June 6, 2006, Primary Election Ballot Propositions and November 7, 2006, General Election Ballot PropositionsHousing Opportunity Committee Land Use Committee Taxation Committee Legislative CommitteeThe following is for study only and has NOT been approved by the Housing Opportunity Committee, Land Use Committee, Taxation Committee, Legislative Committee, Executive Committee, or Board ofDirectors.Issue: What position should C.A.R. take on the ballot propositions on the November 2006 ballot?Action: Necessary, if C.A.R. wishes to take positions on the November 2006 ballot propositions.Option: C.A.R. Ballot Position Options:1. FOR: This ballot measure is consistent with C.A.R. policy andits 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.REPORT ONLY: June 6, 2006 Primary Election BallotPROPOSITION 81: California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2006. Summary:This measure would establish the California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2006, authorizing the issuance of $600 million in bonds for the purpose of financing library construction and renovation. Pro:Proponents argue that many of California's libraries are old, inadequate, and in need of rehabilitation. A 2003 needs assessment, conducted by the California State Library, indicates that there are more than 575 public library projects that need to be built or renovated by 2011, totaling over $4 billion. Proponents also notethat approximately 75 percent of all library bond applications will be denied a grant under the 2000 bond due to the limited amount of funding available. In other words, 72 projects with a total cost of $586 million will go unfunded without this measure. Con:Opponents argue that Proposition 81 condonespolitician’s poor spending habits by continuing to allow them to fund unnecessary social programs and by borrowing more funds to pay for libraries. These opponents argue that voting “NO” would force politicians to make proper spending cuts in order to fund the state’s libraries. NOTE: The C.A.R. Board of Directors, at its September 2005 Meetings, voted to take a “NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED” position. Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL _X_NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED PROPOSITION 82: Preschool Education. Tax on Incomes over $400,000 for Individuals; $800,000 for Couples. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. Summary:This measure would change the California Constitution and state law to create and fund a new, publicly funded, voluntary preschool education program that would be made available for all 4-year olds born after June 5, 2006. This measure directs counties to prepare reports on curricula, outreach, facilities, childcare coordination, budgeting, teacher recruitment and pay. This program would be funded by a 1.7% tax on individual income over $400,000, and couples income over $800,000, which is projected to bring in $2.1 billion for 2007-2008. The proposition does provide an exception in the case of a “funding emergency” which would allow the Legislature witha two-thirds vote, and signature of the Governor, to pass a one-year requirement that parents pay a fee to help cover the costs of the program.Pro:Proponents argue that only one in every five California kids is enrolled in a quality preschool program before kindergarten, and studies show that children who attend preschool readearlier and learn faster. Further, proponents argue that Proposition 82 is an investment in our kids and California can not afford to not make that investment. Finally, proponents contend that every dollar invested in a universal preschool program will return $2.62 to society because of savings from reduced remedial education costs, lower high school drop out rates, and the economic benefits of a better-educated workforce.Con:Opponents argue that because California still faces chronic budget cuts, Proposition 82 is the wrong approach and that the state should first fix K-12 before creating a new bureaucracy by spending $2.4 billion per year for a 4-5% increase in preschool enrollment. While expanding educational opportunities is a laudable goal, California has many other priorities to address before raising taxes to create newgovernment. Further, the initiative raises fear among private preschools that this measure could lead to a bureaucratic state run system.* NOTE: This measure 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.” During the interim, this measure was considered by the Taxation and Legislative Committees who concluded that it was not appropriate to take it up with the C.A.R. Leadership team.Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL _X_NOT REAL ESTATE RELATEDNovember 7, 2006 General Election Ballot PropositionsPROPOSITION NUMBER PENDING: Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century. Summary:This measure would enact the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Train Bond Act for the 21st Century to provide $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds to fund the planning and construction of a high-speed passenger (bullet) train system and improvements to other rail systems in the state. $9 billion would be used in conjunction with available federal funds for the purpose of funding the planning and construction of a high-speed train system in this state pursuant to the business plan of the High-Speed Rail Authority. $950 million of the bond proceeds would be available for capital projects on other passenger rail lines to provide connectivity to the high-speed train system and for capacity enhancements and safety, improvements to those lines. The initial network would run from San Francisco to Los Angeles, withthe initial network from the Bay Area to Southern California possibly in operation by 2008. The measure defines a "high-speed train" as a passenger train capable of sustained operating speeds of at least 200 miles per hour, and establishes a separate definition for "high-speed train system" as a system with high-speed trains, including, right-of-way, track, power system, rolling stock, stations and associated facilities. Pro:Proponents of the measure foresee a 700-mile high speed train system extending from San Diego to the Bay Area and Sacramento, serving the majormetropolitan centers of the State. Increasing congestion and security considerations in air travel, impediments to airport expansion and related ground access requirements will increase the need for the development and expansion of alternative means of transportation and travel. The proponents foresee a high-speed train system that will provide a new mode of travel that links the major metropolitan areas of the state; connects with international airports, mass transit, and the highway network; provides added capacity to meet increases in intercity travel demand in California; and one that would be constructed in a manner sensitive to, and protective of, California's unique natural resources. Con:Opposition to this measure has yet to register with the Secretary of State’s Office.NOTE: The C.A.R. Board of Directors, at its September 2005 Meetings, voted to take a “NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED” position.Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL _X_NOT REAL ESTATE RELATEDPROPOSITION NUMBER PENDING: Sex Offenders. Sexually Violent Predators. Punishment, Residence Restrictions and Monitoring. Initiative Statute.Committee:Legislative CommitteeSummary:This measure would increase penalties for violent and habitual sex offenders and child molesters. The initiative would require that child molesters — if the victim is under 14 — be imprisoned for at least 15 years and increases the penalties across the board for all other sex crimes, including luring minors throughthe Internet. If released from prison, sex offenders would be monitored with a GPS tracking device for life, and would not be allowed to live within 2,000 feet of a school or park. Finally, the measure would expand the definition of a sexually violent predator, and change the current two-year involuntary civil commitment for a sexually violent predator to an indeterminate commitment, subject to annual review by the Director of Mental Health and petition by the sexually violent predator for conditional release or unconditional discharge.Pro:Proponents argue that this measure is necessary to protect children from sex offenders and child molesters and appropriately increases the penalties for committing such crimes against children.Con:Opposition to this measure has yet to register with the Secretary of State’s Office.Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATEDPROPOSITON 1A: Transportation Funding Protection. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.Committee:Taxation CommitteeSummary:Proposition 42, of 2002, required that the funds generated from the sales tax on motor vehicle fuels be deposited into the General Fund and then transferred to the TransportationInvestment Fund (TIF). This transfer may be suspended if (1) the Governor issues a proclamation stating that the allocation would have a “significant negative impact on the function of government,” and (2) the legislature enacts a statute, passed by a 2/3 vote in each house, suspending the transfer. Proposition 1A would change the provisions for suspending the transfer from the General Fund to the TIF by requiring (1) the Governor’s proclamation to declare that the suspension is necessary “due to a sever fiscal hardship,” (2) the legislature enacts a statute, passed by a 2/3 vote in each house, suspending the transfer, and (3) the legislature enacts a second statute to repay the TIF with interest by the end of the third fiscal year of the original suspension. Further, the measure would allow the transfer to the TIF to be suspended only twice within a 10 year period, and prohibit the withholding of the transfer to the TIF if the previous suspension has not been repaid. Finally, Proposition 1A requires that all funds that were not transferred to the TIF prior to July 1, 2007 be repaid by June 30, 2016, and makes the tax on motor vehicle fuels, and the TIF allocation formula for the distribution of the revenues, permanent.Pro:Proponents argue that measure will protect transportation funding for traffic congestion relief projects and safety improvements, and prohibit the state sales tax on motor vehicle fuels from being used for anypurpose other than transportation improvements.Con: Opposition to this measure has yet to register with the Secretary of State’s Office.HISTORICAL NOTE:C.A.R.’s Board of Directors, at its October 2001 meeting, voted to take a “NEUTRAL” position on PROPOSITION 42, of 2002, known as the Transportation Funding: Sales and Use Tax Revenues. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.This measure placedin the State Constitution a provision that requires that, from 2003 through 2008, gasoline sales tax revenues be used for state and local transportation purposes under the Transportation Congestion Relief Program (TCRP), which was enacted in 2000. Proposition 42 allocated the revenues as follows: 20 percent to public transportation, 40 percent to transportation improvement projects, and 40 percent to local streets and roads improvements. Finally the measure authorized the Legislature to modify the distribution of revenues with a two-thirds vote of both houses, and further provided that the use of these revenues can be suspended under specified conditions.Position: ___ FOR___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATEDPROPOSITON 1B:Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality and Port Security Bond Act of 2006.Committee:Land Use CommitteeSummary:This measure would enact the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 to authorize a $19.975 billion general obligation bond. The bond authorizes specified amounts for various transportation related projects including: $5.5 billion for transportation corridor improvements; $3.1 billion for California ports infrastructure, security, and air quality improvements; $200 million for school bus retrofit; $2 billion for transportation improvements; $4 billion for transit and rail improvements, $1 billion for state-local transportation projects; $1 billion for transit security and disaster response; $125 million for local bridge retrofit; $250 million for highway-railroad grade and crossing projects; $750 million for highway rehabilitation; $1 billion for local streets and road improvements; and finally$1 billion which will be set aside for county improvements. The measure is estimated to require an annual repayment amount of $1.2 billion over a 30-year period.
Pro:Arguments in support of this measure have not yet been submittedto the Secretary of State’s Office.
Con:Opposition to this measure has yet to register with the Secretary of State’s Office.Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATEDPROPOSITON 1C: Emergency Housing, Community Planning and Farmland Preservation Bond Act of 2006.
Committee:Housing Opportunity CommitteeSummary:This proposition would enact the Emergency Housing, Community Planning and Farmland PreservationBond Act of 2006 to authorize the issuance of $2.85 billion in general obligation bonds for state housing programs including: $1.5 billion deposited into the Affordable Housing Account to finance existing housing programs; $850 million deposited into theRegional Planning, Housing, and Infill Incentive Account to finance regional planning for infill development and brownfield clean-up; $300 million to fund and create the Transit-Oriented Development Implementation Program to provide grants to local governments for infrastructure necessary for the development of higher density uses within ¼ mile of a transit station, and loans for the development and construction of affordable to very low or low-income households; and, finally, $200 million to fund and create the Housing Urban-Suburban-and-Rural Parks Account. [Note: Approximately $ 950 million of this bond would be allocated for homeownership opportunities.] This measure is estimated to require an annual repayment amount of $182 million over a 30 year period. Additionally, this measure makes specific findings and declarations that the approval of the Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2002 has helped nearly 18,000 families to become homeowners, and assisted in the construction andrehabilitation over 17,000 affordable apartments and over 9,000 shelter spaces. Finally, Proposition 1C declares that California is home to 21 of the 25 least affordable metropolitan areas is the U.S. for homeownership, and home to 9 out of the 10 leastaffordable counties in the U.S. for rent, thereby increasingly forcing California families to endure longer commutes from affordable housing.HISTORICAL NOTE: PROPOSITION 46, of 2002, created the Housing and EmergencyShelter Trust Fund Act of 2002, which the C.A.R. Board of Directors took a “FOR” position on during its June 2002 meeting. Proposition 46 createdHousing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2002 issuing bonds totaling $2.1 billion. This act has provided financing for battered women shelters, housing for low-income senior citizens, emergency shelters for homeless families with children, housing with social services for the homeless and mentally ill, repairsand accessibility improvements to apartments for families and handicapped citizens, homeownership assistance for military veterans, and security improvements and repairs to existing emergency shelters.Pro:Proponents to this measure argue that the funds provided under Proposition 46 will be exhausted by the end of 2006 and, if these funds are exhausted, the state will lose a critical weapon in the fight to maintain some level of affordable housing. This measureseeks to maintain the funding for the essential programs that provide resources to assist in the development and protection of affordable housing. Neither non-profit or private housing developers build enough units to satisfy the need for affordable housing. Proposition 1C seeks to offer new incentives to build affordable housing on infill parcels as well as near public transit stations.Con:Opposition to this measure has yet to register with the Secretary of State’s Office.Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATEDPROPOSIITON 1D: Kindergarten – University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006.Committee:Land Use CommitteeSummary:This measure would establish the Kindergarten – University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006 to authorize $10.416 billion in state general obligation bonds to provide aid to school districts, county superintendents of schools, county boards of education, the California Community Colleges, the University of California, the Hastings College of Law, and the California State University to construct and modernize education facilities. This measure is estimated to require an annual repayment amount of $592 million over a 30 year period. Additionally, this measure would delay the provision in current law that would allow local governments to condition the approval of new residential developments on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities until 2012.HISTORICAL NOTE: C.A.R. has historically supported all school bonds. The C.A.R. Board of Directors, at its June 2002 meeting, voted to take a “NEUTRAL” position on PROPOSITION 47 of 2002, known as the Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2002, and during the October 2002 meeting the C.A.R. Board of Directors reconsidered the measure and opted to change to a “FOR” position. Further, the C.A.R. Board of Directors, at its January 2004 meeting, voted to take a “FOR” position on PROPOSITION 55 of 2004, known as the Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2004.Proposition 47 of 2002 and Proposition 55 of 2004 were general obligation bond measures placed on the ballot by Assembly Bill 16 (Hertzberg, 2002), totaling $25 billion. Both measures were submitted for voter approval to fund new school construction and repair aging school buildings. Proposition 47 was approved in November 2002, and authorized $13.05 billion in bonds. Proposition 55 authorized the remaining $12.3 billion in March of 2004. The bond measures work in conjunction, not only to provide money for school facilities, but also to prevent school impact fees from increasing beyond their currentlevel.Pro:Proponents to this measure project an unmet need of $10.6 billion in new construction eligibility and $3.3 billion in modernization eligibility. According to The Office of Public School Construction,only $3.656 billion remain for new construction and modernization of school facilities from the passage of Propositions 47 and 55, and estimate the need for the next five years to be $12.2 billion in order to keep up with the growing demands on the educational system for facilities.Con: Opponents contend that California still faces a financial crisis, and while the state needs new schools, it does not need to accumulate more debt for taxpayers. Just like the prior ballot measures, Proposition 1D favors Los Angeles Unified School District at the expense of the rest of the state and it will raise our taxes.Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATEDPROPOSITON 1E: Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006.Committee:Land Use CommitteeSummary:This measure would enact the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006 which would authorize $4.09 billion of general obligation bonds to fund infrastructure projects for flood protection and levee repair. The allocations are as follows: $3 billion for levee repair; $500 million for the state flood control subvention program; $200 million for the state flood corridor program to establish floodplain corridors and set back levees in areas where annual flooding takes place; $90 million for floodplain mapping; and $300 million for the storm/flash flood protection program.Pro:Proponents argue that a catastrophic levee failure in urban areas of the state would flood tens of thousands of homes and major transportation corridors, and would result in long lasting devastation to both local and state economies. Further, proponents contend that Proposition 1E will rebuild and repair California’s most vulnerable flood control structures to protect homes and prevent loss of life from flood-related disasters, including levee failures, flash floods, and mudslides; it protects California’s drinking water supply system by rebuilding delta levees that are vulnerable to earthquakes and storms.
Con: Opposition to this measure has yet to register with the Secretary of State’s Office.
Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED