Legislative Committee
The following is for study only and has NOT been approved by 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 2 additional propositions scheduled to appear on the November 2012 ballot.
Option: C.A.R. Ballot Position Options:
1. FOR: This ballot measure is consistent with C.A.R. policy and its passage could 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
June 5, 2012, Primary Election Ballot
PROPOSITION 28: Legislative Term Limits Reform Act of 2012. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Summary: Current term limit laws allow legislators to serve up to fourteen years in the Legislature by serving a combination of two 4-year terms in the Senate and three 2-year terms in the Assembly. This measure would reduce the total number of years that a legislator can serve from fourteen to twelve. This proposition would allow legislators to serve their entire twelve years in the Assembly, Senate or a combination of the two. The measure will not apply to any legislator who was elected to office prior to its effective date.
Pro: Proponents argue that term limits need to be reformed to reduce partisanship, and put an end to the constant campaign cycle. Furthermore, proponents argue that it is critical to permit legislators to remain in a single house of the Legislature for a longer period of time in order to acquire the knowledge and expertise necessary to address public policy issues facing California.
Con: Opponents argue that this proposition's sole goal is to weaken term limits for future legislators.
NOTE: C.A.R.'s Board of Directors, at its October 2007 Meetings, voted to take a "NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED" position on Proposition 93 of 2008, known as the Limits on Legislators' terms in Office, which was rejected by the voters. This proposition would have reduced the total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years; however, the initiative would have allowed a person to serve a total of 12 years either in the Assembly, the Senate, or a combination of both. Current members of the Legislature would have been permitted to serve a total of 12 consecutive years in their current house, minus those years already served concurrently.
C.A.R.'s Board of Directors, at its Fall 2010 meetings, adopted a "NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED" position on this proposition.
Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL _X_NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED
PROPOSITION 29: HOPE 2010: California Cancer Research Act. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Summary: This measure would impose a distribution tax of fifty cents for every cigarette distributed on every cigarette distributor, and a floor stock tax on every dealer and wholesaler of fifty cents for every cigarette in their possession. These taxes will be instituted ninety days after the effective date of this measure. Revenue from these taxes will be deposited into the California Cancer Research Life Sciences Innovation Trust Fund to be distributed among the main fund and the Hope 2010 sub-funds, Hope 2010 Research Fund, Facilities Fund, Smoking Cessation Fund, Law Enforcement Fund and Committee Account. Revenues will be used to provide grants and loans for cancer research and facilities, tobacco and cigarette education and prevention programs, and law enforcement programs to regulate the movement of tobacco products. A small portion will go to the administration of the funds as well. The proposition would also create the HOPE 2010 Cancer Research Citizens Oversight Committee to oversee the distribution of funds, grants and loans, and to regulate the administrative processes of the California Cancer Research Life Sciences Innovation Trust Fund and to report to the general public about the activities, grants and any progress made.
Pro: Support for the measure has yet to register with the Secretary of State.
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 2006 Meetings, voted to take a "NOT REAL ESTSTE RELATED" position on Proposition 86 of 2006, known as the Tax on Cigarettes Initiative, which was rejected by the voters. Proposition 86 would have imposed an additional 13 cent tax on each cigarette distributed ($2.60 per pack), and would have also indirectly increased taxes on other tobacco products in order to provide funding to qualified hospitals for services, education and research of various disorders.
C.A.R.'s Board of Directors, at its Fall 2010 meetings, adopted a "NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED" position on this proposition.
Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL _X_NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED
November 6, 2012, 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: 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 NUMBER PENDING: 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 an 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, 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.
Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED
PROPOSITION NUMBER PENDING: 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.
Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED
November, 4 2014, General Election Ballot
PROPOSITION NUMBER PENDING: State Budget. Changes California Budget Process. Limits State Spending. Increases "Rainy Day" Budget Stabilization Fund. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
Committee: Taxation and Government Finance Committee
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. 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
