Real Estate Finance Committee
Land Use and Environmental Committee
Legislative Committee

The following is for study only and has NOT been approved by the Legislative Committee, Executive Committee, or Board of Directors.

Issue: What position should C.A.R. take on the ballot propositions on the November 4, 2008 ballot?

Action: Necessary, if C.A.R. wishes to take positions on the 11 additional propositions on November 4, 2008 ballot.

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.

PROPOSITION 1A: Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century.

Committee: Legislative Committee

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 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.

Pro: Proponents of the measure foresee an 800-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 will increase the need for the development and expansion of alternative means of transportation and travel.

Con: Opponents argue that cost projections to build a high-speed rail in California are grossly underestimated and project that the final cost will be closer to $100 billion based upon a cost comparison to the Bay Area BART system that has 40 miles of track at a cost of $9 billion.

NOTE: The C.A.R. Board of Directors, at its September 2005 Meetings, adopted a “NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED” position on Proposition 1. Proposition 1 was removed from the ballot pursuant to the passage of AB 3024 during the final days of the 2007-2008 Legislative Session and has been replaced by Proposition 1A. While Proposition 1A maintains the original intent of Proposition 1, Proposition 1A revises Proposition 1 by establishing an oversight processes for the independent review and approval of financing and engineering plans for the construction of California's high-speed train system. The initiative now limits the number of high-speed train stations to 24 and establishes 7 non-stop corridors: San Francisco to Los Angeles Union Station, Oakland to Los Angeles Union Station, San Francisco to San Jose, San Jose to Los Angeles, San Diego to Los Angeles, Inland Empire to Los Angeles and Sacramento to Los Angeles.

Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL __NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED

PROPOSITION 2: The California Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act. Statute.

Summary: This initiative requires farm animals (i.e. veal calves, egg-laying hens, and pregnant pigs) be given enough space in their enclosures to fully extend their limbs or wings, lie down, stand up, and turn around. The proposition provides an exception to the enclosure requirement for transportation to rodeos, fairs, 4-H programs, lawful slaughter, research and veterinary purposes. A violation of this statute would result in misdemeanor penalties, including a maximum fine of $1,000 and/or imprisonment up to 180 days.

Pro: Proponents argue that this measure will alleviate cruelty to farm animals and will improve the lives of 20 million farm animals.

Con: Opponents argue that the humane treatment of farm animals is already required by California law. They further argue that Proposition 2 undermines California's current high food safety standards, putting people at greater risk for exposure to illness and disease.

NOTE: The C.A.R. Board of Directors, at its June 2007 Meetings, voted to take a “NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED” position.

Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL _X_NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED

PROPOSITION 3: Children’s Hospital Bond Act. Grant Program. Statute.

Committee: Legislative Committee

Summary: Proposition 3 would authorize a $980 million general obligation bond that would be used to award grants for the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children’s hospitals. 80% of bond proceeds would be allocated to those hospitals providing comprehensive services to a high volume of children eligible for governmental programs that focus on children with leukemia, cancer, heart defects, diabetes, sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis. The additional 20% would be allocated to the University of California general acute care hospitals. The total cost of the bond is estimated at $2 billion over 30 years with annual payments of $67 million.
Pro: Proponents argue that the measure does not raise taxes, but gives the sickest kids in California the best care on earth.

Con: Opponents argue that rebuilding a few children’s hospitals will make some building contractors richer; however, it will not, by itself, provide health care for anyone.

Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED

PROPOSITION 4: Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy. Constitutional Amendment.

Committee: Legislative Committee

Summary: Proposition 4 would amend the state constitution to prohibit a female under the age of 18 from obtaining an abortion until 48 hours after the physician has notified her parent(s) or legal guardian. Parental notice would not be required in emergency situations. Minors would be permitted to file a petition with a juvenile court to waive the notice requirement based on clear and convincing evidence of the minor’s maturity or best interests. Physicians would be required to report all abortions performed on minors to the Department of Health Services (DHS) within one month of the procedure or be subject to civil penalties. DHS would be required to compile an annual statistical report on abortion procedures conducted in the state.

Pro: Proponents of the initiative claim that their main concern is the safety of young girls, and not the elimination of abortion. They argue that minors need help to make important health decisions, and that the 48 hour waiting period ensures that parents have a realistic opportunity to consult with their daughter and explore her options before she makes an irrevocable decision.

Con: Opponents argue that parental notification laws do nothing to keep teens safe or promote family communication. They argue that the result of these laws is delayed medical care for the most vulnerable teens, putting them at risk for health complications.

Note: The C.A.R. Board of Directors, at its September 2005 Meetings, voted to take a “NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED” position on Proposition 73, which was rejected by the voters. Proposition 73 would have amended the state constitution to require parental notification and a 48 hour waiting period prior to a physician performing an abortion on a minor. "Judicial bypass" would have been permitted in emergency situations or by court approval.

Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED

PROPOSITION 5: Nonviolent Offenders. Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation. Statute.

Committee: Legislative Committee

Summary: Proposition 5 would require the state to expand and increase funding and oversight for individualized treatment and rehabilitation programs for nonviolent drug offenders and parolees. The measure would reduce criminal consequences for nonviolent drug offenses by mandating a three-tiered probation and treatment plan and shortens parole for most drug offenses. Proposition 5 adds convictions for the sale of controlled substances and nonviolent property crimes to the list of offences that require probation and/or drug treatment. This proposition would also split the duties and obligations of the Secretary of Corrections and Rehabilitation into two positions, thus creating several new divisions, boards and commissions to oversee and guide government agencies charged with implementing treatment programs and providing parole supervision. Finally, the initiative would make possession of 28.5 grams of marijuana an infraction, instead of a misdemeanor, punishable with a fine up to $100.

Pro: Proponents argue that Proposition 36 treatment programs are not adequately funded and should be offered to a wider range of nonviolent offenders because incarcerating people suffering from addiction has never been proved effective. They further argue that the criminal justice system needs to be given additional tools and resources to provide effective treatment, ensure offender accountability and to eventually prevent future criminality.

Con: Opponents argue that by letting people who are convicted of using illegal drugs go free we are endangering public safety. Drug abuse often leads to crimes such as child abuse, domestic violence, and sexual attacks.

Note: The C.A.R. Board of Directors, at its September 2000 Meetings, voted to take a “NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED” position on Proposition 36, which was approved by the voters.
Proposition 36 requires probation and drug treatment, not incarceration, for a conviction of possession, use, or transportation for personal use of controlled substances and related parole violations. Individuals may be terminated from the treatment program for continued use of a controlled substance. Proposition 36 also prohibits a conviction from being used to deny employment, benefits, or license’s to individuals who have completed their drug treatment program.

Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED

PROPOSITION 6: Criminal Penalties and Laws. Public Safety Funding. Statute.

Committee: Legislative Committee

Summary: Proposition 6 would increase state spending on criminal justice programs from $600 million annually to $965 million for the 2009-10 fiscal year. The new funds would be used for local law enforcement activities, directed primarily to police, sheriffs, district attorneys, jails, and probation offices. The remaining new state spending would be provided for local juvenile programs, offender rehabilitation, crime victim assistance, and other state criminal justice programs. This initiative increases criminal penalties for gang participation and recruitment, intimidation of individuals involved in court proceedings, possession and sale of methamphetamines, vehicle theft and firearms possession by convicted felons. Proposition 6 would also prohibit illegal immigrants charged with violent or gang-related felonies from being released on bail. Should Proposition 6 pass, there would be an unknown one-time state capital outlay cost that could potentially exceeding a half billion dollars for prison facilities, while reoccurring state costs would likely to exceed a half billion dollars annually.
Pro: Proponents argue that Proposition 6 will create tougher punishment for gang crimes, drive-by shooting, meth distribution and victim intimidation, as well as, implement a more effective intervention program to stop young kids from joining gangs. Proponents further argue that Proposition 6 will ensure funding for local police, sheriff, district attorneys and probation officers.

Con: Opponents argue that Proposition 6 will result in even greater costs to the state budget, making the closure of essential services such as schools, hospitals and fire stations much more likely.

Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED

PROPOSITION 7: Renewable Energy. Statute.

Committee: Land Use and Environmental Committee

Summary: Proposition 7 would require all utilities, including government-owned utilities, to generate 20% of their power from renewable energy by 2010, which would be an increase on today’s renewable energy generation of 10.9%. California’s utilities would also be required to procure half of their power from renewable resources by 2025. The initiative requires California utilities increase their purchase of renewable energy by 2% annually in order to meet two additional renewable energy generation requirements of 40% in 2020 and 50% in 2025. California’s Energy Commission (CEC), instead of the Public Utilities Commission, would be required to determine the market price of electricity, identify solar and clean energy zones and to approve fast-tracked renewable energy plant construction permits. Proposition 7 would require utilities to offer 20-year renewable energy procurement contracts to alternative fuel providers; and, further requires utility companies to accept all offers for renewable energy that are at or below market price. The initiative requires electricity providers meet an annual renewable generation target, or face uncapped monetary penalties for non-compliance. Utility penalties would be used by the CEC to purchase real property or rights of way for the generation or transmission of solar and clean energy. Proposition 7 only permits the CEC to sell or lease property in its possession for a maximum of 99 years with the condition that property be used to generate or transmit renewable energy.

Pro: Proponents argue that Proposition 7 will expand the renewable requirements for all utilities to the benefit of all wind and solar companies, regardless of size, and will guarantee that all utility contracts are fair and reasonable. Proposition 7 proponents further argue that the measure will only raise consumer bills 3% over market price.

Con: Opponents argue that Proposition 7 will disrupt power development and jeopardize California’s current clean energy standards by creating new market conditions that will be ripe for manipulation. Proposition 7 opponents also argue that the initiative will stop renewable energy development, force small renewable energy companies out of the market and create a new standard that will permit energy prices to be 10% above market rate.

Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED

PROPOSITION 8: Limit on Marriage. Constitutional Amendment.

Committee: Legislative Committee

Summary: Proposition 8 would amend the California Constitution to specify that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Pro: Proponents argue that Proposition 8 would eliminate same sex marriages in California and strengthen the process started when Proposition 22 passed.

Con: Opponents argue that Proposition 8 would re-write the California Constitution to deny gays and lesbians the respect, dignity and responsibility that come with marriage.

NOTE: The C.A.R. Board of Directors, at its January 2000 Meetings, adopted a “NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED” position on Proposition 22 that was approved by the voters. Proposition 22 defined a valid marriage as a between a man and a women.

Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED

PROPOSITION 9: Criminal Justice System. Victim’s Rights. Parole. Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

Committee: Legislative Committee

Summary: Proposition 9 requires convicted criminal offenders to pay restitution when a victim suffers a loss and prioritizes those payments over other criminal fines. The initiative expands on current law, requiring victims to be notified, upon request, of all public criminal proceedings, which includes a criminal defendant’s release from custody prior to trial. Victims would also be permitted to confer with prosecutors on the charges filed against a criminal defendant. Judges would be required to consider the safety of crime victim when setting bail for persons arrested for crimes. The measure requires law enforcement and criminal prosecution to provide victims with victim’s rights information and expands crime victims’ state constitutional rights by preventing the release of victim or victims’ family’s confidential information to criminal defendants. Finally, Proposition 9 requires the legislature to provide sufficient funding to the penal system in order to avoid reduced sentences that are designed to alleviate prison facility overcrowding.

Pro: Proponents argue that Proposition 9 levels the playing field, guaranteeing crime victims the right to justice and due process, ending further victimization of innocent people by a system that frequently neglects, ignores, and forever punishes them. Proposition 9 will protect taxpayers and make California safer.

Con: Opponents argue that Proposition 9 is unnecessary and an expensive duplication of Proposition 8 that was approved by voters in 1982. Opponents further argue that Proposition 9 preys on individual emotions in order to change the way California manages its prisons and jails, and threatens to worsen the states overcrowding crises, at both the state and local level.

NOTE: The C.A.R. Board of Directors, at its June 1982 Meetings, adopted a “NO POSITION” on Proposition 8 which was approved by the voters. (Prior to 1994, C.A.R. considered three possible positions on each ballot measure - “FOR,” “AGAINST” and “NO POSITION.” Beginning in 1994, C.A.R. opted to remove the “NO POSITION” option and replaced it with two more specific options - “NEUTRAL” and “NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED.”) Proposition 8 requires that crime victims be notified of sentencing and parole hearings and be given the opportunity speak at the hearing. The initiative also requires the courts to order full restitution from persons committing crimes that caused the victim to suffer a loss, however, there is a provision in Proposition 8 that permits the court to vacate the order of restitution if it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons. Finally, Proposition 8 established the right to “safe, secure and peaceful” schools for students and staff of primary, elementary, junior high and senior high schools.

Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED

PROPOSITION 10: Bonds. Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy. Statute.

Committee: Land Use and Environmental Committee

Summary: Proposition 10 authorizes the state to sell $5 billion in general obligation bonds for the purpose of increasing energy efficiency and renewable energy generation. The bond will provide: $3.425 billion to help consumers purchase high fuel economy or alternative fuel vehicles and to fund research into alternative fuel technology; $1 billion for the research, development and production of renewable energy technology that will focus on solar energy production and meeting the state’s green house gas reduction targets; $250 million to provide incentives for purchasing solar and renewable energy technology utilizing market-based incentives to provide conventional, low and zero interest loans, loan guarantees, credits, buydowns and grants for the purchase or lease and instillation of renewable energy technologies that include solar, wind, geothermal, wave and tidal power; $200 million in local government grants to the cities of Los Angeles, San Diego, Long Beach, Irvine, San Francisco, Oakland, Fresno and Sacramento for the construction and operation of alternative and renewable energy demonstration projects; and, $125 million for grants to public universities and colleges for training in renewable and energy efficiency technologies.

Pro: Proponents to proposition 10 argue that the measure will provide urgently needed funding to generate electricity from renewable sources and will lead California to energy independence that will provide clean air and a healthier future for our children

Con: Opponents argue that Proposition 10 is a laundry list of cash grabs that would squander at least $9.8 billion in taxpayer money by taking money out of the state's general fund to underwrite the purchase low-emission vehicles by individuals and businesses. Opponents further argue that the proposition was placed on the ballot to benefit one company that would receive a lion’s share of the bond funds.

Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED

PROPOSITION 11: Redistricting. Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

Committee: Legislative Committee

Summary: Beginning with the 2010 census, Proposition 11 would amend the redistricting process for California’s Senate, Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization (BOE) districts. Proposition 11 would maintain the Legislature’s role in drawing Congressional districts, but requires the districts be geographically compact and keep neighborhoods and communities of interest within one district whenever possible. The Senate, Assembly and BOE redistricting plans would be developed by a 14 member Citizens Redistricting Commission that would be comprised of five registered Democrats, five registered Republicans and four unaffiliated registered voters, provided that neither the applicant, nor a member of their family, was, within the last 10 years, a candidate for state or federal office, a lobbyist at any level of government, a political party employee or made a contribution over $1,999 to a political candidate. A state employed applicant review panel would narrow the Commission applicants to 60, from which, the State Auditor would randomly draw the first eight commissioners who, collectively, would select the final six. Proposition 11 requires legislative and BOE districts be geographically compact, neighborhoods and communities of interest to be kept within one district and forbids districts that favor or discriminate against political incumbents, candidates, or parties. Redistricting plan certification would require 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 would then be deemed a certified final map.

Pro: Proponents argue that there is a serious conflict of interest when legislators are allowed to draw their own district boundaries because they divide up neighborhoods and communities to create districts where they are virtually guaranteed reelection. Proposition 11 will assure a balanced, inclusive process that produces fair districts that will make politicians more accountable to voters.

Con: Opponents argue that Proposition 11 gives the final say for redistricting to an unelected 14-member “redistricting commission.” Proposition 11 won’t keep politicians out of redistricting, but will instead let them hide behind a tangled web of bureaucrats picked for their political ties.

Note: The C.A.R. Board of Directors, at its September 2005 Meetings, voted to take a “NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED” position on Proposition 77, which was rejected by the voters. Proposition 77 would have amended the state constitution’s process for redistricting California’s Senate, Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization districts. The measure required legislative leaders to appoint a three-member panel of retired judges to adopt a new redistricting plan that would have been placed on the ballot for voter approval. Rejection of the redistricting plan would have resulted in the appointment of new panel that would have prepared a new plan for the next election. The initiative also required the panel to avoid splitting counties and cities into multiple districts and restricted the panel from considering party affiliations when drawing district boundaries.

Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED

PROPOSITION 12: Veteran’s Bond Act of 2008.

Committee: Real Estate Finance Committee

Summary: Proposition 12 authorizes the state to sell $900 million in general obligation bonds for the purpose of providing veterans’ with California-Veteran (Cal-Vet) home loans. These bonds would provide 3,600 veteran home loans. Existing law limits Cal-Vet loans to veterans who served during the time of a war.

Pro: Proponents argue that Proposition 12 will enable more veterans to buy homes in California, while simultaneously helping the economy by generating thousands of housing industry-related jobs. Proponents of the Cal-Vet Home Loan Program further argue that this program enables veterans to obtain low-interest rate loans for the purchase of conventional homes, manufactured homes, and mobile homes.

Con: Opponents to Proposition 12 do not object to the $900 million general obligation bond for veterans’ loans. Opponents instead argue that due to the limited assistance available under the Cal-Vet Loan Program, Cal-Vet loans should be limited to only those veterans who served in combat or in a combat zone, thereby, reducing the pool of veterans’ that would be eligible for Cal-Vet loans before approving another veterans’ bond.

Note: C.A.R.’s Board of Directors has historically adopted a “FOR” position on Veteran Housing Bonds.

Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED