November 7, 2006, General Election Ballot Propositions
September 25, 2006
Land Use and Environment Committee
Taxation Committee
Legislative Committee
The following is for study only andhas NOT been approved by the Land Use and Environment Committee, Taxation Committee, Legislative Committee, Executive Committee, or Board of Directors.Issue: 
What position should C.A.R. take on the ballot propositions on the November 2006ballot?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 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.PROPOSITON 1A: Transportation Funding Protection. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

Summary: 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 Transportation Investment 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 thetransfer. 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 severe 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, themeasure 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 the 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 any purpose other than transportation improvements.

Con: Opposition tothis measure has yet to register with the Secretary of State’s Office.

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 placed in 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, and40 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. The C.A.R. Board of Directors, at its June 2006 Meetings, voted to take a “FOR” position on Proposition 1A.

Position:   _X__ FOR      ___AGAINST      ___NEUTRAL      ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED     

PROPOSITON 1B: Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality and Port Security Bond Act of 2006.

Summary: This measure would enactthe 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, $1billion 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 submitted to the Secretary of State’s Office.

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 June2006 Meetings, voted to take a “FOR” position on Proposition 1B.

Position:   _X__ FOR      ___AGAINST      ___NEUTRAL      ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED   

PROPOSITON 1C: Emergency Housing, Community Planning and Farmland Preservation Bond Act of 2006.

Summary: This proposition would enact the Emergency Housing, Community Planning and Farmland Preservation Bond Actof 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 the RegionalPlanning, 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 forinfrastructure 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 createthe 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 and rehabilitationover 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 least affordable counties in the U.S. for rent, thereby increasingly forcing California families to endure longer commutes from affordable housing. 

Pro: Proponents to this measure argue that the funds provided under Proposition 46 will be exhausted by the endof 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 measure seeks to maintain the funding for the essential programs that provide resources to assist in the development and protection of affordable housing. Neither non-profit nor 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.

NOTE: PROPOSITION 46, of 2002, created the Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2002, whichthe C.A.R. Board of Directors took a “FOR” position on during its June 2002 meeting.  Proposition 46 created Housing 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, repairs and accessibility improvements to apartments for families and handicapped citizens, homeownership assistance for military veterans, and security improvements and repairs to existing emergency shelters. It also included an allocation to CalHFA for mortgage insurance. The C.A.R. Board of Directors, at its June 2006 Meetings, voted to take a “FOR” position on Proposition 1C.

Position:   _X__ FOR      ___AGAINST      ___NEUTRAL      ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED     

PROPOSIITON 1D: Kindergarten – University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006.

Summary: 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 ofLaw, 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.

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.

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 Actof 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.  Proposition55 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 current level. The C.A.R. Board of Directors, at its June 2006 Meetings, voted to take a “NEUTRAL” position on Proposition 1D.

Position:   ___ FOR      ___AGAINST      _X__NEUTRAL      ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED     

PROPOSITON 1E: Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006.

Summary: 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.

NOTE: The C.A.R. Board of Directors, at its June 2006 Meetings, voted to take a “FOR” position on Proposition 1E.

Position:   _X__ FOR      ___AGAINST      ___NEUTRAL      ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED     

PROPOSITION 83: Sex Offenders. Sexually Violent Predators. Punishment, Residence Restrictions and Monitoring. Initiative Statute.Summary: This measure would increase penaltiesfor 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 through the 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 thedefinition 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 sexuallyviolent 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.NOTE: The C.A.R. Board of Directors, at its June 2006 Meetings, voted to take a “NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED” position on Proposition 83.

Position:   ___ FOR      ___AGAINST      ___NEUTRAL      _X__NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED     

PROPOSITON 84: Water Quality, Safety and Supply. Flood Control. Natural Resources Protection. Park Improvements. Bonds. Initiative Statute.

Committee: Land Use and Environment Committee

Summary: Proposition 84 would authorize $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. The allocation of funds would be as follows: $525 million for safe drinking water and water quality projects; $1 billion for integrated regional water management; $928 million for the protection of rivers, lakes and streams; $800 million for flood control and levee maintenance; $580 million for sustainable communities and climate change reduction; $540 million for theprotection of beaches, bays and coastal waters; $500 million for parks and nature education facilities; $450 million for forest and wildlife conservation; and, $65 million for statewide water planning. The Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance estimate that the fiscal impact on state and local governments would be about $10.5 billion ($5.4 billion in principal and $5.1 billion in interest) over 30 years, with the annual payments equaling $350 million per year. 

(This measure would supplement Proposition 1E, should each measure pass, by providing an additional $800 million to assist with levee maintenance and flood protection. The C.A.R. Board of Directors, at its June 2006 Meetings, adopted a “FOR” position on Proposition1E.)

Pro: Proponents argue that a major levee failure in the delta could disrupt water supplies for much of California and could potentially cause up to $40 billion in economic losses statewide. With the passage of Proposition 1E and Proposition 84 California can continue to build on the critical work initiated under previous bond initiatives.

Con: Opposition has yet to file with the Secretary of State at this time.

Position:   ___ FOR      ___AGAINST      ___NEUTRAL      ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED     

PROPOSITON 85: Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Committee: Legislative Committee

Summary: Proposition 85 would amend the California Constitution to prohibit abortion for unemancipated minors until 48 hours after a physician notifies the minor's parent or legal guardian, except in medical emergencies or with a parental waiver. Parental waivers would be valid for 30 days or until the minor’s eighteenth birthday. Should a pregnant unemancipated minor elect not to permit notice to be givento a parent or guardian, Proposition 85 would permit that minor to obtain a court order, authorized by a juvenile court judge that would waive the parental notice requirement based on clear and convincing evidence of minor's maturity or best interests. Further, the measure mandates various reporting requirements, including reports from physicians regarding the number of abortions performed on minors.

Pro: Proponents of Proposition 85 argue that parents have the primary responsibility to educatetheir children, and contend that male predators that sexually exploit and impregnate young girls can cover up their crimes when Planned Parenthood and others are able to perform secret abortions paid for by Medi-Cal without notifying a parent or guardian, law enforcement or child protective authority.

Con: Opponents argue that most girls that can tell their parents will, while most girls that can’t tell their parents shouldn’t be forced to. Further, mandating parental notificationdoes not achieve the intended benefit of promoting family communication, but it does increase the risk of harm to the adolescent by delaying access to appropriate care.

Position:   ___ FOR      ___AGAINST      ___NEUTRAL      ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED     

PROPOSITON 86: Tax on Cigarettes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

Committee: Taxation Committee

Summary: Proposition 86 would impose an additional 13 cent tax on each cigarette distributed ($2.60 per pack), and would also indirectly increase tax on other tobacco products. The projected increase in new state tobacco tax revenue is about $2.1 billion annually by 2007-08, declining slightly annually thereafter. The revenue generated by this tax would provide funding to qualified hospitals for emergency services, nursing education, health insurance to eligible children, tobacco use prevention programs, enforcement of tobacco-related laws, and research prevention and treatment of various cancers (breast, cervical, prostate and colorectal), heart disease, stroke, asthma and obesity. With the imposition of this tax there is an unknown but potentially significant savings in state and local government public health care costs over time due to the expected reduction in consumption of tobacco products.

Pro: Proponents argue that California taxpayers currently pay $8.6 billion annuallyin healthcare costs related to smoking. It is further argued that increasing taxes on cigarettes has been proven to reduce smoking and save lives. Finally, proponents argue that the goal of Proposition 86 is to reduce, if not eliminate, smoking, and in the meantime use the funds raised to offset the billions of dollars spent on smoking-related diseases.

Con: Opponents point out that this measure is just another tax hike – quadrupling the cigarette tax from $.87 cents a pack to $3.47 a pack.

Position:   ___ FOR      ___AGAINST      ___NEUTRAL      ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED     

PROPOSITON 87: Alternative Energy. Research, Production, Incentives. Tax on California Oil. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

Committee: Taxation Committee

Summary: Proposition 87 would establish a $4 billion program to reduce oil and gasoline usage by 25% over the next 10 years to be administered by the California Energy Alternatives Program Authority, which would be comprised of 9 members. This program would be funded by a 1.5% to 6% tax on producers of oil extracted in California, depending on the price per barrel, to pay for research and production incentives for alternative energy vehicles and clean-burning fuels. Under Proposition 87 producers would be prohibited from passing the oil extraction tax on to consumers. The authority may incur indebtedness and issue and renew negotiable bonds, notes, or other securities of any kind to carry out its corporate purpose, but would be prohibited from changing the oil extraction tax while indebtedness remains. The authority may be terminate at anytime by the Legislature after January 1, 2027, or after the authority has expended all of its assets, which ever is later. The Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance estimate that new state revenues annually could range from about $200 million to $380 million. Further, this measure would create reductions of unknown amounts in local revenues from property taxes paid on oil reserves that may, potentially, be offset by state payments to schools to make up their revenue loss.

Pro: Proponents maintain that California is the #1 oil consuming state, and third-largest oil producing state, while continuing to be the only state that does not collect an extraction fee. Oil companies are gouging California consumers at the pump with the highest prices in the nation earning record breaking profits. Proponents contend that Proposition 87 will reduce gasoline and diesel usage thereby reducing pollution, and places a modest, yet temporary, fee on oil pumped in California while prohibiting oil companies from passing this fee on to consumers.

Con: Opposition has yet to file with the Secretary of State at this time.

Position:   ___ FOR      ___AGAINST      ___NEUTRAL      ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED     

PROPOSITON 88: Education Funding. Real Property Parcel Tax. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

Summary: Proposition 88 would create The Classroom Learning and Accountability Fund to supplement the funds that are allocated by federal, Sate, and local governments for kindergarten through twelfth grades. The funding for The Classroom Learning and Accountability Fund will be generated from the imposition of an annual assessment, or parcel tax, of $50 to be levied on each parcel of real property in California, which will be collected in conjunction with the properties ad valorem property tax. The measure would exempt those individuals that are 65 years of age or older, or severely and permanently disabled from this parcel tax, provided that they are the owner of the parcel and currently reside on the property. The Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance estimate that the property tax will generate upto $500 million in annual revenue. Proposition 88 will allocate the revenue collected as follows: $175 million to reduce class sizes; $100 million for textbooks and other instructional materials; $85 million for Academic Success facility grants, providedto school not receiving funding the state general obligation bond for school construction or modernization; and $10 million for a data system to evaluate educational program effectiveness. Finally, Proposition 88 provides that these allocations be adjusted annually on a proportional basis to reflect the actual revenues received and interest earned. 

Pro: Proponents argue that California students are falling behind, ranking among the bottom 6 states in reading and math due to the states inability to provide sufficient resources for public education to reduce class size, supply instructional materials and provide adequate facilities. Proposition 88 will raise the funds necessary to improve California’s education system, while also protecting property owners against runaway taxes.

Con: Opponents argue that Proposition 88 would set a new precedent for raising taxes and is the first step in the dismantling of the one percent property tax limitation of Proposition 13 passed in1978. They further argue that Proposition 88 was drafted to create a complex new tax category in order to pass the measure with a simple majority vote, avoiding the 2/3rd vote requirement to raise property taxes that was created by Proposition 13. Additionally, there is no relation to the value of the property or the property owner’s ability to pay. Finally, opponents point out that the amount of this tax would only increase school funding by less the 1 percent.

NOTE: In 1992 C.A.R. developed guidelines for evaluating tax policy. It was determined, among other things that revenue generated by the basic property tax should be deposited in the general funds of appropriate local governments, and that any additional property tax assessment that is collected may only be used to fund benefits to the assessed property and that operating, as opposed to capital, budgets for schools should be funded from the state general fund, not from property taxes.

Further, during the last two legislative sessions C.A.R. has opposed two proposed constitutional amendments (ACA 4 and SCA 8) that sought to reduce the vote threshold for approving parcel taxes by allowing school districts to impose a parcel tax on real property by a vote of 55%, as is currently in place for school bonds, rather then the current 2/3 vote threshold. C.A.R. argued that unlike local school bonds, parcel taxes are not limited to facility construction, can be imposed indefinitely, and because they are a “flat fee” per parcel, place a larger burden on those homeowners least able to afford it. Additionally, C.A.R. argued that reducing the vote threshold for local parcel taxes is unnecessary as local governments have already been given a tool to raise revenues necessary for education via Proposition 39. [The C.A.R. Board of Directors, at its June 2000 meeting, adopted a “FOR” position on Proposition 39 which allows local school construction and facility bonds to be approved by a 55% majority vote.]

This measure qualified too late to be included in the June Board of Directors Meeting Materials. In August, upon recommendation by the Taxation and Legislative Committees the C.A.R. Leadership team adopted an “AGAINST” position. Historically, C.A.R. has concluded on similar measures (e.g. ACA 4 of 2003 and SCA 8 of 2005) that C.A.R. should take an “Oppose,” or “Against” position.

 Position:   ___ FOR      _X_AGAINST      ___NEUTRAL      ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED     

PROPOSITON 89: Political Campaigns. Public Financing. Corporate Tax Increases. Contribution and Expenditure Limits.  Initiative Statute.

Committee: Taxation Committee

Summary: Proposition 89 would create the Clean Money Fund to finance candidates for state office by increasing the income tax rate on corporations and financial institutions by0.2 percent per year. Further, Proposition 89 would ban candidates during the primary and general election campaign period who voluntarily agree to participate in, and become eligible for, Clean Money benefits from accepting private contributions from anysource other then the candidates political party, which is limited based upon the office that the candidate seeks. Candidates who obtain Clean Money campaign funding must complete an exploratory period (beginning 18 months prior to the primary election)and qualifying period (ending 90 days prior to the election). During this period candidates must collect a specified number of qualified contributions, based upon the elected office they seek, from voters within the candidate’s district. Each contribution must equal $5. Candidates qualified for the Clean Money benefit would be eligible for the following funds during a primary election: $250,000 for an Assembly bid; $500,000 for a Senate bid; $250,000 for the State Board of Equalization (BOE) bid; $2,000,000 for a statewide office other the Governor; and $10,000,000 for a Gubernatorial bid. For those candidates running in the general election they would receive: $400,000 for an Assembly race; $800,000 for a Senate race; $400,000 for the BOE race; $2,000,000 for a statewide office other the Governor; and $15,000,000 for a Gubernatorial race. Proposition 89 would limit small contributor committees from contributing more the $2,500 to any candidate per election, and $7,500 per calendar year to any political party. This measure further limits individual, corporate, and any group of persons acting in concert, from contributing more then $10,000 to any committee that is “FOR” or “AGAINST” a state or local ballot measure if that committee is controlled by a candidate for elective state office or an elected state officer. Finally, Proposition 89 restricts contributions that are made by individuals, corporations, and any group of persons acting in concert from exceeding $1,000 for thepurpose of funding an independent expenditure campaign to support or defeat a candidate for state office. The Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance estimate that the increased taxes on corporations and financial institutions will generate $200 million annually.

Pro: Proponents state that too often, consumer protection legislation is defeated in Sacramento by politicians who are beholden to the big business interests that bankroll their electoral campaigns, and argue that Proposition 89 would help reduce the influence of corporate campaign contributions on elected officials, and decrease the use of the ballot initiative as a vehicle for big business to enact legislation.

Con: Opponents argue that Proposition 89 places the entireburden for funding a new public finance campaign solely on corporations, banks and financial institutions, and would subject many small businesses to this tax. Candidates using the “clean money” program face practically no limits on how politicians spend taxpayer-provided campaign funds and could pay for negative television ads and hit-piece direct mailers.

NOTE: C.A.R. has maintained a “NO POSITION” or “NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED” position on all ballot measures pertaining to campaign reform since 1988. [Note: Until 1992 “NO POSIITON” was utilized to convey that C.A.R. had no position. In 1992, C.A.R. adopted the “NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED” position to avoid any perception that “NOPOSITION” was an “AGAINST” position.]

Position:   ___ FOR      ___AGAINST      ___NEUTRAL      ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED     

PROPOSITON 90: Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Summary: Proposition 90 would prohibit the use of eminent domain, unless the property is owned and occupied by a governmental agency, and bars state and local governments from condemning or damaging private property to promote other private projects. In eminent domain actions, government would be required to pay fair market value for the property equaling the highestprice that the property would bring on the open market. Proposition 90 redefines what constitutes “just compensation” for the taking of private property as the sum of money necessary to place the property owner in the same position monetarily, as if the property had never been taken. The measure also redefines “damage” to include any government action that results in a substantial economic loss to the property (i.e. down zoning, height restrictions, environmental regulations, affordable housing covenants, etc.) and would require the implementing agency to make a compensatory payment for these damages. Proposition 90 requires that condemned private property that ceases to be used for its stated public use must be offered for resaleto the prior owner or prior owner’s heir at current fair market value. Further, this measure would require determinations of blight to be made on a parcel-by-parcel basis, and would void any unpublished eminent domain court decisions. Finally, should this measure pass it would go into effect immediately. 

Pro: Proponents argue that neither the federal nor the California courts have protected the full scope of private property rights found in the state constitution. The courts have allowed local governments to exercise eminent domain powers to advance private economic interests in the face of protests from affected homeowners and neighborhood groups. Proponents argue that Proposition 90 will limit government and protect our homes.Con: Opponents to Proposition 90 argue that it would limit government’s authority to adopt certain land use, housing, consumer, environmental and workplace laws and regulations, and would eliminate ALL redevelopment in California. Additionally, with the new definition of “just compensation” it is unclear what would be included to make the property owner whole again after an eminent domain taking.

NOTE: C.A.R.’s Eminent Domain Task Force report was adopted by C.A.R.’sthe Board of Directors during the June 2006 meetings. As a consequence, C.A.R. would support changes in law that would: (a.) prohibit the taking of single family property by eminent domain for any use other than for a public use; (b.) substantially tighten the definition of “blight” used by redevelopment agencies proposing to create or expand redevelopment project areas; (c.) require redevelopment agencies to adopt a more quantitative analysis when determining if a parcel is “blighted;” and, or (d.) require redevelopment agencies to include in their appraisal of a parcel to be purchased, the cost of the replacement parcel.

This measure qualified too late to be included in the June Board of Directors Meeting Materials. InAugust, upon recommendation by the Land Use and Environment and Legislative Committees, and in light of the Eminent Domain Task Force report, the C.A.R. Leadership team adopted an “AGAINST” position.

Position:   ___ FOR      _X_AGAINST      ___NEUTRAL      ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED     


November 4, 2008, General Election Ballot Proposition

PROPOSITION 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, with the 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 major metropolitan 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. AB 713 of 2006 provides that the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Centurybe removed from the November 7, 2006 General Election ballot and appear on the November 4, 2008 General Election ballot.    

Position:   ___ FOR      ___AGAINST      ___NEUTRAL      _X_NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED