’s Board of Directors, at its October 2004 Meetings, voted to take a “FOR” position on Proposition 1A of 2004, known as the Protection of Local Government Revenues, which was approved by the voters. This measure reduced the state’s authority over local government’s major revenue sources, and ensured local property tax and sales tax revenues remain with local government safeguarding funding for public safety, health, libraries, parks, and other local services. Under the measure the state cannot, 1.) reduce local sales tax rates or alter the method of allocation, 2.) shift property taxes from local governments to schools or community colleges, or 3.) decrease vehicle license fee revenues without providing replacement funding. However, local government still retains the ability to voluntarily engage in tax swaps. Proposition 1A also required the state to provide funding for any program or service it forces local governments to provide. If the state fails to provide funding, the legislature must repeal the state-mandates. The provisions can only be suspended if the governor declares a fiscal necessity and two-thirds of the legislature concur. Any borrowing of funds must be repaid with interest within three years.
Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED
PROPOSITION 32: Prohibits Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Prohibitions on Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Summary: If passed, this measure would prohibit corporations and labor unions from collecting political funds from their employees and members through payroll deductions. The prohibitions in this measure do not prohibit employees from contributing, but rather, requires employers and labor unions to obtain written consent, annually, before political contributions can be collected. This measure would also prohibit corporations and labor unions from making political contributions to candidates and would prohibit government contactors from contributing to government officials who have the power to award or have awarded them a contract.
Pro: Proponents argue that special interests have too much power over government. They argue that corporate employers and union leaders make automatic deductions from their employee’s paychecks and these funds are used to make campaign contributions which yield programs that benefit private unions, corporations and government contactors over the general public. The proponents feel that public employee union members should be required to “opt in” and give permission before their hard earned dollars are taken for political purposes that they may not agree with and that the elimination of these “automatic” funds from union and corporate coffers and the limitations of political contributions will curb actual and perceived corruption in the political process.
Con: No opposition registered yet.
NOTE: C.A.R.’s board of Directors, at its 1998 Meetings, voted to take a “NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED” position on Proposition 226 of 1998, known as the Political Contributions Initiative, which was rejected by the voters. Proposition 225 would have required public and private employers and labor organizations to obtain permission annually from employees and members before withholding pay or using union dues or fees for political contributions. It would have also prohibited contributions to candidates by residents, governments or foreign entities.
C.A.R.’s board of Directors, at its 2005 Meetings, voted to take a “NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED” position on Proposition 75 of 2005, known as the Public Employee Union Dues Initiative, which was rejected by the voters. Under proposition 75, public employee labor organizations would have been prohibited from using dues or fees for political contributions, unless the employee provides prior consent each year on a specified written form. The measure would have required labor organizations to maintain and submit to the Fair Political Practices Commission a record containing information on individual employees' and organizations' making political contributions, although those records would not be subject to public disclosure.
C.A.R.'s Board of Directors, at its Winter 2012 meetings, adopted a "NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED" position on this proposition.
Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL _X_NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED
PROPOSITION 33: Changes Law to Allow Auto insurance Companies to Set Prices Based on Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Summary: Under current law the Department of Insurance regulates auto insurance rates and determines eligibility for driver discounts. This measure would permit auto insurance providers to give discounts to drivers who can demonstrate that they have maintained some form of uninterrupted auto insurance and provides exemptions for lapses in coverage. These exemptions include lapses due to: active military service, unemployment (Up to 18 months), or any lapse under 90-days. If an auto insurance consumer cannot demonstrate continuous coverage, an insurer providing continuous coverage discounts shall give a reduced discount based on the number of years out of the immediately preceding five years that the consumer has been insured.
Pro: Proponents argue that the measure not only rewards responsible behavior but that it is in the state’s best interest to reward insurance consumers with discounts if they have continuously followed the state’s mandatory insurance laws. It will also provide incentive for consumers to purchase and maintain automobile insurance and encourage more competitive prices.
Con: Opponents argue that this proposition will either serve to increase insurance rates, or force denial of 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.
The C.A.R. Board of Directors, at its June 2010 Meetings, voted to take a "NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED" position on Proposition 17 of 2010, known as the Continuous Converge Auto Insurance Discount Act, which was rejected by the voters. As a follow up to Proposition 103, Proposition 17 would have permitted auto insurance companies to offer the persistency discount to new applicants (drivers) who have continuously maintained their auto insurance coverage. The measure would not have changed current law which requires insurers to base their rates primarily on a driver’s safety record, miles driven annually and driving experience.
C.A.R.'s Board of Directors, at its Spring 2012 meetings, adopted a "NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED" position on this proposition.
Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL _X_NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED
PROPOSITION 34: Death Penalty Repeal. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Committee: Legislative Committee
Summary: Under current law, an individual convicted of first degree murder can be sentenced to death, life in prison without the possibility of parole or imprisonment for 25 years to life. This measure would eliminate the death penalty in the state of California and instead require that inmates convicted of first degree murder be sentenced to life in prison without parole or 25 years to life. Under this proposition, these murder convicts will be required work within their assigned prison and, if restitution is owned, money will be deducted automatically from their wages and deposited into the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board to provide assistance to victims. This measure would also create the Savings, Accountability and Full Enforcement (SAFE) for California Fund, which will be funded through transfers from the general fund equaling a total of $100 million over the next four years. SAFE will be used to provide additional funding to police departments, sheriffs and District Attorney Offices.
Pro: Proponents of this initiative argue that sentencing criminals to life in prison without parole is cheaper for the state than a death sentence, which will probably never be carried out. They argue that this measure will free up the taxpayer dollars spent on the lawyers, multiple appeals proceedings and special housing arrangements provided to death row inmates. These funds can then be directed toward improving training, resources and facilities to assist law enforcement in resolving more murders and rapes. Proponents also argue that it is the criminals responsibility to pay restitution to their victims and that this propositions requirement that all inmates convicted of first degree murder have to work to pay into the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board ensures they pay their debt. Finally, proponents state that this measure will remove the possibility of the state executing a wrongly convicted individual.
Con: Opponents of this measure argue that abolishing the death penalty will cost the state money due to the states new obligation to provide these inmates with housing, food and healthcare for life. Allowing these inmates a lifetime of housing and care is presented, by the opposition, as insensitive and uncaring both toward the victims and their loved ones. Finally, the opponents argue that this proposition weakens public safety laws and opens the possibility that the worst criminal offenders could be released back into society.
Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED
PROPOSITION 35: Human trafficking. Penalties. Initiative Statute.
Committee: Legislative Committee
Summary: State law defines human trafficking as the violation of an individual's freedom with the intent to commit felonies such as prostitution or to obtain forced labor and is punishable by a prison term of 5 to 8 years depending on the circumstances and age of the victim. This proposition broadens the definition of human trafficking and, in cases involving minors, makes prosecution easier by removing: the defense's ability to argue ignorance of the victims' age; and the prosecutors responsibility to demonstrate coercion. This proposition also increases the penalties for individuals convicted of human trafficking offences to a prison term of up to: 12 years for labor trafficking; 20 years for adult sex trafficking; and, life-in-prison for sex trafficking of minors. In addition, fines and restitution penalties of up to $500,000 can be imposed. Offenders may also be ordered to pay an additional fine of up to $1 million to fund the Victim-Witness Assistance Fund which will provide shelter, counseling and services for victims of human trafficking as well as funds to assist law enforcement with human trafficking prevention, and witness protections. Under this measure, those convicted of human trafficking will be required to register as sex offenders and all registered offenders will have to provide notification of all their internet user names, email addresses and screen names to their local law enforcement agency. To additionally protect and assist victims of human trafficking, law enforcement officers will have to complete a two-hour training dealing with human trafficking complaints and prosecutors will be prohibited from using a trafficked individual's conduct (i.e., prostitution) against them in court.
Pro: Proponents of this measure argue that human traffickers prey on the weak, and that this measure, by increasing the penalties and prison time received, holds offenders more accountable for their actions. Additionally the proceeds of the additional fines for the Victim-Witness Assistance Fund will enable the state government and law enforcement to rescue more victims and provide them with services to help them overcome their ordeal. Finally, proponents feel that the requirement for registered sex offenders to report all of their internet identifiers will help law enforcement protect children from predators using the internet to befriend and gain access to children in their homes.
Con: Opponents of this proposition argue that the broadened definition of human trafficking could include parents, children, roommates and landlords of victims, rather than the pimps being targeted. Additionally, the opponents voice the concern that this measure will cost the state additional money due to an increase in the length of prison sentences and the additional training requirements imposed by the measure. There is also the argument that it will generate court challenges due to new prosecution rules regarding proof of coercion and age awareness, which possibly unconstitutionally inhibit a defendant's right to introduce evidence. They are also concerned that funding designated to assist victims and law enforcement are based on fees and fines that, even if levied on those convicted, will never be collected.
Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED
PROPOSITION 36: Three Strikes Law. Repeat Felony Offenders. Penalties. Initiative Statute.
Committee: Legislative Committee
Summary: Currently, California law contains a "three-strike" provision. Those individuals who have previously had a serious or violent felony conviction receive a double sentence upon their second felony conviction and a third time offender, convicted of any felony, receives a sentence of 25 years to life. This proposition would revise the "three-strikes" law and allow for shorter sentences for some repeat offenders. Offenders who have had two or more felony convictions, but whose current offence is not a serious or violent felony shall receive a sentence of twice the normal term for that offence, rather than 25 years to life. Additionally, this measure would allow for the resentencing of certain offenders convicted under the three-strikes law based on the nature of their current and prior offences.
Pro: Proponents of this proposition argue that the three-strikes law is contributing to the state prison's overcrowding problem, clogging limited space with non-violent offenders and leaving less room to keep violent felons off the street. In addition to overcrowding, proponents also argue that this measure will save the state money due to the lower instance of life sentences, which will reduce the amount of life-long housing and healthcare provided, allowing the state to reserve those funds to prosecute and house violent offenders.
Con: Opponents of this proposition argue that the states crime rate fell dramatically with the institution of the three-strikes law. This measure would give these repeat offenders shorter sentences, providing them with more opportunities to commit crimes. The opposition also disagrees with the propositions provision allowing for selective resentencing. They argue that a judge and jury have already found that the offenders are too dangerous to be released and a different judge should not be able to set them free or shorten their sentence.
NOTE: C.A.R.’s Board of Directors, at its October 2004 meetings, voted to take a “NOT REAL ESTATE REALTED POSITION” on Proposition 66 of 2004, which was rejected by the voters. The initiative would have limited the “Three-Strikes” law to violent and/or serious felonies and permitted limited re-sentencing under new definitions and increases punishment for specified sex crimes against children. While preserving the original mandated sentences of double-time for a second violent and/or serious felony and 25 years-to-life for a third violent and/or serious felony, proposition 66 would have amended the law to require mandatory increased sentences when convictions are for violent and/or serious felonies such as rape, robbery, murder, selling drugs to minors etc. Finally, the measure would have allowed prisoners now serving Three-Strikes sentences to apply for and receive a re-sentencing hearing because their offense would no longer count as a strike.
Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED
PROPOSITION 37: Genetically Engineered Foods. Labeling. Initiative statute
Committee: Legislative Committee
Summary: This proposition would require the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods. Raw foods (i.e., fruits and vegetables) produced entirely or partially by GE would have to have a "Genetically Engineered" label on the front package or on the shelf or bin if no packaging is available. This measure also required that processed foods created entirely or partially through GE be labeled as "Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering" or "May be Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering" and prevents to the use of the term "natural" on any product produced through GE. Certain foods, such as alcoholic beverages, restaurant or prepared foods and certified organic foods are exempt from these provisions. Under this initiative the Department of Public Health would be responsible for the regulation of such labeling efforts and retailers (i.e., grocery stores) would be responsible for ensuring that the foods they sell are properly labeled. Should an item not be labeled, the retailer would be responsible for providing evidence as to why a product is exempt. This can be done through a sworn statement by the producer or an independent certification. This measure also allows for prosecution by the state or local governments as well as private consumers for violations of these labeling requirements, even if no damages have occurred.
Pro: The proponents of this measure argue that consumers have a right to know what is in their food and how it is produced. They argue that GE foods can contain allergens and that, in the past, big companies have lied about the impacts of pesticides and other ingredients on consumer health. These new labeling requirement will allow the consumer to make an informed decision on what kind of food to buy for their families.
Con: Opponents argue that this measure will raise food costs for consumers and hurt small business producers and farmers due to the necessity of new processes and operations to ensure proper labeling or switching to non-genetically engineering practices. Additionally, opponents argue that this measure encourages "bounty hunter" lawsuits against small businesses, farmers and grocers due to the provision which allow consumers to sue without even needing to demonstrate damages. Opponents argue that these lawsuits will also increase litigation costs to the state and that the new requirements will require spending to create and implement regulations.
Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED
PROPOSITION 38: Tax to Fund Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute.
Committee: Taxation and Government Finance Committee
Summary: This measure would increase the state income tax on all individuals except those in the lowest tax bracket over a 12 year period beginning in 2013. These increases range from 0.4% to 2.2% with those in the highest tax bracket's rate increasing the most. It is estimated to increase the state's revenues by about $10 billion just for the 2013-2014 fiscal year. The revenues from this increase will be transferred into the newly created California Education Trust Fund, which will be used to supplement funding for school programs, teacher training, early care and education programs and debt-service relief. The measure allocates the funds based on specified annual formulas contained within the measure. The measure prohibits: 1) the legislature from making any modifications to this measure without voter approval; and 2) these additional funds being used to replace existing state, local and federal funds designated for education.
Pro: Proponents of this measure argue that it will restore education funding to previous levels and provide additional funds to benefit schools, and provide early care and education opportunities to low-income families. They argue that this measure will also help prevent more budget cuts because it will set aside a small portion of the new revenues to reduce the state education bond debt decreasing the need for general fund revenues. Finally, they argue that this is a fair way to provide guaranteed funds which will go to the classroom, not salaries and which cannot be diverted to different state programs.
Con: The opposition to this measure argues this tax hike will hurt small businesses the most because many pay individual income tax rather than the corporate income tax. This measure will increase their cost of doing business by a huge amount causing them to cut jobs, move out of state, raise prices or close. Additionally, opponents argue that this measure contains no requirements to improve school performance and is just dumping money into a system that is failing rather than insisting on real reform. The measure also prohibits any alteration to its provisions without a vote of the people, state opponents, even in cases of fraud or abuse. Finally, they argue that this measure does nothing to reduce the deficit and, although it contains a large tax increase, does not prohibit the legislature from overspending in the future.
NOTE: C.A.R.’s Board of Directors, at its October 2004 meetings, voted to take a “NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED” position on Proposition 63 of 2004, known as the Mental Health Services Expansion, Funding. Tax on Personal Incomes Above $1 Million, which was approved by the voters. This proposition established a state personal income tax surcharge of 1 percent on taxpayers with annual taxable incomes of more than $1 million. Funds resulting from the surcharge are used to expand county mental health services for mentally ill children, adults, seniors.
Proposition 82 of 2006, which was rejected by the voters, was included on the June Primary Election Ballot and qualified too late to be included in the January Board of Directors Meeting Materials. Historically, C.A.R. has concluded on similar measures (e.g., PROPOSITION 63 of 2004) that they are “NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED.” Between C.A.R. business meetings, Proposition 82 was considered by the Taxation and Legislative Committees which concluded that it was not appropriate to take it up with the C.A.R. Leadership team. This proposition would have created a voluntary preschool education program for all 4-year olds born after June 5, 2006. This program was to be funded by a 1.7% tax on individual income over $400,000, and couples income over $800,000.
Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED
PROPOSITION 39: Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute.
Committee: Taxation and Government Finance Committee
Summary: Under the current corporate tax law, multistate businesses can choose one of two methods to determine their taxable state income. These methods are: the three factor method based on a combination of the company's sales, property and employees located within the state; and the single sales factor method which is based solely on company's sales within the state. This initiative would, starting in 2013, require all multistate companies doing business in California to determine their taxes based on the single sales factor. This measure also establishes the Clean Energy Job Creation Fund (Fund), which will be funded by $550 million from increased corporate revenues, to improve energy efficiency in schools and public facilities through cost effective energy efficient retrofits, public/private partnerships to establish and implement Property Assessed Clean Energy programs and other methods of financial assistance for retrofits. The Fund will also create jobs and expand clean energy generation through the funding of workforce development in energy efficiency areas, and public-private partnerships to maximize job creation. This measure specifies that all projects will be selected and overseen by existing state and local government agencies as well as a newly created Citizens Oversight Board. Projects will be chosen based on their in-state job creation and energy benefits.
Pro: Proponents argue this measure will boost state revenue by eliminating a corporate tax loophole which allows out of state corporations, which provide few jobs in California, to pay fewer taxes due to their ability to choose a tax structure which includes employees, property and sales, rather than basing their taxes solely on the amount of business (sales) they do within the state. In addition to the value of increased state revenues, proponents state that this initiative allows for the funding of energy efficiency upgrades in schools and public buildings which will reduce pollution. They also argue that this measure will lead to the creation of additional jobs for the state.
Con: Opponents of the measure argue that this proposition is actually creating a new tax system which will drive corporations that provide middle class jobs out of California at a time when unemployment is already high. This initiative also creates a new program and oversight board which will cost the state money to implement and maintain. The opponents feel that this money would be better spent on law enforcement, schools, health and welfare or environmental protection.
Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED
PROPOSITION 40: Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum.
Summary: The Citizens Redistricting Commission recently completed their work and approved new district maps for the Assembly, Senate, BOE and Congress. According to the Secretary of State’s Office, if this proposition is approved by the voters, it will disapprove the commissions Senate district maps and return these to the Supreme Court for readjustment. The certified Senate district maps can be viewed at the Secretary of States website at http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i968_resistricting_maps.pdf
Pro: The Senate district maps have been challenged by some minority groups and republicans who argue they are underrepresented and that the process was not transparent enough. Proponents argue that the commission failed to allow a second round of public comment on the proposed districts which resulted in the commission approving maps that have an unfair bias toward the Democratic Party, and fail to consider appropriate opportunities for minority representation.
Con: No opposition yet registered.
NOTE: The C.A.R. Board of Directors, at its October 2008 Meetings, voted to take a “NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED” position on Proposition 11, which was approved by the voters. Proposition 11, starting with the 2010 census, requires the Senate, Assembly and BOE redistricting plans to be developed by a 14 member Citizens Redistricting Commission. The legislative and BOE districts created by the commission are required to keep neighborhoods and communities of interest within one district, to be geographically compact, and forbids districts that favor or discriminate against political incumbents, candidates, or parties. Redistricting plan certification would require a unanimous vote of the commissioners or at least nine commission member votes in conjunction with voter approval. Should the commission not approve a final map or the electorate rejects the plan, California’s Supreme Court would adjust the redistricting plan to adhere to the district boundary requirements held within this proposition and the maps would then be deemed as certified.
The C.A.R. Board of Directors, at its November 2010 Meetings, voted to take a "NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED" position on Proposition 20, which was approved by the voters. A follow-up to Proposition 11 (above), Proposition 20 transferred the authority to develop Congressional districts to the Citizens Redistricting Commission.
C.A.R.'s Board of Directors, at its Spring 2012 meetings, adopted a "NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED" position on this proposition.
Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL _X_NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED
November 4, 2014, General Election Ballot
PROPOSITION NUMBER PENDING: Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2012. Bond Measure.
Summary: Placed on the ballot in late 2009 by SB 2VXX (Cogdill) and amended by AB 1265 (Caballero), this measure proposes to enact the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2012 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 Winter 2010 meetings, adopted a "NEUTRAL" position on this proposition.
Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST _X_NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED
PROPOSITION NUMBER PENDING: State Budget. Changes California Budget Process. Limits State Spending. Increases "Rainy Day" Budget Stabilization Fund. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
Summary: Currently 3% of General Fund revenues are required to be transferred from the General Fund into the Budget Stabilization Fund (the state’s reserve account) until the total amount in the reserve Fund reaches 5% of state revenues. Under this proposition, in addition to the 3% transfer, any “unanticipated” revenues (i.e., revenues that exceeded the amount expected based on revenues received by the state over the past twenty years) not used to satisfy education funding obligations, are to be transferred into the Budget Stabilization Fund. These transfers will be required until the Budget Stabilization Fund has reached 10% of the General Fund revenues. Once the fund has reached the 10% threshold, “unanticipated” revenues will then be directed toward debt repayment and other one-time expenditures. This measure also limits the spending of the Budget Stabilization Fund to periods when state revenues are insufficient to support the previous year’s expenditures or when there is a state emergency (i.e., earthquake, flood, etc.) Finally, this measure creates the Supplemental Budget Stabilization Account, which will receive half of the mandatory 3% transfer from the General Fund and which can only be used to pay for one-time infrastructure projects or debt service obligations.
Pro: Proponents argue that this proposition could limit further deficits by increasing the size of the state “rainy day” fund and by requiring unexpected or above-average revenues to be deposited into the fund. They argue that this will provide readily available funds for use during economic downturns and for other purposes.
Con: Opposition to the measure has yet to register with the Secretary of State.
NOTE: C.A.R.’s Board of Directors, at its 1979 Meetings, voted to take a “FOR” position on Proposition 4 of 1979, known as the Gann Spending Limit, which was approved by the voters. The Gann Spending Limit amended the state constitution, and limited the amount of tax revenues the state can spend each year. In a series of changes occasioned by initiatives over the years, the spending limit has been modified and adjusted to the point where it no longer works to effectively limit or “cap” spending.
C.A.R.’s Board of Directors, at its January 2004 Meetings, voted to take a “FOR” position on Proposition 58 of 2004, known as the California Balanced Budget Act, which was approved by the voters. This proposition requires that the state enact a budget that is balanced and provides for a “mid-year adjustment,” where the Governor may declare a fiscal emergency if he or she determines that the state is experiencing a revenue shortfall. The Legislature must send corrective legislation to the Governor within 45 days or it will be barred from acting on any other non-budget related measure or adjourning in joint-recess until the legislation is passed. This initiative also creates a Budget Stabilization Account (BSA). A portion of General Fund revenues would be transferred in this account until it reaches $8 billion. Funds from this account can be transferred to the General Fund through a majority vote of the Legislature and Governor’s approval to be used for various purposes or to cover budget shortfalls. However, once the money is transferred into the General Fund, it will require an additional vote to be spent.
C.A.R.'s Board of Directors adopted a “NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED” position on Proposition 1A of 2009 part of the Governor’s budget package, which was rejected by the voters. Under this proposition, “unanticipated” revenues would have been directed to meet the funding obligations under the state constitution for K-14 education, fill the existing budget reserve to its target (which would have been increased from 5% to 12.5% of state revenues) and to pay off any budgetary borrowing. Only after these payments were made, could “unanticipated” revenues have been used for other purposes. Proposition 1A also proposed the extension of numerous temporary taxes such as the Vehicle License Fee and the Personal Income Tax increases.
C.A.R.'s Board of Directors, at its Fall 2011 meetings, adopted a "NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED" position on this proposition.
Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL _ X_ NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED
PROPOSITION NUMBER PENDING: Approval of Healthcare Insurance Rate Changes. Initiative Statute.
Committee: Legislative Committee
Summary: This measure requires, for insurance rates taking effect after November 6, 2012, insurance companies have their rates approved by the Insurance Commissioner, and publicly disclose and justify their rates before the rates can go into effect. Additionally, health, home and auto insurance companies will be prohibited from charging higher rates due to an applicant's lack of prior insurance coverage or credit history.
Pro: Proponents of this measure argue that it will ensure fair and transparent rates for health, home and auto insurance, all of which are either mandatory or a necessity for Californians.
Con: Opposition to the measure has yet to register with the Secretary of State.
NOTE: C.A.R.’s Board of Directors, at its October 1988 Meetings, voted to take “NO POSITION” on Proposition 103 of 1988, which was approved by the voters. (Prior to 1994, C.A.R. considered three possible positions on each ballot measure - “FOR,” “AGAINST” and “NO POSITION.” Beginning in 1994, C.A.R. opted to remove the “NO POSITION” option and replaced it with two more specific options - “NEUTRAL” and “NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED.”)This measure required insurance companies to reduce rates for various types of insurance, including motor vehicle, fire, and liability by 20% and to keep the discounted rates until at least November 8, 1989. The insurance Commissioner would be required to review and approve rate increases on a go forward basis and he or she could approve an increase prior to November 8, 1989 if it is apparent that the insurer is threatened with insolvency. Finally, this measure required insurance companies to offer a "Good Driver Discount Plan" and made other changes regarding auto insurance.
Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED
