February 8, 2008, Presidential Primary Election Ballot Propositions
Land Use and Environmental Committee
Legislative Committee
Property Management CommitteeThe following is for study only and hasNOT been approved by the Taxation Committee, Legislative Committee, Executive Committee, or Board of Directors.Issue:  What position should C.A.R. take on the ballot propositions on the February 2008 ballot?Action:  Necessary, if C.A.R. wishes to take positions on the February 2008 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 ESTATERELATED: This ballot measure may be significant, but is deemed to not be related to property or real estate transactions.

PROPOSITION 91: Transportation Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

Summary: Proposition 1A, approved by the voters in 2006, allows the General Fund to “borrow” or suspend the Transportation Investment Fund (TIF) transfer for three years when the Governor declares that the transfer would cause a “significant negative fiscal impact on governmental functions” in conjunction with the enactment of an authorizing statute by the Legislature. This ballot measure would prohibit the retention of funds earmarked for the TIF by the General Fund for use unrelated to transportationafter July 1, 2008. Furthermore, this initiative would eliminate General Fund “borrowing” of transportation funds, except for cash-flow purposes, and would require repayment to the TIF within 30 days of the adoption of a state budget. The proposition would also require all funds not transferred to the TIF prior to July 1, 2007, be repaid by June 30, 2017. Finally, the initiative would re-affirm the TIF allocation formula for the distribution of the revenues established by Propositions 42 and 1A.

Pro: Proponents to this measure have yet to register with the Secretary of State’s Office.

Con: Opposition to this measure has yet to register with the Secretary of State’s Office.NOTE: The issue this ballot proposition is seeking to solve was addressed by Proposition 1A approved by the voters in the 2006 General Election. Unfortunately, this measure failed to qualify in time to appear on that ballot and, thus, the TIF funding problem has been resolved.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. Proposition 42 required,from 2003 through 2008, that gasoline sales tax revenues be used for state and local transportation purposes and allocated the revenues as follows: 20 percent to public transportation, 40 percent to transportation improvement projects, and 40 percent tolocal streets and roads improvements. C.A.R.’s Board of Directors, at its June 2006 Meetings, voted to take a “FOR” position on Proposition 1A of 2006, known as the Transportation Funding Protection, Legislative Constitutional Amendment.This proposition changed the provisions for suspending the transfer from the General Fund to the Transportation Investment Fund (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. Proposition 1A allows the transfer to the TIF to be suspended only twice within a 10 year period, and prohibits withholding 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 established by Proposition 42, permanent. C.A.R. supportedProposition 1A because it protects transportation funding for traffic congestion relief projects and safety improvements and restricts the state from using state fuel taxes for any purpose other than transportation improvements.NOTE: The C.A.R. Board of Directors, at its October 2007 Meetings, voted to take a “NEUTRAL” position on Proposition 91.

Position:   ___ FOR      ___AGAINST      _X_NEUTRAL      ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED     

PROPOSITION 92: Community Colleges. Funding. Governance. Fees. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.Summary: This proposition establishes a system of independent public community college districts and a Board of Governors (BOG), consisting of 19 members appointed by the Governor, in the state constitution. Beginning in 2007-08, the total amount of General Fund and local property tax revenues allocated to school districts and community colleges would be calculated separately for each system. K-12 funding would increase according to the existing Proposition 98 formula that is based on growth in the economy and K-12 attendance. Community colleges districts funding from Proposition 98 would increase a minimum of 1 percent, with a cap at 5 percent, in any year based on economic growth and changes in the college-age population. The initiative allocates 10.46 percent of any funds the Legislature allocates as repayment of Proposition 98 to community colleges and reduces community college fees to $15 per unit, instead of the current $26 per unit. The initiative limits future fee increases to ten percent or, if it is lower, the percent change in personal income in California. The Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance estimate an annual loss of fee revenue to community colleges of $85 million in 2007-08 but the revenue loss will partially be offset by the minimum funding guarantee.

Pro: The proponents argue that the state can fund community enrollment without raising taxes or taking funds from K-12 by utilizing a dual-funding mechanism under Proposition 98. Furthermore, the proponent’s argue that this initiative will lower student fees and prevent fees from increasing faster than the personal incomes.

Con: Opposition to this measure has yet to register with the Secretary of State’s Office.NOTE: C.A.R.’s Board of Directors, at its October 1988 Meetings, voted to take an “AGAINST” position on Proposition 98 of 1988, known as the School Funding Initiative. C.A.R. opposed Proposition 98 because it established ballot box budgeting and committed the state to make revenue available to education for instructional improvements and accountability without regard to other state obligations. The proposition established a minimum level of state funding for school and community college districts, which is equal to a minimum increase of four percent of the preceding years budget adjusted for inflation and increases in enrollment. C.A.R. also objected to the funding formula because it does not allow for school funding to ever be reduced; it can only be increased.The C.A.R. Board of Directors, at its October 2007 Meetings, voted to take a “NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED” position on Proposition 92.

Position:   ___ FOR      ___AGAINST      ___NEUTRAL      _X_NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED     

PROPOSITION 93: Limits on Legislators’ Terms in Office. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.Summary: This proposition reduces the total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years; however, the initiative allows a person to serve a total of 12 years either in the Assembly, the Senate, or a combination of both. The proposition provides a transition period to allow current members of the Legislature to serve a total of 12 consecutive years in the house in which they are currently serving. This 12 year limitation will include those years already served in the house where the member is currently serving, but does not include any prior service in the other house of the legislature.
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 allow current legislators to continue to servein the State Legislature and to ultimately weaken term limits for future legislators.

NOTE: C.A.R.’s Board of Directors, at its October 1990 Meetings, voted to take a “NOT REAL ESTATE REALTED POSITION” on Proposition 140 of 1990, which placed limits on terms in office, legislators’ retirement and legislative operating costs. Proposition 140 limited the number of years an individual my serve in the State Legislature. The initiative permits a member of the Legislature to serve at total of 14 years, consisting of no more then six years, or three terms, in the Assembly and no more then eight years, or two terms, in the Senate.

The C.A.R. Board of Directors, at its October 2007 Meetings, voted to take a “NOTREAL ESTATE RELATED” position on Proposition 93.

Position:   ___ FOR      ___AGAINST      ___NEUTRAL      _X_NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED

PROPOSITION 94: Referendum Petition to Overturn Amendment to Indian Gaming Compact.

Committee: Legislative Committee

Summary: In 1999 the Governor and 58 tribes reached agreements on casino compacts that grant Indian tribes the exclusive right to operate certain gambling activities in California. While some of the tribes have negotiated amendments to their original compacts, the 1999 compacts will remain in effect until December 31, 2020. The Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians (Pechanga Tribe) owns a casino in Riverside County with about 2,000 Nevada-style slot machines and pays $29 million each year to the state’s Revenue Sharing Trust Fund and Special Distribution Fund. The Pechanga Tribe and the Governor reached an agreement in August of 2006 to amend the existing compact, which the legislature ratified with the passage of SB 903 that would have taken effect on January 1, 2008. However, Proposition 94 – a referendum on SB 903 – qualified for the ballot and, as a result, SB 903 was put “on hold” and will only take effect if the ballot measure is approved by the voters. Proposition 94 would ratify an amendment to the existing gaming compact that would extend the compact terms through 2030, allowing the Pechanga Tribe to operate up to 7,500 Nevada-style slot machines and requires the tribe to pay a minimum of $44.5 million annually to the state’s General Fund for the operation of their existing 2,000 slot machines. Additionally, the tribe will make an annual payment based on the number of slot machines they add to their casino (15% of the net-win generated from an additional 3,000 machines and 25% of the net-win generated from an additional 2,500 machines above 5,000). The Legislative Analyst’s Office projects an increase to state revenue totaling more then $100 million annually. 

Pro: Proponents argue that the expansion of their casino operations could attract more out-of-state visitors, while also encouraging Californians to spendmore of their “gambling dollars” within the state.

Con: Opponents argue that the Pechanga Tribe’s compact amendment could result in a reduction of other revenues received by state and local governments that could include a reduction in state and local taxes collected from hotels, restaurants and entertainment businesses that are not located on tribal land.

Position:   ___ FOR     ___AGAINST    ___NEUTRAL    ___NOT REAL ESTATE  RELATED     
    
PROPOSITION 95: Referendum Petition to Overturn Amendment to Indian Gaming Compact.

Committee: Legislative Committee

Summary: In1999 the Governor and 58 tribes reached agreements on casino compacts that grant Indian tribes the exclusive right to operate certain gambling activities in California. While some of the tribes have negotiated amendments to their original compacts, the 1999 compacts will remain in effect until December 31, 2020. The Morongo Band of Mission Indians (Morongo Tribe) owns a casino in Riverside County with about 2,000 Nevada-style slot machines and pays $29 million each year to the state’s Revenue Sharing Trust Fund and Special Distribution Fund. The Morongo Tribe and the Governor reached an agreement in August of 2006 to amend the existing compact, which the legislature ratified with the passage of SB 174 that would have taken effect on January 1, 2008. However, Proposition 95 – a referendum on SB 174 – qualified for the ballot and, as a result, SB 174 was put “on hold” and will only take effect if the ballot measure is approved by the voters. Proposition 95 would ratify an amendment to the existing gaming compact that would extend the compact terms through 2030, allowing the Morongo Tribe to operate up to 7,500 Nevada-style slot machines, open a small auxiliary gaming facility and requires the tribe to pay a minimum of $38.7 million annually to the state’s General Fund for the operation of their existing 2,000 slot machines. Additionally, the tribe will make an annual payment based on the number of slot machines they add to their casino (15% of the net-win generated froman additional 3,000 machines and 25% of the net-win generated from an additional 2,500 machines above 5,000). The Legislative Analyst’s Office projects an increase to state revenue totaling more then $100 million annually. 

Pro: Proponents argue that the expansion of their casino operations could attract more out-of-state visitors, while also encouraging Californians to spend more of their “gambling dollars” within the state.

Con: Opponents argue that the Morongo Tribe compact amendment could result in a reduction of other revenues received by state and local governments that could include a reduction in state and local taxes collected from hotels, restaurants and entertainment businesses that are not located on tribal land.

Position:  ___ FOR   ___AGAINST   ___NEUTRAL   ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED      
    
PROPOSITION 96: Referendum Petition to Overturn Amendment to Indian Gaming Compact.

Committee: Legislative Committee

Summary: In 1999 the Governor and 58 tribes reached agreements on casino compacts that grant Indian tribes the exclusive right to operate certain gambling activities in California. While some of the tribes have negotiated amendments to their original compacts, the 1999 compacts will remain in effect until December 31, 2020. The Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation (Sycuan Tribe) owns a casino in San Diego County with about 2,000 Nevada-style slot machines and pays $5 million each year to the state’s Revenue Sharing Trust Fund and Special Distribution Fund. The Sycuan Tribe and the Governor reached an agreement in August of 2006 to amend the existing compact,which the legislature ratified with the passage of SB 175 that would have taken effect on January 1, 2008. However, Proposition 96 – a referendum on SB 175 – qualified for the ballot and, as a result, SB 175 was put “on hold” andwill only take effect if the ballot measure is approved by the voters. Proposition 96 would ratify an amendment to the existing gaming compact that would extend the compact terms through 2030, allowing the Sycuan Tribe to operate up to 5,000 Nevada-styleslot machines and requires the tribe to pay a minimum of $23 million annually to the state’s General Fund for the operation of their existing 2,000 slot machines. Additionally, the tribe will make an annual payment based on the number of slot machines they add to their casino (15% of the net-win generated from an additional 3,000 machines). The Legislative Analyst’s Office projects an increase to state revenue totaling more then $50 million annually. 

Pro: Proponents argue thatthe expansion of their casino operations could attract more out-of-state visitors, while also encouraging Californians to spend more of their “gambling dollars” within the state.

Con: Opponents argue that the Sycuan Tribe’s compact amendment could result in a reduction of other revenues received by state and local governments that could include a reduction in state and local taxes collected from hotels, restaurants and entertainment businesses that are not located on tribal land.

Position:  ___ FOR   ___AGAINST   ___NEUTRAL   ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED  
        
PROPOSITION 97: Referendum Petition to Overturn Amendment to Indian Gaming Compact.

Committee: Legislative Committee

Summary: In 1999 the Governor and 58 tribes reached agreements on casino compacts that grant Indian tribes the exclusive right to operate certain gambling activitiesin California. While some of the tribes have negotiated amendments to their original compacts, the 1999 compacts will remain in effect until December 31, 2020. The Agua Caliente Band of Cahullia Indians (Agua Caliente Tribe) owns two casinos in RiversideCounty with about 2,000 Nevada-style slot machines and pays $13 million each year to the state’s Revenue Sharing Trust Fund and Special Distribution Fund. The Agua Caliente Tribe and the Governor reached an agreement in August of 2006 to amend theexisting compact, which the legislature ratified with the passage of SB 957 that would have taken effect on January 1, 2008. However, Proposition 97 – a referendum on SB 957 – qualified for the ballot and, as a result, SB 957 was put “onhold” and will only take effect if the ballot measure is approved by the voters. Proposition 97 would ratify an amendment to the existing gaming compact that would extend the compact terms through 2030, allowing the Agua Caliente Tribe to operate up to 5,000 Nevada-style slot machines, open a third gaming facility and requires the tribe to pay a minimum of $25.4 million annually to the state’s General Fund for the operation of their existing 2,000 slot machines. Additionally, the tribe will make an annual payment based on the number of slot machines they add to their casino (15% of the net-win generated from an additional 3,000 machines). The Legislative Analyst’s Office projects an increase to state revenue totaling more then $50 million annually. 

Pro: Proponents argue that the expansion of their casino operations could attract more out-of-state visitors, while also encouraging Californians to spend more of their “gambling dollars” within the state.

Con: Opponents argue that the Sycuan Tribe’s compact amendment could result in a reduction of other revenues received by state and local governments that could include a reduction in state and local taxes collected from hotels, restaurants and entertainment businesses that are not located on tribal land.

Position:   ___ FOR   ___AGAINST   ___NEUTRAL   ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED          
June 3, 2008, Primary Election Ballot Propositions

PROPOSITION NUMBER PENDING: Eminent Domain. Acquisition of Owner-Occupied Residence. Constitutional Amendment.

Summary: The California Constitution authorizes private property to be taken or damaged for a public use when just compensation has been paid to the property owner. This proposition is sponsored by the League of California Cities and would require that the public use for which the private property is being taken be statedin writing prior to the commencement of eminent domain proceedings. State and local governments would be prohibited from using eminent domain on owner-occupied single-family homes (including condominiums) for a private use, but only if the property has been the principal residence of the owner for at least one year. Finally, the measure would give the former owner the right to reacquire the property at the current market value if that property ceased to be used for the stated public use. “Public use” is defined as a public work or improvement and/or any project that promotes the protection of public health and safety; which, also includes private uses incidental to, or necessary for, the public work or improvement. Should any other eminent domain related proposition pass, this measure contains a “poison pill” that would be instituted. If this measure receives a greater number of affirmative votes the “poison pill” will nullify any competing measure.Pro: Proponents arguethat this measure will afford certain owner-occupied homes additional protections from being taken or damaged for any use other than public uses.Con: Opponents argue that the measure does not go far enough to protect private commercial development, smallbusiness owners, farmers and renters from the use of eminent domain. It has been argued that this proposition was introduced simply to confuse voters, encouraging them to reject both initiatives and thereby preserving the status quo.NOTE: For more detailed information on the eminent domain initiatives please refer to the Issue Briefing Paper that was prepared for the Land Use and Environmental Committee. 

Position:   ___ FOR     ___AGAINST     ___NEUTRAL    ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED    

PROPOSITION NUMBER PENDING: Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property. Constitutional Amendment.

Summary: The California Constitution authorizes private property to be taken or damaged for a public use when just compensation has been paid to the property owner. This proposition is sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and amends the California Constitution to prohibit the use of eminent domain on any private property (e.g. homes, businesses, farms, etc.) unless the taking is for a stated public use and just compensation is provided. The measure expressly prohibits state and local governments from condemning or damaging owner occupied homes for transfer to another private person or business. Rent control would also be prohibited under this initiative. The proposition also re-defines several commonly used terms, including: “Public use” which would be limited to publicfacilities, transportation and utilities; “just compensation” that would equal fair market value for the property or a court-decided value for the damaged property; and, “owners” that would include both property owners and lessee’s whose property rights are taken or damaged. The proposition requires attorneys’ fees and costs be awarded property owner’s if they obtain a judgment for more than the amount offered by the government and requires just compensation forbusiness loss, relocation and business reestablishment. Should the property no longer be used for its stated public use, the public agency must offer to sell the property to the original property owner at the price the agency paid for the property, adjusted for fair market value. Finally, the property would be taxed based on its pre-condemnation value, adjusted for market value.Pro: Proponents argue that this measure will protect all private property from being taken or damaged for any use other than commonly acknowledged public use. Additionally, proponents point out that this proposition will restrict other takings at the expense of the property owner that include a prohibition on both rent control and any future land use restrictions.Con: Opponents argue that this measure will prevent local governments and redevelopment agencies from utilizing eminent domain to obtain properties for infill retail, housing and mixed-use projects, while also, eviscerating local laws that protect the public’s healthand safety, environment, and land use planning.NOTE: For more detailed information on the eminent domain initiatives please refer to the Issue Briefing Paper that was prepared for the Land Use and Environmental Committee. 

Position:   ___ FOR      ___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 constructionof 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 connections to the high-speed train system, 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 definesa "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 ahigh-speed train system that will provide a new mode of travel that links the major metropolitan areas of the state; connections to international airports, mass transit, and the highway network; provides added capacity to meet increases in intercity travel demand in California; and a rail system 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 Century removed the proposition from the November 7, 2006, General Election ballot and it is now scheduled to appear on the November 4, 2008, General Election ballot.     

Position:   ___ FOR     ___AGAINST     ___NEUTRAL     _X_NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED